HH56,
I cleaned away the grease and kept moving the grease boot around until I could see that the ball stud was jamned tight inside the casing and was not centered in the hole, proof positive the bars were still loaded. I then moved the bars using the T/L motor, first I increased the lever from the original (per book) 1/2" to about 7/8" by very small increments of 1/8" toward the center of the car, checking at each increment if the bars were loosening. That seemed to make the bars even more rigid at the ball joints and since I was bypassing the limit switches I stopped at that point,so I moved the lever back towards the main rail (side of car) and when I reached 1/2" past vertical center of the lever, the drivers side ball joint came apart very easily, but I had to move passenger side lever another 1/4" before it would come apart.
So it would appear that with my car, I have to reverse the direction of the lever to fully unload the ball joints. It is still a 1/2" but in the opposite direction. The problem is if you move the lever 1/2" towards the door, you don't have enough room to get a wrench and socket between the main rail and the ball joint to remove the plug, so you have to move the lever towards the center of the car.
I found that using a plastic tree cutting wedge between the wrench and the main rail worked perfect because it is tapered it will fit that odd angle between the ball joint and wrench.

I did get the screwed plug out the ball joint passenger side this moorning but, it flew out when i got that last thread and made one heck of a pop as it came out. That would seem to indicate there is still load on the bars.I do have the T/L levers 1/2" off center towards the center of the car.
I have the car sitting on it's wheels with no load on the 4 jack stands under the main frame rails nor on the jack under the front of the car at the motor cross member.
The ? is this, should I take the load off the body of the frame by placing jack stands under the bumpers. Or should I reposition the levers. I did see a note stating the Packard book was wrong and the levers should be 1/2" away from the center, and towards the sides of the car. I also noted he had the body off the frame.

Thanks everyone, I will keep on grunting a lot and cussing (just a little), and will hopefully succeed.

HH56, Cli55er did have a good idea there and it worked for him, as they necessity is the mother of invention. unfortunately I don't believe I have the room to maneuver any bigger than my ratchet or breaker bar.

I'll post my results.

That is the one. I also read that about staking the plug, after torqueing and then backing off 1/6th or 1/4 turn. I also figured that maybe the problem and checked for obvious signs of staking or visible signs of damaage at the edge of the plug, but found none. I did manage to back out and turn two of the plugs,maybe a oouple of threads. The problem is keepping enough pressure on the ratchet or breaking bar at the socket head while keeping the tool and plug squared up with each other while turning the wrench. Also the car is not on a lift but tires wheel ramps, with jackstands under the four corners of the frame, and one jackstand under the frame at either side near the xframe. Very Safe, but doesn't allow for much working space or room for leverage.
I did try using a pry bar of sorts to help put more pressure on the wrench head but, doesn't work well with the ratchet head. One major problem is when you put a lot of pressure on the wrench to keep the blade in the slot, it also requires more torgue to turn the wrench because of the additional pressure on the threads. Another problem is, with
the car being level, ends of both of the bars are only about 3" from the frame rails which severely limits ones options of tools.

I'm not having very good luck getting the screwed plugs out the ball joints at the end of the bars from the gear box to the torsion bars. I'm using the only tool I know of to do the job, which is a socket with a raised blade that fits into the slot of the screw plug and although I did manage a couple turns the threads are binding up , probably with 50 year old crud. I tried retighning the plug and then backing it out but didn't do much good. I also sprayed them with PPB blaster a few times and that seemed to helpp, but not enough.
Anyone have a better way of doing this? Ideas are welcome.

BH, I also read that about the compensator not requiring changing out the grease and just adding if ever needed.
But,I agree with you, unless you know the real history of your car, there is no way to know what is in the compensator or the condition of it. I believe the least a guy should do is pump some grease into it, until you see clean grease coming out of the blow hole on top.

By the shop manual and looking at the box, it doesn't seem to be too much of a job to get it out. It may be worthwhile to do it.

BH Thanks,
I have the same thoughts about the accuracy of the imfo from the tech. I also wondered how could Packard make reference to something if it did not exist. I'm sure SL 3144 is a great product but, not in this application.

I also had/have the same thoughts as Owen D. that when the cars T/L box's were serviced by the owners and/or especially by a service station regular chassis type grease was used,and probably without bad results.

Auto supply stores in this area don't carry much variety in the way of lubricants of any kind but, I too think a brand name chassis grease "without the requirement to clean first" will suffice well enough.

At least I know now that I don't know as much as I thought about grease. But,I intend to find out and learn about it.

Thanks to everyone who got in on this.

Bh, Thanks for your help and input.
I called CRC tech service again and ask why I would have to use solvent to ensure complete removal of the existing grease from the compensator box because Packard had used a Molybdenum grease in it originally. I was told that moly grease was not available then so, Packard had to of used something else. Even so, it turns out the Sta-Lube grease is Lithium based but has moly as an ingredient, even tho the label says EP "MOLY-GRAPH" Grease. I don't believe this is a case of misrepresenting a product but, it is confusing to me.
I personnaly don't believe that S/L 3144 is a good or viable choice for the T/L gear box because the box would have to be removed from the car, dis-assembled (To prevent damaging the rubber seals, probably no longer available), cleaned with solvent, reassembled, tested, re-installed,etc.
Even if I had to remove the box for other reasons I still would not use a product that is non compatible with anything else. Too much trouble with future servicing.
I intend to pursue the ? as to what grease Packard actually did use and what was the base ingredient.

I'm back to square one with what to top off or replace the current grease with but will probably go with a brand name of some type of Moly that is compatible or at least has no warning labels on it.

Craig,Thanks for a great story and that will probably be a pretty good movie, but you know what, they should have nade a movie about you and your cars getting into the movie business.
It actually sounds like some of my fishing and hunting trips. They were also loads of fun.

BH, Thanks for your info and yes, I do recall your earlier thread about the CRC product and that was got me to try and locate some of it locally.

I did call the CRC tech dept.in Warminster, Pa. at the phone number (1 800-521-3168) listed on their tubes of grease. I ask if the SL-3144 extreme pressure Moly-Graph lubrication product was suitable for use in a planetary type gear box as was manufactured by the Packard Automobile co. in 1955 and 1956.
She (the engineer, tech?)said absolutely, because it was designed for use in farm,industrial and automotive gear boxes,wheel bearings, ball and roller , bushed bearings, slides, backing plates, chassis points, ball joints,u-joints etc. It is designed to minimize wear and withstand extreme pressure from heavy loading, shock loads, water attacks and friction because it establishes a fine micron plating on all working surfaces and contains rust and oxidation protection. When I ask about it's channeling properties, She said they don't use that term but if a gear or something else caused the product to be displaced the gear or whatever would still be protected from damage because of the plating effect and the fact that not all of grease would be displaced at any given period of time.