Juicy Barn Find Update

[S2Deluxe]

Well. I thought it might be time to post a little update on the rare '56 Golden hawk I bought a few months ago. I posted it in an earlier thread that kind of went off track so I figured I'd start over and try to keep this thread updated on the original engine, as I make progress on the car. As a refresher, this Golden Hawk was found in a barn in the Tacoma area some years ago, and appears to have been sold originally with a very rare combination of desirable options: Manual Transmission with O.D., Power Steering, and Dual 4 Barrel Carburetors. Here are some pictures of the car as found:[ATTACH=CONFIG]66525[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]66526[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]66527[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]66528[/ATTACH]

Since then, it's been cleaned up some and brought home [ATTACH=CONFIG]66529[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]66530[/ATTACH]Yippee!
I am now knee deep in building the engine for it--er-- him ("Elbert"-- named after my late Hot Rod Uncle). This is going to be a fun build!

Hello Kenny,

Thank you so much for the updates! Please forgive my overwhelming curiosity? This is such a cool project your taking on! As I understand it, this is a '56 J you acquired a few months ago. With what appears to be a very early installation, of quite a bit of the factory proposed Jet Streak package. Installed on what I assume, is the original engine? Am I correct? Is it a 352" or a 274"? Does the block have a production order matching, stamped, K prefix, engine number? You've also posted pictures of an NOS 374" crate engine, you were able to acquire. Am I correct in assuming that, you chose to use this block, rather than the one that was in the car, to install all the components on, for the rebuilt engine you've posted pictures of? It looks like you're really doing, quite, a fantastic job with it! I don't think, I'm the only one here who very much appreciates every detail you've been willing to share? Keep it up and have as much Good luck with it, as possible!

Thanks,

Mark

[PackardV8]

What shift mechanism are you planning to use? You mentioned you're not going to drag it, but a performance build seeks it's own level. Just my preference, but since the early '60s, I've converted every Stude I've owned to floor shift; the Stude column shift doesn't cooperate with a speed whoop. A Hurst Syncro-Loc is the all-time best.

jack vines

[drrotor]

Well Jack, I was intending to use the stock linkage... some of it was missing, and was very hard to find all the replacement parts. I now have them all. However, the car was raced at some point earlier in it's life, because I found evidence of traction bars having been mounted on it before, as well as a hole in the floor where a floor shifter was previously! I kinda like the sleeper aspect of it looking all stock, but I'm always willing to listen. Does anyone have a Hurst Synchro-Lock available?

[jpepper]

Back to the driveline in the car. You mentioned a TT unit being used. It is a Dana Power lock which is bolted together with 8 3/8" grade 8 bolts. With enough applied torque (which you will have), the separating force generated by the ramp on the pinion shafts will yield the bolts. The result is you then loose the bolts clamp force and the joint starts moving. The movement shears all 8 bolts. Don't ask how I know this. The original bolts have 120,000 PSI tensile strength. When I build one I use ARP fasteners which are 180,000 or 195,000 PSI (depending on part #) and the problem goes away. I have experienced this with Dana 44, Dana 60, Chrysler, and GM axles using a power lock. Change the bolts in yours. It is cheap insurance.

[JoeHall]

As for floor shift v. column, it will probably speed shift quicker with a a good quality floor shift, and its a more natural motion of the arm to drop down to the floor shift, instead of coming up for column shift. However, the column shift can be restored to factory new shifting smoothness, if everything is properly cleaned, lubed and assembled. I have a column shift in the 62GT and the 56J, and they both shift as smoothly as they did when new, and the GT also has a T85 transmission, as does the 56J. I also had factory column shift in another 56Js of the past, which I drove about 10,000 miles, and it was factory smooth also. The only 56J I ever had with floor shift was in the late 1960s, in high school.

So granted, even if the column shift is working as new, a floor shift is more ergonomic, and quicker for most folks to shift. However, IMHO it crosses the line with a 56J, and destroys its original drive train. Also, old school traction bars will reduce wheel hop, but will also make it ride like a road wagon from the 1800s. So it depends on what you plan to do with the car. If planning to go farther than 1/4 mile at a time, I'd leave the traction bars off. If installing a floor shift, might as well go with GT bucket seats and console, and GT dash also, as that was a fairly common, "improvement" to earlier Hawks, as was the floor shift many folks installed back in the day.

[drrotor]

My intention with this car is to build it as though you, as some random wealthy and influential Buyer (which I am not), could have walked into Frost and French in 1956 and order up this car with the parts, colors, and options available at the time. Whether through the assembly line in Vernon where this one was built, or whether through the parts department, this is the way it could have been built in '56. I may be wrong, but I doubt the floor shifter was available that early, and even if it was, I think I agree with you, Joe-- I like the "Period Feel" of the column shift.
Recently, I took my Daughter-in-Law for a ride in my '57 Transtar, and she was utterly charmed by the fact that the shifter was on the column. "That's SO COOL! she said.

