Re: Battery Question
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Deacon Weeks. If you got good service from an Optima, why not buy another? That's all everyone in my circle use, Cords, 54-year-old Ferraris among them. The Optima in my '47 Super is eight (8) years old and as good as new. 800 cold cranking amps. Weighs only 12 or so lbs. vs. 56 lbs. for the 800 cold cranking amp heavy duty 3EH i once used, or 38-40 for the standard EE (if memory serves) wet cell. No off-gassing, no terminal corrosion. Weight's the enemy in any car.
Some might have a fetish for original batteries. I don't. I'm strictly interested in the car. Batteries, tires, fan belts, motor oil weren't made by Packard. You couldn't pay me to use one of those heavy wet cell batteries again. Packards are nose heavy enough as 'tis. If you're concerned about "keeping up appearances," there are plastic cases styled like traditional wet batteries into which you can slip the Optima. But if you skip this artifice, you can use the rest of your long battery tray as a convenient place to put tools, etc. when you're working in the engine bay. G'luck.
Posted on: 2013/3/26 14:22
|
|||
|
Re: 356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
!
Took the car out Sunday, St. Patrick's Day, reasoning the smurfs'd be hungover, our horrendous Bay Area traffic lighter than the usual hell. Wonder of wonders, no belt noise. All i did was rub the sides of the belt with a wet bar of soap. 34 miles, and so far, to quote that wonderful 1934 Peter Helck Twelve ad, "Hush." Thanks again, gentlemen.
Posted on: 2013/3/18 15:16
|
|||
|
Re: 356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Thank you, Monsignor Cole. As is, there's p l e n t y of deflection in my fanbelt. I don't want to strain the water pump and generator bearings, and as stout as all these 356-compatible belts are, imagine they have to be exceedingly loose to slip. But if all else fails, i'll play around with the tension, too.
Here's a wee factoid for the rest of you 356ers. The original Packard part # fanbelt is one and the same as the old smooth (not cogged) Gates 676, with dimensions 52 1/2 inches x 1 1/16" x 44 degrees. The NOS smooth Gates 665 i have and may install IF i can't get this Gates "Green Stripe" cogged belt to hush, is the same width and degree angle as the Gates 676, just 1 1/2 inches (51") shorter, which will of course adjust away with the generator bracket.
Posted on: 2013/3/16 0:42
|
|||
|
Re: 356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Will do next time i fire up the dragon, release the Kraken.
But you'd think these water pump pulleys are identical, and all fit with the same snugness against the water pump hub, especially with all four bolts tightened. Thank you, sir.
Posted on: 2013/3/15 17:00
|
|||
|
Re: 356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Thank you, gentlemen. The spare water pump pulley is identical to the chipped one i removed other than it's gleaming new smooth paint, so everything
remains aligned as before. Again, as the cogged underbelly of the Gates "Green Stripe" belt doesn't contact the trough (bottom) of either generator or water pump pulleys, only their veed sides according to Hoyle, i can't divine this #!*&@!# noise.
Posted on: 2013/3/15 15:56
|
|||
|
Re: 356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Thank you , college of cardinals. Now all that remains is to figure out w h y i'm getting belt noise when using this same Gates "Green Stripe" cogged belt for years before i never heard a sound. As above, i replaced my chipped water pump pulley merely as it had a small chip, a cosmetic flaw only, with another 356 water pump pulley i already had on hand, tho' virgin. Before installing the pristine water pump pulley, i sanded and sprayed it black, several coats, including inside the vee, which a wise auld car friend says was a mistake, i should've left the inside of the vee unpainted.
Can't imagine just having new paint on the replacement pulley vee would cause the new noise, but what else could it be? Again, i baked it in the oven as i do all small parts, so the finish is nearly as tenacious, durable as powdercoating. Can smooth, slick paint in the vee account for the noise? Have any of you noted cogged or smooth belts being quieter? I wouldn't think it'd matter since none of the various 356 fanbelts mentioned above contact the trough of the water pump and generator pulleys. Welcome any insight before i hassle trying my spare NOS Gates 665 smooth belt, getting the adjustment just right. Too tight is murder on water pump and generator bearings, but neither do i want either belt slipping.
Posted on: 2013/3/15 3:46
|
|||
|
356 fanbelts
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Over the years, fellow 356 owners and i've used some or all of the following with complete success: Gates 665, Gates 676, Goodyear 5373, Dayco 831X, Dayco 5373.
