Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

I don't recall any issues either but have only had original tanks and as far as I know, caps too. There are no baffles in the photo Ross posted of a typical 51-6 tank. I reposted his photo a couple of pages ago in post $909 if you want to look at it. I seriously doubt the repro tanks would be any different. I have not torn any tanks apart but have looked in a few of different years and don't remember seeing any baffles in others.

I do remember a strange notch in the filler of one of the repro tanks. That photo is on the forum somewhere in another leak thread and I also remember the filler necks of some repros needing to be slightly bent to fit the openings. Could those be stock from another vehicle as the reason for the mis bend and just welded on a new tank body.

I remember the earlier posts showing the inside of a tank and I remember the notches too on Kanter’s reproduction tanks which they swore their original low mileage car had but I have never seen such a notch on any others. My reproduction which was purchased elsewhere does not have the notch. The notch was odd but even with it, the gas should never get high enough in the filler tube to slosh out unless something is pushing it there.

Here are pictures of the cap I have. These are the ones that Dwight sells. You can see the vent hole right in the center of the cap. My car had no cap when I got it....just a shop rag stuffed in the fuel filler.

The reproduction tank is slightly different than original. The fuel filler on the repro doesn't have the height or the angles that the original does. My tank came from Auto City Classics. Not sure if the Kanter ones are different.

I solved all my problems by cutting a soda can in half and putting it over the fuel filler and cap. No more gas down my fender.

My fuel gauge continues to act up, giving me confusing readings. On a completely full tank now it shows 3/4 full. It will slowly fluctuate between that and 1/2 depending on the mood of the sender. It's not a fast change....very slow. The gauge does work, and goes all the way to full when grounded (carefully). I still think my problem is the brand new sender or the wire that connects to it.

-Kevin

Attach file:

---

  Fuel cap outside.jpg (75.23 KB)


  Fuel cap side profile.jpg (63.49 KB)


  Fuel cap inside.jpg (101.47 KB)


  Comparison of old tank vs new.jpg (82.37 KB)

That is definitely a wide open vent. Here is a chart I collected from somewhere (ebay probably) giving some crosses to the cap that is supposed to fit a 51-6 Packard. It adds a few other mfgs you could see if they offer something different.

The fill pipe on the repro tank does have a more gradual and lower slope so maybe that is making a difference.

Danchuk has a repro cap that is supposed to be identical to the original Chevy cap which according to the chart would fit.

The vent on that cap looks like it might also go out the top thru the square piece but maybe the length of the hole thru the square is enough to prevent the leak. Not sure how a single thru hole could be called a complex venting system so maybe it is more involved and there is an indirect path or vent actually stays under the shell.

Attach file:

---

  Gas Cap xref.jpg (26.09 KB)

The difference in curve is due to production techniques with roll benders on the original; dies on the reproduction. Roll benders are extremely expensive so few shops have them which is why I've been having trouble getting the tailpipe made for my 1951 Henney-Packard! These long, smooth bends are not possible with standard die benders as it would take a massive die and a tremendous amount of force to do it. It should have anything to do with the vent leak, though.

Thanks for the info Howard and Don. I agree that the difference in neck probably doesn't make much of a difference in the end.

I'll stick with the fuel cap I have for now and just keep the soda can over the top. It's working well enough. I have other things to turn my attention to now.

-Kevin

How does the tank filler line up with the quarter panel opening? Being it is not bent quite the same? John

It's lower in the opening than original (original was right in the center), but still useable.

-Kevin

Attach file:

---

  Fuel filler location.jpg (60.15 KB)

I think I’ve discovered a few fundamental differences in a Packard fuel system that may/should shed some light on the fuel cap leakage situation.

The Danchuk website claims a faithful reproduction of a tri-five gas cap, and that cap has a center through hole for a vent. We have at least three forum members that have reported leakage when this type of cap is used on a Packard. HH56 has posted a photo of an original Packard gas cap that does not have the center through hole vent design. So what is different between a Chevrolet (likely includes more GM brands) and Packard fuel systems for the same era?

