Discussions on Henney and other makers of specialty Packard vehicles.
I don't have anything to add to the question but here are a few general Henney-Packard tidbits. I am in the midst of digitizing to database format the Packard parts books and was surprised to see how many small parts fit only 1951 when I would have expected them to be the same between all the '51 to '54 models. However, there is another external difference between '51 and '52 Henney-Packards that isn't as obvious. The rear door stone guards on '51 were cast-iron while they were cast-brass for 1952! At least this was true on the two I owned, my '51 being a very late model (September '51) and my '52 being a very early model (also September '51) which, coincidentally, is also my birthday.Howard56 wrote:51 and 52 Packard built cars are almost identical, the major difference being removal of the Packard name on the front of the hood and a Packard crest added to the grille in its place.
Don, really - a trim piece in cast iron? That would be such a terrible choice of material it seems incomprehensible. Are you sure it's not cast steel, or even stamped. If you wanted a chromium plated part there would be no choice worse than cast iron.
I would have thought so too but if they were cast-steel, they were quite porous. The plater also thought they were cast-iron and didn't even want to try plating them but I talked them into it by the simple fact that they had been plated before so could be again. I can tell you I sure had a surprise when removing them as they were very heavy as you can imagine. I had to support them with a block while removing the nuts inside the door. It wasn't just the stone guards but also the smaller louvered plates behind them that were of the same material. The car, being a combination, weighed "only" 5600 lbs while the Nu-3-Way weighed 6200 lbs so I guess the cast-brass didn't make much difference in getting the weight down.