Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

ask me how i know that the opposite of what the manual says about taking the tension off the small bar is actually the correct way to do it.

instead of 1/2" off vertical towards the CENTER of the car it is actually towards the OUTSIDE of the car.....go ahead guess or ask me how i know.....after i found out the hard way of course.

stupid manual! i guess i should have been a mechanical engineer and the reason would have pop out to me sooner.

got the bearing loose on the end of the small torsion bar on the driver's side, would have had more done, except i was fighting the tension by doing what the manual said by going towards the center of the car....

anyone know how to get those slotted screw ends out on the transverse torsion motor bars so i can get the ball stud out to disconnect the torsion motor assembly?? i tried a screw driver, wasn't thick enough and wouldn't budge. tried a washer that was thick enough, ground down and clamped vice grips to it, still didn't work. spray with PB, heated up with torch a bit...nothing worked. it is in there good. i need something that i can insert into the slot and use some leverage on...anyone have any ideas?

later,

Hank

You might have to make a tool out of a piece of pipe to get them out, that's what I'm considering doing.

apparently no one cares why i know that the manual is backwards on how to take the tension off the small torsion bars so you can take the torsion motor out of the frame....so i will just tell you.........there is no weight on the frame, so it is opposite. the shop manual was written for a car in the shop that has the body/engine etc...all on top of it. so instead of 1/2" towards the center of the car, it now becomes 1/2" off vertical towards the outside of the car. there now you know.

the cost for just about everything i will need for the frame is around 1500 bucks, i was expecting more like 2000 myself.

the tool i used to take the end caps off the transverse bars to get the ball stud out was a crow/pry bar wit a 90 degree end. i used the bench grinder to make the tool fit the way i needed it to. cost 8 bucks, saved a ton of time, headache, and pain ;0) well worth it if you ask me and it gave all the leverage i needed to pop those things loose.

you can see from the pics that i was finally able to get the torsion motor assemble out in one piece. now i can work on restoring it to go back into the frame eventually.

enjoy.

Later,

Hank

Attach file:

---

  (149.46 KB)


  (156.16 KB)


  (55.83 KB)


  (149.76 KB)


  (89.94 KB)


  (135.67 KB)


  (142.36 KB)


  (125.20 KB)


  (68.65 KB)


  (122.04 KB)


  (115.65 KB)


  (158.30 KB)


  (126.23 KB)


  (89.73 KB)


  (141.60 KB)


  (115.42 KB)


  (124.46 KB)


  (156.58 KB)


  (129.05 KB)


  (124.67 KB)

I apologize for not reading your blog earlier. A "Drag Link" tool is the proper tool to use. Sears sells it Part No. 44513 15/16 inch. It is normally used on older vehicles to adjust drag links and tie-rod ends. # Sears item #00944513000
# Mfr. model #44513. $7.49.

Attach file:

---

  (4.08 KB)

well, didn't know they made a tool like that. but, considering the nearest sears to my house is over 15 miles away....and the Lowes were i bought my tool at is only 1 mile away, i think the added few pennies were worth it

but you have to admit for what i had to work with....it was a pretty smart solution

just like mine this car does not have the co-coordinator on the wiper motor. i think it was more of a hit and miss if you ask me....mine missed. this is the 3rd car i have seen on ebay that does not have it either.

Attach file:

---

  (27.75 KB)

Henry,

I am sure glad that Packard is in your expert hands. Your workmanship really shines, and you are moving fast. I bet you got all "A"s in shop class!

The pictures are great, although I can't pick out all the details. I only saw one bare Packard chassis, that was a '55 Custom 4-door that was being parted out.

Regarding the manual, things are always different when you look at the real thing. So much frustration can be alleviated by just asking the knowledgeable people on this forum and sharing your experiences. I tend to prefer the Parts manuals with their expanded drawings. A good drawing is worth a thousand words.

Regarding the wiper motor. That is one thing I wouldn't blame anyone if they converted from vacuum to electric. I never understood why Packard went back to the vacuum system after using electric. Heck, they touted all kinds of electrical gadgets on their cars, fitting for a company that began as a manufacturer of electrical parts.

I think there's a Chevy wiper motor that pops right in. I know Craig can tell you all about that. Then you can go to a non-bastardized oil pump as well. Think of all the engineering wasted on that piggy-back vacuum pump, for vacuum wipers that never should have been on the car in the first place! Dumbest thing (and most unsafe) on the '55 and '56 models, except for the Easacrashic brakes. You can find out more from craig about going to a dual master cylinder.... and avoid feeling (and being) unsafe at any speed.

