Kevin

I whole hearty agree with your statement about reading the documentation.

My concern is your statement in a previous posting:
“I then reinstalled the backing plate. I used gasket maker to replace the very thin gaskets that were on there previously. I put the gasket maker where the old gaskets covered. Very thin layer.”

Since there are no ‘gaskets’ in that area (interface between the rear axle housing and the backing plate) I suspect you misidentified the steel shims as gaskets, and replacing the shims with RTV will likely result in a very low bearing service life. IMO the side that you have assembled should be disassembled, cleaned, and then the shims reinstalled. The interface where the shims sit should be quite clean.

dp

Kevin, that bearing is packed, or repacked in place, meaning installed on the axle. The shop manual for your car is available on this site, and if you look in Section XV there on page 9 is a photo of the technician packing the rear axle shaft bearing. That design bearing does not lend itself to easy removal as would be the case for say the outer front wheel bearing.

The thickness of the outer most gasket is not critical

dp

Here's the modern version, however I believe the Packard rear axle seal is too deep for this version to reach . . . it might work, but I've not used one in this application.

amazon.com/Lisle-56750-Seal-Puller/dp/B0 ... hvtargid=pla-4583932709120665&psc=1

If your intent is to replace the seal, its OK for the old seal to pretty much be destroyed during removal. Some have extracted seals with sheet metal screws and vice-grips.

HH56 posted a picture of the seal puller here:

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23959

Post #5

This thread has a discussion about thermal relays (aka circuit breaker).

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb ... ic_id=5878&order=ASC&status=&mode=0

The total discussion goes on for at least a few posts.

Kevin in a few posts you’ll probably have a question or two about setting / checking the rear axle bearing clearance. I’ve been working on a shop manual supplement on this bearing clearance subject for a while now, and if you don’t mind you could be the ultimately motivated proof reader for me. Deal?

Attach file:

---

Packard Rear Axle Bearing Shimming Procedure Expanded 007.pdf Size: 1,805.27 KB; Hits: 225

All the time.

However there are a few that will tell you a story that their parents drove nothing but Packard, and about an equal number that will come-up to me and tell me their parents had a car exactly like mine, and it was a DeSoto . . . Is this a DeSoto?

Chris R

The main difference between the 985S and 2084S configurations is the diameter of the secondary ‘main venturi’. The 985S parts list uses a 1 1/16 venturi, while the 2084S uses a 15/16 item. As you would expect once you change a venturi there were also different ‘jetting’ between the two carburetors. The original venturi size is cast into the float bowl/venturi casting, and can be seen in the photo as 1 1/16. Carter manuals acknowledge the interchangeability between the 985S and 2084S carburetors

The plot thickens somewhat in the ’54 Cavalier. In that application there is a 15/16 ‘secondary main venturi’ model (2103S), and a 1 1/16 ‘secondary main venturi’ model (2124S). My ’54 Cavalier is equipped with a 2103S carburetor . . . . which would be the smaller of the two.

Seems that WCFB carburetors with a 15/16 secondary venturi is rarer than I would have guessed. Oldsmobile used them in ’53, ’54, and ’55. For each of the original carburetors there was a later model replacement, but those replacements were also configured with a 15/16 secondary venturi. I could not find another example where the replacement carburetor had a smaller secondary venturi.

The float bowl/venturi casting (known as the Main Body in Carter speak) is one of the few parts (perhaps the only) that does not appear in the illustrated parts list. Back in the day you can buy the body flange assembly and the air horn assembly, but not the casting between the two, leaving us with the possibility that the Packard dealer may not have been able to buy the parts necessary to convert a 985S to a 2084S at the dealer. I guess this assumes there was an itchy that needed scratching out in the field and whether the ’53 Cavalier was misbehaving. Given that other car manufacture’s where not ‘down-sizing’ the secondary’s I’m thinking Packard was not chasing lower fuel volatility.

Now the question is whether the casting in the photo was modified by an individual, or was it an authorized repair/overhaul procedure to convert the larger casting to the smaller specifications. I would think the step between the Main Body and the venturi inserts suggest this was not a Carter modification. I would question whether that geometry would ever act as a venturi . . . lots of turbulence shedding off of the edge, and those areas where material was removed (aligned with the struts holding the primary venturi) look like another opportunity to create turbulence.

I’ve never seen anything like your photo, or heard of venturi chokes, and I was an old hotrodder . . . just old now! I can’t imagine how much CFM that modification cost. What secondary jets and metering rods are installed?

dp

The Evans website reports freeze protection to -40 F, which is also -40 C.

I've never used the product because my old cars are not completely leak free, but the high boiling point is quite appealing. Perhaps in the future.

dp

64avanti

I believe Joe Wareham's blog 'Joe's '49 Club Sedan' has a discussion on the OD parts in use on his car.

dp