Thank you to everyone who replied to my inquiry about compatibility of 327 engines between model years. It was helpful information. Thank you too to the gentlemen in Maryland offering an engine. As it turns out last week I brought home a 1953 Clipper with a good, low mileage 327 that may not even need a rebuild.

Thanks,
Steve

My snail's pace restoration of a 1954 Clipper hit a roadblock, or shall I say engine block issue. When finally removing a stuck valve I cleaned the surface and discovered a small crack beside the valve seat and going down into the nearby cylinder about ? inch. It appears to have been "repaired" at one time too. The repair is not trustworthy so now I'm in the market for a replacement 327 cu. in. engine.

Are 327 engines from earlier years compatible with the 1954 Clipper? Mine has the basic 2-speed automatic, not the "gear-start." Would a 327 from a manual transmission car work? Everything else about my present engine is fine including cam and crank. I have new pistons and rings already on the connecting rods. The head has been cleaned and checked. Most valves are fine.

Would anyone on this forum have an engine block available for sale? I am in Virginia.

Thanks,
Steve

Thank you to "Packard V8", "JD in KC", Fred Kanter and "Owen Dyneto" for the helpful comments.

"Packard V8"
Pointed out that if the top slot was 1/8 it would measure 0.125 with the caliper, not 0.108. How right you were. Using the "outside caliper" I got a measurement of 0.125. Must be something wrong with my caliper when using inside feature. The middle ring slot measures 0.097 so that appears to be 3/32" (I have to allow a little latitude for caliper variations.) I believe I have the "ring to slot measurement clearance" you referenced. The shop manual states, "Compression ring gap .0054 to .0207." As for the one bad piston; it's really bad. The entire top surface has a pebbled appearance, part of the top edge is rough and there's about a 1/8" hole in the center. I think it's shot. I'd have a concern about not being able to have consistent weight from piston to piston. You certainly put it in perspective when you say the manual is the bible. If it says both compression rings measure 0.093 then the pistons ought to both have comparable slots, not 1/8 on top and 3/32 in the middle. I know this is hard to believe but rings I salvaged from one of the good pistons measure 0.091, both top and middle ring. Those rings must have been slopping around in that top groove.
"Packard V8" also noted that pistons can vary within a model year. That wouldn't surprise me here because this car is a "Super Touring" which means it's sort of a freak anyway with a 1953 dash and 1953 brakes but everything else 1954.

"JD in KC"
Thank you for the reference and now we see that the pistons I have aren't even listed for 1948-1954. More proof they are likely incorrect.

Fred Kanter
Referenced my incorrect 0.108 measurement of the top ring slot and that an 0.93 ring would not fit properly. That makes sense and makes it even more bizarre that this car had rings measuring 0.091 in a slot measuring 0.125. I'm beginning to think some extremely poor mechanical work was done to this car at one time.

"Owen Dyneto"
Pointed out that Autothermic is not a brand. Thank you for clearing that up. My one bad piston had that stamped inside whereas the others did not. That one bad piston does have the brand/model Nelson Bonalite.

Digesting all of this and getting back to you with more details of what I have it sounds like I have to buy 8 new pistons all the same and with specs consistent with the shop manual. I welcome any further advice or corrections to my conclusions. I have never had this car running. I bought it 2 years ago and as time permits I have been disecting it before attempting to start it. It was kind of a mess from lack of use.

---Steve

I was hoping someone on the forum could confirm what is the correct piston for a 1954 Packard Clipper with 327 cid engine. It is a 5401-5411 series.

Max Merritt states that the slot into which the top compression ring goes should measure from top to bottom at 3/32, for the middle ring, also compression, should measure 1/8 and the slot for oil ring measure 3/16. The pistons on my Packard the top ring is 1/8 and the middle ring 3/32 and oil ring 3/16. The pistons in my Packard all have the number 403535.

I have also measured the slots for the rings on my pistons using an inside digital caliper. Measurements are: top ring 0.108, middle ring 0.097 and oil ring .1860. The 1954 Packard shop manual states that the rings themselves, both compression rings are the same at .093 and oil ring .1860.

Another mystery is that even though the car has 60,400 documented miles it appears one or more of the pistons have been replaced.

The previous owner had replaced the head gasket yet foolishly didn't remove any carbon from the top of the cylinders and didn't even change the oil after the repair. Then with two stuck valves they allowed the car to sit for a couple of years. One cylinder/piston adjacent to the stuck valves had rusty sludge on it. That one piston is an Autothermic brand as specified in the shop manual. It was very pitted on top and the rings were rusty and deteriorated. The other 7 pistons are Permite brand and are in excellent condition. Both the 1 Autothermic and 7 Permite have the number 403535 and the slot for the top ring is the same at 1/8 and middle ring at 3/32.

