Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

If you did your wheel bearings as you wrote it, you've skipped a step and got them too tight. After you tighten to 20 lb-ft (which is just to seat the bearings and races, you then back off until loose, then tighten to 4 lb-feet, then back off to the first cotter.

If you did as you said and just backed off one cotter from 20 lb-feet, you'll ruin the bearings very quickly.

good thing i am not driving it....i was going off my faulty memory....but really...how do even really measure 4 foot lbs....seems too low to really measure accurately.

it is going to go back up in the air when i done tomorrow anyways, and i will correct such mistakes. thanks for the reminder.

Dave,

Curious where you found that information as the 51-54 Service Manual says to tighten to 20ft/lbs, back off 1 castle, and use a new cotter-pin. Was there a running change, STB, or SC?

See attached snippet from the Service Manual.

Attach file:

---

  (56.02 KB)

Also just checked the 55-56 Manual.

Attach file:

---

  (14.46 KB)

Answer to one question, you do 4 ft-lbs by using an inch-pound wrench set to 48 inch-lbs. But really, you'll never see a good mechanic use a torque wrench on wheel bearings, never. They all do it by feel and that's how I was taught. And if you said you tightened them to 20 ft-lbs, most if not all would tell you that's too tight!

Second - see the excerpt below from an issue of Packard's 1956 Service Counselor.

I should add that I've tried this method once or twice to see how it matches against the "feel" method and it's approximately the same. I'd use it for any front wheel bearings of similar style and size, back into the 30s.

Attach file:

---

  (51.80 KB)

Dave, thanks for the information. I wonder why they waited till 1956 to finally make a change, you think this would have been a problem in earlier years also, unless the spindles changed. Perhaps a batch of bad torque wrenches!

Yes Kev, you do have to wonder what took them so long! Another of the many times you wish you were a fly on the wall. I've often wondered about the conversations that took place to change the rectangular brake/clutch pedals they had for decades to oval for 1950, and then to revert right back to what they had before the model run was even over.

i wondered that same thing when i read the bulletin and i thought about all those people driving around with it done the old way....musta not been that important i guess.

got the chassis down to Salado and when i pulled it in i don't think anyone really knew what was going on....but when i parked it....it was like buzzards on dead meat...

lots of questions, people surprised a youngin owned it, and lots of pics and pointing......i guess the number one question was.....what are those cut out holes in the frame for....well...if i knew i would tell you, but i am guessing at some point someone decided they wanted dual exhaust and butchered the frame. i am considering repairing this now and then using a hole saw after the repair to cut the proper holes, but i haven't decided as really noone will see it when i am done anyways.

i even got a honk and thumbs up from one guy on the way down there.....speaking of....it was VERY windy trying to trailer that thing.

p.s. Michael, i loosened the bolts when i got home.

Hank

Attach file:

---

  (53.37 KB)


  (50.68 KB)


  (63.18 KB)


  (59.13 KB)


  (59.88 KB)

Glad your entry turned out to be "belle of the ball". Post or refer to some pics of the holes in frame. Maybe someone here will have an idea or two.

Your chassis looks great! Congratulations.

Regarding your comment on the incorrect wheel bearing torque spec ... i wondered that same thing when i read the bulletin and i thought about all those people driving around with it done the old way....musta not been that important i guess.... I suspect few if any people rode around with it done wrong - far more likely is that mechanics ignored it completely or weren't even aware of it, and did it the old fashioned way, by "feel".