13 Months latter

[Guest imported_Speedster]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 39Super8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. </div></div>

So, what does she think of her present Now?

I know my wife Really Likes her Packard Presents, since they keep me Out of the house. LOL

[Guest imported_Speedster]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 39Super8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. </div></div>

So, what does she think of her present Now?

I know my wife Really Likes her Packard Presents, since they keep me Out of the house. LOL

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 39Super8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. </div></div>

So, what does she think of her present Now?

I know my wife Really Likes her Packard Presents, since they keep me Out of the house. LOL </div></div>

Hi Rick,

You know, we have a number of antique and classic vehicles. Debbie fell in love with my long time friends 40 180 club sedan after all going out one evening about 17-18 years ago. I had a number of post war Packards years ago and really enjoyed them, but swore I would never buy another Packard unless it was a pre-war super. She nagged me for the next 16-17 years about getting “a Packard like Dan’s”

She has been very patient, and even willing to pitch in where she could. Normally she could not care less about what I am doing to what vehicle. I give her credit for truly loving and enjoying Packard automobiles.

She is just thrilled! She loves going out and about in the car, and I am afraid if I don’t get the water pump changed this weekend, I may be a lonely fellow Saturday night! LOL

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 39Super8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. </div></div>

So, what does she think of her present Now?

I know my wife Really Likes her Packard Presents, since they keep me Out of the house. LOL </div></div>

Hi Rick,

You know, we have a number of antique and classic vehicles. Debbie fell in love with my long time friends 40 180 club sedan after all going out one evening about 17-18 years ago. I had a number of post war Packards years ago and really enjoyed them, but swore I would never buy another Packard unless it was a pre-war super. She nagged me for the next 16-17 years about getting “a Packard like Dan’s”

She has been very patient, and even willing to pitch in where she could. Normally she could not care less about what I am doing to what vehicle. I give her credit for truly loving and enjoying Packard automobiles.

She is just thrilled! She loves going out and about in the car, and I am afraid if I don’t get the water pump changed this weekend, I may be a lonely fellow Saturday night! LOL

[Guest]

For those of you who have pre-war "Senior" Packard motors, and are contemplating an engine over-haul, let me suggest that you do NOT need to go thru all of the machine-work discussed above.

Yes, Federal Mogul and Packard engineers got a little "carried away" by their fear of the "side thrust" issue.

Their fears were groundless. Their "flanged" type "insert" was WAY unnecessary over-kill. NO modern production automobile connecting rod bearing, ANYPLACE in the world that I am aware of, has the "lip" that Packard and Federal Mogul felt was necessary. To be fair, this was at the "dawn" of "insert" rod bearing evolution, so give the guys a break - again, in THEORY, it was a good, quality idea. But in practice, millions upon millions of auto engine production since the late 1930's, proves beyond discussion that the "side thrust" issue isnt a problem.

I dont know what I did with my copies of bearing dimension charts, so I cant tell you which currently available connecting rod bearings can be used in pre war "Senior" Packard engines. Anyway, my stuff is out-of-date.

As for preparing pre-war "Senior" Packard connecting rods for adapting currently avail. rod bearings, all you need do, is ACCURATELY hone out your existing connecting rod "big ends" to get the proper dimensions "spec'd" by the bearing manufacturer, for proper "crush". And, of course, make sure you have enough depth in the milled-out section for the "tang" that prevents the shell of the insert from spinning inside the rod.

As for the side-play, yes, you do have to fill in the void left by the deletiion of the "flange" on the "stock" bearings. I think it is a VERY unwise shop practice to weld on connecting rods. For example, the connecting rod material in the 1935-1939 Twelve is a chrome molly forging, with the rod bolt forged as part of the rod itself. Monkeying around with temp. extremes on that is ASKING for connecting rod failure.

To fill in the void left by the use of current "inserts" in place of the "stock" flanged type, we used to simply BRAZE a few little bronze "[censored]" at about 45 degrees apart, then grind off these "[censored]" to about the same over-all width as the original "flanged" bearing. That way, you dont have to raise the temp. of the rod bearing surface, to the point where metalurgical changes may occur.

Yes, you can NOT assemble a 320 in. "standard" eight (the '37-39 "super" eights, again, were actually "standard eights") the way you do a modern engine. Takes two people if done in the car - one to push the rod up from UNDERNEATH, the other to reach from above, grab the rod, and push the piston-pin thru. We have the same assembly problem on the Packard Twelve. Its 3 7/16 bore is too small to permit dropping the big-end of the connecting rod down from above.

Yeah, there is a lot of over-kill in pre war Packard engines. Roller tappets ? The industry got along fine with much cheaper "slider" type tappets many years afterwards. Yes, the industry has gone back to roller tappets, but only because cam profiles are much wilder now, requiring them.

But again, ANY pre-war Packard will be a joy to its owner if properly restored. ANY pre-war Packard. No, dont expect a thousand dollar car to be able to do the same job as a three thousand dollar car (in today's money, a three thousand dollar car would be up around $60,000. in equiv. dollar value). Be ASSURED that Packard's three thousand dollar cars gave as good a value for THAT kind of money, as their ONE thousand dollar cars gave for theirs.

