Howard, there are ¾ left & right rear photos in the auction listing . . . take note of the size of the rear window. To my eye that’s a 22nd series body . . . the 23rd series rear window is much larger.

dp

The attached PDF contains a graphic depiction of the data I’ve logged on my ’48 Deluxe.

The red colored curves are with the cooling system configured with a modified 1 inch 160F thermostat. The range of outside air temperatures for this data set is 68 – 92F, but whenever this thermostat is installed, which currently is all of the time, I constantly compare the coolant temperature to the prevailing ambient temperature as reported by the Weather Channel. This cooling system so repeatable I first make an estimate of the ambient temperature, and then look it up on my phone and will rarely be more than a few degrees off.

The darker lines represent the relationship for the same car without a thermostat installed. The range of outside air temperatures for this data set is 54-105F. I’ve concluded that this configuration should not be used in the cool weather because of the inability for the engine to achieve a reasonable coolant temperature.

My conclusion is/was this cooling system runs cooler without a thermostat installed, but this configuration should be avoided whenever the outside air temperature is at, or below, approximately 70-80F, but otherwise if I wanted to lower the coolant temperature by roughly 10F, all I would have to do is remove the thermostat and make another gasket from a Cheerio’s box.

dp

Attach file:

---

48 Packard No Thermostat 001.pdf Size: 269.12 KB; Hits: 16

Joe;
I’ve written pages and pages of a response, but they all suffer from too many words and too many numbers. I’ve run my ’48 in many cooling system configurations, and keep hitting being air-side limited with a coolant flow area anything above about 80% of a 1 inch orifice. The key is that area occurs at about 15F above the rating temperature of the thermostat. I believe most folks are expecting a coolant temperature the same as the thermostat rating temperature, but to open the valve it takes more temperature.
1.) Bellows type are for atmospheric coolant systems only. In a pressurized system the flow area becomes a function of both temperature and pressure, and I think pressure reduces the flow area . . . that was the basis of the switch over to the wax motor type of thermostat.
2.) In my experience running your engine without a thermostat is OK, but I would limit that operation when the air temperature is above 80F. Remember the upper radiator hose and/or the gooseneck exit will also act as a flow limiting orifice, and that area is close to the OEM thermostat. The origin of the belief that an engine will overheat without a thermostat is unknown to me. Based on my experience I would say it’s a myth. Perhaps a SBC at full song will result in cavitation the water pump impeller without an exit orifice at the gooseneck, but that’s not likely in a Packard I8. I’ve got a lot of hours without a thermostat and without exception that configuration produces the lowest coolant temperature . . . all else being equal.
3.) From a restoration ‘purist’s’ stand point it is the wrong thermostat, but going as far as stating a modern thermostat ‘won’t flow enough coolant’ is not consistent with the data I have logged on my ’48 288.
4.) I’ve found that a modern 2 ½ inch OD, 1 inch orifice thermostat will work, and if you are willing to add by-pass holes you can tune the coolant flow to match the expected coldest day you expect to drive your car . . . your trying to avoid a coolant temperature below some number, and as a result not being able to purge water in the oil.
5.) My testing has revealed the cooling system requires a flow area somewhere between 100% and 180% of a 1 inch diameter thermostat to have the same performance as no thermostat (likely limited by the gooseneck exit area, which is likely the area of the OEM thermostat.) Areas above 100% can be achieved with the use of by-pass holes.

dp

Stewart

The ‘bubble test’ is valid only while the air in the float is changing temperature from room to water temperature. Given the limited volume (mass) and the conductivity of brass that should take long, perhaps within the first minute. However if the float has a liquid, like gasoline, in it the gas vapors will expel for a greater amount of time. All of this assumes a hole. If there is no hole then there are no bubbles. The first inspection activity is normally a ‘shake test’. If there’s gasoline in the float you can hear and feel it while shaking the float. If you hear or feel that something is inside the float run the bubble test before you try to remove the offending gasoline. Let’s say the float has been dry of a week or so, in that case I would submerge the float into gasoline for several minutes . . . maybe a lunch break, and then do the ‘shake test’. The ‘soak first in gasoline’ is probably a best practice whenever a float is being leak checked. This is about the only time fuel percolation is beneficial.

Given the seasonal and operational temperature change of the gasoline, the change in the gasoline’s density will be far greater than the extra weight of a solder repair of a float. It’s one of those insect feces squared situations, plus you’re likely sealing a crack in a solder joint in the first place, and thus not adding a lot of extra weight.

dp

Chris, you did say that both high beams are OK, and both low beams appear to be dull (far less illumination). Based on that input:

Since the high and low beams of any one bulb share a common ground at the junction block the likelihood of a grounding problem is reduced. Likewise, since the high beams are functioning normally the circuits to and from the headlamp switch are also likely to be functioning correctly. The inference is circuit 15 (gray) at the dimmer switch is functioning normally, meaning it has the correct voltage when the headlight switch is ON. That leads us to the circuits between the dimmer switch and the low beam connections on the terminal blocks, or perhaps the low beam side of the dimmer switch itself.

