Restorer32

For what Packards in those years would these be considered original?

Boy, and I thought I had problems...lol...best of luck in your hunt !

I think to fix "Classic" art, architecture, music, automobiles, anything to one point in time is shortsighted and shows an intellectual snobbery that denies any possibility of further developments in those fields. Remember, to the Ancient Greeks the only "Classic" architecture was Egyptian. Reminds me of my days as a budding archaeologist digging at the Philistine city of Ashdod in Israel (ca.1500 B.C.). If you took a piece of Roman Era pottery to the Staff Archaeologist he would take one look at it, identify it as Roman and, usually with the comment " That's modern, it's Roman", toss it over his shoulder onto the pile which was then sold as road fill. No, I'm not looking to have more cars included in the "List" necessarily but to say that "what was once could never be again" is in my humble opinion ridiculous and shortsighted. I wonder if there were any founding members of the CCCA whose particular cars were not included in the definition ?

Agreed on the use of West System Epoxy to seal the wood before painting. I suggest sealing the inside of the body as well to stop moisture from being absorbed with the change in humidity causing the body to expand and contract. We painted a 1908 Pullman wood body several years ago using this "encapsulation" technique and have seen little or no cracking even with the car stored in an unheated garage here in the Northeast. Regular primers and body fillers can be used over the epoxy with no problems to my knowledge.

Kind of a shock absorberator I think, lol, round with spring actuated woven belting? Or am I disrememberin' ?

To guote(from memory) from the manual of a 1916 Pullman I replaced the headgasket on; "The headbolts should be tightened as snugly as possible but the mechanician should be sure to stop just before the bolt breaks". Seriously, faced with a lack of specific info considering the application at hand I would refer to a machinist's handbook to determine the max working torque of the particular fastener involved. If you're really serious about it you would measure the "stretch" of each fastener to insure uniformity in your torque values.

The 6 cylinder Auburn body shell is in fact the same as the 8. The difference lies in the length of the hood and front fenders to accomodate the longer chassis. I believe even the rear fenders and runningboards are the same. Perhaps the bodies were trimmed differently but the basic body shells interchanged.

Nor am I trying to sell a 6 cylinder Auburn, did that 3 years ago. I agree the 6 probably should not be a classic where basically the same car was available in an 8 but following that logic to its conclusion I guess Packard Eights shouldn't be Classics in those years when Twelves were available. And what about Cadillacs? 8 cyl, 12 cyl, 16 cyl, all classics ? What if Caddy had produced a 6 cyl ?

Anyone care to justify the Modified Classic Class? Used to have a '35 Auburn Phaeton which was a 6 cylinder and therefore non-Classic even though the body was identical to the "Classic" 8 cylinder. Now, I could take a "Classic" chassis, have a new but non-authentic body built and I would be welcome (though not judged) at CCCA meets. I also could have purchased an 8 cylinder sedan, trashed the body ( I certainly would not have been the first to do so) and fitted my 6 cylinder body. In light of the "declared purpose of the Club to further the restoration and preservation of distinctive motor cars..." isn't there just a tiny bit of hypocracy built into the system ?

Also, '33 1001's were not cobbled together from "left over 900's". Quite a few differences. Just picked up a 1001 Coupe Sedan yesterday and have been comparing with my 900. Frame is quite a bit different, 1001 went back to the Bijur system, engine block is different, of course instruments and dash differ, bodys differ in some fairly minor ways. Fenders considerably changed. More accurate to say the basic body shells were carried over into '33, little else remained the same.

That's what makes it a projest I guess. He also states that he knows where there is a rear section and top assembly. Just thought it interesting, and a good project for someone with lots of ambition, a good do it yourself project.

It's called a "banjo" wheel. Probably cause it was a popular accessory in the Appalachin and Ozark Mountains. (feeble attempt at humor, sorry )

Basically true but not exactly, the '33 frame is a bit different as are the engine and some body parts. Pretty much the same car though.

My first post to this website was in response to a query as to how to stimulate interest in the CCCA. I indicated that I have never felt welcome at CCCA events given the "Lesser Classic" status of my Packard 900. I was once involved in a dog club that followed the same path, limiting discussion to show dogs only, discriminating against those with "less than show quality" though equally pedigreed animals. They too wondered why they had trouble recruiting and keeping members. I agree, the 900 is not in the same league with a Duesy or Packard 12 but it wasn't my decision to admit them to CCCA status. Reminds me sometimes of the old song... " We belong to a mutual...admiration society..." So far I've not seen much on this website to entice me into rejoining the CCCA. I can tell you this; I've recently restored 3 classics for clients, none of them found the CCCA relevant to their level of interest in the hobby, one quit specifically because he felt unwelcome with his '47 Cadillac. He now is a very active participant in AACA and CLC events. Please don't expand the universe of cars you accept. Please Do expand the universe of people you accept.

Currently at auction on e-bay, '33 Conv. Coupe project car. $7500 reserve I think. Not mine, just thought it interesting.

Currently at auction on e-bay, 1933 Packard Conv. Coupe project car. Not mine but thought it interesting. $7500 reserve I believe.

You've convinced me Pete. I'm gonna push my 900 convertibles down into the field, douse them with kerosene and put a match to them. Such "middle class" cars don't belong amongst "civilized " society.

Bought the 140 Drophead as a used car in 1968. Paid $212. Glad I kept it.

Quoting Colonel J.G.Vincent... " To develop and build a car of the medium-priced type is one job. To make that car a Packard in every respect is quite another task...The Packard Light Eight justifies our every hope and, in itself, vindicates the long period required for its development. We now hail the result with a pride that is only equalled by that which we feel in our other new car-the Twin Six". Apparently Old Jess considered the Light 8 a "Classic".

Sounds like the West Point Honor Code..."A member will not discuss any non- CCCA car nor tolerate those who do ".

Or you could have the rarer "Sliding Boy" or "Daphne At The Well" as it was known, which was also correct for '31, I believe, as it came in 2 versions.

Just paid the final chrome bill on a 1953 Buick Skylark Convertible. We did every piece on the car including interior trim, 5 wire wheels, etc. Total bill was slightly in excess of $20,000, done by one of the best platers and the stuff is as perfect as it gets. In chrome plating, like most things, you get what you pay for. We've noticed an increasing interest in '50's pickup trucks, partly I think because of the small amount of chrome and simple interiors.

As someone involved on a daily basis in doing major automotive sheetmetal rust repair my best advice is....Never fall in love with something that can't love you back.

Closest I can come are 3/16 by 1/2 flat headed steel. Bad news is you have to order a package of 175. Good news is a pack only costs 6 bucks. If you don't have access to McMaster-Carr, e-mail me and I'll order them for you. I get 1 day delivery, order by 5, the brown truck delivers at 10:30 the next morning.

Are we allowed to talk about "lesser" classics like the Light 8 Packards and ' 47 Cadillacs or will we be jumped on by the "In crowd" ? Or will everyone assume we're just trying to sell our "pseudo classics" ?