But in ANY event, a little common sense at over-haul time, will go a long way to getting your Packard to the point that it will do what it was designed to do - at least in my opinion - give you the best damn car for the money PERIOD !

[Guest]

For those of you who have pre-war "Senior" Packard motors, and are contemplating an engine over-haul, let me suggest that you do NOT need to go thru all of the machine-work discussed above.

Yes, Federal Mogul and Packard engineers got a little "carried away" by their fear of the "side thrust" issue.

Their fears were groundless. Their "flanged" type "insert" was WAY unnecessary over-kill. NO modern production automobile connecting rod bearing, ANYPLACE in the world that I am aware of, has the "lip" that Packard and Federal Mogul felt was necessary. To be fair, this was at the "dawn" of "insert" rod bearing evolution, so give the guys a break - again, in THEORY, it was a good, quality idea. But in practice, millions upon millions of auto engine production since the late 1930's, proves beyond discussion that the "side thrust" issue isnt a problem.

I dont know what I did with my copies of bearing dimension charts, so I cant tell you which currently available connecting rod bearings can be used in pre war "Senior" Packard engines. Anyway, my stuff is out-of-date.

As for preparing pre-war "Senior" Packard connecting rods for adapting currently avail. rod bearings, all you need do, is ACCURATELY hone out your existing connecting rod "big ends" to get the proper dimensions "spec'd" by the bearing manufacturer, for proper "crush". And, of course, make sure you have enough depth in the milled-out section for the "tang" that prevents the shell of the insert from spinning inside the rod.

As for the side-play, yes, you do have to fill in the void left by the deletiion of the "flange" on the "stock" bearings. I think it is a VERY unwise shop practice to weld on connecting rods. For example, the connecting rod material in the 1935-1939 Twelve is a chrome molly forging, with the rod bolt forged as part of the rod itself. Monkeying around with temp. extremes on that is ASKING for connecting rod failure.

To fill in the void left by the use of current "inserts" in place of the "stock" flanged type, we used to simply BRAZE a few little bronze "[censored]" at about 45 degrees apart, then grind off these "[censored]" to about the same over-all width as the original "flanged" bearing. That way, you dont have to raise the temp. of the rod bearing surface, to the point where metalurgical changes may occur.

Yes, you can NOT assemble a 320 in. "standard" eight (the '37-39 "super" eights, again, were actually "standard eights") the way you do a modern engine. Takes two people if done in the car - one to push the rod up from UNDERNEATH, the other to reach from above, grab the rod, and push the piston-pin thru. We have the same assembly problem on the Packard Twelve. Its 3 7/16 bore is too small to permit dropping the big-end of the connecting rod down from above.

Yeah, there is a lot of over-kill in pre war Packard engines. Roller tappets ? The industry got along fine with much cheaper "slider" type tappets many years afterwards. Yes, the industry has gone back to roller tappets, but only because cam profiles are much wilder now, requiring them.

But again, ANY pre-war Packard will be a joy to its owner if properly restored. ANY pre-war Packard. No, dont expect a thousand dollar car to be able to do the same job as a three thousand dollar car (in today's money, a three thousand dollar car would be up around $60,000. in equiv. dollar value). Be ASSURED that Packard's three thousand dollar cars gave as good a value for THAT kind of money, as their ONE thousand dollar cars gave for theirs.

But in ANY event, a little common sense at over-haul time, will go a long way to getting your Packard to the point that it will do what it was designed to do - at least in my opinion - give you the best damn car for the money PERIOD !

[1935Packard]

<span style="font-style: italic"> I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it.</span>

I don't know if you've done into detail on this, but did you buy it sight unseen?

[1935Packard]

<span style="font-style: italic"> I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it.</span>

I don't know if you've done into detail on this, but did you buy it sight unseen?

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1935Packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic"> I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it.</span>

I don't know if you've done into detail on this, but did you buy it sight unseen? </div></div>

I did buy the car sight unseen. I went through a number of pictures, and figured the car was a solid enough tour car. The car was sold through a broker.

I do want to say, the previous owner put a lot of money into this car. He paid many people to do work they should be ashamed of. The previous owner did his very best to do right by the car, and should be commended.

There are actually old threads here about the car, and it being out and about. No one could have known the rod bearings were getting ready to let go.

The broker on the other hand should have known better! I did get the car fairly reasonable, but I can’t believe they did not know so much stuff had been switched (I am sure the owner before the previous switched luggage rack, air cleaner and so on) and so much of the car was inoperable. I relied on the broker (a business specializing in Packards) to give a fair and accurate description. They did cosmetically, but not functionally. I am not going to name the broker, as I do not feel this was done out of malice.

What the heck, if not for all the tinkering, would it really be ours? LOL

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1935Packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic"> I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it.</span>

I don't know if you've done into detail on this, but did you buy it sight unseen? </div></div>

I did buy the car sight unseen. I went through a number of pictures, and figured the car was a solid enough tour car. The car was sold through a broker.

