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

"It's not that you need to update your transmission to take new bushings"

That's not true...if you have an early unit like i do, you have to MACHINE the tranny to accept the newer thicker bushings. It is not an issue of shaft or bushing wear, it is a matter of, like fred said, a change in the design that requires the tranny to be brought up to date. (Up to date being apparently some time in 1950) This is done per a Packard bulletin, listing packard part numbers needed to complete. Some of those part numbers, are bushings kanter supplied

Fred, i don't think my statement reflects poorly on you or your company, or good or worse or anything. Kanter didn't mandate the bushing change and machining, packard did.

What i WAS getting at, exactly, is that some running changes and upgrades in the ultramatic (newer thicker bushings, gm clutch material, etc) kanter endorses, but something as simple as adding a dipstick seems crazy? I'm just saying that, hey, packard found it prudent to add, why shouldn't we if it's convenient? Hell, i'm happy when i'm to the point on a project where these are the things i'm worried about.

Also, my unit was made in 50, and still needed the machining. Unless there was only "Several hundred" ultramatics in 49, then i'd say there was more than "Several hundred". For all i know, there WAS only "Several hundred" in 49 and my 50 was one of the first few hundred built. I believe it was made in feb or jan of 50 if i recall. I had to machine one item, but the other item in the bulletin i did not. To be more specific, i'd have to talk to my tranny guy.


"Seems to me that cortcomp is asking, albeit sarcasticly, why it's acceptable to update the Ultramatic for some design changes made in later production, but not aomething like a dipstick as used in later years."

Exactly. What you said, only add "why it's acceptable to update AND kanter to supply the parts for some ...but not something like a dipstick..."


As far as using stones to build things instead of throw, let's build a solution like we're working on, instead of throwing stones and saying "just take it to the shop or get under the car".

I swear, when it comes to some minor change or improvement, some people are trying to develop the automobile and some are on the road yelling "get a horse!" because that's all they've ever known and, well, it worked for them! Just feed it and stop monkeying with that machinery, right?

Where are the buy a horse people now? Progress moves forward.

To Packard V8:



I have stayed away from commercialism as much as I can but sometimes it is necessary

Here goes, competent rebuilder:

Kanter Auto Products
76 Monroe St.
Boonton, NJ 07005
www.kanter.com/packard
800-526-1096 x 336

Rebuilt BTV's usually in stock, usually can be sent with core charge.

I have revised this post in the spirit of future progress.
Thank you.

I corrected my previous post.

What about the BTV maintencace schedule in terms of MILES AND TIME????

Before we get to far off the road and in a ditch again.

Fred, the folks here are discussing something they want to do with their own vehicles and are talking out different solutions to adding a under hood dip stick to their vehicles. There are not asking permission from you or anyone else weather they should do it.

You point has been made several times, so unless you have something positive and constructive to add to that particular subject..... then move along.

I have not, will not and can not give or withhold permission for anything. What I have done is give the benefit of my experience so that those considering can make the best choice that suits their and their car's needs.


In the interest of all, I think that some equivalent or stronger public "suggestions" might be made to those who make misleading and inaccurate statements.

Let the rule of reason prevail.

Fred you have the subtlety of a Cinder block thrown through a plate glass window.

if you have an early unit like i do, you have to MACHINE the tranny to accept the newer thicker bushings. It is not an issue of shaft or bushing wear, it is a matter of, like fred said, a change in the design that requires the tranny to be brought up to date.

Cortcomp; that does now ring a distant bell. My error. Can you identify for me the particular Packard service document that addresses this? I'd like to know more about it.

The Service Counselor article was cited, with copy attached, by member 56executive, in an 'Ultramatic Parts Question' thread from 2010.

The requirement for machining to accomodate the thicker bushings was noted in a couple of helpful posts from fred kanter - one in response to question posed by cortcomp in that thread. See his Post #19 and then Post #37 for details.

The factory advised of the new thicker, bushings and superseded parts and assemblies in SC Vol. 25, No. 5. There was no mention of machining; only complete assemblies were offered then, which may be NLA today.

That topic and article is shown in this site's Service Index, but because it was not specific as to years/Series affected, I had originally extended the application to 24th, as well as 23rd, Series. I have since revised that entry to show only 23rd Series in the 48-50 index and deleted the non-applicable entry in the 51-54 index.

Thank you BH for finding that info and posting it, it would have taken me ages to track it down.