Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

I'd say that constriction could definitely cause a flow issue so that might be the answer.

The filter might be leaking at one of the connections and the reason for the disconnect. Another possibility is filters were an option so maybe someone left the adapter fitting on the old engine and this engine originally did not have a filter so no fitting was available to reconnect it.

Look carefully at the pump mounting flange. Frequently there is a stamped number on one edge that identifies the pump via mfg number. Sometimes those are well covered with grime. I don't recall seeing tags except on carbs so maybe it is a rebuilt pump and that is a rebuilders number. Then and Now should be able to help identify or at least tell you what to look for but the pump you bought will probably do the job. Not sure why you have the dual unless it was a Nash or Hudson engine without the vacuum pump inside the oil pan. Another possibility is one of the older PI type oil pump conversions was installed. With those the original vacuum pump is removed so the dual pump was sometimes installed to replace it.

Oil sender. I had same thing happen. My theory is the napa sending unit can't handle the heat. Box said transistorized. Bought another new one. But moved it. This works better. But the book does say pressure relief valve can cause it.

Also the napa has a small hole. The packard sender is hole is large. The packard must work the the gas sending unit.

That's my 2k.

That could be. Thee existing sender wasnt working when I got the car so I replaced it with the NAPA sensor and it worked fine for a while Since the sensor is only a few months old I suspected the oil pump itself or associated sludge.

I just pulled the engine and removed the oil pan. Before I did that I flushed the engine with a 50:50 mixture of oil and diesel (As per Jack Vines suggestion) so that may have cleaned up the inside of the engine a lot.

The pan and the oil pump were clean with very little sludge on the bottom of the pan and none on the oil pump inlet screen.

Where did you move the new oil pressure sensor to? Is there another sensor that would work better than the 'small hole' NAPA one?

Also, I don't understand your statement "The packard must work the the gas sending unit" ?????

thanks for replying.

The gas sending unit uses nichrome wire. .

Enlarge pic.

Other pic engine running..1k rpm..see gauge

My thought in packard oil sending unit i got one from from gerry.pacsw. you can shake it and seems their is a plate in there..must move up with oil pressure. Which would be like gas sending unit. Working off resistance..

Attach file:

---

  (271.86 KB)


  (333.39 KB)

HH56 mentioned the problem with connecting a backup manual temperature gauge (tube type) to the Packard V-8 because of the lack of a suitable stock fitting into the cooling system. I was looking into how to solve this problem on my Panther and I found this on ePay:

ebay.com/itm/Chevy-V8-Chrome-Plated-Wate ... -Port-SBC-350-BBC-454-/380986753567

It is inexpensive but needs a different upper radiator hose than the stock one. I bought one and it will be here in less than a week. I'll let everyone know how it works out.

Craig

Got it on Friday and checked it today. The bolt hole C-C is slightly more than the Packard, but could easily be elongated to work. It uses an O-ring to seal, not a gasket.

The issue with a stock radiator top pipe location is the Rube Goldberg hose+bent pipe you would have to use to connect the two, but it could be done. On my Panther, I will have a custom made radiator and I can put the top pipe anywhere I want. Since I want to use this T-stat housing as I plan a set of backup mech gauges, I'll have the radiator made with the top pipe on the far Passenger side, then it will be "cake" to connect the two. I will also get the alum rad built as a cross-flow, not like the stock down-flow.

One more thing, I am modifying the P-side radiator brace and widening the opening by about 3". This is primarily because of the width of the A/C condenser I will use, not a radiator issue per se, but going to cross-flow would mean that the tanks are on the side, not top & bottom, which would result in less cooling width except that widening the brace will compensate.

Craig