6219_Rules

I heard through a friend, that I can post the appropriate pictures on here. I will scan a couple of the Packard, and the Rolls for you to see. I hope you enjoy them as I have. OK. This may take a day but I have uploaded a set of pictures under Randall A. McGrew Gallery on the AACA Photo Albums. There you go, Bernardi.

Paul, what a wonderful job! A beautiful car too. Congratulations!

Dave, you are amazing. Very interesting and just goes to show what an excellent car, and engine, the Buick made. I would take a 1959 or 1960 Buick or Cadillac over ANY car of the day. Centurian...you keep looking for those wonderful cars. I am looking for models of that period, primarily 1959, There is something about the 1960 Buick that looks wrong to my eye. I am not sure what it is but there is something there that is simply wrong. The '59 was low, sleak and graceful, everrything seems to be in perfect coordination and balance. One question : is the engine in the Cadillac and Top of the Line Buick the same? I would assume the weight of the cars are about the same. I would be curious to see how they compare in performance. Hey, I had to get Cadillac in there SOMEwhere!!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for the data, Dave. It makes it easy to follow, or easier, considering the number of variables to consider. Good job.

I received them in an envelope through US Snail Mail. I would have to get permission to post them. But I wanted to thank Pete for sending them.

I wanted to thank Pete for sending the pictures he said he would send. His Packard is a beautiful car, as is the 1928 Rolls Phantom One, and the 1936 American La France fire engine . The interior shots of the Packard are wonderful. It is a truly elegant car. Thanks again.

As I said, I would prefer in all cases to keep the car original. AE, I remember reading 'somewhere' about hydraulics being on the leading edge but I cannot find the reference. So I guess it is nothing more than a poor opinion at best. As far as I know, convertible tops were run by hydraulics into the 60s. As you say it is perfectly viable to use that technology. We still use vacuum systems in cars. My only point would be for the user to compare the costs and determine which is more acceptable; also to see how much modification is desirable by the owner's goals. In the end, I do not think that the car will be any more or less valuable if modified. Again, its his choice. I am not so sure it is cost effective to change it and all of the attendant systems involved after looking at the possible consequences. So if anyone can tell me siccinctly, how this kind of modification is done and what systems are effected. I am very sure it isn't a simple case of ripping out the old and snapping in the electric system. It is NEVER that simple. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Yes Brian....at the top of the forum for one. PeterG has instilled advice everywhere. He also cannot keep track of passwords but tells how you can change yours back. To have someone do it for you, you will need an administrator because moderators do not have access to that information. Just FYI,

I could have done the pinning but since Randy expressly requested no moderators other than PeterG, I didn't, I come here to read the posts and enjoy the cars, such as I can. The good thing about pinning this file is so it does not evaporate at the end of the forum for some reason. The only other way is to periodically bring it to the top. Look at it as a means to keep it safe. One word of advice: you should have several files to keep them from growing so large that they could conceivably be corrupted. Don't think of me as a moderator, just another interested party and potential lover of Packards. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Sounds like a bad anime comic to me. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Sorry...couldn't resist. Actually I think it more likely GM is in bed with the Chinese? Consider THAT for a moment. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

If you use a picture or avatar, you will need to reload it. Just go into your My Home and edit your profile to upload the picture. The change has erased the link to the avatar.

This is truly amazing. I never realised just how indifferent and perverse this industry was. I am not sure it 'became' this way...and to lose Oldsmobile, the oldest contiguous marque, was bad enough, but to even consider losing Buick because the management are simply too involved in their own pockets with no apparent concern for the foundation marque of GM, is almost beyond my understanding. Buick has always been a solid car. And today, they were touting how JD Powers is rating Buick so high, especially the new Lacrosse. It verges on the disgusting. And to think they may flush Buick and keep the flayling Saab alive. Given this pattern, Cadillac may be next. The XLR is not selling well, and I wonder just what will survive the next 5 years. One thing is certain, the leaders of GM will retire with a very healthy sum for killing one of the best over all car companies in the world. I hope not. But hope these days carries very little weight.

