I can tell you from experience that the Amazon puller will not work on the Packard axle. It did deform the seal so then I had to get it out. I wound up very carefully chiseling through the seal in 2 places and then easily pulling the halves out. It was a lot of extra unnecessary work as the seal wasn't leaking. I just thought I'd replace it when repacking the rear wheel bearings. Needless to say, I left the seal on the other side alone as it wasn't leaking either. The outer seals were no problem to replace.

Packpac, I've owned a '54 Convertible since 2005 with the aluminum head. In 2006 it looked like the head gasket blew (white smoke at the tailpipe and a burnt antifreeze odor) but it turned out that aluminum just crumbled around #1 cylinder allowing coolant to enter the cylinder. I took the head to a machine shop. They had the crumbled area rebuilt with aluminum weld and then they reground the area to spec. I put a thread insert into one spark plug hole as those threads gave way. It has been fine ever since.

Definitely go with the 13 # cap, just make sure it's the right neck length for the radiator. Mine had a 7# cap when purchased and it was dripping coolant when it was nowhere near overheating. The higher pressure cap took care of that.

Of course it's up to you but I wouldn't use a 180 thermostat. These engines generate a lot of heat as it is so I'd be leery of it overheating on a hot, humid day. The standard is 170 and low is 160. Before I realized the wrong pressure cap was on my car I put a 160 in. It didn't help the coolant purging but I left it in there after changing the cap and it works fine. I don't drive it much in the winter but when I do I get plenty of heat out of both the dash and under seat heaters. Good luck with your car.

You're very welcome, Kevin. I was impressed by the neatness of your windshield's original installation versus mine. Of course the most important thing is how the gasket seals, not so much how it looks. Mine completely seals, no leaks. I hope yours does the same.

Kevin, I'm attaching some photos of my '54 Convertible's windshield trim for your comparison. My windshield appears to be original or if replaced it was done decades ago. Yours dosen't look that bad even with the Steele gasket when compared to mine. Keep up the good work and best of luck with your project.

Attach file:

---

  20210316_235231_resize_73.jpg (362.17 KB)


  20210316_235301_resize_35.jpg (316.59 KB)


  20210316_235734_resize_88.jpg (314.52 KB)


  20210316_235433_resize_29.jpg (309.26 KB)


  20210316_235410_resize_22.jpg (330.01 KB)


  20210316_235821_resize_94.jpg (339.82 KB)

Since I just happen to have the 1935-1941 Packard parts list open to page 172 (fenders) researching for another fender question the 115-C fenders are unique to the 1937 Sixes. No other models or years interchange. Good luck with your search.

According to the 1935-1941 Packard Parts List, page 172 the 120, 120-A, 120B and 120 BA use the same front fenders. These would be for the 1935 and 1936 model years. The 1937 models 120C, 120CA, 120CD and 138CD front fenders have a different part number so it doesn't look like they would interchange. Looking further into the parts list, fender brackets, braces, etc. also carry different part numbers between the 1935-36 model years and 1937. So there must be some difference that Packard made for 1937 that renders them non-interchangeable with the 1935 and 36 models.

Hi Simon,
Yes it seems that the engine is pre-shovelnose; the fuel system would confirm that. The picture shows the front fenders or wings date from 1932 as does the veed radiator grille. Not much of the grille is visible but it appears to have the wider thermostatically-controlled shutters rather than the finer grille bars used on the shovelnose. Another anomaly is what appears to be the lack of a crossbar between the headlamps. On 1932 Packards with the radiator shutters only the Twin-Six (V12) didn't have the crossbar. A photo from directly in front would clarify all this. Another mystery is the wheels, they are not typical for either 1929 or 1932; they look like they would be from 1935 and up.
That body is unlike anything Packard would make in that period so do you have any information on the body maker?

According to the Kimes-edited Packard History book, pages 783 and 785, the 1929 Standard Eights, Models 626 and 633, were assigned motor numbers from 233017 to 276166 and rode on 126 1/2 and 133 1/2 inch wheelbases. So it would appear that the motor in question, 240026 dates from 1929. The 1932 Light Eight (Shovelnose) Model 900 was assigned motor numbers from 360009 to 366794 and rode on a 127 3/4 inch wheelbase. One differentiating factor between the 1929 and 1932 motors is the fuel delivery system. The 1929 models used a vacuum system with a supply tank mounted on the right side of the firewall. In 1932 Packard used a fuel pump mounted on the crankcase. So to further identify the vehicle we need to know the chassis wheelbase and the fuel delivery system.

I have no reference for body numbers so perhaps someone else could help identify that.

I ran into this same problem back in the 1980's. I cut strips of sheet neoprene to fill in between the ridges and cemented them in place, then cemented the running board matting over top of it. This worked very well, the mats still looked good and stayed in place when I sold it in 2003. Good luck with your project.

My '54 Convertible has the same condition when filled with gas on a hot, sunny day. A new gas cap made no difference in my case. As O_D points out it is thermal expansion. I have found that the car needs to be driven around ten miles or so after being filled to the brim in warm weather. That will lower the fuel level enough to compensate for the thermal expansion.