I hate to throw out 7 flawless pistons and buy 8 pistons from Max Merritt so that they all have a top ring slot at 3/32 and middle ring at 1/8. Max was emphatic that my pistons are "not a Packard piston." Even if I stay with the 7 Permite pistons I still am going to need a replacement for the bad Autothermic and it will have to have a top ring slot at 1/8 and middle ring at 3/32 to conform.

I'm sorry this was so long-winded but I wanted to share all the facts. I really appreciate any advice you gentlemen can provide.

---Steve

Big Kev - Thanks for the tip to check your blog. I have cruised it some before but after reading about 60% of it today I am amazed at how much helpful info is there. Thanks for such a concise chronicle of your restoration. I found everything I needed there to proceed with repacking the rear wheel bearings. (If only it was as easy as doing front wheel bearings.)

Gentlemen, Thank you both for the quick and thorough reply. It's good to have confirmation that the primary shoe is forward. Thanks too for the tips on wheel bearings. I had no trouble accessing the the front inner and outer wheel bearings but my puzzle is the rear wheel bearings. My understanding is they are to be greased every 30,000 miles. With the rear brake drums off and shoes removed it easy to see the bearings but does one have to do some axle disassembly to access them to repack with grease? Or is there some way to force grease into the rear bearings without disassembly?
Thanks,
Steve

My 1954 Clipper Super Touring Sedan #5462-5901 (Chassis #5411) we determined in an earlier post has the 1953 Clipper brakes with 12" drums. I was hoping one of the knowledgeable Packard owners could straighten out a conflict I'm seeing regarding positioning of the shoes. There are "primary" and "secondary" shoes. According to a booklet on brakes (which I downloaded from this site) under "Bendix" brakes it shows a diagram of the brakes. The primary shoe has the shorter brake shoe material, the secondary the longer amount of material. It shows the primary shoe as being the "front" shoe during "forward drum rotation." The booklet goes on further to say, "Irrespective of the position in which the brake assembly is mounted on the axle, the Primary or Forward Shoe is always the one "ahead" of the anchor in the direction of forward rotation of the drum." That tells me that whether you are looking at the car on the left side or right side the primary shoe (the one with less braking material) is the one in front. This is the way the old brakes shoes were mounted when I began the brake job. In my 1954 Packard manual it seems to contradict that. It cites the "adjusting screw nut" for reference as follows, "On the left wheel brakes the adjusting screw nut is toward the secondary shoe. On the right wheel brakes the adjusting screw nut is toward the primary shoe." On this car on the left side the adjusting screw (star wheel) is oriented toward the front of the car. On the right side the adjusting screw is oriented toward the rear. Following the directive of the shop manual that makes the secondary shoe the front shoe on the left side and right side whereas Bendix says the primary shoe is the front shoe. Maybe it's another case of the 1954 manual being irrelevant because I have 1953 brakes. I sure am confused or "challenged!"
(Incidentally Northwestern Auto Supply in Grand Rapids, MI was a great source for relined shoes. They were even riveted. Shoes for all four corners were $120.)

On a related topic do one of you know the procedure for repacking the rear wheel bearings?

Big Kev, Owen and Brian, Thanks for the quick responses, education and direction to the service index. Mystery solved! (And in answer to BigKev's question my Packard does have the three round gauges.)

Incidentally another odd thing about this car, I don't know if it's normal or not, but the entire oil bath air cleaner assembly had been "tinned" with some type of solder to make it shiny metal instead of a painted air cleaner. Looks as if done in manufacturing. I discovered that when stripping the paint which was only a brush-job.

Thanks for a great site and all the work put into it.

---Steve

My 1954 Clipper Super Touring Sedan #5462-5901 (Chassis #5411) appears to have brakes that are different than the specifications found in the 1954 Packard shop manual. A #5411 is supposed to have 11" drums front and rear with 2-1/2" wide shoes front and 2" wide shoes rear. My car, which has Easamatic, has 12" drums front and rear with a depth of 2" and the shoes front and rear measure 1-3/4" wide. Shoe length is 13" and 11-1/4". All equipment appears original and the car has low mileage. The rear shoes may even be original. I was wondering if anyone has come across this before or has any idea why the specs on my car differ from the manual. (I am doing a complete rebuild on everything to do with the brake system.) Thank you to all for any advice you might offer.

Thanks for the photo BigKev. I see that on my car the spring is long gone. At least the rod going through to the counterweight still pivots easily. Something else to acquire!

---Steve