I do want to say, the previous owner put a lot of money into this car. He paid many people to do work they should be ashamed of. The previous owner did his very best to do right by the car, and should be commended.

There are actually old threads here about the car, and it being out and about. No one could have known the rod bearings were getting ready to let go.

The broker on the other hand should have known better! I did get the car fairly reasonable, but I can’t believe they did not know so much stuff had been switched (I am sure the owner before the previous switched luggage rack, air cleaner and so on) and so much of the car was inoperable. I relied on the broker (a business specializing in Packards) to give a fair and accurate description. They did cosmetically, but not functionally. I am not going to name the broker, as I do not feel this was done out of malice.

What the heck, if not for all the tinkering, would it really be ours? LOL

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give Cal my regards next time you talk to him. You cant go wrong taking advantage of Cal's knowledge and his services (that is, IF you listen to him ! )

As for the side-play, yes, you do have to fill in the void left by the deletiion of the "flange" on the "stock" bearings. I think it is a VERY unwise shop practice to weld on connecting rods. For example, the connecting rod material in the 1935-1939 Twelve is a chrome molly forging, with the rod bolt forged as part of the rod itself. Monkeying around with temp. extremes on that is ASKING for connecting rod failure.

</div></div>

Which of your sage and genius advice should I have followed concerning my “super 8 but not really super 8 fake because its not a V-12 or 384” or what ever you choose to call it; should I have followed? Cal’s instructions as told to me by him, as you so generously said should be done in an earlier post, and latter described by Bill Lauer PI founder and former owner and founder of Custom Auto Service, or should I have blobbed some brass on the sides of the rods and filed them down as you have so graciously described? Why heck, every engine manufacturer must be completely foolish for specifying connecting rod side clearance! No need to control oil flow out of the running bearing clearance. Heck, who knows maybe you know more than any of the engineers do!

Let me make this as simple as I can. If you were to walk into a Packard dealership in 1939 and buy a super 8 what engine would it have? Oh I know the answer!!! a 320. Your fake vs. real opinions are offensive!

I listened to individuals we all agree deserve our consideration. Right wrong or indifferent, it’s done! Start your own post about how this should have been done!

You know, I am still sure you are an ok fellow. I think if you could just get beyond all the V-12 and 384 is the only real Packard deal, and show a little common consideration for all Packards, maybe folks would have more patents with you. You choose to be condescending, abrasive, pampas, and annoying! Stop it!

Like I said in an earlier post, someone would be sure to pop up and tell me it was all wrong, and here you are! Thanks...

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give Cal my regards next time you talk to him. You cant go wrong taking advantage of Cal's knowledge and his services (that is, IF you listen to him ! )

As for the side-play, yes, you do have to fill in the void left by the deletiion of the "flange" on the "stock" bearings. I think it is a VERY unwise shop practice to weld on connecting rods. For example, the connecting rod material in the 1935-1939 Twelve is a chrome molly forging, with the rod bolt forged as part of the rod itself. Monkeying around with temp. extremes on that is ASKING for connecting rod failure.

</div></div>

Which of your sage and genius advice should I have followed concerning my “super 8 but not really super 8 fake because its not a V-12 or 384” or what ever you choose to call it; should I have followed? Cal’s instructions as told to me by him, as you so generously said should be done in an earlier post, and latter described by Bill Lauer PI founder and former owner and founder of Custom Auto Service, or should I have blobbed some brass on the sides of the rods and filed them down as you have so graciously described? Why heck, every engine manufacturer must be completely foolish for specifying connecting rod side clearance! No need to control oil flow out of the running bearing clearance. Heck, who knows maybe you know more than any of the engineers do!

Let me make this as simple as I can. If you were to walk into a Packard dealership in 1939 and buy a super 8 what engine would it have? Oh I know the answer!!! a 320. Your fake vs. real opinions are offensive!

I listened to individuals we all agree deserve our consideration. Right wrong or indifferent, it’s done! Start your own post about how this should have been done!

You know, I am still sure you are an ok fellow. I think if you could just get beyond all the V-12 and 384 is the only real Packard deal, and show a little common consideration for all Packards, maybe folks would have more patents with you. You choose to be condescending, abrasive, pampas, and annoying! Stop it!

Like I said in an earlier post, someone would be sure to pop up and tell me it was all wrong, and here you are! Thanks...

[Guest]

I am unable to find anyone in this "thread" calling your car a "fake", or otherwise depreciating your car.

If you would go back and read my posts, I think you will find me praising ANY Packard of that era, as a great buy in its price range. Again, READ my posts. ANY Packard!

All of us are destined to, eventually, run across somebody or something bigger, faster, better, etc., than what we have. That's part of life. Yeah, I got lucky in that I have been driving a Packard Twelve around for some 60 years now. But there are a LOT of people who have MUCH neater cars than mine. MUCH !

Hopefully, when you are out enjoying your '39 Packard Super Eight, and you run across some guy with a '39 Packard "120", he wont resent you for having a bigger, better, faster Packard than he does. Hopefully, you will both take pride in the fact that you own Packards, will enjoy exchanging "car buff" talk, and, as I noted over and over and over again, note how, in each price class, Packard gave a marvelous buy for the money.