Ted, your best bet is to post this on the AACA Technical Forum, or the General Forum. Also the CCCA Forum would be a good site for quick response. Then if you really want to have the Cadillac LaSalle Club membership to see it, consider posting this on the CLC General or Technical Forum at go here I hope it this information is not redundant. Good luck! Incidentally, your picture link does not work. It goes to a blank page. Just FYI.

Brian - I must apologise. In respect to PFH, I was under the impression I could only ban from my forum (CCCA). I have since learned I should have banned him ASAP when I knew it was him. My failure...you were right. In my efforts to be civil were misguided. Ah well. Now on with the thread. Sorry for the interruption.

While I personally prefer to keep my cars as original as possible, I can easily enjoy another's hard work. At least they are enjoying the fun of the hobby and driving. Now the fact that his "39 PFORD" is fiberglas with everything BUT a Pford drive train, engine, etc.. simply points out that he PROBABLY didn't ransack a well kept original. So what? It sounds like a great car. I told you once I took my 1947 Caddy up to what was 108 mph on the speedo, which ran 5 mph high over 50 (over sized tires) so it still got up to 100 mph ... not bad for an original engine, chassis, suspension (obviously well kept) and drive train. Oh yeah...it was a scary ride. Never did it again but it does show how well designed and built these cars were for their day. Having sat in a covered barn for 30 some years didn't hurt it all that much either. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> But we all have our interests, biases and desires...what a person does with an old car, antique or Classic, is up to them. There is more than enough space on these old roads for all of us. Now if anyone with billions want to give a poor, disabled soul the dream of a life time, a 1936 Bugatti Atalanta would be greatly appreciated!! And yes, I would drive it to and from the doctor, pharmacy and store. Drive them! Enjoy them and show the world that at one time, cars were something special!!! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have heard all of this before, living in Austria and England off and on for years. Taxes are what they are, and they get you something for the trouble. Our system works, but has shown definite cracks especially in the health care area where our ability to handle the influx of immigrants weakens. Overall, I would like to know what you think of the increase in gas prices since 1973, whether taking in inflation, or not. From one persons perspective (mine) all things being equal, I do not see the rise in price as being all that extreme. Everything is getting more costly. Is it because petrolium costs are high? Or are they following a different trend? We budget (or we all should) within our means to afford what we have. Yes I spend $50 to fill the tank now. I spent the same fulling my Dodge van in 1977. Sure it had a 36 gallon tank but the point is the difference is still impressive but not out of sight. As has been said here, lets look at this with a little perspective. I remember paying .73 per gallon in 1973 for my 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass. I don't recall if it was regular or premium. I remember the first time the price went over a $2.00 a gallon only a few years ago...or was it 10 years ago. Anyway it seems like it went up and down alot but never oover $2.00 until more recently. Now its climbing a little faster than before but unless it surges to $3.00 this year, it won't seem to me to be all that extreme given the world and how economies are doing these days. What do you think? Anyone? Is it my imagination or are we engineering this problem for all it is worth? How much of the doomsayer's prophecies ever come true?

Oh OK. Sorry to be redundant. Well I did that with my '47 Caddy and it worked out fine, except I was dinged on several occasions on not being original. Whatever...it rode and ran nicely so it was not that big a deal. Good luck on your project.

Hi Frank. Have you tried the Auto Color Library? I am not familiar with their paint, but I have successfully matched paints for my 40s and 50s cars. They have a full list of paint chip sets for the 40s and 50s Chrysler and DeSoto, so you might take a look. If you do not have it, here is the link : Autocolorlibrary I should have mentioned that you can use the color and scheme codes for your car to indicate the interior paint color, then match that color by the chip and numeric designation. Hope that helps. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I must admit to knowing next to nothing about Parkards (pre- or post-war) however, I was wondering if anyone has checked with SMS Fabrics to see if they have the correct materials? The reason I ask this is because they have their own mills for producing fabrics of the 40s, 50s and on through the 90s. If you do not have their web address, here it is SMS I have heard generally good things about them, except they tend to be very slow in doing the door panels. I just wanted to interject this link to see if it might help. Thanks

