Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

the one with the groove is 56....is the other 55?,,why the change,,,and what is the part no..470219...450209...6480797

Attach file:

---

  (35.87 KB)

470219-5580 All 56th Washer-Converter Reactor
450209 All 55th Washer-Converter Reactor
6480797 All 56th Washer-Converter Reactor

I suspect the difference has to do with the change to a narrower spacer and wave washer on 56 converters used in conjunction with the thrust washer. When the wave washer became problematic they eliminated it and reverted back to the 55 setup. I couldn't tell you for certain which is which without looking at a 55 converter but I think the groove is 56.

without wave washer shaft sits down 28thou,, only way I see to make it up is to add a shim before washer,

my shaft play was 23thou,,i was able to find a .112 selective washer, my dad had that brought it down to 17 thou, if wave washer was still used then I would be under 10thou, specs are 10-17 thou...

using my dads ,,Packards ,, reactor tool is a pain...it was made in L.A.,,,Mc,something,,

thanks troy,,,hh,,

looking on ps1 ebay I saw the washer in pic,,,so I know which pt. no. it is..

Attach file:

---

  (73.01 KB)

For 1956 converters if you want the easy way out just buy the wave washer eliminator kit from Kanters.

The removing of wave washer was compensated for by also going back to the 55 spacer. That is the sort of pressed in sleeve with holes all around on the sides.

Attach file:

---

  (96.35 KB)

dave that's the washer from the kit,,the other part is the thing with holes in it, and it is wider than mine,

if the washer was thicker,,or came in sizes that would solve it....

tool,, those fingers come off,,,,you need to keep pulling up on it, or down,,,

Attach file:

---

  (48.75 KB)

Quote:

450552 and 450553 - 54th GS
470172 - 55th original
6484614 - 55th revised
470219 - 5588 and 56th

To be honest I have no clue what the differences or reasons are and likewise my documentation does not shed much light. The 5588 had a different pump than the rest of the 55th but this is the only other change to the converter. But the 56th sedans used the 55th pumps; the hardtops a different number. So it doesn't align with that. The only theme is engine power (i.e. expected converter operating temperature). That being said, it may be noted that Rev. F to the 465327 pump was to change the casting material to strengthen the part. For reference, this change began on transmission serials 5-33403, 5-94131, 5-A-17674 (the latter being the AMC series).

Likewise I don't know what the 55th running change was.

The 54th used a spacer and washer separately. The 54th spacer will not have the bronze thrust surface and it's 3/32" instead of 1/4" thick.

Packard did have some problems with excessive or irregular thrust washer wear so I would bet that the perfect circle is the 470172 type. The notched one would allow a better pressure differential across the bearing face from the "converter in" circuit flowing in that area.

This is the factory info I can dig up on the subject; note that the general reference is probably to the pair of washers, 3.6163 and 3.6173.

Packard changed only the rear washer between 54GS and 55; the reader may note the completely contradictory attitude between March 9th (top) and October 7th (bottom) of 1955, going from a predicted 50% failure rate to "ehh it doesn't seem to be much of a problem but let's stick a wave washer in there to maybe fix it". But this was likely a consequence of the 55th design change.

It's worth noting as well that it only took until the November 1957 STB (331) that the wave washers were suggested to be eliminated from the 56 converters as well as they stopped supplying them in the service assemblies. The cited reason is "to control the end play within the proper limits". I suppose that it's not wrong to say that when the washer separates in two and blows up the converter that the end play is now 26 thou too much. 🙄

I should note that I have no clue what the "proposed service technical bulletin" is referring to; none exists in the archive. My best guess is that it became the "endplay check" service counselor in March as I describe the significance of here. My best guess as to the cause of failure is that: one must consider that the reactor shaft is held stationary at all times, so a washer riding on it will not wear very well. Changing it to contact the sprag clutch assembly means that it's not supporting a moving load when the converter is at its hottest, as the reactor assembly is still. When the car is at speed and the converter is operating more cool or in direct, then it's supporting a load. This change doesn't much help the forward washer, but it's better than nothing.

Interesting to know from this bulletin that there were 3200 gear start transmissions made for the 54s. I have had 3 for my own cars over the years, and one for a customer. Makes the cars very snappy off the line.