Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Thanks much. That is about as concrete a proof as anyone could ask for in determining what was there. The AC book must have been right after all. The date the part was added in relation to early production cars is kind of interesting though.

As someone said earlier, a lot of folks are going to be surprised. With that number replaced with wires by Stude mgt, guess they are technically both correct.

Yes, we now have irrefutable evidence that more than one type of clamp is acceptable for the radiator hose. In fact, it looks like there could have been THREE (or more) types, if you consider that the drawing for 473183 shows "OPTIONAL DESIGNS".

Notice that the "1955 clamp1" image shows a solid band design. This is similar what is shown in the AC install and perhaps even the top hose of my Carib Hardtop survivor. Moreover, the profile is virtually identical to the general illustration of the band type, screw-adjusting clamp shown in the Utility section of the 55-56 parts book.

However, the "1955 clamp2" image shows a slotted or split band design, with slightly different end details. I sold a bunch of used clamps of that style, in sizes for radiator and heater hoses, to a local fellow with an unrestored 1950 Pontiac who was looking for authentic replacements for some of his badly rusted (and a few missing) originals.

Since the spring wire clamp later superseded the band clamp, I suspect that original solid-band design - might now be unobtainable, new.

There was a vendor at the Macungie PA flea market last weekend who had a box with hundreds of loose NOS hoseclamps in a variety of sizes like those in the two Packard engineering drawings. They were 25 cents each, some a bit oxidized and some very pristine.

I probably should have looked thru them further but I was more interested in some other items, also at 25 cents (everything in his tent was the same price). I got a nice NOS set of AutoLite brush springs and holders, some Echlin distributor cap carbon brushes and springs, etc.

Attach file:

---

  (51.75 KB)

BH,

I have been looking at the Bob Aller CD's that the KC region sells. Look at Packard-Chicago zone bulletin dated May 10, 1954, # CZS-54-9

It discusses supersession records. I will not print it since it is copyrighted, and the proceeds go to the PPG.

It might help with the discussion of superseded part numbers.

Pretty much SOP, compared to my experience with GM and (to a much lesser extent) Chrysler, but it's difficult to enforce such a policy in 100% of all cases.

For example, when there's a change addressing a shortcoming of design or quality control, you can't simply wait until the inferior goods just work their way out the other end of the supply chain. Consider the one letter to dealers in our archive, regarding an issue with V8 rocker levers, in the 1956 Parts and Accessories Bulletins/Letters article.

Meanwhile, know that I had also checked a Packard parts price list from December of 1956, and it still showed both P/N 426913 and 473183 as "active". However, it's impossible for me to say what happened between then and 1966.

I should add that the two images provided by ECAnthony appear to be from different areas of the same drawing (yet, don't quite cover the entire document). Also, the negative nature of the image suggests that the source document is a blueprint copy (for field-use) made from the original engineering drawing, which would have been rendered in pencil or ink on translucent vellum paper. A true blueprint is only a snapshot in time, and it's entirely possible that the original engineering drawing might have some other notation recorded (later, in the table provided for "ALTERATION" information) that may have precipitated the supersession - provided Studebaker kept up with the original documents.

In the absence of other evidence, my gut feeling is that stock of one type of clamp was being exhausted, and Studebaker no longer wanted to maintain inventory of two types of clamps, but use a single, alternate type that they still had plenty of on-hand.

Bottom line: it's a "factory-approved" substitute.

Hi:

I have to apologize to all as I have been off line for 'literally' years. Too much work, too many projects, too little time... lots of excuses.


Anyhow, I started this post and it was of a lot of help to me, so I want to thank you all for your input. In the end, I guess I made some mistakes, as many of you pointed out with the engine color which may be a Little off, and I didn't finish the engine bay completely and still have ?tems to do, like find the plumbing material to cover the tubes comming out of the heater box, like Randy suggested.

I started the whole work on the engine bay area because I had a transmission problem (Chrysler, not the original), so I had to have a new adapting ring, rebuild the transmission, and it all took a lot of work. Luckily for me, a friend is the engineering manager at a firm manufacturing transmissions (Tremec) so he helped a lot and directed me with the correct people to make a perfect coupling ring which got the transmission into it's correct position... and to make a long story short, the car now shifts well... or almost well, as I still have to adjust the downshifting and also to correct a heavy steering (I probably filled it in with a wrong type of fluid, so I need to find out the correct one and change it). I also need to sort out a few electrical problems. But I am happy to report that I have been using the car on a daily basis for over a few weeks now and it performs mostly well.

I am posting a series of pictures of how the engine bay looks today, after sitting in the shop for months and seeing some road use.

Any criticizing is more than welcome. What I can correct easily, I will do, of course. That, I am afraid, does not include the bronze tone of the engine, which will remain as is at least for a good while.

Thanks again for all the input!!!

Victor

I can't load the pics!! Server responds: "Protector detects attacking actions"

Any hints as to what I am doing wrong?

Make sure the titles are not long, does not have a lot of numbers or any periods separating numbers for a start. I get that same message when I try to post a screenshot which has the date and then the time separated by dots between the sets of numbers.

Pics...

Feel free to criticize! I will take it on the good side and learn from it!

thanks,
victor

Attach file:

---

  (115.14 KB)


  (107.83 KB)


  (121.31 KB)


  (108.87 KB)

Very nice! Nothing really to criticize but I see a couple of minor things right off. At your convenience if you add a couple of more tiny but missing details I think it will be top notch.

There appears to be missing a couple of grommets on the heater core tubes which cover the openings into the box to keep air from moving in or out and there could be a clamp used on the heater hose on the side of rocker cover.

Steele sells the grommets but many have used ordinary split type round foam pipe insulation from the hardware store to make their own. Advantage to using that material is you won't have to remove the hoses completely to install the grommets.

Second photo is of an extremely low mileage original car and shows a clamp which goes on the upper water manifold bolt. That clamp was discussed a couple of years ago with a question if it was used on all cars. Not sure it can fit on a dual carb setup because of the fuel filter but if it can It holds the hose to the side of rocker cover rather than going over the top.

Another question is the engine side of battery ground cable. Most photos show it slightly lower on the heavier front bolt or stud holding oil filter to head instead of on the rocker cover bolt. I'm thinking it might have a better connection on the 3/8 filter bolt which threads solidly into the head rather than a smaller bolt with a thick gasket between.

Attach file:

---

  (18.72 KB)


  (17.70 KB)