You are confused about "oil clearances". The "flanges" on the side of the pre war Standard, Super, and Twelve con rod bearings have NOTHING to do with oil clearances. Again, to my knowledge, no modern automotive engine has any provision for a precision bearing surface on the SIDE of connecting rods. This provsion, again, was to take care of "side thrust", which turned out not to be a problem as they learned more about engine design.

Hopefully, you and your people DID work out the one CRITCAL measurement, which is the internal bore dia. of the connecting rod - again, if you followed the bearing mfg's specs, you have the proper amount of "crush" That means your bearing surface clearance will give you just enough of that "oil cushion" you discussed, but not so much that oil pressure is lost.

I do not owe you an apology for the fact that Packard decided to call the 1938 "120" an "Eight", or a 1939 Packard with a "120" body, and a "standard eight" engine, a Super Eight. I respectfully recommend you direct any dislike for Packard's changing terminology to the following:

Packard Motor Car Co

1580 East Grand Blvd.

Detroit 32, Michigan.

[Guest]

I am unable to find anyone in this "thread" calling your car a "fake", or otherwise depreciating your car.

If you would go back and read my posts, I think you will find me praising ANY Packard of that era, as a great buy in its price range. Again, READ my posts. ANY Packard!

All of us are destined to, eventually, run across somebody or something bigger, faster, better, etc., than what we have. That's part of life. Yeah, I got lucky in that I have been driving a Packard Twelve around for some 60 years now. But there are a LOT of people who have MUCH neater cars than mine. MUCH !

Hopefully, when you are out enjoying your '39 Packard Super Eight, and you run across some guy with a '39 Packard "120", he wont resent you for having a bigger, better, faster Packard than he does. Hopefully, you will both take pride in the fact that you own Packards, will enjoy exchanging "car buff" talk, and, as I noted over and over and over again, note how, in each price class, Packard gave a marvelous buy for the money.

You are confused about "oil clearances". The "flanges" on the side of the pre war Standard, Super, and Twelve con rod bearings have NOTHING to do with oil clearances. Again, to my knowledge, no modern automotive engine has any provision for a precision bearing surface on the SIDE of connecting rods. This provsion, again, was to take care of "side thrust", which turned out not to be a problem as they learned more about engine design.

Hopefully, you and your people DID work out the one CRITCAL measurement, which is the internal bore dia. of the connecting rod - again, if you followed the bearing mfg's specs, you have the proper amount of "crush" That means your bearing surface clearance will give you just enough of that "oil cushion" you discussed, but not so much that oil pressure is lost.

I do not owe you an apology for the fact that Packard decided to call the 1938 "120" an "Eight", or a 1939 Packard with a "120" body, and a "standard eight" engine, a Super Eight. I respectfully recommend you direct any dislike for Packard's changing terminology to the following:

Packard Motor Car Co

1580 East Grand Blvd.

Detroit 32, Michigan.

[1935Packard]

It's totally up to you all, but let me suggest that we collectively chill out here. This is a message board for lovers of a wonderful classic car, and there's no need for any one to get sarcastic, upset, or otherwise worked up about anything. Just my 2 cents.

[1935Packard]

It's totally up to you all, but let me suggest that we collectively chill out here. This is a message board for lovers of a wonderful classic car, and there's no need for any one to get sarcastic, upset, or otherwise worked up about anything. Just my 2 cents.

[Guest 39Super8]

This was a fun thread. Unfortunately, some nardowell who has apparently been thrown off this site more than once has decided to come out of retirement just in time to spoil the good conversation we were all having. I am not going to put one more second into this, as it is pointless.

Thanks to everyone who contributed, and offered support.

To bad it had to prematurely <span style="font-weight: bold">PETER</span> out.

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

This was a fun thread. Unfortunately, some nardowell who has apparently been thrown off this site more than once has decided to come out of retirement just in time to spoil the good conversation we were all having. I am not going to put one more second into this, as it is pointless.

Thanks to everyone who contributed, and offered support.

To bad it had to prematurely <span style="font-weight: bold">PETER</span> out.

Jim

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1935Packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's totally up to you all, but let me suggest that we collectively chill out here. This is a message board for lovers of a wonderful classic car, and there's no need for any one to get sarcastic, upset, or otherwise worked up about anything. Just my 2 cents.</div></div> COULDN'T AGREE MORE. WELL SAID !

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1935Packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's totally up to you all, but let me suggest that we collectively chill out here. This is a message board for lovers of a wonderful classic car, and there's no need for any one to get sarcastic, upset, or otherwise worked up about anything. Just my 2 cents.</div></div> COULDN'T AGREE MORE. WELL SAID !

