55PackardGuy

Brian, I believe that paper on the V8 is in the same issue of Packards International. I'm not sure what an SAE paper should look like, but this is definitely "period" material and not a re-write. I forgot the T/L manual switch was a post-production item in '55. Our '55 Clipper had it. As I recall, the procedure was to turn OFF the main switch (knob on the left of steering wheel under the dash) before using the manual switch. Then, the toggle switch, located under the dash to the right of the steering wheel, was pushed or pulled to raise or lower the back end. The switch automatically returned to center when released, breaking the connection to the leveling motor--no need to move the switch back to center. This seems like a logical layout to me. I don't know if it was a factory kit, but it sure worked well. In fact, I think the automatic system was normally left "off." It kept us kids from taking "elevator rides" on the back bumper until the battery went dead. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> (At least 'til we started monkeying with the manual switch.) <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe they were reprinted by Packards International in an issue of their club magazine; I seem to recall it was the comemmorative to Dick Teague</div></div> Right you are, Brian. It's that great Summer '91 issue. It also has a wiring diagram for the TL operation. It does NOT include info or wiring specs for a manual switch, though. I can scan and post the diagram if anyone wants to see it. However, I'd encourage all those interested to take a few minutes and order the back issue. They were still available last February for just a couple of bucks from Packards International. ANYONE with interest in '55-'56 Packards will find a lot of fun and informative reading--and some great pictures.

Clipper 47, That's a heckuva reliable appliance you got there! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And I bet you're glad that you also have that '47! The best of both worlds... Brian, I don't really see where we disagree on much. The "boneyards" are still a source of parts recycling--technically this is re-use. What the manufacturing world seems to want to do now is to skip more of this re-use activity, and melt everything down so they can squeeze out new stuff. (It would sure make it easier to do this if the car would spontaneously reduce itself to a pile of dust!) I don't really know if I disagree with this trend. It is a paradigm shift that I think has been brought on by the increased mutability of material things in this world. Computer design that allows every kind of possible permutation at the touch of a button, and which is increasingly linked to manufacturing lines that can adapt to the changes almost instantaneously. These new automotive design and manufacturing facilities are about as far removed from the ones of 50 years ago as the Jetsons are from the Flintstones. Everything happens and changes much faster. And people are getting more and more accustomed to living this way. Thinking of a 3-year-old computer system or digital camera as "ancient" seems normal now. Don't get me wrong, I'm an inveterate "preservationist" by temperament. My motto has been "why get rid of perfectly good stuff?" But the world is getting less and less that way all the time. So I sort of live two lives, one that adapts to all the changes because it basically has to, and one that tries to preserve what I feel is worth preserving. It seems that searching for a "Balance" between the two gets more important every year. Without something substantial to hang on to in the material world, most of us regular human beings would find it difficult to maintain any equilibrium, I think. To me, that's why the subjects of preservation and permanence, and a reverence for things well thought out and built to last, often result in passionate discussions. Packard, through the years, developed a mystique and reputation built on this theme of excellence, and it still powers the interest in and passion for these cars. So, what is my short-form answer to the question "Whats a Packard?" A brand of automobile that consistently achieved excellence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am constantly surprised by how many people have never even heard of a Packard.</div></div> I guess I am definitely not surprised about this. When I was a kid and Packard had only been out of business about 10 years, NONE of the kids I knew had any idea what a Packard was. Those people are now in their 40's or 50's, and I doubt any of them have learned much more about Packard over the years. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then look at the '56 L-M products--the front fenders, headlight "eyebrows" all of a sudden, they Look like Packards!</div></div> I believe the "eyebrows" appeared on the '55 Mercurys, same year as the Packard. I think that "following" a styling trend always looks bad, especially for a "big three" manufacturer. So if they can't come out with it the same year, they shy away from introducing something later or give the impression that it's a "me too" product. Chrysler is said to have delayed introduction of their front torsion bar suspension because Packard was coming out with the TL in '55, and of course Packard could say theirs was "twice as good" or was "immitated but not equaled" or whatever.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in regard to the way service parts are made available in more recent years that will preclude these cars from preservation, let alone restoration.</div></div> IMHO: That's because this generation of cars was built with RECYCLING in mind. The mindset of the motoring public and the automotive industry has changed from "built to last" to "built to use and recycle." The pride in making and owning a car (such as the collector cars mentioned here) was that it was a substantial piece of machinery--not a comfortable, serviceable "appliance" that ran like a refrigerator and every so often needed to be replaced. They're still building some nice cars that escape that awful appliance look and feel, but I'm afraid that recycling in the not-too-distant future is still part of the equation. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I don't know. But it takes even exceptional cars out of the "collector" category and puts them into the category of transitory status symbols. There are undoubtedly exceptions to this, but you could go on forever trying to predict which current cars will be deemed to be worth preserving... darn few, I suspect. I don't think my '89 IROC 5.7 is depreciating too much, and I think that's simply based on looks that seem to always appeal to a certain group of boy (and men) racer types. And a few women, too. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Tucker <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

