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

The sender isn’t something that has to be replaced often (or even at all in many cases) so I can’t see why anyone would want to butcher the car with a hole in the floor. I’m replacing the sender in my 1951 Henney but only because it sat untouched for decades but under normal or even just occasional use, you should never have to touch it. Once fixed, it should stay fixed so why not just drop the tank and do it right the first time?

I agree, if you have the ability to, may as well take a couple extra hours and drop the tank. Safer too.

Yikes, I had assumed the reason to cut the door was to not have to drop the tank. I didn't read correctly- drop tank, then cut hole in case of an issue next time. I do understand the issue of sparks, gas and going boom. Cutting the unit wire and tank is an issue as well. I was going to use a cold cutting panel saw. Maybe I should rethink this. Sheet metal slid over the top is a good idea. Stay tuned but I think eveyone is correct, the tank probably should be dropped.

Attach file:

---

  IMG_3809.jpeg (39.22 KB)


  IMG_3808.jpeg (73.33 KB)

54packpac: I know this has all been covered earlier, but I would like to throw my 2¢ in.

I’m on the side of not cutting a hole, and assuming the fuel tank might be removed ultimately it comes down to whether the straps can be loosened. I know it’s not a Packard, but I dropped the 42 gallon tank in my Suburban to replace the fuel pump. That job is somewhat complicated by the design of the GM ‘easy-on’ hoses. I used a 1000 lb motorcycle jack to lower the tank . . . using a ½ ton jack is gross over kill, an empty tank with a few gallons of gas is not all that heavy, but the MC jack gave me a generous bearing area. When I was doing that job I sure wished GM had put a trap door for me to gain access, and I thought of putting one in as soon as the tank was removed. Ultimately there was a cargo floor stiffener right in the way, so that modification didn’t happen. Fast forward 6-7 years, and I had to replace the fuel pump in a Honda Civic. That car had a removable panel that once removed the pump was easily accessed. The whole job is done while kneeling in the back seat area . . . same with the Odyssey van, so some manufacture’s do include maintenance access panels. Even after experiencing the ease of the working on the Honda cars, I still don’t thing I would cut a hole in the Packard trunk floor. I worked with a former GM test engineer that had story after story of quick access holes they cut into their test mules. His estimate of fuel pump R&R times, they sounded more like NASCAR pit stop times, may have gotten me thinking about an access panel in the first place.

Back to syphoning the tank. The Packard design of placing the fill pipe in the bottom of the bottom sheet metal stamping makes syphoning most of the fuel out of the tank pretty easy. Even more fuel can be removed from the tank if you slightly jack-up the right side of the car. Pre-measure and mark the syphon hose length . . . you’ll want it to stop within ± ½ inch of entering the tank proper. The last bend in the filler pipe should push the hose to the bottom of the tank. If you decide to drain the tank take HH56’s advice on avoiding too much torque on the drain bung. Because of the possibility of damage to the bung I would syphon v drain, and please if you do decide to drop the tank don’t use your lungs as a source of initial vacuum to start the syphon.

IMO an access panel to replace an infrequently replaced part is questionable, but if you must would you consider cutting the hole after the tank is removed? It sounds like that is the current plan . . . subject to change. The two concerns are those already mentioned, that is, the potential of a stray spark, even though the description of the Eastwood tool claims that there will be no sparks. The second concern is damage to the bits and pieces between the trunk floor and the tank . . . that would also include the tank itself. If you press-on with the plan of cutting the panel with the tank installed, please roll the car outside.

Now we’re at the point where ‘best practices’ suggests removal the fuel tank to cut a maintenance access for the fuel level sender that may fail some years in the future. If you find the tank removal is relatively easy will you proceed with the modification? That would reduce the problem statement to expending some actual number of labor today adding the access panel to save some potential labor replacing a second sending unit in the future. An odometer makes a pretty good gas gauge, so I view a broken gas gauge as a maintenance action that can be deferred.

I’m out of pocket change. dp

Thank you David and everyone. I'm pretty much talked off the ledge. There will be no cutting. The gauge appears to have floated back. I surmise since the car was stored for the winter with a very low tank of gas, which I have never done before, the mechanical device was stuck when I recently filled the tank?
My sending unit is still suspect though. Maybe its too gummed up? Aside from clogging my fuel filter, does anyone think an enzyme added like Star Brite Star Tron fuel tank cleaner would do the trick?

Attach file:

---

  IMG_3810.jpeg (68.23 KB)

Tank cleaners require removing it and sloshing it around. I used the Hirsh system including sealer but their cleaner was less than satisfactory so I used another metal cleaning product instead that did a good job.

Thanks Don. My gauge has come back to life. I did add a small bottle of Star Tron enzyme. Thanks again for everyones help. Happy Easter!

TC

Attach file:

---

  IMG_3816.jpeg (226.87 KB)


  IMG_3815.jpeg (268.70 KB)


  IMG_3818.jpeg (217.27 KB)


  IMG_3819.jpeg (263.47 KB)


  IMG_3817.jpeg (176.85 KB)