PackardDon was on the right track, I think when he was talking about pipe bending dies, especially the long radius dies . . . fuel leakage may have a lot to do with the shape of the fill pipe. There is also the location where the fill pipe attaches to the tank, which is low on the Packard and high on the Chevrolet. This has a lot to do with the fuel level when the leakage stops. Now the fill pipe: The GM is a short pipe (remember it’s mounted at the top of the tank), with a short radius bend that looks about 45 degrees. The Packard (original not reproduction) fill pipe has a much longer smooth radius bend that allows the fuel slosh to be converted to a rising level in the filler pipe far easier than an abrupt bend. Based on Kevin’s experience the reproduction tank fill pipe is close enough to retain this characteristic of easily converting slosh to fuel level in the fill pipe.

The bottom line is to remain somewhat leak free the Packard fill pipe design and mounting location needed a vented fuel cap that does not feature a simple through hole, whereas the Chevrolet fill pipe and mounting could tolerate a through hole vent design in the cap. There is the possibility that the Chevrolet cap did leak but only when the tank was ‘really full’. There’s one other item, but at this point I only have photos, not hard measurements . . . to my eye the Packard ‘filler door’ appears to be measurably lower than the Chevrolet, perhaps as much as 6 inches. If that can be confirmed and the height from the top of the fuel tank to the spill line on the filler is less on the Packard, that would help explain a lot of the situation, in-fact that may be the single most important difference between the two systems. Does anyone know of a ’55 Chevy (non-wagon) that measurements can be taken?

For a while until we find a source for caps more like the original design we will be relegated to soda cans, tuna fish cans, or plumbing store stuff to keep the gas stains off of the fender.

dp

Bit of a change of topic here, but the discussion in this thread about door panels made me pull mine out of storage. Thanks to the knowledge shared in that thread, it appears that the door panels in my car were very difficult to make, and even more difficult to restore.

The original panels were made using large machines to emboss the vinyl. Perhaps that can be "replicated" now if someone is creative enough, or the lines can be sewn in. But I've been wondering if maybe I could salvage what I have with some work.

The door panels were all off and stored in the trunk on my car when I got it. They had been pulled off when the previous owner had done body work and paint, and they had suffered some definite water damage, just like the rest of the interior (and exterior) of the car.

First up is the passenger front panel. The front part of the board is completely rotted away. The embossed parts are all present and in decent condition, as are all the stainless pieces.

The passenger rear panel is not in great shape either. The embossed areas are probably okay. The backing panel itself is very floppy and ready to fall apart.

The driver's rear panel was redone at some point in the past. And it was done poorly. They used some sort of of triple ply cardboard for the panel, and put 1/4" spongy foam under the vinyl. This left the embossed areas pretty wavy.

The best of the bunch is the driver front panel....and that's not saying much. The leading edge is crumbling and the lower ivory vinyl is peeling. The panel itself is water damaged and not flat at all. Perhaps I can use the panel to make a template to replace the cardboard on both the passenger and the driver?

Looking through all these, what are your thoughts? I'd like to see what I can do with these panels rather than waiting an unknown amount of time to see if SMS can reproduce them (if they can even do the embossing necessary....which I assume they can).

-Kevin

Attach file:

---

  Passenger door.jpg (85.15 KB)


  Passenger door panel rot.jpg (114.78 KB)


  Passenger rear panel.jpg (76.78 KB)


  Passenger rear panel backing.jpg (97.60 KB)


  Driver rear panel.jpg (84.21 KB)


  Driver rear panel poor rebuild.jpg (98.11 KB)


  Driver rear panel foam insert.jpg (92.51 KB)


  Driver rear panel wavy.jpg (110.73 KB)


  Driver front panel.jpg (92.07 KB)


  Driver front panel original backing.jpg (104.27 KB)