http://www.prewarbuick.com/id471.htm

It is probably just a legend. But there's lots of strange stuff out in the desert. I've actually seen the "airliner graveyard" whilst on a road trip. I thought I was going nuts. Later I read about it. I can't even remember where it is. I just kept driving, and wondering if I'd really seen it. I still wonder sometimes. Dozens--maybe hundreds-- of old airliners put out to pasture junkyard style. They certainly did scrap a lot of stuff after WWII, sometimes because it was obsolete but also to prevent it getting dumped on the market and driving down prices. There's a sad story about all the B24 bombers that were carefully flown back by their pilots and crews, only to be junked shortly after arrival. You can read of George McGovern's experience of this in "The Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose. Buick built a lot of the B24 radial engines BTW. I guess the "bottom line" is that finding a serviceable Packard Merlin anywhere is a very long shot. There is a company that still services them to Rolls Royce/Packard specs for the "warbirds" still in use. I wonder what THAT costs. You can find them by Googling Packard Merlin. Maybe one will show up on e-bay. Ha.

Twitch, No, the thing is to do it on the cheap. That's always more impressive. Now if I could only locate the spot out in the California desert where they buried all those surplus aircraft engines after WWII... and go out there with a flashlight some moonless night...

For my money, the closest anyone came to a knockoff of the 55-56 Packard styling was Mercury and, to a lesser extent, Plymouth, with their similar front fender treatments. At least, they were the ones that could almost fool me for a second when I was a kid. I couldn't say who really had this style first, because all three of them came out with it in '55. A little corporate spying, perhaps? The work of Dick Teague seems pretty well documented, so that leaves the question of how Lincoln Mercury and/or Chrysler Plymouth got their hands on it. Or was it a strange coincidence??

The scary thing is, he's having my dreams--or I've been having his. Don't forget, Twitch, that for safe night-time racing, a set of aircraft landing lights is required equipment. And I see this dream car with a '55 Packard 400 body (salvaged, of course) and, somehow, a TL suspension. Transmission? Probably an Allison truck automatic. YEE HAW! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps a shop vac using a greatly reduced diameter hose to get into the ducts</div></div> There's a nifty little attachment kit for shop vacs that includes all kinds of nozzles for small spaces. Check out the hardware store. That Febreeze is pretty amazing stuff. Make sure you have the blower fan running while you spray it into the fresh air intakes (the part you vacuumed out) so it gets into the whole system-- dash vents and floor vents. The odor you're smelling has probably been absorbed into all the plastic parts. The warning about airborne bacteria was interesting. Lysol spray might help for that. Don't know if it would kill all the bacteria, but it might be worth a try. I've used it to treat mildew odor, but it doesn't seem to knock out the smell as quickly as Febreeze. BTW did the mice get their nesting materials from your underhood insulation? That's what happened on my Camaro. Also, if you don't get good air flow from the system, you'll need to clean out the blower motor. Mine was packed solid with "fur." Dern critters.

I checked out that carazy '55 "Chevy" from Australia. I'd be surprised if a single nut or bolt in the chassis is even remotely "original." It looks like tubular construction designed to cradle the massive engine and fit under the Chevy body. What a job, though! I'm surprised that they actually mounted the engine between the front wheels, rather than closer to midships. With about a ton of Packard engine sitting out front, I imagine it understeers a bit. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks, JT. I went on a search for applications and specs. I didn't find an application, but here's the specs for the Packard Merlin: Model: V-1650-7 Type: 12-cylinder with two-stage mechanically-driven supercharger Displacement: 1,649 cu.in. Weight: 1,690 lbs. Max. RPM: 3,000 Max. HP: 1,695 Cost: $25,000 Note that the weight, displacement and HP all come in at just over the magic number of 1650. This was an engineering goal that was triumphantly realized: 1 HP per cu in. dispacement per pound. In addition to manufacturing excellence, Packard also contributed the use of silver-lead main bearings and chrome alloy valves, greatly improving engine life.

