Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

The Parts Book calls it a stabilizer assembly, the 1941 Data Book calls it a roll control bar and some folks call it a (anti) sway bar - anyway you call it, mine is now broken. The real problem is that it is NOT a repairable item. Something must be reproduced.

The problem seems to be with the design of the assembly. Each end of the bar attached to a link that is vulcanized in place. When Packard originally made the assembly they cut a slot in the link that ran N to S. At the end of the bar they stamped a "coin end" that went into the slot, then turned it 90 degrees, vulcanized the two pieces together and the end of the link was capped.

After 70+ years the rubber inside the connection turned to dust. After rattling around it wore through the side of the link and pulled out of the side of the link. Please see the photo attached.

This type of vulcanized connection was (as far as I know) used on the 1940, 1941, 1942 and at least the 1947 Clippers. By 1948 Packard improved the design by eliminating the vulcanized connection and went to the same "double rubber donut" design as used on the bottom of the link.

Here is my question for the group. I found a manufacturer that will reproduce the part for me, but using the IMPROVED 1948-type connection and not vulcanized. this would make it easier to repair in the future if needed. Naturally, the price of one is prohibitive and they need to do a minimum run of 25. The fix kit I envision would include: (1) two new links, (2) a new roll control bar with (3) ALL the hardware to bolt right onto your car without any modifications and (4) all items powder coated in black. The ballpark price should not exceed $285.

I am talking about part #358162 that fits the model 1903 and 1906 Packards - the 127" WB cars.

Models 1901A, 1903A, 1904, 1905, 1907 and 1908, have another part number (#358163) and MAY be different. So too with models 1900 and 1901 - they have part number #351694 which they share with the 1940 models of 1800,1801,1803 and 1806. The front end of all these frames should be similar, so I am wondering what, if any, is the real difference. If there is enough interest then I will look into those parts too.

As an aside, I wanted to see the difference between a 1903 bar and a 1901 bar so I looked at a friend's car. His bar was missing! And this is not an optional item. What obviously happened is that the bar broke and the previous owner eliminated it when he found out it could not be fixed. this may be the case with a number of our cars.

Meanwhile, I am continuing my research and I am attempting to get PMCC blueprints for the parts in question to give to the prospective manufacturer. Obviously, I will share my original part with them, but blueprints would be helpful. Once I get that stuff to them I can get a better estimate of the true cost.

Again, how many of you would be interested in this product?

Attach file:

---

  (82.91 KB)


  (170.23 KB)


  (54.43 KB)

Would be a nice package but sounds like several models might be needed. Guess for those totally missing, the best option unless parts cars are plentiful.

Another question might be possibly doing something along the lines of the existing except using pourable urethane instead of vulcanizing. Am not enough of a materials person to know if pourable urethane would be a viable option in this application though.

If an engineer type thought it would work, then make a cup affair out of tubing and rod -- If rods are all same length, then welded. If not, some type arrangement for variable lengths. Side would be drilled and prepared as the original for the bar opening but using a screw type or core type plug for the top.

After sealing the side opening with tape, if there was no tension on the assy it might even be able to be poured in place. Not sure how much difference in cups there are for different models but maybe a one size fits all approach would work and be a less expensive possibility.

Anyway, just a thought.

Yeah, I already thought about that route and it has several problems:

1) It does nothing for the guy that does not have an existing sway bar. And if they do find a used bar the rubber connection is 70+ years old.

2) New links would have to be designed as the original one is destroyed AND you would have to design it to be plugged at the top with a screw cap

3) The rubber connection is a poor design and Packard improved it after the war was over in 1947. The only thing preventing the coined bar end from pulling out (and destroying the link) is a thin wall of rubber that gets worn down and also drys out.

4) It would not be a complete fix kit - they would have to send parts to me, I would have to judge if they are good to re-use and then solving the rubber connection issue.

5) The cost would likely be more. I already asked a screw machine company the cost to make new links and they told me to go witth the improved design Packard used in used in 1948.