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am unable to find anyone in this "thread" calling your car a "fake", or otherwise depreciating your car. </div></div>

I'm sure your wife has been angry at you, but when you ask her what's wrong, she says, "Nothing." Of course, you know darned well there is <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> wrong. There are words and then there are the thoughts behind them. Even on the Internet, the difference between the two is often distinct enough to discern on the screen.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you would go back and read my posts, I think you will find me praising ANY Packard of that era, as a great buy in its price range. Again, READ my posts. ANY Packard!</div></div>

This is the case in point exactly. Could it not have been less contentious to say simply, “ANY Packard of that era <span style="text-decoration: line-through">as a great buy in its price range</span> is a high-quality, desirable car,” instead of adding the somewhat disparaging price qualifier and doing it so frequently? You did it again when you implied that Jim resented <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“…you for having a bigger, better, faster Packard than he does.”</div></div>

Regardless of how Packard itself defined the car, you went out of your way <span style="font-style: italic">repeatedly</span> to tell this fellow who just spent a pile of money on a car he loves, and which many of us would aspire to own (myself included), that it was not a Super 8 in the traditional vernacular. Rather, you pointed out several times that it is the earlier 320 inch Standard 8 that was merely renamed with the introduction of the 120 (as a Buick owner, 320 cubic inches represents top-of-the line to me). If there were no ill intent, why did you mention it so many times, if at all? Even if you’re just quoting Packard scripture, why should it matter in a discussion about the process of correctly repairing such a machine? You could have been extremely helpful without raising anyone’s hackles if you had let your useful knowledge come out and omitted irrelevant comments like those. Perhaps your reputation preceded you, or maybe you just don't know the difference. If that’s the case, I’m sorry.

Also, it is incorrect to place "quotes" around "certain" words and phrases “as” well as to use uppercase Letters for non-proper nouns and Verbs in The middle of a SENTENCE (unless you’re speaking, say, German, where all nouns are capitalized). It's very difficult “to” Read. Perhaps I should assert my own personal expertise in the English language and tell you how you <span style="font-style: italic">should</span> be writing. Although you seem to be able to do a workman-like job of expressing yourself, you're just not as good as the people with "real" knowledge of the English language. Strunk and White, who are the pioneers of style and usage in the English language, say that quotes are typically reserved for speech references, not to add emphasis to a word, and that periods and other punctuation always go inside the quotes. Incidentally, that’s also how I’ve always done it, just to show you how much of an expert I am. For good measure, I, too, will do some authoritative name-dropping: I actually had John Updike and Tom Wolfe as writing teachers and knew them personally.

If you don’t like those facts, contact William Strunk, Jr. & E.B. White (FYI: they’re both dead, like the Packard Motor Car Company).

(See how it hurts when someone is being nasty and arrogantly demonstrating his superior knowledge while insisting that he is simply trying to be helpful? You just received a free grammar lesson that will undoubtedly make you a better writer, but you probably feel lousy about how it was delivered, don't you?)

Just think about others before you hit the Submit button, that's all anyone's asking. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. How would you react to a Duesenberg owner telling you that your recently refurbished Packard V12 was perfectly adequate if all you wanted was a dated flathead motor without a supercharger?

I leave that to you.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am unable to find anyone in this "thread" calling your car a "fake", or otherwise depreciating your car. </div></div>

I'm sure your wife has been angry at you, but when you ask her what's wrong, she says, "Nothing." Of course, you know darned well there is <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> wrong. There are words and then there are the thoughts behind them. Even on the Internet, the difference between the two is often distinct enough to discern on the screen.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you would go back and read my posts, I think you will find me praising ANY Packard of that era, as a great buy in its price range. Again, READ my posts. ANY Packard!</div></div>

This is the case in point exactly. Could it not have been less contentious to say simply, “ANY Packard of that era <span style="text-decoration: line-through">as a great buy in its price range</span> is a high-quality, desirable car,” instead of adding the somewhat disparaging price qualifier and doing it so frequently? You did it again when you implied that Jim resented <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“…you for having a bigger, better, faster Packard than he does.”</div></div>

Regardless of how Packard itself defined the car, you went out of your way <span style="font-style: italic">repeatedly</span> to tell this fellow who just spent a pile of money on a car he loves, and which many of us would aspire to own (myself included), that it was not a Super 8 in the traditional vernacular. Rather, you pointed out several times that it is the earlier 320 inch Standard 8 that was merely renamed with the introduction of the 120 (as a Buick owner, 320 cubic inches represents top-of-the line to me). If there were no ill intent, why did you mention it so many times, if at all? Even if you’re just quoting Packard scripture, why should it matter in a discussion about the process of correctly repairing such a machine? You could have been extremely helpful without raising anyone’s hackles if you had let your useful knowledge come out and omitted irrelevant comments like those. Perhaps your reputation preceded you, or maybe you just don't know the difference. If that’s the case, I’m sorry.

Also, it is incorrect to place "quotes" around "certain" words and phrases “as” well as to use uppercase Letters for non-proper nouns and Verbs in The middle of a SENTENCE (unless you’re speaking, say, German, where all nouns are capitalized). It's very difficult “to” Read. Perhaps I should assert my own personal expertise in the English language and tell you how you <span style="font-style: italic">should</span> be writing. Although you seem to be able to do a workman-like job of expressing yourself, you're just not as good as the people with "real" knowledge of the English language. Strunk and White, who are the pioneers of style and usage in the English language, say that quotes are typically reserved for speech references, not to add emphasis to a word, and that periods and other punctuation always go inside the quotes. Incidentally, that’s also how I’ve always done it, just to show you how much of an expert I am. For good measure, I, too, will do some authoritative name-dropping: I actually had John Updike and Tom Wolfe as writing teachers and knew them personally.

