Packard Forum Index » General

I decided to try and develop a replacement fuel tank for the 51-56 cars.

My main focus is to keep the cost as low as possible while providing a new tank that will have the appearance of a stock tank.

The 55-56 Chevrolet tank comes the closest to the shape and size of the original Packard tank. The Chevrolet tank is also very cheap, compared to other new replacement tanks. Another selling point is that these tanks should be available forever and they have a built in drain.

With that being said, it is not perfect. For those of you who strictly adhere to Packard originality, this tank is not for you.

Issue #1: The biggest complaint I see the average Packard owner will have, is the fact that the Chevrolet tank slightly smaller. The Chevrolet tank gives up about 2 inches in length and width and 1-2 inches in depth. This means the Chevrolet tank will only hold 16 gallons of fuel vs. 20 gallons on the stock Packard tank.

Will smaller capacity be a deal breaker for us? Not for me, but others may feel differently.

Issue #2: The filler inlet is in the wrong place. The stock filler inlet will have to be removed and the hole patched. The new filler inlet will be located in the correct location and tig welded in place.

Issue #3: A new vent tube will be tig welded in the stock location.

Issue #4: The Chevrolet sending unit will not work with the Packard gauges. However, the stock Chevrolet sending unit will be used as the fuel supply connection. A universal Ford sending unit, available from JC Whitney can be used for the guages.

Issue #5: Use the original filler neck from your old tank. Less to fabricate.

Hopefully I'll have the first completed tank in about a week. It depends on how busy I get at the shop.

I haven't worked out what the final cost will be, but my goal is to keep the car owner from paying more than $350 for the complete job including all parts needed. Close to what it costs for a professional renew job, but you'll have all new steel, except for the filler neck.

Let's hear some opinions about this tank replacement.

Aside from the capacity, I would think it a viable alternative if Classic is not interested in any other replacement options or a quantity order is required if they are. What about the 53 GM tank Jim found? If larger and the filler coming out of the top will clear the frame, that also might be a possibility along the lines you mentioned and maybe not need as many mods.

On the sender, since there will have to be some changes anyway with the 57 setup, how about investigating the possibility of making a bracket which would weld or bolt to the GM plate. Our senders are only held on the existing round mounting plate via the single terminal screw bolted thru a couple of insulating pieces. Could remove the original plate and replace that with a bracket to provide the ground and mount inside the tank or even on the GM plate if there is room. Secure using the same components as original. Better yet, since the senders are roughly the same shape & size, it might also be possible to take the GM sender off and replace with ours in the same location with a simple mount and just need an arm adjustment. That would save a few dollars if the original sender is still usable but not preclude buying the Whitney or stock Ford unit if not.

Attach file:

---

  (12.29 KB)


  (8.84 KB)


  (7.11 KB)

Sounds like a good plan to me. The 16 Gallon capacity should not be a problem. That gives about a 200 mile crusie range at 13 mpg. My 56 exec has a 17 gallon junk yard find, i have no idea what it came out of. The 17 gallon has not presented any problems.

I'm still wondering if your profit margin could be greatly increased if u made a wooden die and hand hammered a close-enuf-for-rock'n roll tank ala oem tank. It would only require one wooden die because the top half of oem tank is from the same oem die that the bottom was stamped from. Maybe a good future offering.

For now, your plan sounds like a good one. Especially once every one gets tired of the internal coatings of various sealer systems begin to cause troubles 3 or 4 years down the road if not sooner.

Another possibility is take an oem tank half and pour it full of concrete with some greenseal release agent. USe that as a die to hand hammer the tank halves. Kirksite maybe???

I happen to have a new '55 Chevy tank and sender that I would sell reasonably.

Jim

Quote:

As far as I've found the '53 tanks are more than twice as expensive and not as plentiful. As far as I can tell, the filler has to come under the frame. There just isn't enough room to go over. In fact on my car the previous owner installed the Chevrolet tank with the top filler and had to cut a notch in the frame for it to work.

Quote:

Replacing the Chevrolet sender with the Packard unit would be fine, but then you have to fabricate a fuel pickup that goes inside the tank and comes out the side somewhere. I like the Chevrolet sender because it's got the in-tank filter which is replaceable. Again, because it's a Chevrolet part, it's available everywhere for very little money. Using the Packard sender is still an option, and cutting a hole in the top of the tank for it would be easy. My only concern is that the Chevrolet tank is not as deep and the Packard sender may bottom out.

Unfortunately, I do not have a Packard sender to use as a guide.

If someone out there has a Packard sender that is no longer working, I would certainly take it from them to use it for mock up.

Hand forming a tank, I'm affraid, isn't an option for me.

If someone wants to buy me a planishing hammer and english wheel I'll give it a shot.

If someone else want's to give it a try, I'll be very interested in watching the process. Until then, making some relatively simple modifications to an existing tank will be the most cost effective and timely. At least for me.

I have an old broken sender you can have but if you want one for electrical testing, then I don't have any good ones. PM me an address and will get if off Tues if you want a bad one for mockup purposes.

I wasn't suggesting cutting any holes in tank and was thinking any mods would be using the GM pickup or another similar to the one shown.

If the Packard sender couldn't be mounted in place of the GM sender on the pickup for some reason, then my thinking was along the lines of the sketches.

If there is enough room on the GM plate to clear the pickup, that suggestion is shown on the top sketch. Drill a couple of holes, remove the existing Packard plate and mount the sender to the GM plate at an angle & bend the arm as needed. That would be the easier option but only if enough room.

If no room on plate, then make a bracket to mount the entire unit inside the tank like the bottom sketch. Would be a piece of maybe 1/8 steel or such bent to shape welded or bolted to GM plate and with a couple of holes for sender to mount on that bracket instead of the Packard plate. I show it at the top but could probably go anywhere convenient.

Would need to figure the arm length and bend to the correct angle on all methods. Also probably would need to get some nylon or other insulating material and beef up that center spacing and support if any bracket or plate is thicker than the Packard one.

Any of those should still allow a replacement option. I don't know if the Ford replacements we have crossed to our sender disassemble the same as Packard does though. The Whitney unit does have a terminal and a similar mount but does need a mod or two. When I adapted one and wrote up the instructions on how I did it, removed the Packard sender from it's plate and modified so the Whitney sender could fit in it's place.

Was thinking one remote possibility might still be the GM sender. Since it has to come off anyway, would it be possible to reverse it and mount at an angle to get the proper resistance. We need roughly 80 empty, 10 full. The GM is O empty 90 full. If we could reverse that on the pickup, mount it so empty is around 10, then full should still be able to keep around 80 if the arm length or angle was compensated a tad for the range since travel would be slightly less on each end for those numbers.

Just a thought though and probably something wrong with the logic--suspect the extra 10 ohms would skew things although it would be interesting to see what would happen.

Cut a Packard tank in half.

Don't think this one can be saved.

Check out how much loose rust was in there. Unreal.

Attach file:

---

  (136.51 KB)


  (155.96 KB)

Thanks for the effort. First time I've seen the configuration of the pick-up tube.