55PackardGuy
-
Posts
1,172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by 55PackardGuy
-
-
Packard torsion bar were self leveling. maybe it a poor choice of word call it torsion bar suspension
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.
-
I just recall that on wet glare ICE,,,the 53-54 Packard brakes and steering were more controlable and had better feel than the "new" 1955,,I was so disapointed,,Cheers,,Ben
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!
-
Glad you enjoyed it! Bye!
-
Just more of the same patronizing gibberish.
See post #60.
Mike O'Handley
Kenmore, Washington
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):
"Gibberish... Mr. Troll... ignominious shame... whining by those bitter over how Packard ended... From my point of view, the only one who's made any condescending remarks here has been, well,...you. Sorry... Your I know better than you, so shut the hell up attitude...Hope you and your pedestal have a nice day... Like I said - logical disconnect..."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.
-
Interesting that after 30 years, the same comments are being made about the trunk, as we thought the same thing then.
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.
-
Now, I enjoyed that post.
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.
-
- why would anyone ever remove all three means of identifying the chassis and body - especially a data plate that was spot-welded on - and then swap out the motor when it would be the last thing with a number unique to the P.H. that could be used to prove it was a P.H.?
...they'd been unable to find body/chassis numbers to prove that it was in fact a P.H. and not simply a Studebaker Hawk with bolted-on P.H. parts being passed off as a P.H.
Nice little mystery
(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.
-
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.
-
55 Packard: Side marker lights were common on brass era limosines and berlines. I am attaching a picture of a 1915 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost as an example. When neo classics of the 1970 reintroduced B piller lights, it was this look they were copying, not the Packard V-8.
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?
-
We did a couple of 100+mph passes in Nevada in 2009 and in NY in the Fall of '09 as well. Power calculated to about 600hp; Way under potential. With Faithful Pursuits 5 bar chromoly suspension and incredible grip, the feel of acceleration was superb. Mechanical problems killed our efforts so we are coming back in 2012 with some more passes.
http://forums.aaca.org/attachments/f118/101871d1317436311-electra-gsx-road-racer-conv430.jpg
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.
-
The 1955 Clipper Customs came with single exhaust and the Packard had dual exhaust systems. This, I believe is the difference in h.p. ratings between the two with the same engine. Later, I believe, dual exhaust systems were available for the Customs.
(o[]o)
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--
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?
-
Yes, the horsepower gain is real, but few Caribbean owners then or now ever used the high-RPM horsepower.
I don't recall this. Usually, whether Carter/Rochester or Autolite/Delco, like displacement and compression engines had the same horsepower ratings. Can you cite some source for the claim?
jack vines
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?
-
Actually a couple of pics from other angles would be interesting to me. It looks pretty smooth, except for the sorta "unique" colors.
-
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?
-
In the middle 1960s, there were 2x4bbl intakes for the Ford 427s, factory, which would also fit the 390s. The beauty of the Ford FE engine series was that they all had the same deck height, so all of the intakes would interchange, from 332 to 428.
Just some thoughts,
NTX5467
Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout! Where are those interchanges between different engines by the same manufacturer, or between these and other manufacturers? This whole carb/intake thing seems to have been done in the skunkworks mostly.
Note on T-Bird V8s: the '60 (Last of the "Box Birds") was available with the Lincoln 430. I guess so you could plow the back 40 with it then shine it up, drive it on the weekends. The '58 through '60 all looked like tractors to me, yet they were far and away the better sellers compared with the '61-'63.
Never heard of the 406. Truck engine?
-
the only Packard part on the car is the cowl and even it has been highly modified. Like his creation or not, the guy has talent.
Still think a Packard Straight Eight would've capped it off nicely. As I said, I think it's a very clean design. Good to know it wasn't cut up from a restorable car. Thanks for the links.
-
Actually it has a V-10 from a Viper.
Yuck. Why, why, why? Instead of 4-in-a-row it would've had 8-in-a-row.
-
That "boat-tail" is very cleanly done. Looks like a straight eight in it. More of a show car than a hotrod per se, I think. Have to admit, I like it a lot. The tears shed should be the owner's if it was restorable. He probably lowered the value by more than half and eliminated its appreciation potential. Depends on whether he just started with bits and pieces, though, and could not salvage much of the original car. Still...
-
Just one more question on the 390 dual quad manifold. Did Offenhauser actually make a dual quad manifold that FIT the 390, or did you have to modify it? And, if it was made for the 390, perhaps it was a racing modification that Ford bought from Offy for open wheel cars?
-
Question 1 - there are plenty of A/M manifolds for SBC's.
I don't understand the Ford crossover question, so no answer.
I can remember the late 1950's in northern Minnesota when my Dad used to open the hood, and put a trouble light on top of the engine, and another one up against the oil pan all night. With warm oil, he had no starting, or flooding issues.
Jon.
My question about the Ford manifolds is cleared up some based on your answer to the first question. It's apparently easier or more profitable to engineer replacement manifolds for older SBC's to accommodate newer carburetors than making carbs to fit the old bore designs.
Obviously the lack of volume of Packard V8 production compared with SBC's, for example, precluded any manifold manufacturers designing one for Packards that would accept newer carb bore spacing. Thus, my question about "crossover" manifolds that could be scrounged off of different engines.
Intake manifolds seem to be kind of purpose built, designed for specific engine intake port size, spacing, bolt patterns, etc. with little standardization or interchangeability.