If you don’t like those facts, contact William Strunk, Jr. & E.B. White (FYI: they’re both dead, like the Packard Motor Car Company).

(See how it hurts when someone is being nasty and arrogantly demonstrating his superior knowledge while insisting that he is simply trying to be helpful? You just received a free grammar lesson that will undoubtedly make you a better writer, but you probably feel lousy about how it was delivered, don't you?)

Just think about others before you hit the Submit button, that's all anyone's asking. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. How would you react to a Duesenberg owner telling you that your recently refurbished Packard V12 was perfectly adequate if all you wanted was a dated flathead motor without a supercharger?

I leave that to you.

[Guest]

Hi Matt!

First of all, although this is a PACKARD chat, let me admit that secretly, I am also a BUICK freak, and particularly admire the 1941 year models. And REALLY love those twin carb Centuries with the 320 in motor.

As a side note, before I get into chewing you out for mis-interpeting my posts, let me note how much less trouble Buick had with ITS poured babbit rod bearings, than Packard did. Hate to admit this, being primarily a Packard freak, but in that respect, BUICKS WERE BETTER ! In fact, as you know, Buick got away with poured babbit rod bearings clear into the early 1950's before finally giving up and going to "insert" type bearings, which, as we have discussed ad nauseum, is the industry standard.

The reason Buicks didn't "pound out" their rod bearings anywhere NEAR as fast as poured babbit bearing equipped Packards did, was simply because Buick babbit material was poured in a MUCH THINNER layer, so that heat and shock was transferred directly into the hard material of the rod, rather than going thru too thick a layer of babbit, which would then crack and fail.

So, no question about it, Buicks can stand a LOT more abuse to their connecting rod bearings, than "poured babbit" Packards are.

However, fact remains PLEASE - believe that you can't push a poured babbit bearing Buick the way you can push the same engine with "insert" type rod bearings. If you are active in the Buick organization and know the details about overhauling your type of engine, you know what the guys do; they try and find a set of late post-war rods, so they can use insert bearings and be done with the risk of bearing trouble forever. I suppose these days, as even early 1950's cars are getting scarce in the junk yards, you Buick guys with "poured babbit" rods are going to have to start doing what we Packard guys do.

I am having trouble figuring out why you and a couple of these guys seem DETERMINED to find some insult in my explaining to these guys what Packards were all about.

Oh, before I forget, I do not take ANY credit for my good luck in having been born into a time when fifty bucks would get you just about ANY big luxury car from the 1930's, (Duesenburgs were out of my reach; a good Dusie would go for several HUNDRED dollars). So I cant take any personal credit for just happening to have gotten lucky, and fallen into situations where I got a little technical background on Packard engines of that era.

My own Packard Twelve is a damn good "twenty footer", meaning, any closer than twenty feet, and it looks like what it is - my " beater". Yes, it is STILL in service as a second car, and I LOVE driving the "you-know-what" out of it. In answer to your question, because I am active in serveral old car organizations, I am frequently exposed to people who have MUCH nicer cars than mine, MUCH MUCH nicer, and in a few cases, BIGGER and FASTER !

Most of us in the old car hobby have a good sense of humor; thus have no problem with all kinds of teasing about the many mistakes we make in trying to keep our cars on the road.

Sadly, because these cars are now valuable, you dont see quite the "pranks" we used to play on each other at car events (my favorite was pouring a gallon of rusty water under a fellow car buff's car when he wasnt looking - one of my buddies loved to tie tin cans to my drive-shaft).

Sharing what we know about each other's old cars is VITAL to learning more about how to keep them in service. We do our fellow hobbyists no favors by keeping mistakes secret.

If you knew more about Packard engines, you'd know there is NO qualitative difference between a Packard "standard" and a Packard "super". I would be surprised to learn if there is more than ten cents difference in the production cost; both had roller tappets, for example, the best "silent" timing chains, and so on.

The decision to drop the Super Eight for 1937 production was, to the best of my knowledge, simply one of necessity owing to the change in front end design which, in turn, was due to the adaption of independant front suspension.

Yes, there is quite a performance difference - especially in the higher speed ranges, as the Super Eight had the power to handle "higher" (numerically lower) final drive ratios that you did not see on most "standard" eights.

The 1939 Super Eight, as someone else noted, is a special case - gives OUTSTANDING performance for its price range, because the engine is mounted in a much lighter body then it powered in previous years.

And most of the 1939 Super Eights I've seen had over-drive, meaning eeven with a relatively "low" rear axle ratio, they could cruise up there with the "big boys" all day long with no muss or fuss. Couple that with a properly set up connecting rod job and..well...dont try and stay with a '39 Packard Super Eight at extreme speeds, in your Buick !