[PackardV8]

My intention with this car is to build it as though you, as some random wealthy and influential Buyer (which I am not), could have walked into Frost and French in 1956 and order up this car with the parts, colors, and options available at the time. Whether through the assembly line in Vernon where this one was built, or whether through the parts department, this is the way it could have been built in '56.

Agree, you are to be commended on staying true to your vision of the ideal '56J.

If installing a floor shift, might as well go with GT bucket seats and console, and GT dash also, as that was a fairly common, "improvement" to earlier Hawks,

Joe points out the very slippery slope when one begins to modify/customize/improve from the OEM specs. One can always rationalize why it's better that way. When I began building my custom '55 E12, that was the same vision I had of using anything in the S-P parts system. Like your installing '56 Caribbean engine in your '56J, I'd always felt S-P should have offered the Packard V8 in the trucks, so I did that for them. However, you have more self-discipline than I had. There was no usable S-P power steering for the C-cab, so I cheated and used GM. There was a factory AC setup for the Packard V8, but again, I wimped and collaborated with Vintage Air in developing the C-cab system. Cruise control makes highway trips possible again. All these not-period-correct alterations makes for a better driver, just not the ultimate mid-'50s truck I envisioned S-P could have built.

Again, congrats on sharing a great '56J build.

jack vines

[drrotor]

Today my awesome wife figured out a way to post these images of the camshaft and valve train documents from Studebaker's "Jet Streak" development process. The first one is the Jet Streak specific parts list that comprised the "Kit" available form the Studebaker Dealers
To me, this is very cool stuff to have found.
Next is the Isky supplied stuff that they engineered for Studebaker, with part numbers that are apparently no longer valid, at least to Isky... However, It does show that the jet Streak option did have Dual Valve springs to combat the tendency for valve float at high RPM's.
I was also fortunate to find the old drawings of the Jet Streak Solid-Lifter cam profile, which is the one I used to have Delta grind my new solid-lifter cam. This is a moderate performance grind, since Studebaker was engineering this to be a street-driven car.
I found it interesting that it has valve to rocker clearances that have been changed from .022 to .015, but I agree, that's a better clearance.
I had a long phone conversation with Iskenderian today and they dug up some very old records. They did up several different cams for the big Packards back in the day, up to and including a roller cam! in 1956! They found all the part numbers for the Jet Streak Project valve springs, adjustable push rods, and spring retainers. Wow. They are all still available. They are as follows:
Push rods #803L 3/8 tube, no oil hole, 9.718 body length not including adjuster. They are intended to be used with 426 Hemi solid lifters.
Outer springs: #305D
Inner Springs: #906RH
Spring Retainer #3607ST These springs make a seat pressure of 125 Lbs. and an open pressure of 300 Lbs. but at a .448 lift (a more aggressive cam). I figure the open pressure at .410 lift might be 275-280 lbs. but that's a guess at this point. My opinion is that the stock rockers and shafts should be fit to handle these pressures no problem.
Pretty interesting stuff, all this. I have more cool information coming for you Packard/Golden Hawk junkies coming up in the coming days...

[StudeRich]

Great Stuff Kenny, I wonder how long it will take Jack V. to build his own Hi-Perf Solid Lifter Packard Engine?

[Mrs K Corbin]

Just make sure you change to flanged axles in the rear.... You don't want a rear tire passing you.

[PackardV8]

Great Stuff Kenny, I wonder how long it will take Jack V. to build his own Hi-Perf Solid Lifter Packard Engine?

Rich, I've been building high performance solid lifter Packard engines for fifty years. This one uses the Isky solid roller Kenny mentions.



And always enjoy seeing more builds such as Kenny's come on board.

FWIW, Isky still has the profiles for all the Packard cams and can regrind them. They don't have the springs, lifters or pushrods available any longer. Two of those cams were hard-face-overlay for racing only, built up by welding and Isky can't supply those. The E4 is the mildest of the cam options and didn't require dual valve springs, but it's K's build and he has his own plans.

They are intended to be used with 426 Hemi solid lifters.

Very minor point, but the 426" hemi came along in '64 and uses a different lifter than the Packard V8 and Mopar early hemi.

jack vines

[DougHolverson]

What kind of huffer is that?

[j.byrd]

Looks like a Latham, but I've only seen them with side-draft carbs. Beautiful engine Mr. Vines !!!!

[drew72mgb]

Being the history buff 'pack-rat' that I am, I would be saving a hunk of the strapping with the PACKARD clip on it - maybe framing it to hang on the wall, with highlight photos of the build.

[drrotor]

Being the history buff 'pack-rat' that I am, I would be saving a hunk of the strapping with the PACKARD clip on it - maybe framing it to hang on the wall, with highlight photos of the build.

Great Idea. I had already saved the Packard Strapping-- it's hanging on my shop wall.