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

Made my first attempt at repro'ing sill plates out of urethane rubber. The test piece turned out better than I expected but based on how it looks in the door opening I believe there is a problem I didn't catch -- or need to compensate for.

All of the 47 and 48 originals I had to work with are in poor condition but all seem to be finished the same on one edge and that edge is the question or problem. Question is should there be a tapered rubber edge on the side facing outward next to the Packard name to match the other 3 sides? None of the original pieces have one so either it was not there originally or being thin, it has broken off on all of the moldings I have. Here is a photo of the repaired 48 pieces in the form ready for a mold to be cast and a photo of the test piece I made.

Before someone says it, yes I know the Packard name is slightly different between series but the 47 pieces I had are missing large chunks and just too far gone to use as a mold. Maybe there is more of a difference than I though so can anyone say if the width is also different between series.

Does anyone have decent enough originals or repros that they could post a photo of one of the moldings mounted in the door that shows all the edges. Also, how hard should the rubber be. The test piece I made is shore 40A which is firm to the touch but still relatively soft to bend. I'm thinking they were probably harder so any info there would be appreciated.

Attach file:

---

  (116.72 KB)


  (57.39 KB)

Great start! Perhaps you'll want to contact Joel Ray (Packards1) at Patrician Industries if he doesn't see this post and respond. I noticed at Hershey that he had several 22nd/23rd series rubber door sills, either OEM or perhaps from that repro run from some years ago. He should be able to answer your question based on those pieces.

23rd Series. Does this help?

Attach file:

---

  (82.82 KB)


  (71.29 KB)

40 SA is way too soft - the wear properties will be poor, even for a tough material like PU. Don't use an old part for reference because it will have embrittled. I'd guess 80 - 85 SA/D15 would be a more suitable durometer

Howard, hows this and mine are very brittle.
Wes

Attach file:

---

  (109.30 KB)


  (79.89 KB)


  (91.27 KB)


  (90.03 KB)

Quote:

Thanks, I was thinking it might be too soft also but had just enough of the 40 left over for the test piece. Was thinking it needed at least 60A. 80 is as high as they go in the easy to mix and pour formulation I am using so that it will be.

Thanks JD and Wesley for the photos. It looks like there might be a sort of finished lip on the outside rather than a taper. Can't tell exactly how wide that outside strip is but it looks like it might be a slight bit wider than the ones toward the middle -- sort of like the inside wide strip. I will work on that a little and have a small rounded downward extending lip to finish it off. Will also widen the rear tapered edge just a tad so the whole piece comes outward..

I didn't realize Joel had any sets left. Thought there was a mention last year that he had sold out with the poster that made the comment getting the last one but I must have confused something. At any rate, aside from the labor I think I can make mine for about half what I think the repros were going for. Since the repros would still be wrong not worth spending the extra unless these turn out to be a total bust. Would be nice if I had a tolerable 47 set to work with and have the correct things for the car.

Howard, don't know if it will help on yours (P/N?) but I have the factory drawings for the 23 series. Includes the steel backer and the clips. I got them from Studebaker museum, PAC didn't have. Has the the rubber spec also.
I was planning on making a set for mine but I'm behind from the Caddy project.
So I'm interested on how it turns out. Commercial interest was low so far. Let me know and I'll post the pdf. I spent a few bucks to get it and more to have it digitized, but if it helps, no charge. I also got PAC approval to reproduce the logo. There's no bevel edge on these. Looks like 7/32" max. rubber thickness.

Howard, I just took some pictures of mine but see others already have it covered. I agree there is no tapered edge on the outside. However, I do think that outer rib has the same width as the middle ribs.

Thanks to some detail provided by Fish'n Jim I found the reason for my problem of test piece being too narrow. No overall shrinkage, just broken and worn off rubber on the originals. There is a rounded top edge on the outside rib and what I call a lip at the bottom. Adding that should account for a missing 1/16". The rest was some of the inside tapered width of rubber that goes up to and under the stainless piece was missing. Adding 1/4 there will account for the rest of the missing width and allow a bit of trim area to fine tune the fit.

I was able to partially decode the rubber spec RS-806 AJK.
They've change the prefixes so I guess the first two but they are the type codes. The type R is probably natural rubber, N or S(alternate) was specified next, can't decode second yet, but the following numbers, 806, 8 refers to 80 Shore A, and the 06 is the tensile. The suffixes, AJK, refers to A - heat resistant, J - Abrasion resistant, and K - adhesion. Since it's molded on a steel backer, they need adhesion grade.