Denying the reality that Packard was smart enough to have a wide product line in the late 1930's makes no sense to me. Denying the tremendous technological developments and advancements that made engines like the "120" and "356" Packard straight eights much less expensive to produce and maintain, would be silly. I do not see how anyone could possibly take insult from the fact that Packard dropped those expensive roller tappets, those beautiful separate engine blocks and aluminum crank-cases, and fancy "finned" chrome moly connecting rods. Was that a loss of "quality"? Of course. Was it a sign of how technology evolved ? Of course.

Sounds to me like you need to come to more old car events, and see what a crazy bunch we are. If you hang around people like I know in the old car hobby, you will find no matter how nice, or how ratty your own car, you will have guys having a lot of fun with you exchanging info.

Bottom line - remember what Harry Truman said ? "IF YOU CANT STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN". Stay with us and see what you can learn. It is FUN FUN FUN.

[Owen_Dyneto]

Packard Twelve, I've enjoyed your commentary and experience and don't significantly disagree with anything that you've said. Let me add a bit to the differences between the Standard Eights and the Super Eights (1936 and back). First, there is very little difference in body weights, and the closed cars usually had a 4.69 rear, open cars a 4.36 with the very occasional 4.07. I've driven quite a few Eights and Super Eights (384) with new high speed rears, and the difference is marked; the Eights and post 1936 Super Eights have a tough time maintaining speed on even modest upgrades, you can spend a lot of time downshifting and slowing down. The 384 engine handles the high speed rears much comfortably, and of course the Twelve handles them with relative ease. If you want to cruise at speeds over 55 or so with an closed car Eight and can tolerate the obvious lack of authenticity and significant chassis changes, overdrive is a better solution than a high speed rear.

[Clipper47]

There is no replacement for displacement!

[Guest peter packard]

G'day all, I would love to spend two cents ( our two cent coins were phased out about 10 years ago and the 5 cent coin is rumoured to be be phased out). I have 7 packards on the road ( 289, 384, 2 X 320, 240, 327, 359 and I drive them fairly hard). However, I am not silly about it and consider myself to be "compassionate" in how I treat them. The 289 is a 533 and I fitted a 4.38 rear end and it is happy at 55mph, The 384 is in a 35 Super with a 4.38 diff and it appears to be happy up to 60 mph. The 320's have 4.69 and they are happy at 50 mph, ok at 55mph but anything sustained over 60 mph is death to the big end bearings, and i have replaced a few. I would urge anyone wanting to cruise any of the early vehicles at 55 - 60 mph to invest in a taller axle ratio ( say 4.1:1 ). Your engine will love you for it. Best regards Peter Toet

[Guest peter packard]

G'day all, Owen Dyneto appears to be a switched on (pun) guy and I agree with him wholeheartedly about the overdrive Vs low rear end concept. I have retro-fitted quite a few Packard overdrives and the results are simply amazing. I recall a few threads ago when Pete Hartmann mentioned about the 39 Super Eight compared to the Packard Twelve. It brought to mind the 1939 Packard Proving Ground Advertisement of the fact that the 39 Super Eight with overdrive was good for 105mph versus the 1938 Twelve's top speed of 95 mph. Packard was obviously trying to spotlight the advantages of it's 28.7% overdrive but it emphasises the packard overdrive advantage. I hope to post some more info into aaca.org on the conversion process, it is easy on some and probably almost impossible on others. A great thread guys and thanks for aaca wishing me a happy 59th birthday today. Best regards Peter Toet

[Clipper47]

Peter. I couldn't agree more about the overdrive. My 356 '47 Super Clipper has a 4.09 rear end gear and with overdrive engaged cruises effortless at 60mph. I have been thinking of putting a 3.90 gear in to reduce engine speed even more. My concern is for better highway fuel economy rather than speed since gas has now reached the $5 per Imperial gallon price and no doubt will be even higher by the time the snow melts.

[R W Burgess]

Gentlemen,

I have received a complaint about P F Hartmann coming back onto our forums. His posts have been removed. We regret that other posts may have been removed with his.

Be advised that this gentleman has a permanent banning against him. His use of our forums is forbidden by the AACA Board. If anyone has any questions about this situation, they can call AACA Headquarters in Hershey, Pennsylvania Monday morning and receive any clarifications needed over this edit.

R W Burgess

[Clipper47]

To paraphrase Arnold Swartzwhatshisname I am sure "<span style="font-weight: bold">He'll"</span> be back! I enjoy Peter's postings and respect his experience and insights. He can be abrasive and if that is the price to tap his experience and knowledge so be it.

[Guest 1956Packard]

You know what? I'm going to be a contrarian here. This bothers me.

I have a lowly Standard Eight. I read the subject posts (above) when first written. I took no offense. I read them again in light of Matt's explanation. I still took no offense, and quite frankly didn't see any (and I write politically charged letters all day long).

On the other hand I appreciated the input / experience. I took what I needed and discarded the rest. I guess I'm able to live with the foibles - quotation marks and all.

[tbirdman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gentlemen,

I have received a complaint about P F Hartmann coming back onto our forums. His posts have been removed. We regret that other posts may have been removed with his.

