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

Somewhere back in this thread O_D suggested checking fuel pump volume and pressure output. Was this done?

Was the flex hose between the fuel pump and fuel line replaced with the new pump?

Sounds to me like the engine is not getting enough fuel at higher speeds.

It will be interesting to learn what is causing the problem. We all await this message.

JWL

I did solve the problem, see my post of 10/24 17:54:15 on this thread. It was the point gap of all things.
To your question, the flex hose to the fuel pump was replaced about a year ago, well before all this happened. I actually had it fabricated by an industrial hose place. I never checked the fuel pump for flow rate and pressure because I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that since it was new from Max Merritt that it was ok.

Car in question here was a 49 Custom 8 (see post 1).
I'm wondering how many other 49 custom 8 owners run points gap as close as .012".

49 Custom 8. Is that the 288 cid engine????
I have a 48 short wheel base chassis with 288 engine. Not driveable, just sets and starts well with points at .018".

So i'm wondering how may other 49 custom 8 owners run points gap at anything under .014".

49 Custom 8. Is that the 288 cid engine????

PackardV8, a 1949 Custom 8, whether 22nd or 23rd Series, is a 356 engine.

Yes, it's the 356. As I mentioned in one of my posts, the "Repair and Tune Up Manual" says the gap should be between .0125 and .0175 (although the tune-up chart just says .017, period). The dwell is listed as 27 deg in the chart and in the Service Manual specs. I always try for .016" and when I had it at that gap the dwell was around 22 deg I think. When I realized the point gap was having such an influence on the high speed roughness I gradually went to .012" point gap which seemed to give normal performance (i.e. no loss of power and/or roughness). At that point gap the dwell is now 30 deg. Now, I'm using an old 12 volt dwell meter I've had since the early '70's but it seems to give a reasonable number on the dwell.
When I replace the points, I leave the distributor in the car, turn the crankshaft by hand with the fan blade and just measure the gap with a feeler gauge when the cam follower is on the tip of the lobe. I suspect that there is some error in doing it that way and that the gap may be actually within the .0125 to .0175 range. Some of the guys on this thread say they set the point gap with the distributor removed which seems like a much more accurate way to do it, although you have to be careful about marking the cam position and the position of the distributor itself. I'll probably do that the next time I do the points.