Re: Minnesota winters-- these were exactly the conditions I was talking about! Although my experience is from central Minnesota. Never used light bulb warmers on the Packards, but did use brooder lamps overnight once on the crawler tractor engine (Int'l Harvester diesel 6 that started on gas) when it snowed about 4 feet and the temp dropped below -30.
Re: "Tuning" carbs. One kit available for the Holley on my '84 302 was a lighter spring on the diaphragm, which even I could put in without much trouble. Opened faster, no bog, better acceleration.
One other "bolt-on" kind of tuning that you didn't mention was replaceable jets. These are pretty difficult "cut-and-try" work for the amateur, but some input on how you have tweaked jets under various conditions, mainly for better mileage, would be of great interest.
Was the dual 4bbl manifold on your 390 out of a Thunderbird? I know they had a very rare 3 x 2bbl in the early 60's "bullet Birds" but never heard of a dual quad 390 before. Sounds like it worked out well.
-
A little more time to type.
We have numerous would be customers who have bought these things for their Pontiac, Olds, Caddy, Buick, Ford, Chrysler, etc., etc., etc.; that cannot eliminate the secondary bog caused by the airvalve whipping open too soon, and then call us asking us how they should modify the incorrect carb they bought elsewhere so it will work. Of course, if one simply drives the car onto a trailer, or at low speed to the local drive-in cruise-in; then the secondary bog is not an issue.
Personally (and professionally) I would highly recommend the use of the original carburetors unless one is building a retro-racing Packard.
Jon.
A couple of questions for the knowledgeable sir:
Did the ubiquitous small-block Chevy of early vintage use the same pre-1960 bores? And, if so, why hasn't there been a re-bop of this?
Regarding the "bog" thing. Does the AFB carb have mechanical secondaries or vacuum? If vacuum, is it possible to just put in a stronger spring on the diaphragm so the secondary opens slower? If mechanical, the driver should be able to make some adjustments in how fast he puts his foot in it.
Finally, how were the mid-fifties Ford V8 manifolds that used the Holley set up? Any crossover possibilities there?
These are all pretty naive questions, I know, but just wondering what's been done?
Could you suggest any tuning mods in the original Packard Carter and Rochester carbs, particularly for mileage and driveability? One thing I remember about the Rochesters on all 3 Packard V8s we had is that they tended to flood pretty easily in cold weather. (Of course, that's a pretty common carburetor ailment and depends a lot on the driver's knowledge.)
-
This is a carryover from (believe it or not) the PT Boat thread. The discussion about Holley carbs being chosen for the Packard PT Boat engines kind of took on a life of its own from there.
Here's part of the last post from that thread, and I hope a suitable starting point for this new thread:
Since the later Packard V8s had both Rochester and Carter carbs, I think there is room for quite a bit of discussion about carburetor choices and tuning, especially 4-barrel carbs on Packard V8 engines and perhaps on earlier Packard straight eight engines.
Maybe some kind of cross-references can be created between Packard 4-barrel manifolds and available carburetors of today, instead of the usual vague comments like, "Well I modified the manifold this way and put on a Edelbrock and an XYZ spacer and it works pretty good."
Carbs can make or break mileage and driveability, yet even jet size and tuning of stock carbs on V8 Packards (or other models), seems to have had little discussion, and practical information on retrofitting available new carbs and manifolds is hard, if not impossible, to find.
So, are there any theoretical or off-the-shelf product insights here? Or any real-world experiences that have helped keep Packards performing at their best?
Or some folks might have experience with swapping between stock Carter and Rochester 4-barrel carburetors on Packards, and seen some gains or losses in performance.
-
What era? teens? 30's? 50's? 70's? other?
Jon.
I can only speak for my lifetime of being aware of cars. When I was in my 10's back in the mid-sixties, Holley carbs were legendary. I have always remembered that, but I saw few of them during my underhood years of about '70 to present. I think Owen answered it pretty well. Holley wasn't known for being the most technologically sophisticated, or maybe the "craftsmanship" wasn't up to perfection, but they were a widely available, decent, and as I recall quite fuel efficient setup. Simplicity isn't always a detriment!
As for Rochester, I think the over-used and misunderstood term "Quadra-Bog" referring the the Quadrajet, which when set up right doesn't "bog" any more than any other maladjusted carb, was a reason that they fell into disfavor.
Since this is a Packard forum, and the later Packard V8s (post-Stromberg) had both Rochester and Carter carbs, I think there is room for quite a bit of discussion here. I would like to see some kind of cross-reference between Packard 4-barrel V8 manifolds and available carburetors of today, instead of the usual vague discussion of "well, I modified the manifold this way and put on a Edelbrock and an XYZ spacer and it works pretty good."
Carbs can make or break mileage and driveability more than any other single component except maybe the cam, yet even jet size and tuning of stock carbs on V8 Packards (or other models) seems to be discussed very little. I'll take this to a new thread.
-
There is a PT boat with a Packard engine undergoing restoration here in Portland, OR. Here's the web site
You may want to contact them for information.
Great site, TBirdman, especially check out the Packard Sound video, bub-bub bub-bub-bub-bub... wish they'd have hit the throttles and let all-hell break loose! WRaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (I love the sound of big engines on the water)
Speaking of Holley carbs, I've wondered why they were favored by Ford (and particuarly the T-Bird, but so few other auto manufacturers? I had the second-last one, a 4-barrel on my '84 Capri ('85 was the last year). It was simple to hop up, delivered great mileage on the 302 V8, and I think blew an enrichment valve once, but that was it. Why was everyone so hot on Carters, Rochesters, et al?
(this is OT as heck, except that the PT marine Packards used Holley.)
Packard V8 boat motors
in Packard
Posted
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.