All valid points. Any concern about the authenticity crowd not partaking. Even improved, it's still offering a visible later design without documentation.

Ummm... The end of the control bar to link connection is hidden, up into the wheel well. I have an initial call into the Tech folks with PAC and their INITIAL assessment is that it is a safety issuem, it keeps Packards on the road and Packard recognized the need for improvement and did so in 1948.

Attached is a copy of the service notice that was printed in a December 1, 1948 Service Bulletin.

Speaking of authenticity, the car that had the MISSING control bar had been judged and several PAC National Meet and not once was he gigged for the missing bar.

Attach file:

---

  (70.45 KB)

Wonder what those replacement links consist of to work with the original bar but irregardless, bulletin pretty well covers it. That should absolve anyone contemplating a replacement purchase. Hopefully you can get by with the same two replacements. Would the vendor want 25 of each or just the total? If those are essentially the 48 items, maybe finding one of those complete assemblies with bar would be better to take for a quote.

Would think it is just a matter of making, pricing and advertising them -- although some being cheapskate types like me would wonder about how much freight is going to add to the total.

Not sure if this helps, Roger, but Ron Carpenter repairs the links.
Here's a photo of what you get (you have to provide your own urethane) when you provide your original beat up links.

Here are the instructions from Ron.
What to do is: THE VERY FIRST THING IS TO PUT ON SME RUBBER THROWAWAY GLOVES
1. Put a squirt of sealer in the bottom of the opening and put the first rubber in the hole.
2. Put some more sealer in the opening.
3. Put the link in the vice and holding the sway bar force it in to the opening and turn the swaybar sideways so that the ends of the sway bar are now flat against the rubber.
4. Put another squirt in the hole on top of the sway bar flat part and install another rubber.
5. Compress the freeze plug against the rubber until it is fully inside the end of the link and then drill a 1/8 hole thru the end of the cap and install the cotter pin to hold it all together.

I use a big clamp that I have modified the end of the clamp so that it goes around the shaft of the link and the flat end of the clamp holds the freeze plug in the end of the link and squeezes the unit together so that I can drill the end of the link where the freeze plug is being held in.

Hope that this helps.

Gary Brinton charged $125 for a sway bar that has links.The one he sent is at the top in the photo and does not fit my 40 1803. The bar has a flat section in the middle, which mine doesn't. I therefore decided to have Ron rebuild my links which I haven't installed yet. If that's the shape of your bar Gary may still have it, or David Moe might.

EDIT In the second lightened photo of the links you can see what Ron's repair looks like.

Attach file:

---

  (115.71 KB)


  (16.60 KB)


  (72.25 KB)

I had one of those very early 22nd series Custom 8s that had the 47-style front bar and links; problem with mine was the bar itself was broken and poorly repaired. I just bought a later style bar with the eyelet ends and new link kits and replaced the entire assembly. Even as a purist, if I had it to do again I'd make the same changeover, it's just a far easier design to service.

Hello Joe:

That is interesting. I also had a thought of doing something like that, but decided against it. What I would have done is had new links made for each side, but design them so that the top of the fitting had a screw thread so as to be able to tighten down the rubber inserts in order to get the proper compression and resistance of the rubber.

I don't understand how drilling a hole through the part to hold down the replacement cap can be accomplished and have the proper compression of the rubber. As you see from the drawing in my first post that Packard was very particular how the double donut rubbers were tightened down to 1 5/8th inches for proper compression

Another issue is you MUST be able to center the bar's "coin-shaped" end into the very center of the top of the link. Because the last thing you want is the "coin" to rub against the inside wall and eventually pull out - just as my link did.

I agree with Owen on this one. Using a bar with the eyelet ends with double rubber donuts at each end of the link would be: (1) far easier to service (2) far easier to install and (3) could not pull out like the older design.

I will continue to work on an improved design and keep you guys posted.

--Roger--

Attach file:

---

  (18.03 KB)

Hello all. I got my replacements from Rod Carpenter, he does nice work and is easy to work with.

Fred D