Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

I tore the panel away, had a look,

Obviously something is off the track by a far margin......

flic.kr/p/2r6EzPq

Quote:

It's a likely candidate but you won't know for sure if it's repairable (if simply came apart) or if something broke irreparably until you take it out. I have a parts car 1954 Patrician and several sets of spare 1954 Patrician doors doors but unfortunately they are all power window. The only cranks are in my driving car that will eventually get the power windows but not ready yet although I do have other crank lifts from earlier models for comparison.

I just posted the video of the window underneath the panel, when you were typing, (and I use Flickr, it is painfully slow and outdated)


flic.kr/p/2r6EzPq

I don't want to rule out the possibility of repairing it, but I feel it is just easier to obtain a working unit.
(indeed, Patrician is more luxurious and yours were equipped as expected. Only with a Packard script on mine, neither 300 nor Cavalier is mentioned anywhere, I put a Roman sticker on the rear window. It took a friend of mine few years to realize what it means, how my intention was to make it look more like a Packard Patrician)

(Intended to distant myself visually from The Russian Army banner, especially viewed from a distance, I ended up using Imperial banner of Palaiologos dynasty. Technically, it was still Roman ruling. But such meaning usually reached the limit of history knowledge among most people around me, so most just tend to stare at it very confused)

It looks pretty stiff, and it sounds a bit too "bumpy", like the teeth are worn as you mentioned. You should be able to find a good used one without too much trouble.

When you have it apart, it's probably a good idea to clean everything up and lubricate the tracks. If you find that it significantly improves how that window operates, you may want to pull the other doors apart and give them a little attention.

If your door locks are stiff, I found the issue on my Cavalier was that rods weren't sliding nicely in the little cloth sleeves. I polished them up and it made a world of difference.

Quote:

Is yours a Cavalier? If so, they never had the model on them for some odd reason and as for the Patrician being more luxurious, that may be correct on the interior but I think the 1954 Cavalier had a much cleaner look outside with the three bars on the rear doors instead of the solid plate of the Patrician.

Quote:

Never thought to do that. Makes sense though.

Yes indeed. Likely it is time for me trying to find the passenger side of the window regulator.

And upon seeing the diagram, it feels like the rack gear and arm are identical, it is the frame holding up the glass has the different length for different length of the rear doors.

My door locks were completely jammed so I got them redone at the shop mentioned previously. Maybe they weren't used for way too long.

Left rear? Pretty certain I can supply that. Will look Monday.

Quote:

I think the lack of use causes more issues than anything. Sometimes all things need is to be cleaned up and lubricated and they'll be good for another 50 years of service! My Cavalier just gets better and better! Sometimes from me fixing things and sometimes just from being used again.

Dive your cars!!!

Yes, mine is a Cavalier. I think the reasoning is obvious to me, it was the core Packard they based everything else upon (just like Model Year 2017 GMC Acadia was the default program from the entire GM C1 platform, other vehicles such as Holden Acadia was the RHD version, Cadillac XT5 was the luxurious version, XT6 being slightly longer, Enclave even longer, Chevy Blazer was the sporty version, etc, so often the default GM C1 car for engineering, testing purpose was that GMC Acadia) like how Clipper was the shorter, cheaper version, Patrician had the upgraded engine, etc

But they just couldn't call it a 1953 Packard Packard, seeing the Coat of Arms of Packard, Cavalier served a good placeholder name for such a car, because Packard emblem was basically a Cavaier in overall visual impression.

Given how 300/Cavalier being the default Packard, I think the design was whatever the design studio could come up with the best, while Patrician had a few upgrades on top of it, such as the chrome piece on the back doors and that additional chrome bar on the bottom of the whole car.

The chrome on the bottom on later cars such as Toyota Century, Cadillac Brougham was the part of overall design and they would look off without it, or sometimes just didn't work (93-96 Cadillac Fleetwood, for example). But on those 40s and 50s cars, I always hated it, because too often the chrome piece was used by Communist automakers to hide the horrible skills in bodywork, uneven rocker panel. And those cars, buses tended to be terribly built so once that area rotted away, the local shops just welded even wider piece of chrome to hide the empty rocker panel behind! As a very young child (~4 to ~10. Those cars went to junkyard when I grew older) myself, I had to always watch out when stepping into the local buses so my feet didn't stick to the other side of the vehicle at entry/exit, often with sharp edges of those chrome, metal pieces, cutting my then very fragile legs of young child.

Obviously, Packard was built to the top quality standard (largely), that chrome piece was just for top of the line as a differentiation. I only hated it after spending too much time with subpar vehicles using this for subpar purposes.

(Photo is a Shanghai SH760. The bodywork on the lower body looks even questionable from the photo, line is skewed enough)