You have me on that, Brian. Yes, the subject was taken up and the decision made to remove him. The CCCA still holds that opinion, as far as I know. It was a decision based on the private ownership of the forum over the right of the individual to say what he wants to say over the wishes of the owners. I am sure anyone at the AACA would be happy to explain why. I supported the action. And as you can see just how pointless it was, and still is. I believe the best option is to use the IGNORE feature. But the main fear was the effect it would have on new visitors to the forum and long term members who were tired of the haranging. As of this post, I am not with the AACA, just the CCCA as a moderator. I check to be sure posts are in the right place. Its been quiet there. I have no powers elsewhere. Ultimately, the whole thing soured my enjoyment in the club. Since I am basically homebound (I can go out but usually choose not to), I relied on the forums for my contact with others who love old cars. While the members here do not make up the majority of the those in any club, AACA, CCCA or what have you, they do in so far as I am concerned. I just decided it was not worth the anxiety to police these people. I like to read stories about cars and how people restore/repair/maintain and enjoy them. But I must admit, such posts as those between Reatta man and Dave'@'Moon, are interesting and amusing. I really believe if we all took a long, slow breath and just left PFH alone, it would remedy itself. Or IGNORE him and his many personnas. Why rise to the bait? Unless it amuses in some way. I guess I am feeling a 'live and let live' attitude for the moment. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't know, but I cannot take chances with my Eldorado. My little Chevy runs fine on whatever rock gut regular I can buy so that's all to the better. But I do not want to foul up my 425 cid now that its running so well! We knew the prices were going above $1.00 in 1973. My first car ran on regular but I prefered the middle grade for the 350. Over the last 30 years, paying $2.30 is not all that bad especially since I use Premium. When you get right down to it, its not that great an increase from the long term perspective. Just how much it will rise in the next 10 years is a whole different game.

