Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1956-1958 Hot Rod Wagons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I really like the red & white. I saw in a magazine (that I didn't save) one that was dark green and beige that really looked good too.
    Tom - Bradenton, FL

    1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
    1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by t walgamuth View Post
      That looks nice!

      How much does a Packard v8 weigh?
      This Packard V8 is installed in a 1956 Packard Clipper 2dr HT that held several dragstrip records back in the day. The car was pulled out of a field where it had been 'retired', and has been completely restored. This Packard is all black, with a cool louvered hood, and, naturally, has the 3speed O/D transmission! Dual carbs have been updated to Holleys, originals were Rochester 4GC's.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Packard8 View Post
        I've seen figures of 698# and 705# listed as the dry weight of a 1956 Packard 374 V8. Probably only 20-30# more than a Stude 289. However in the '56 GH, the weight was more forward and higher than a 289 Stude engine in a Sky Hawk which would account for the nose-heavy handling impressions reported by contemporary road testers. RE transplanting into a Stude wagon, I doubt that the extra few pounds would present a problem, unless you plan on road racing...
        This was my thought. For cruising and the very occasional trip down the drag strip, I would think it wouldn't pose a problem. It might even tow a vintage travel trailer. The idea isn't to build a dragster, but a comfortable cruiser. Add a 4L80E and who knows, I might even get 20 MPG out of it...

        This would make a great engine in a Scotsman 2-door sedan too...
        Last edited by Swifster; 09-09-2013, 04:57 PM.
        Tom - Bradenton, FL

        1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
        1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Swifster View Post
          This was my thought. For cruising and the very occasional trip down the drag strip, I would think it wouldn't pose a problem. It might even tow a vintage travel trailer. The idea isn't to build a dragster, but a comfortable cruiser. Add a 4L80E and who knows, I might even get 20 MPG out of it...

          This would make a great engine in a Scotsman 2-door sedan too...
          I believe a 20 MPG cruiser would be doable. I originally had this engine in a 56 GH with a T85/OD and a 3:08 axle. I never had the speedo corrected, but it showed about 1800-1900 RPM at 68-70 MPH (clocked by a modern car alongside) and was just loafing along with the rear venturis closed. A Scotsman would be cool, and you wouldn't need to worry about towng with 400+ Lbs of torque. (better beef up the suspension & brakes, tho).
          Attached Files
          1996 Impala SS
          1967 Jag XKE FHC
          1963 Avanti R2
          1963 Avanti R1
          1956 Packard Patrician
          1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
          1909 Hupmobile Model 20

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Packard8 View Post
            I've seen figures of 698# and 705# listed as the dry weight of a 1956 Packard 374 V8. Probably only 20-30# more than a Stude 289. However in the '56 GH, the weight was more forward and higher than a 289 Stude engine in a Sky Hawk which would account for the nose-heavy handling impressions
            Glad to see that you're paying attention!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Packard8 View Post
              I believe a 20 MPG cruiser would be doable. I originally had this engine in a 56 GH with a T85/OD and a 3:08 axle. I never had the speedo corrected, but it showed about 1800-1900 RPM at 68-70 MPH (clocked by a modern car alongside) and was just loafing along with the rear venturis closed. A Scotsman would be cool, and you wouldn't need to worry about towng with 400+ Lbs of torque. (better beef up the suspension & brakes, tho).
              Just curious. If yo. Had this in a GH why did you pull it and dress it for the sea? Do you a boat planned for it, and what happened to the GH? I think Jack is building a Packard powered hot rod truck as we speak.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by shifter4 View Post
                Another not in the '56'-'58 bracket , but this is nice :
                I have forgotten where I grabbed the pic , apologies in advance if I am doing wrong.

                A Nomad style Stude..

                I like it!

                Comment


                • #83
                  [QUOTE=Nox;776947]When I was gonna start with my project loads of folx told me the sedans had more headroom under the hood & that I probably wouldn't be able to fit the torqueflite under the tunnel...
                  ...So whatever mr SN-60 says: if you aint tried it you do NOT really know yet.
                  & yeah, I believed it all & cut the tunnel & had to weld it close again, all for nothing AND there's a small dent in my hood from the not-so-high headroom... but that's okidoki; it's my own car & aint gonna be sold!

                  You dont even have to put up with the dent.... just use shorter motor mounts. I use Volvo or some other makers, that I can't think of just now. I go to the NAPA parts store and browse the book with the motor and trans mounts and find one that looks the same, but shorter. It'll give you up to 3/4" of extra clearance. Just keep an eye on your lower pan and pulley to keep them from touching the bell crank.
                  sals54

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Well Sal: the engine is sitting so low that it touched the steering arm under the pan so I had to ad plates under the engine-mounts.
                    & the engine-mounts are boat-stuff, a little harder than the car mounts.
                    I've been wrestling a lot with the clearance issue, like different carb's & lowering the air-filter over it & even moving the engine slightly to passenger side & tilting it a bit... yep, I've been on to it for the whole last winter.
                    The thing is that I want it to look old under the hood, & I mean: LOOK OLD! ...+ having LPG installed.
                    & I do NOT wanna have the pipe-from-carb-to-the-filter-aside-look.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	StudeMopMoreReady2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	132.8 KB
ID:	1683614

                    This picture was taken last week, since then the fan-shield has been installed again for the front-light electrix & the old loox & other valve-covers will go on for a while when it's going to the main test for getting out on the road.