Thanks for posting the nice pic of the Packard Merlin. You've mentioned this engine before as a dream conversion. Is that all we can do is dream?? I mean, is this any kind of possible retrofit in a passenger car? Could the weight be supported? Would it be driveable on ordinary roads, or just an experiment for the track or the salt flats? I believe Packard Merlins and/or Allison aircraft V12s were used for speed record run in cars after WWII. Another fantasy Packard retrofit would be the marine engines, but they were even bigger and heavier weren't they? This idea has always intriqued me, and I wonder if it has ever been successfully accomplished.

Here's a shot of the showroom floor in the Auburn, Cord Duesenberg museum in Auburn Indiana... I tried to post the Duesnbergs, too, but they wouldn't come up. It didn't say anything about them being too big, and the Attachment button was activated. Maybe the ghosts of Cooper and Gable don't want to have their pictures shown on Halloween... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Anyway, for those who haven't seen this place, here's something to whet the appetite.

Post deleted by 55PackardGuy

Post deleted by 55PackardGuy

Not really my bubble, but the museum's promo. According to them, it was the first time they had been shown together. I believe the time was fall of '98. Perhaps having them on display next to each other was considered a first-time event. I'll try to dig out those pictures and post them. It was a particularly nice display, since they had a huge backdrop of the "stars" pictures behind each of their cars.

I had to look twice at the last line of your post, but then it hit me. LOL <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Reg, I kinda thought something must've been different in the "newer" trannys. They talk about an electric "kickdown" switch and other enhancements on them. Do you know when the basic fluid drive coupling was introduced? I got an e-mail regarding this subject from a fellow who had a '42 Chrysler Royal with it. The Chrysler club told him to put in Dexron III auto trans fluid, which they said was basically 10W oil. He said he's had it in for 7 years with no problems. He was getting a little worried reading the cautions against using transmission fluid, and was thinking about changing it out. When you say hydraulic fluid, do you have a particular kind in mind? I was almost settled on going with non-detergent 10W to stay away from any additives that might eat the seals. Are there properties of hydraulic fluid that make it superior in this application? Thanks for the inside scoop on how the early fluid coupling worked. It's different from a torque converter setup, isn't it? I suppose I can go look on P15-D24 for another answer to this--probably from Greg, eh? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Baron, Roger on that speed. The final drive figures I've seen are around 4:1. Considering that they basically had a torque converter up front, I'd think an overdrive would have been a logical choice, but maybe they thought it to be an unnecessary expense. On the transmission, I double-checked and it absolutely says SAE 90 for temps above 10F and SAE 80 for temps below 10F. This is a direct reprint of the original shop manual, so it's perhaps an original mistake! I would definitely go by whatever it says on the transmission tag. However, if there's no tag, I'm leaning toward going with the heavier lube. What can it hurt, besides taking more power to turn the trans? Also, I'm wondering if the Dodge and Plymouth had a different trans than the Chrysler and Desoto? Or perhaps they changed after the '48 models? I believe the "D-24" model designation was for '46-'47-'48. This question won't be an issue until I get the trans lube changed, which as you say may never have been done, so there's not a huge hurry now. I'll check it and top off with some 30W if needed now. The stuff that's in there is probably plenty thick <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. As far as engine oil, I can understand a multi-weight tending to burn in an older engine, but doesn't a detergent oil help keep the crud cleaned out? Whatever I do, I'm keeping records of all your helpful hints and referring to them as I go. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Brian, Thanks for mentioning that styling studio with the clay scale model. This was touted as a unique design technique pioneered by Cord to tool up more quickly and cheaply than full-size clay mock-ups allowed. Fascinating to see the original model on which actual final dies for the body stampings were based. Especially on cars as striking as the 810/812 Cords.

Could Uncle Joe have found any way to be more complimentary to the United States? I notice that when Packard went bust they just started copying Chrysler products! Thanks for the pictures. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Things I like: The paint! Rear quarters flaired out behind doors like early '50s. Long, straight chrome pices. White interior. Windshield. Medallion on center of hood. Things I don't like: The engine (if not Packard it should at least be a good 455-Buick). Front bumper. Price. Overall, I guess I like more than I don't like. I downloaded the photo and see what I think of it as wallpaper for my monitor.