Back to the question about who would want a V8 without TL, let me put it this way:

I?ve had a 51 200 for about 15 years and have driven it more than 40K miles, some of them at over 100mph. I love the way it rides and handles (with radials). Well, how about a 51 200 with 90 extra horsepower, delightfully weird two-toning, and a really beautiful dash? That is a 55 Clipper Deluxe. The chassis is the same. In most normal driving, the ride is virtually indistinguishable from a TL car. I'd say the TL cars corner slightly better because of better roll control. But with or without TL, I would happily match Packard handling with a contemporary Buick, Olds or Chrysler. The Packards really were better.

I love having TL in my pickup truck, but for normal driving around its about a horse apiece. Ross

Sadly, I don't have a source for new compensator springs, though I don't think it would be a big deal to have some wound. I have a shelf full of BTVs in the basement and regularly canabalize them for oddments. The spring shown in the article was original to that unit and somehow sat in that decaying fetid brake fluid without damage.

Thanks, Rusty, that was just the insight I was looking for. I am guessing they left the 288 alone so as not hurt its low speed torque. With that relatively short stroke it does not have that in the abundance the 327s did. With that in mind, I think I will just dial in my cam timing to the stock 15 degrees before TDC. But the next time I build a 327...

I get to drive lots of Packards in my business, and I have always felt that there was something a little special about the 54s. Clippers and Cavaliers always seemed to have more snap and be more responsive than the equivalent 53s. I was hard pressed to believe that the 5 hp difference between equivalent engines could be that noticable--and wondered also where that 5 hp came from.

There were only two basic cams supplied for the 288/327 family, either hydraulic lifter or solid lifter flavors. Even the cam for the 359 has the same timing as a 327 (per the specs in the back of the service manual), but I understand it is notched a bit for conrod clearance. Thus it gets a different part number.

Anyway, I just noticed that all the 54s other than the 288 got a new cam gear. This must be indexed differently than the old cam gear. With the old gear the intakes started to open 15 degree BTDC, with the new, at 10 degree. All of the specs are shifted the same 5 degrees.

I'd love to hear some comments from folks who know cams about the whys and hows of this change. Apparently it helped the breathing on the big engines. Wouldn't it also help the 288? I'm just building up a 288 now for my roadster and would make a stepped drive key to achieve the 54 timing if it seemed a good idea.

I'd go a little further and point out that the 245 six is actually the "father" of the 356, 288, 327, and 359. They worked out their new architecture, so to speak, on that engine first, and eventually settled on its bore size and spacing and valve locations so that all engines could be manufactured on the same tooling. So the eights listed above are actually sixes with extra cylinders and finessing. All but the 359 use the same piston, and the 245 shares rods with the 327.

Somehow Mercedes has managed to cover a very wide spectrum of price classes with no loss of prestige at the upper end. I think Packard could have done it too, but under Christopher lost the will or vision to do so.

No fear, the power antennas always had a bigger hole than the manual antennas. You can just enlarge your existing hole and the grommet and phenolic adapter from ANY 51-56 power antenna will work fine. PM me if you need a template for grinding out the hole or need the correct antenna switch.

All 55s came with solid bell housing bottoms. I guess the mechanics complained enough that they put the access plate on for 56. Perhaps some late 55s had the plate, but I have never seen one. I usually take a holesaw and cut a 1" hole using the existing 1/4" hole as a pilot. Then it is no problem to drain the convertor, once you find the plug.

Neither your cap nor your wheel are Packard, at least not what we got on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps they were locally sourced to help with import duty back in the day. I'll try to get you a shot of what would have been on that car if sold here, but you can probably see them in the photo archive here. In the postwar era, none of the caps mentioned six or eight, and through 54 usually had a red hex surrounded by "PACKARD" two times on a black field.

Please note that the bolt is to be tightened until the arms of the shock contact the metal sleeve that is shown being inserted into the rubber bushings. That controls the amount of crush on the rubber. Could be this sleeve was a little short and squished the rubber too much? More likely the rubber was the wrong type, or a bit too large. The washers are handy to help bring the nut to a hole so it can be pinned.

I vote for the condensor (having lived through similar symptons in the past), followed by the coil. Condensors are cheaper than coils so I usually start there. Fuel starvation causes through-the-carb backfires. Ignition problems --usually--give through the exhaust backfires.