                    But then: this aint no Packard engine & not a 56-58 & not a wagon...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Nox, Sorry about that. I went back to re-read your posts. I forgot that you were dealing with a Mopar installation. You've been through the ringer on this already, haven't you?? It all looks good in there, though. Is there a low rise manifold available for your engine? I thought the Edlebrock type carbs were shorter than the Holley style. Are they not? Or perhaps not enough to make much difference? That is surprising.
                      How about using a low clearance lower section of an air cleaner with an old looking top mounted to it to give it the look you want?
                      When I was young and too poor to buy a nice chrome air cleaner, I used a stock Mopar air cleaner for my early style AFB. I could not use the adapter cuz of the same hood clearance issues. So I got tin snips to meticulously cut away the outer portion of the air cleaner top to show off the air filter and bent the lower portion lower the height. Then had to install the shortest 14 inch air cleaner I could find. I think I painted it red for that real custom look.... ugh.
                      Good luck on your quest.
                      sals54

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Nox View Post
                        Well Sal: the engine is sitting so low that it touched the steering arm under the pan so I had to ad plates under the engine-mounts.
                        & the engine-mounts are boat-stuff, a little harder than the car mounts.
                        I've been wrestling a lot with the clearance issue, like different carb's & lowering the air-filter over it & even moving the engine slightly to passenger side & tilting it a bit... yep, I've been on to it for the whole last winter.
                        The thing is that I want it to look old under the hood, & I mean: LOOK OLD! ...+ having LPG installed.
                        & I do NOT wanna have the pipe-from-carb-to-the-filter-aside-look.

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]27365[/ATTACH]

                        This picture was taken last week, since then the fan-shield has been installed again for the front-light electrix & the old loox & other valve-covers will go on for a while when it's going to the main test for getting out on the road.

                        But then: this aint no Packard engine & not a 56-58 & not a wagon...
                        Have you thought about a marine style silencer/spark arrestor? (see photo in post 81 above). Not as efficient in dusty areas, but they look pretty cool and are available in a variety of heights from about one to three inches. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Barbron-high...354b32&vxp=mtr
                        1996 Impala SS
                        1967 Jag XKE FHC
                        1963 Avanti R2
                        1963 Avanti R1
                        1956 Packard Patrician
                        1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
                        1909 Hupmobile Model 20

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by GThawkwind View Post
                          Just curious. If yo. Had this in a GH why did you pull it and dress it for the sea? Do you a boat planned for it, and what happened to the GH? I think Jack is building a Packard powered hot rod truck as we speak.
                          The 56J had a lot of rust issues, and I sold it to a guy who already had a 352 and was not interested in paying what I needed to get for the built up 374. I had a 1955 320 cid marine conversion laying around with a questionable block so I combined the two to make a marine 374. If I don't find a cool old runabout that needs an engine I'll likely sell the 374 to someone who can put it to good use.
                          1996 Impala SS
                          1967 Jag XKE FHC
                          1963 Avanti R2
                          1963 Avanti R1
                          1956 Packard Patrician
                          1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
                          1909 Hupmobile Model 20

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I would make a little two seater speed boat with that engine.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Well thanx for the support, but I still want the engine to look really old & tame with the kind of air-cleaner I already have.
                              A lower intake manifold would be great but as I first want to get the stuff out on the road & I'm without work at the moment I can't afford that & the same goes for the carb.
                              So you can be sure that I wouldn't say no to to either of it but since nobody want to give it for free I guess I just have to wait...
                              Or get really-really surprised...?

                              One can only hope!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Nox View Post
                                Well thanx for the support, but I still want the engine to look really old & tame with the kind of air-cleaner I already have.
                                A lower intake manifold would be great but as I first want to get the stuff out on the road & I'm without work at the moment I can't afford that & the same goes for the carb.
                                So you can be sure that I wouldn't say no to to either of it but since nobody want to give it for free I guess I just have to wait...
                                Or get really-really surprised...?

                                One can only hope!
                                I think I understand the "old look" that you want. I'd consider the side mount air cleaners used on 1953-55 C/K cars...it would be period correct I think it shows off the carb well rather than hiding it like the one you have now. There are plenty of these to be had cheap, but be sure you get the one with the shorter rise on the air horn for the coupe not the sedan.

                                http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...Q9QEwAw&dur=77
                                1996 Impala SS
                                1967 Jag XKE FHC
                                1963 Avanti R2
                                1963 Avanti R1
                                1956 Packard Patrician
                                1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
                                1909 Hupmobile Model 20

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X