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

Put the OLD pump back on. If it works then u know the only possible problem is with the "new" pump!

Otherwise u have TWO wrong pumps for this engine.

I'm clutching at straws here but, some fuel pumps have a spacer made of hard fibre to insulate the pump from engine heat. Don't know if Packards were like that but if the spacer is missing it will throw the pump off.

It sounds like your pumps are OK and your cam is OK so the only thing left is, the cam not pushing the lever properly.

You could try turning the cam so it was pointing straight at the pump then see how far the cam holds the pump away from the block. If the cam is pushing the lever an inch it should work good, if it is barely touching then it isn't going to work so good.

Chevs had a fuel pump push rod do Packards? A missing rod could leave the pump not working.

I did put the old one on in my earlier tests, no joy. I have a rebuild kit for the old one, so if it had worked i would have used it. It's just grimy and leaky now.

Have used the small spacer, one was on each motor, both the same size. Tested with no spacer, spacer, spacer one gasket and spacer 2 gaskets, one on each side. Same results.

No fuel pump push rod, these seem to ride right on the cam.

I have confirmed the cam is a permanent ground part of the cam by looking at the 288.

Both lobes on both motors feel the same with no grooves BUT:

There seems to be a C shaped webbing around the 327 fuel driving lobe that's directly around it. I've tried to draw what i'm talking about. I can barely get my finger around it. Unless the lobe is in the down position already, i don't know how the fuel arm can move. And if the arm can't move, i'd assume the motor couldn't rotate unless something gave.

It almost feels on the 327 that the arm should be pushed up, not down, as there's a little more clearance up there. But again, both pumps install easily. No binding at any point. This is a 9 main vs the 5 main 288. The c shaped webbing feels like main support webbing.

I can't get a camera down into the 327, hopefully you can see what i mean from the drawing. The 288 doesn't have this webbing and is wide open all around the cam lobe.

Is it possible some straight eights had an upward acting pump vs one that had the lever pushed down?

Attach file:

---

  (22.42 KB)

On your bench tests, how far did you have to move the lever to get pressure? Maybe the pumps are worn to the point they do not work in the engine because the lobe does not move the arm far enough? Just another guess.

It's been a while, but when I put my pump in my 288, I had to put pressure on the arm to get the bolts in. The lobe pushed on the arm immediately so I had to move the pump to line up the holes. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Both levers seem tight side to side, and their pivot pins, etc. There is about 1/8-little less than 1/4 in pushed in (measured at the base) before you hit the rod that the arm is pushing on and you feel it start to do work. Moving it against that pin at all and the vacuum gauge starts to read. You can move it maybe 3/4" at the end of the arm and that seems like a full "stroke".

Quote:

I have not had to do that with either pump, which makes me feel like something is up with the pumps. (wrong model or something.)

I was reading somewhere on a difference of cam journal sizes on different motors, but i thought it was the 356 that's different. Maybe coming in to play here?

I don't remember this whole thread, but did you check the parts manuals for a 288 vs 327 engine to see if they use the pump you have?

51Packard writes:
"It's been a while, but when I put my pump in my 288, I had to put pressure on the arm to get the bolts in. The lobe pushed on the arm immediately so I had to move the pump to line up the holes."

That should answer the question completely.