Packard Forum Index » General

I hesitate to post this on the modification forum, because the kits we've seen advertised are allegedly a bolt-in proposition, no butchering of the car whatsoever, and the drums can be reinstalled at anytime. That, and not everyone visits the mod forum, because some of the action there's beyond our interest, scope, tho' we wish everyone thereon success.

But first, i'm NOT interested in opinions on authenticity. Please, we've long since made our bones in that department. Can happily drive my '47 Super Clipper into the future with the factory drum brakes which work well.

Our interest here is in reducing unsprung weight. Again, some of us are interested--- at this point in our lives --in tailoring a Packard to suit US, not some dolt with a clipboard at a concours d'nonelegance or suburban shine and show. Been there, done that.

In the day, Packards were oft upgraded at the dealer, could have custom bodywork, and from firsthand experience, i can tell you the revered Darrins look in places like high school shop projects, no two alike, and have less than optimal ergonomics. Darrin himself cadged door handles from Terraplanes in junkyards, whatever struck his eye. Today, we have people fawning over and debating his every whim. It's comical.

Packard never produced anything like the sleek Bentley R- and S-Type Continentals-- despite the Silver Cloud/S-Series
introduced in the fall of '55 cribbing from East Grand Avenue to the extent that they looked like 1941-47 Clippers razor edged with curved, one-piece windshields. The R-Types/Silver Dawns copied nut for bolt Packard's Safe-t-fleX
IFS, while the S-Series/Silver Cloud used the GM-type IFS
for the same reason the 1941-47 Clippers used it: the lowered floor pan left no room for Saf-t-fleX's long torque arms. That, and perhaps and let's be realists, cost-cutting.
(Sadly, Packard, being only another also-ran after Alvan Macauley left at the same time as the pug ugly bathtubs which Tom McCahill called "a goat," instead clobbed another 200 lbs. of "sporty" nonsense on an otherwise bone stock convertible in the '50s, the Caribbean,
merely as they were more interested in following GM's lead.
Aping nonsense like Cadillac Eldorado, Buick Skylark when the Packard of the '20s and '30s would've anticipated the Bentley Continental instead.)

I offer the above only for perspective and because i want to underscore that we don't want to hear about "authenticity" ---not when it's a readily reversible, bolt-in proposition with NO alteration of the car as East Grand built it.

However, like all life, machines, cars, planes evolve.
Packards, like all cars, were built to a cost. A late friend with a Hispano J12 admitted they had too tall a first gear and innate clutch chatter. Duesenberg J front u-joints were a little skimpy. The Jag ue were XK engines in street cars and amateur racing events in the states were NOT the same blocks as campaigned at Le Mans, etc. Sir Donald Healey was the first to admit he might've preferred this or that in his 100-6 and 3000. There's no perfection,
tho' Packard came as close to the mark as anyone in the industry for the first half of the 20th Century.

I've gotten rid of over 110 lbs. of dead weight already, and am happy with the car as is, tho' i wish to hell Packard had made those heavy seat frames out of aluminum. Those of us considering this front disc set up drive sedately, baby our cars. Our principal interest is in reducing unsprung weight.

But, if there are real world drawbacks, glitches in these kits, we'd like to know.

So, with that preamble, we'd love to hear from anyone who's already installed such a kit in a 1941-47 Clipper only. No interest in anything after 1950, since the bathtubs are essentially the same suspension/brakes as the Clippers.

Here's the link to the Wilwood bolt-in front disc
conversion for 1941-and up Packards without Safe-t-Flex.
I don't know if it's the same as what Kanter offers:

http://www.wilwood.com/BrakeKits/Bra...emno=140-12724



As with my question about soft/hard blocks, please don't feel compelled to weigh in if you don't have the answer,
real world, firsthand experience. Lord knows, we don't, which is why I'm posting on behalf of us who are pondering front discs.

Many thanks, gentlemen.

I don't recall if anyone mentioned doing the conversion on a pre 51 but one question I'd ask of Wilwoods kit is contents. They say "bolt in" yet they only list one kit number for all models 41-56. My question would be is that just a convenient catch all part number or in fact are they exactly the same parts expected to fit all those years and models.

My question on Kanters kit based on experiences of a poster who installed one on a later car is the wheel lug or bolt size. His disc kit had a different size than what was already on the car. While not a big deal, it does mean two bolt sizes to contend with. Is that difference across the board or just on that one model's kit.

I had a conversation with a Packard friend at Salado regarding his experiences installing a disc brake kit on his 22nd or 23rd series Custom sedan. He has posted here on the projects blog section, but on someone else's project. It turned out not to be a bolt on job. Maybe he will see this and relate his story.

(o{}o)

Howard, he is the same person as you mentioned.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I'd be curious to see the effect on a V-8, or any Packard with easamatic PBs.

Would you also go to twin cylinders?

It seems to me that reducing unsprung weight in a Packard is somewhat oxymoronic (no offense intended); I'm much more concerned with safety.

Are you going to follow up by reducing the mass of sprung weight? What's next, a type 43 Packard?

That link didn't work for me. I'll try it again tho. However, how much is the unsprung weight reduced by???? It's not real clear to me why unsprung weight is even an issue with a passenger car used on modern day roads unless it is reduced by at least 25%.

Also need to examine how the caliper is anchored. Compare to modern PRODUCTION vehicles.

Keith try this link and then use their menu to find the Packard kitshttp://www.wilwood.com/BrakeKits

Thanks for the link HH56. I saw no weight specs for the kit. LOOKS like it would be at 25% lighter.
HOWEVER, look at the bracket that anchors the caliper. THEN go look at a PRODUCTION (Chev,F or C circa 1970 thru 1990's BIG cars) anchor for the caliper. Then think about it.

Let me put it another way:

GM, F and C did NOT design the caliper stay to span the FULL WIDTH OF THE CALIPER because 2 bolts thru one corner of the caliper and into a flat piece of steel OFF TO THE SIDE would be enuf.

That flat mounting bracket is probably good enuf for speeds up to 60 mph.

with all these disc brakes,,you need the dual res. right?

BTV will not work right?,,

IF I go disc, think I will mod the BTV, for a dual master cyl.

also I I think the pads should be same width as the Packard lining .

Wilwood looks small....

Not sure you would necessarily need a dual master -- other than for the safety aspect -- but without one I do think you would need a proportioning valve since discs take more pressure to lock up than drums do. Without some control rears could lock up while fronts were still thinking about it. MPBhttp://www.mpbrakes.com/ has a good tech support section that can answer or give recommendations to most questions or layouts. Others who have added discs might better answer the valve need based on their experience.

As far as keeping the BTV, letting the reliability question remain totally out of the picture for this discussion, I think the volume output would be marginal for a disc setup. Most of the masters designed for discs or disc/drums have a larger volume section to feed the discs and a smaller volume for the drums. I measured the output of a full stroke on a BTV and while I forger the exact number, was surprised that it was fairly small. MPB has some comments on the needed volume question as well.