Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 55PackardGuy

  • Birthday 02/27/1957

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

55PackardGuy's Achievements

5,000+ Points

5,000+ Points (5/7)

  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Just looking at this interesting old thread and realized I'd failed to respond to the author's last post. Since the thread gets lots of "views" my aversion to loose ends compels me to reply to James' comments: A single-engined boat with one prop can have a "counter-rotating" engine in the sense that the engine is rotating 'counter' to its original design (RH instead of LH from the perspective of the driver). I'd be curious to know if left-hand drive boats tend to also have LH rotating props, for the same reason I gave earlier for right-hand drive boats having RH rotating props-- to "lift" the driver clear for a better view on initial acceleration. The "usual reason" to take the drive off the front of the motor may not always work to lower the engine because of oil pan clearance. It depends on the pickup location and also the type of pan. For instance, the pan on my Y-block is flat, and the pickup is in the rear, thus there is no advantage in taking power off the front of this engine. It wouldn't place it any lower in the hull and would require re-positioning of the oil pickup.
  2. Here is how it is stated in a list from the Packard Motor Car Company site. I hadn't seen any such list on the site before, but looking around for different lists as an end-of-year update to this thread, I came across this one. I think it's a new addition to the site, as I've visited it before and not seen it. Its reference to torsion bar suspension is quite similar to the one on this thread, but it also mentions the automatic leveling feature. I guess they're more liberal than the AACA commentators were. Packard Motor Car Company :: Packard Firsts ...and it also mentions the steering wheel and the V12, both of which were nixed in any form, with any qualifications, on the list posted here. Picky, picky.
  3. I just drove a '54 Clipper with power steering a couple of weeks ago. There wasn't much road feel, but it did give a decent sense of control, in spite of the car's obvious front end wear, or possibly a "loose" steering box. There was a lot of wheel travel before the car responded, but when I turned the wheel past this "slop" it was quick to respond. Hey, over 42K "views" now on this moldy old thread... yet a dearth of postings. Oh well, happy :confused: reading!
  4. Well ol' doc, there may just be a little question of who is patronizing whom, or just generally being a dick here (See several earlier posts): Well, I guess all I can say is, same to you, and the master of the logical disconnect here is... well, if the shoe fits... When you find that magical '57 or '58 Studebaker, that when stripped of its id plates and "bolt-on parts" is identifiable as a "Packard", remember to let everyone know.
  5. Just a guess, but perhaps this extra luggage space was there because the owners, who I'm sure had a lot to say about the accessories, planned to use the car mostly for long tours. Can't imagine that they'd take something like this on anything but the biggest, best highways in 1934! I like the green one a bit better-- cleaner, more understated, and the tonneau covers convert it into what must be one of the longest two-seat autos ever built. The styling detail that bothers me on both cars is the fake "hubcap" on the outside of the fender skirt. Unnecessary and I think quite weird looking-- just asking to be dented on a garage door frame.
  6. Of course you did. Now, if the Hausdok would set aside his name-calling for a minute, and realize how overwrought his objections are, and how incendiary his posts have been, apparently to try to "win an argument" where there really is none, he would come to realize that, had a Packard manufactured before 1957 been stripped of everything but its body shell, it could be identified easily as a Packard. And if he would get over his apparent allegiance to a single model of Packard, and stop accusing others of having a slavish allegiance to only the Packard badge, he could, as suggested earlier, go back and look over some PRE 1957 Packard History, especially of the transition years, and he would have a much better perspective of where the '57 and '58 Packards fit in the history of Packard (or should I say mis-fit). I'm not here to slam the Packardbakers any more than anyone else on this forum. I find them interesting and cleverly done cars, yet I do not mistake them for anything other than what they are: a Studebaker with bolted-on Packard parts (in his own words). Stating the obvious-- that police would call any vehicle by its official manufacturer's name-- does nothing to bolster the argument that these cars are retrofit Studebakers. Not that there's anything WRONG with that status, but that under their skin and badges they are undeniably the same