I paid $2.30.9 for a gallon of premium the other day at the Diamond Shamrock on Main Street ( hwy 287) here in Longmont, Colorado. Prices are pretty high and respond very quickly to change of season here since we have rules to add alcohol. We also have a .49 cent tax on each gallon, which isn't bad really. The lowest this year was about $1.98.89. There are cheaper stations in town but I worry about contaminants or problems from the local You Pump It stations. Its probably silly. At times the local BP station is cheap but that's becoming rarer. I agree with Invicta592 (and everyone else), mpgs are important in budgeting but will not keep me from driving my car. Its selfish, I realise but I do not see what will change by my giving up one of the few joys left to me now. To be as responsive as I can, I work to keep my engine and fuel system working at its best so I am not poluting any more than necessary, or wasting fuel. And I am will to bet my old car will be on the road 10 years from now should I live that long! Hell even if not, my son will drive it (barring drunk drivers, idiots or other acts of god). <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I don't know about 'sophisticated', certainly 'somewhat educated' fits. Let me state for the record how I feel about antique cars, old cars and the clubs' direction therein. I think all Old/Antique/Classic/Brass Era cars (etc.) are all [color:"red"] best served by being kept original, if at all possible. Clubs like the AACA, CCCA, Horseless Carriage Foundation and their ilk, are primarily focused on the rescue, preservation, and restoration of those cars for perpetuity. Having said that, as Pete said, I think we all have to recognise that in order for a club to increase members (if that is important) then it is necessary to include young people and those people not 'into' the Classic or Brass Era cars. Mostly 1950s and the like...Muscle Cars. Divisions and the like to include Modified and Custom cars are the obvious direction. For those clubs that do not find increased membership a manditory direction, then the tried and true method of pulling in people interested in these areas, times and goals must suffice. There are clubs that do a little of it all, and others that modify. Personally I support the modified chapter of the CLC (Cadillac LaSalle Club) because as I see it, it is about enjoying that marque as well as preservation/resstoration. Do I want someone to customize a 1936 Cadillac V-12 Phaeton? No. But it must be left open to the owner and the car's shape. If a rusted hulk, better to use than destroy, however I still would prefer a full restoration if possible. Anyway, I try and keep my cars as original as possible. I did not do that 100% with the '47 and used modern materials in the upholstry. I am not doing that with the '56, She will be all original. As for the cars themselves, I believe they are best served and represented by use. Driving, and driving daily if possible. Sometimes, as we have heard ad nauseam, the engineering simply cannot match the high rates of speed and poor driving of modern drivers. Safety is a concern. And I believe the responsibility of the owner. So it might be more reasonable to see a 1950s or 60s car used daily, with some reservations of course. I love trailer queens for their sheer beauty, and would hope museums continue to get them. But a car is a machine and it must run to be 'healthy'. Plus they were never meant to survive forever so no matter what you do, they will wear. So how much more of impact will you get seeing a 1934 Bugatti Royal rolling down the main street of your home town than locked up in a building somewhere? At least that is the ideal. Basically this is a hobby, at least for most of us. If it is your job/career then it is different, but for the regular hobbyist it is meant to be fun, educational and challenging. Fun is the word. Fun. When it ceases to be FUN, then it is a burden. And for as much as I love old/antique/Classic etc. cars, they are only cars. A thing that changed our lives to be sure, and history, but a machine nontheless. They are changing and in 100 years, our cars will be as out moded as the chariot (an equally important engineering milestone). On safety: there are passive restraint systems and invasive systems (air bags). But to rely on your car to be safe or to keep you safe is ludicrous. Size, equipment, materials....its all secondary to the driver's ability and concentration. The driver is the first and only line to safety on the road. Drive defensively, use common sense, and do not exceed the conditions of the road, environment, or the car. That means driving at or below the speed limit, especially under less than perfect conditions. It means being polite, and allowing others right of way even when you may not feel they deserve it. It means being cautious. If you want to drive hard, fast and macho camatcho...then join the SCCA and do it on a track. There are simply too many cars on the road (increasing every year) with drivers that are poor to incompetant, to join their league and drive like you own the road. If we all drove defensively and courteously, it would still leave a percentage or two that we cannot control like mechanical failure or so called acts of god (like the bridge 'I' beam falling and crushing a couple in their SUV on I-70 west of Denver). I have other ideas but that basically spells it out. If any of this is odd or bizarre then I accept that. It is, after all, only my opinion. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I hope I have not insulted anyone. That is not my intention. Peter, I do appreciate your points and invitation. Can you post a picture or two of your Packard - especially the interior, as I love interiors. Thanks.

Well at least it was saved, Peter. Thank you for that! The site that I time shared went out of business and I lost it. George is a great truck, and he is rare, and a classic (note the small 'c') in the sense that his 250 cid inline 6 and three speed transmission (on the 'tree') are rather hard to find in this condition. The drive train is simple and a venerable example of those used in Pre-WWII Chevys (but of lower cids of course). Dashes are easily replaceable. No need to worry about that. But thanks for being concerned. I appreciate any good will these days. As to 'unconventional' ideas, you probably mean my admitted naivete about the 1947 Cadillac and what to do with it. Ah well. Such is life. Its now gone. However I am for keeping cars original as much as possible, unless they are to be crushed, then I see no reason the owner cannot modify them. To each his own. Ultimately I doubt it matters really. The point is often lost in the interminable redundancy of the argument. Personally I think you should be allowed to frequent the AACA forums, and all the others for that matter. I must admit to being amused by your posts if others are not. So what have you been doing with your Packard? Have you added any other cars to your collection? And how many of the 25000 registered users on this forum actually are made up of your various nom de plumes? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you, Mark, for sharing that information with us. I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy that beautiful car. Sadly, I am on a fixed income, and while Colorado is expensive, it is not as expensive as Alaska. Pitty. I would love the climate. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />