Packard Forum Index » General

Will yield to any better info but believe there will be a stamp on the end of hydraulic cylinder. If that is correct, of course would only be good as long as cylinder was original.

I never found anything readable for the vacuum part on the outside and never looked for it on the piston casting so there may be something there. If not, I think by taking the end plate off and looking at hose side of the piston you can tell. Sleeve type has the actuating rod entering a mostly squared part of the casting surrounding the round cylindrical opening for the rod connection. The poppet valve type has that same area to be more rectangular or oblong with the casting having areas for the poppet valves either side of the rod opening. One side is larger than the other. Also, I believe the early P1 or P2 units had a separate hose connection for the breather vent as well as a connection for the vacuum source. Later ones just had the breather under the rectangular cap. I believe most of the sleeve types were obsolete by early 53 for Packard.

Don't believe Packard ever used the hydraulic reaction type. That one has the familiar ram type cylindrical piston rod but with a shaft in it. A seal and membrane at the fluid end of piston that works the rod and pushes it back into the vacuum piston to modify the vacuum depending on force.

I would also be very interested in hearing what the differences in operation or response are for the various units since they do look virtually the same P3 on. I think Packard only went as high as P5 but won't swear to it. I really can't say that I ever noticed any differences in driving.

Attach file:

---

  (33.33 KB)

Ed Strain did mine and has done a number of others. He seems to be well respected for the quality of his work. Is it reasonable to ask/suggest that he be invited to participate in this discussion?

He is in the unique position of seeing many of these units come through his shop; can he shed light on this based in part on what comes in and in part on his expewrience with these units?

It occurs to me that Mr. Kanter's customers represent a different part of the market; combining the two perspectives could be illuminating.....

Is it reasonable to ask/suggest that he be invited to participate in this discussion?

That would be too logical so not likely to happen.

Seriously, I also think it would be a good idea. Some questions were mentioned in another thread we would like to ask him or another rebuilder. Several would still like to know whether there were differences in units other mfgs might have used vs Packards. The question still seem to be why we seem to have or hear about issues more than other makes and more on the V8s. Maybe any members who might know him could ask the questions or him to join in.

On the downside, I would almost be sorry to invite him because I expect he would be subjected to some of the take no prisoner approach some have and be driven off.

Quote:
"The question still seem to be why we seem to have or hear about issues more than other makes and more on the V8s."

Yes. Perhaps the vendors/rebuilders could provide some numebrs. What percentage of all rebuilds are for Packard as opposed to a select group of other makes. Chevy would be one of the major comparisons since so many Chevies were built.

It could very well be that the Packard BTV issue is more prevalent because there are so few other applications of the BTV EXTANT or that were ever originaly equiped from the factory.

Kevin,
I don't suppose your Bendix Book has the VIN point that separates "early" from "late" '55 Packards? With mine being 5582-5454, I believe I'm somewhere in the middle but that is a guess on my part.
HH56 and others: I'd love to hear from anybody like Ed Strain with constructive (pun intended)experience of the BTV. However I share your other concerns as well.
I'm interested that other's have found corrosion on the valve spring. Something I was told couldn't happen.

Jim L.

It does not. I wonder to myself too, as I am 5587-4182. Right near the middle. I don't understand what criteria was used to make the cut off? And then, what did the cut off supposedly change? Maybe someone else out there has some old Bendix literature?

Which brings up another question or two. It appears they used P2 and P3 in 55. That would mean the original with sleeve valve must be the P1 in 52. Apparently used different versions of P2 in 53, 54, early 55 because the number for 55 is different than 53-4 and then to the P3. The number change might reflect something other than the base unit though. Did they skip the P4? There is only mention of one unit for 56 and mine has P5 stamped on it. Tis a puzzlement.

EDIT: a later post suggests 56 only went to P4 and that is what is shown in the photo rather than P5.

Attach file:

---

  (11.71 KB)

I've always found Ed Strain more than willing to take the time to discuss the TreadleVac on the phone despite being a busy businessman, and in the past I've occasionally reported on some of our conversations. If someone wants to invest in the effort to call him with specific questions, I suspect he'd be more than willing.

Perhaps this page from my Wagner-Lockheed catalog of 1962 will be helpful. If you want the pages for other makes that used the unit, I'd be glad to scan and post. The P and P1 units are slide-valves.

Attach file:

---

  (214.69 KB)


  (292.30 KB)

Helpful yes, but no mention of the P5. Anyone have any idea when that came out? I assume mine out of the 56 Carib 1091 is original but who knows.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something? I have never seen higher than a P4. The picture from Howard which shows the end of the hydraulic cylinder is stamped P4, but he mentions a P5. Where is P5 referenced? My 400, Carib and Pat are all 1956 models and all are P4s.