My '47 Super Clipper has a cogged Gates belt with a green stripe around the middle of the outside circumference, can't see a model #. I've run it for years, a-ok. However, after replacing my water pump pulley with a virgin spare which i first sanded, painted and baked (old trick, 180 degrees or so in the oven for 10-15 minutes makes painted items vastly tougher), i'm getting belt noise. (My existing water pump pulley had a harmless fingernail chip on the firewall side which harmed nothing but y'all know how these cars can bring out your inner Adrian Monk. That, and i decided to strip, buff and clear coat the factory steel fan blades so they'd look aluminum like the older Packard engines. Strictly a cosmetic thing i like, had the new pulley and fan balanced at the machine shop.) I can soap the belt, another old trick, but i'm thinking i should use my NOS Gates smooth belt (non-cogged) for the hell of it. Are we right that in the day, all these fanbelts were smooth, and the cogged belts came later, much later, aftermarket? And, what was the rationale behind a cogged belt? Cooling? Hard to fathom that, because the cogged portion is only the inner, bottom of the fan belt, which doesn't contact the trough of the pulley. Finally, anyone ever hearing of a 356 fanbelt wearing out, let alone breaking? Stoutest fanbelts we've ever seen. A friend who still uses a '37 Caterpillar to fireguard his property twice a year says the Packard 356 engine fanbelt's stouter than the one in his Cat. It's over half again thicker than the ones in friends' '41 Cadillac-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack-acks. Any insight into all the above?
Posted on: 2013/3/14 15:06
|
|||
|
Re: Spark Plugs
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Thanks, Cardinal Cole, but my question wasn't about ohv vs. L-head, only why Packard didn't raise the compression of their valve-en-bloc 356 to the Cadillac valve-en-bloc 346's 7.25:1 or higher, given Packard's own Service Counsellor bulletin suggesting the 327 head be used as soon as it came out in the late summer of '47 for 356 wanting a little more oomph, and that providing an instant 7.5:1 compression sans milling.
Long stroke isn't an issue in THIS comparo as the 356's stroke is only 1/8th of an inch longer than the Cad 346's 4 1/2 inches. That's the question. We know all things being equal, an ohv engine can handle a full number higher compression than a sidevalve engine. The fact remains that Packard increased the 356's compression for 1942 to counter that Buick advertised for their 320--- which was closer to the truth than most makes to begin with going back to single-carbed 1940 Flintmobile dyno tests GM engineers did including all the other makes of the day. The question involved 356 and 346; both flatheads nearly the same displacement and stroke. Some friction losses in the 356's additional six main bearings, but again, inline eights (and inline sixes) have inherent balance that no V-8 had or has. So .... since Packard had an inherent edge on smoothness, why didn't they make the cam a trace livelier and boost the compression on all 356s even as their '47 Service Bulletin suggested?
Posted on: 2013/3/12 2:40
|
|||
|
Re: Spark Plugs
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() |
Amen. Have been using AC M-8s for decades. First in my '40 120, now my '47 Super Clipper and they give good service, the heat range seems to be spot on. Friends with '41 Cadillac-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack-acks report the same,
and they have at 7.25:1, slightly higher compression than 1940-47 Packard 8s and Su-8s' 6.41 and 6.85:1 tho' my '47's running a '48 327 head for 7.5:1 my auld mechanic having worked in postwar Packard and Hudson garages, knew about this in the day per an obscure Packard Service Counsellor bulletin. A friend's run a 288 head in his '42 One-Sixty drophead for decades using M-8s without a hitch. Someone told me long ago that as old stovebolt Chevy 216-ci ohv sixes also use the small 10mm plugs, AC continues to produce these for the South American, etc. markets. I hope they and others continue to do so or we're sunk. BTW, have oft wondered why Packard didn't go higher, 1942-47, than 6.85 compression from the factory given Clark Street's 7.25 since an inline eight is inherently smoother than a V-8 and would allow a slightly hotter cam in the win-win bargain. Any engineering insight? I know the horsepower race wasn't on 'til the '50s, but Buick got a lot of PR out of the power from their compound carbed 1941-42 320, and Packard did increase 356 compression from 1940-41's 6.41 to 6.85:1 from 1942-47 to match Buick's advertised 165 hp---and not as far from the truth as most makes' claims, Packard's among them, according to Flint engineeers tests of all makes at the GM Proving Grounds. Cadillac complained about Buick's corporate oneupmanship, tho' part of that was Flint's cheek in marketing a few Brunn catalogue customs for 1941. NO interest in what ifs, coulda, woulda, shoulda Monday morning quarterbacking. And please don't tell me Packard didn't care about such, because i've got a '47 Super Clipper ad crowing about "....the most powerful eight-cylinder engine ever cradled in a production car." The extremely limited production Duesenberg J and blown '37 Cord 812s notwithstanding, that was true regarding torque, but the compound carbed 1941-42 Buick did trump Packard 356's hp and yes we know a 356 with twin carbs would be 190 or so blah, blah, blah. The point is, Packard cared, so why didn't they boost compression a wee more? The flathead Cadillacs didn't ping at 7.25, my '47 doesn't at 7.5, nor does my friend's 42 160 ragtop at 8:1, and you know Packard engineering ran all manner of tests, war work or not. ? Anyone?
Posted on: 2013/3/11 17:38
|
|||
|