Be advised that this gentleman has a permanent banning against him. His use of our forums is forbidden by the AACA Board. If anyone has any questions about this situation, they can call AACA Headquarters in Hershey, Pennsylvania Monday morning and receive any clarifications needed over this edit.

R W Burgess </div></div>

RW,

It seems to me that Peter's post were excellent, but he got jumped by a bunch of others for reasons which I do not understand. I do enjoy Peter's posts, and though all may not agree with them, they do not contain anything I would consider grounds for getting kicked off the forum. In fact I think those that were against him on this thread, showed a lack of tolerance for someone with a difference of opinion.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I agree, I saw nothing wrong with his comments.

The problem is that several people complained about comments he made about a year ago, and Pete was permanently banded from the forum at that time. At that time I felt some of his comments were not very friendly (he was really 'Rocking the Boat'), but didn't feel he should be permanently banded.

Which is too bad, since I think he was trying to change his ways. I don't know how long it would last, but he was trying.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Another thing I'm really Concerned about is that when one person's posts get deleted, all posts answering that post (after it) are Also Deleted. That's what happened about a year ago and about half of all threads in the Packard forum were accidently deleted and that's what happened in this thread.

I certainly don't want that to happen again.

Surely there's a way for Admins to delete a post without deleteing the ones after it ???

[Guest BigKev]

It may depend on the forum software. On the PackardInfo site, the software asks me if I want to delete the selected post, or all of the posts when I need to delete something.

But if I choose to delete a certain post, the replies to that post are maintained.

But usually that is a function of how the Forum software is built. So the Admins may not have control there.

If a thread gets out of control, I usually dont like to delete threads as then people go, what happened?! I find it's better to lock it, and then give a reason why. So people can read it and understand what was not appropriate about it.

But I am sure the AACA is governed under different rules.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Rick, sorry I was at our meet in Charlotte and did not have time to devote to the forum. I will ask our webmaster to answer your question and concern.

[Guest BillP]

You may be assured the ban was well-earned and the admins were very decent about 2nd, 3rd, 4th...ad infinitum chances. The objectionable posts that led to the ban go way back. It would be difficult to trace or find them because he's probably had a dozen or more screen names. As implied in Matt's finely written reply above, HIS "peculiar", HOME-BREWED "writing" style erases ANY "anonymity" derived from using "a" nom DE "plume".

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I guess I just never let 'Mental Abuse' bother me as much as it does some people. After all, it's only words written in an internet forum, that should Not be considered degrading to my character or abilities.

It's only when 2 or more people become competitive with the 'Mental Abuse' that it becomes a problem for all involved.

[Guest 49 Packard]

For the record, I have <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> had a problem with any of Peter's posts, but on the contrary have ALWAYS benefited from his experience and straightforwardness.

His posts have always been helpful, knowledgeable and welcome to me.

I am at a total loss to understand why his postings are unwelcome.

[RED HEXAGON]

Thanks to all of you for your gracious and flattering notes and E Mails.

PLEASE PLEASE guys, do not let this silly stuff get you down. I am sure we all have the same feelings towards our fellow car buffs - that 99.999% of us are great guys who just want to have fun with their own cars, and help out their fellow old car buffs as best they can.

Let's be fair - any volunteer organization composed of humans is, sooner or later, going to have a couple of "hard cases" who just MUST have "their way or the highway".

Fact is, we HAVE to have some kind of censorship, to filter out those who would use gross vulgarity or otherwise violete ISP protocols. And it is hard to find volunteers to handle this. So sooner or later, any organization is going to have its "Bill P" and "Burgess" types.

I have NO clue what has these "hard cases" so riled! Of course those of you who have seen my posts down thru the years, know I do not use fowl language (cant speak "bird."!). So the inappropriate comments by this "Bill P" and this "Burgess" do NOT deserve you taking your time to comment on.

Some of you have suggested these guys are just jealous of us Packard owners; others have suggested perhaps they or one of their buddies has a restoration shop that screwed up a customer's car; perhaps that is why they get so riled when we exchange discussion on legit. shop proceedures, and/or refer to ASTM/SAE tech. publications and specs. I have no clue. Dosnt matter.

Bottom line is - c'mon, guys - let the silly stuff slide off. I stayed away for about a year because I got tired of these pathetic soul's hostility, and it disnt cause the earth to spin off its axis ! Relax !

Yes, I know that some of you have kept "hard copies" of the missing posts - but for what purpose ? Do YOU want to volunteer to take over the hard and time-consuming work of helping out on these forusm ? I sure dont ! So let it go.

Happy Packarding !

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, Arizona

Once again I have asked Peter to play nice with others. Happy to see those that support him but also unhappy that others take offense at some of his posts. The fact is that Peter is an extremely bright and articulate fellow who knows EXACTLY what he is doing when he goes on the attack and then goes "who me"? Quite frankly there is no need for it and we will not have a repeat of the past. Somehow the forum has survived his year of absence!

Our moderators try and do a good job with no pay and I hardly think they are jealous (well, maybe me as there are a lot of Packards I would kill for)!