Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

A 200 is a terrific car to drive; I have had several and enjoyed them all.

I wouldn't be in a rush to put the 54 brakes on. I find the 51 brakes work just fine and and will stop the car easily even when driven hard. The pedal pressure is not high and is nowhere near worth the trouble to install the power brakes. You can buy the wheel cylinders, master cylinder, hoses etc. amazing cheaply from Rockauto. Another 30 bucks of tubing from the auto parts store and you will have a very safe system.

If you do decide to use the 54 brakes, you can bolt on the fronts no problems, but you will need to use the 54 backing plates as well.

At the rear, you are stuck with the 51 brakes as the 54s will not bolt on to the axle housing, nor will the drums fit the axle shaft. Of course you can always just put in the whole 54 rear axle from drum to drum, but then the driveshaft will not mate.

Greg,
I good place to start is the Search Box, many of the problems have been addressed with some very good steps to help point you in the right direction. Also read though the Service Bulletins for your year.
Here's an example, I had a Fuel Pump problem and posted a video of it for all to see.
See the link below.
packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb ... um=2&post_id=149533#forumpost149533
Wes

Greg, I've got to go with Ross on the brakes. My '51 200 Deluxe is a pleasure to drive just stock as it is and the brakes are excellent. OK, not by today's standards maybe, but fine for "non-competition" driving. Also have the "Bendix Treadle-Vac" on my '55 Patrician and comparing the braking systems on both, I can tell you changing over the brakes from the '54 to your '51 will not be worth the effort.

An interesting observation I've made on the '51s handling is that the faster I drive the car the more like a modern car it feels. No scientific evidence to back that up - just general "feel of the car".

Jim--the engine in the '54 is a 327. It is cast on the head. Does that mean this is probably not the original engine in this car or did they also use the 327 in this car? Another thought I had, the '54 has an ultramatic in it. Is this the same transmission as the ultramatic in my '51 or do they differ in some way?

On the subject of the power brakes, it seems that consensus is to stick with the stock manual brakes. Thanks for the opinions guys. Good to know!

It's not unusual for heads to get "mixed and matched" as I have the 288 head on my 327 engine on my 51 200 Deluxe. The number that will tell you for sure is the Motor Number above the starter. M600000 is the 359; M400000 is the 327 and so on. The the letter at the beginning is not an M then it is not a 1954 engine.

Quote:

I'll stick my two cents in on the trans. The 54 Ultra transmissions were of two types. Original single speed no shift type Ultras were the same operation but somewhat refined from 51s. Considerably different direct drive clutch assy from 51s and slightly different valving to alleviate some issues with the forced manual shifting which was frequently the way people wanted to drive them.

In late 54 production they introduced the Gear Start Ultras so if the car is late build it could have one of those. They are completely different in operation with either an automatic shift from L to H and into direct drive or you can still select the old single speed operation. Those were renamed Twin Ultramatic and continued and refined thru 56.

The original Ultra has a shift quadrant PNHLR and it is crawl under to find the dipstick and fill opening. Gearstart quadrants have PN -a dot to the left of H and then LR. Gearstarts also have a long dipstick and fill tube that come all the way up into the engine compartment on the drivers side of engine.

You should check the engine number to confirm whether it is a 327 or a 359.
The original head on the 359 engine was aluminum which tended to have corrosion problems and many were replaced with a cast iron head from another engine (bolting patterns are the same)

If you should find that your parts car has the "Gear Start" Ultramatic (dot in the middle of the selector and long dipstick tube coming up on the left side of the engine, I would be interested in buying it. Thanks.

I finally got around to wire brushing the engine number off on the '54 so I could read it and now I am kind of stumped. The number on the block above the starter starts with H400. If I understand it correctly, that would make the motor a '49. Can anyone verify that? Additionally, the
transmission does not have a dipstick that comes up into the engine compartment.

Anyhoo, work is progressing on the '51. We got the new valve guide in today, finished cutting and grinding valve seats, and got half the valves back in before stopping for the day. I'm hoping to be able to try firing her up next weekend possibly.

Quote:

Not likely a 1949 or 1950 engine since the motor mount on those is at the very front and not at the sides like 1951 to 1954. The earlier blocks do not have the cast in bosses on the side for the motor mount bolt holes.
Perhaps the number is M4xxxxx which would make it a 1954 five main bearing 327 from a Cavalier.