Studebakers that came off the line as Studebakers, and it is legitimate to single them out as such and realize that they are a continuation of a line of cars that The Packard Motor Car Company previously had NOTHING to do with. This is not the same as the kind of "badge engineering" done in later years by the "big 3" (and arguably earlier years) as they were the result of intentional marketing decisions, and arguably were produced as quite distinct cars, up until the point when a few "platforms" and engines were used across all lines, which I believe is when the identities of ALL the manufacturers of American cars were polluted, never to return, except in the case of some specialty models. One of the last truly unique GM cars, for instance, was the '63-'65 Riviera. They are desirable today because of their uniqueness, not because they are interesting curiosities, which I believe is the main attraction of such cars as the Packardbakers. But that's just my opinion. Mr. Hausdok's opinion doesn't pain me at all, even if it is based on a skewed viewpoint and lack of understanding.
  7. (emphasis added) There would have been no mystery if it was a pre-1957 Packard. If you don't believe me, believe yourself: There is no way to determine if a Studebaker is being "passed off" as a '57-'58 Packardbaker if it's stripped of its "bolted-on" Packard parts. Bolted on parts do not make a Packard out of a Studebaker.
  8. Anders, Never owned one, but have a Matchbox car of exactly the same color, without the black roof. It has a spare tire in front of the engine, doesn't it? Still have the Matchbox car, do you still have the full-sized version? The color is very close to the color of my '73 Manta, too.
  9. Dave, The "neo-classics" you mention probably would've been better off copying the Packard's lighting (and how do you know they weren't?) because not only the Packard setup a "marker" lamp, but when the door was opened, the lamp came on brighter to illuminate the driver or passenger's entrance. Did the Rolls lamp do that?
  10. BqUICK, Been following you from years back--even have the T-shirt to prove it! I've always appreciated how you cite the history of the '69 430 cid Buick, as well as the modifications you make to it. Back when you started to put this car together, the Faithful Pursuit was billed as a Grand Touring race car rather than a dragster, so it's good news to hear you're heading back to Nevada to start turning left again. Going "short quick and straight" with this car has always seemed to me like a good way to spend the most money for the shortest seat time. Can you get time on any other tracks? A fan.
  11. This is possible, but it doesn't quite hold up to the figures that Packard printed up. They do not distinguish between dual exhaust and single exhaust in '55, for instance, but all are given the same HP rating. True, all the seniors came with dual exhaust, so maybe a generalization could be made. However, another reason to question the figures presents itself: I do believe HP ratings in those days were Gross, rather than Net HP, and measured without accessories or exhaust systems attached. Here are complete figures-- Packard Motor Car Information - Packard Literature and Manuals - Packard Engine Serial Number Reference Click on the blue link: Packard Engine Serial Number Reference to get the whole lineup for 55 and 56. Check out the 55 Custom, Constellation, vs the seniors. Both Custom and Constellation were available with dual exhaust. Where is that extra HP coming from?
  12. Jack, I am going mostly by recollection, so I checked one source that might bear this out. Carnut is fairly accurate and their figures for '55 400 and the '55 Clipper Custom/Constellation, fit my recollection of the differing horsepower figures for the two. I believe that the standard carb on the Clippers was the Carter, and on the 400 was the Rochester. Other than that, cid and compression were identical, so I'm thinkin' they advertised a bit of extra HP (real or not-- manufacturers are notorious for underrating HP on identical engines in cheaper models, or even outright lying about higher HP in more expensive ones--what they call "advertised horsepower" these days) Here are the figures I found at the Carnut site: 1955 Clipper Constellation/Custom, 245 HP @ 4600 rpm 1955 Packard 400, 260 HP @ 4600 rpm Torque was rated identical: 355 @ 2400 15 horsepower bequeathed unto the 400 by the Packard gods? Or was there really a difference?
  13. Actually a couple of pics from other angles would be interesting to me. It looks pretty smooth, except for the sorta "unique" colors.
  14. This thread is mostly about single 4-bbl setups, but it would be helpful for some to know if there really were any horsepower gain with the dual quad Caribbean setup (as Packard seems to claim) or was this more "show" than "go." Also, I believe identical 352 ci engines with the Rochester claimed some hp advantage over the Carter equipped engine. Marketing?
  • Create New...