Cheers! That's all the baloney I have for now. Keep the pics and posts coming!

my grandfather and my dad were my shop class. they didn't offer shop class at my school when i was there, shame too as there was a place for it...they just didn't have a teacher for it. my dad was a better teacher anyways and i am still learning from him everyday.

got to use his 1970 snap on 3/8ths air ratchet tonight FAR-70A is the model number and it was AWESOME to use it. i felt like a king using something my dad used when he was my age. ;0) i am that way about old tools though...anytime i get one i keep it in better shape then my new ones, especially if they belonged to my dad or grandfather.

i have decied to start using my old 3.2 megapixel camera instead of my cell phone. i have now dubbed it my shop camera. i wish i had remembered it up in the closet from the beginning, cause my cell phone pics sux pretty bad. the only other camera i had was a 9.2 DSLR...and i really didn't feel like resizing all those pics all the time or handling it with my dirty hands. the 3.2 camera i have is old and i used it on the frame pics up a couple of posts. the pics are much clearer, there is a flash and i still don't have to resize the pics. win/win for all of us. ;0)

tonight i went to Lowe's and bought one of those 5 shelf units and took it in half and made two work benches out of it. i will post a pic of it tomorrow. it was about the same price as building one, like i planned, and it was made of metal and had the partical board already in it, for under 100 bucks. the partical board wasn't the thickest, but it says it will hold 450 pounds on each shelf....yeah right. i plan to get some thicker plywood from on of the scraps left over on one of the builds around my house. they don't care as long as it is just the scraps you are taking and it is after they are done framing. free is always good.

so, i got 5 times the shelf space and 3 times the work bench space. worked out great. no i have somewhere to start rebuilding the torsion motor at.

i was going to buy the front end rebuild kit from Kanter, but i need to wait until next pay check. then on to the rubber from Max Merrit, which i found was consistently cheaper than Kanter. should be under 1000 for all i need. then the chassis kit from Eastwood to paint things up.

my winter project is to finish the chassis completely and move on to the powertrain for the summer.

as far as stock things.....the way i see it...people drove it like it was back in 1955 and it worked fine. i doubt if Packard did any HUGE recalls on things for the 1955 models just because they improved some things in 1956...i.e. the updates to the transmission, etc...so i plan to put it back the way it was when it was made. i even will go as far as using the bolts as much as i can....i think the bolts from 1955 are just as much a part of the cars spirit as anything else....and i see no reason to pic at the spirit of the car by replacing all the bolts with new grade 8 or something.....heck they have been there for over 50 years....they must be fine for the job ;0)

i know the master cylinder is not the safest, but it will give people a correct translation of what Packard did on this car in 1955. i will take my chances and keep the car true to itself. i am not a 100% purist, i just like the spirit of this particular car the way it is, we have bonded and have an understanding now. ;0)

hopefully my next 37 coupe will be the same way ;0) LOL!!

thanks for the kind words dude! sure picked me up!

later,

Hank

The 1955-1957 Chevy CAR wiper motors bolt right on, and use the original cable control to work it, so no real modifications required, and can be put back to the original vacuum wiper motor if it is ever needed.

As for the brakes, quite a few on here will disagree, but dump the Easa-crash brakes and so what I and several others have done, and that's switch to a modern booster and a dual chamber master cylinder. There are those who swear by the Easamatic, and say it's a good unit. I have to disagree, I think it's an inherently unsafe design, and needs to be replaced. As for that matter, ANY single chamber master cylinder setup is unsafe.

I'd be sorely tempted to do what Hank is doing and keep the whole "spirit" of the car together, just because that's the way I am with most things. I want to put them back the way they were as much as possible. Like my 1941 Triplex (that's a house not a car--WAY off topic!) It's a monument to plaster, lathe, and stucco and I intend to keep it that way!

I only mentioned the wiper motor because it kind of ticks me off that Packard went back to vacuum, when as Eric says, the Chevy is a bolt-on and a reversible mod.

Brakes get into safety big-time. Like I wouldn't want the original fuse-box nightmare in my house, because others depend on it being a safe place. With a car, the things that make it stop are more important than the things that make it go, IMHO.

BUT, if it was just me who was driving the car or riding in it... I feel different about taking chances. However, there are other people on the road who don't want to be sharing in your risk (of rear-ending them for instance). ALTHOUGH, there is an assumed risk that everybody takes when they go out for a drive. The risk is shared and it's impossible to make it perfectly safe for everyone. "Accidents happen."

If it sounds like I'm conflicted about whether I'd get rid of the original Easamatic setup, it's because I am. No brakes are 100% fail-safe, but the setup that Packard used (and other mfrs, too, Ford is one I have heard used this system) is about 100 times more likely to fail than almost any dual master cylinder setup.

...and I was in a '55 400 when the brakes failed... luckily on a straight stretch of lonely two-lane blacktop. But I still remember my dad, yanking on the e-brake T-handle and cursing. Get this, though, he was a professional mechanic for over 35 years, and never was completely sold on a dual master cylinder system.

Here's why: If the Brake Warning light does not come on (or gives so many false readings you stop paying attention to it) you can be driving around with HALF a braking system in operation, while the other half has you back to one master cylinder.

Makes ya think, doesn't it? But he always was a contrary fellow.

Thanks for mentioning the old tools, Hank. I know just how you feel, having "inherited" a few of my father's, including an ancient half-inch drill. I feel closest to my memories of him when I use his tools... and humbled by how much less skill and speed I have than he did.

Sorry for going on and on. I'll get out of here and let the show go on, now. Do whatever you think is best. You sound conscientious enough to give it careful thought.