I would confirm system voltage on circuit 15 (gray) at the dimmer switch, and then having a helper cycling the switch, the voltages at both circuit 7 (brown) and 8 (light green). Since circuit 8C (light green) powers the high beam indicator we can conclude the circuit 8 (light green) is the high beam (the good one). I don’t remember if the switch is removed from inside the car, or drops away from the cowl. In either way you might be able to conduct all of the tests solo, but it is always acceptable to have a granddaughter help.

We interpret the measured voltages by comparing the high and low beam circuits at the output of the dimmer switch. Both voltages should be about the same when powered, however if the voltage at the low beam is lower than the high beam the dimmer switch or connections would be suspect. If the voltage at the low beam is higher than the high beam voltage the problem is likely between the dimmer switch and the splice that bifurcates the low beam circuit to the left and right junction blocks.

All of this assumes a single point problem, not a simultaneous problem at two locations (like both junction blocks decide to quit working, or the connection at both bulbs somehow have higher than normal resistance). Multi-point failures do happen, but are less common than single point failures . . . assuming the first single point failure can be detected by the operator. Considering the environment the dimmer switch is subjected to I would jump to a conclusion that corrosion on the low beam side of the either the connection or the switch itself has resulted in a higher than normal resistance, and that resistance had reduced the voltage to the both low beams. It doesn’t take a lot of voltage drop to dull the bulb light output.

dp

And I just bought one from Amazon for the same price as the national chain item Ernie talked about. I’ve concluded that if there ever was a shortage it’s over now.

Most of the Optima batteries I’ve bought in the last 10 years or so have been made/assembled in Mexico. Because of 6 infant failures (case cracking in < 1.5 years), same car, same battery group, I had the opportunity to talk with the Johnson Controls engineers in Milwaukee. In one case a replacement battery was immediately returned because of an improper final machining operation. Milwaukee seemed to be quite exasperated with their plant in Mexico. In that case I concluded the batteries did not do well because of the thermal environment . . . most every day the car was parked hot with the battery side of the car facing west.

My question is whether there’s a cover for an Optima 6V to mimic the look of the battery found in the 22nd & 23rd series cars? If that answer is ‘No’ then can 3D printed parts be successfully ‘glued together’, and retain sufficient strength to survive the application?

dp

54packpac

The ’54 wiring diagram from Howard that is currently on this site is the one I referenced earlier. It has the Service Counselor text imbedded. IMO that’s far more preferable than an incorrect diagram and a separate SC.

I looked at the diagram and found the following items connected to the BATT post of the 30A breaker:

21R Power feed spliced to 1-R
Front cigar lighter
Clock w/3A fuse
Body Feed later identified by the SC
> Rear cigar lighter
> Courtesy lamps
> Trunk lamp if so equipped

The diagram for the 5462-65-67 models (Clipper Super) appears to have the Body Feed circuit on the ‘load’ side of the 30A CB.

For the 10A CB; circuit 42D (power to the reverse lamp switch) appears to be un-protected.

From this I’ve concluded the SC does not apply to circuit 42D.

WRT your comment “how many other peeps might . . . “, I suspect you’re not the only one that has an ‘as built’ wire connection scheme. I’ve put removal of the instrument cluster on my ‘to do’ list. The next question is whether circuit 42D should be protected (I lean to Yes), and whether the SC guidance be taken (I lean to Yes). Since the diagram for the Clipper Supers is correct, I’m wondering whether the Body Feed issue is a documentation only issue with all vehicles wired correctly at the 30A CB, or some non-Clipper Supers were assembled in a configuration that later was found to be incorrect.

dp

54packpac

One more observation. When I had the instrument cluster out of my ’54 I noted a piece of body sheet metal just behind the cluster. I would suspect this sheet metal is to increase the body stiffness just below the windshield. That aside, the edge of the metal was quite sharp, and in my estimation would cut wiring insulation quite handedly. I tried my best at rounding the sharp edge and ultimately put a double layer of gorilla tape along the edge. I was actually in the process of changing all of the instrument bulbs and without my knowledge the right turn signal indicator made contact with this stiffener. Trouble-shooting of ‘how did changing the bulbs break the turn signals?’ led to the ‘sharpness’ observation. The turn signal bulb socket wire connection requires a bend to avoid the brace and I had inadvertently straightened the bulb connection . . . duh! From that experience I’ve concluded there’s not a lot of room behind the instrument cluster for wiring.

dp

54packpac

The copy of the ’54 wiring diagram I have has this note;

At the lower part of Page 29, you will note a wire identified as "Body Feed." In the wiring diagram this wire is connected to the "Bat Post" on the back of the instrument cluster. This is incorrect and should be connected to the "Aux. Post" to provide circuit breaker protection for the rear chassis and body wiring.

Is your car wired per the original wiring diagram, or has the above observation been incorporated?

dp

Here's an outer envelope drawing and performance curves. Note the time delay.

Attach file:

---

CircuitBreaker.pdf Size: 33.19 KB; Hits: 19