Anyone have a good modern spring # or know who sells for the Clutch Pedal ext. return spring used on '33-'34. Inside of frame box to special clevis pin.

keating@q.com

Wouldnt it be great if we could find a piece of Packard Lit. that told us what they were thinking with this lesser width LF lining vrs.the others and why the 650lb pull on the RH vrs 500lb on the other 3.
Please SOMEONE FIND THAT PAPER !!!!!!!!!!
Until then all we have are THEORIES.

Heres my theory:
Rear of the RH spring is attached to the frame via a solid spring hanger. Rear of the LH spring is attached to the Trunion which if u look at its design is a swinging hanger with springs. Stopping forward enursha would put rearward force on both springs. Force on the RH would go rearward against the solid mt hanger. Force on the LH spring rearward against the Trunion, which is moveable vrs the RH hanger, pulling the LH side of the axle back, counterclockwise, with it and thus steering the car to the left. This lesser width lining on the LH brake gives u less friction than the wider RH and the more lbs pull on the RH would compensate, pulling the car to the right and thus straighten the car out.

Whether this steering to the left was/is truly a problem was/is debateable. Im thinking Packard saw this as a problem and was just trying to make great greater.

For whatever its worth this is my theory of the lining and the 650lb pull. But IVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE.

Getting back to my orig. question BRAKE LININGS

Not only were they specing out the 1,3/4 wide shoe for the LF they were also specing the RF get 150 lbs more pull (650 lbs for RF & 500 lbs for other 3). Im sure this was to compensate for the TRUNNION making the car steer to the left.

Original lining for 33-36 Packard 8s &12s were

Primary - Raybestos 451
Secondary - Hyco DV 1391

Anyone have the specs on these - COF ?

Anyone know which shoe, P or S, got the lower and higher COF.