55PackardGuy

Brian, Good sleuthing! I'd be interested in seeing that article, and I bet Mrs. Ainsle would too! It might be just the thing to help me shake something loose from her son, too. Y'know, the whole reason I got started looking for this Packard story was that I had this recollection of a photograph of a Packard that accompanied a story in a newsprint publication (like a "Shopper") back in the '70s. So I went to the internet and typed in something like "Packard murder car" and there was the Starkweather story. When you mentioned that "Car Exchange" was black and white, it got me to wondering if that was what I saw. I remember quite clearly that it was black and white, and it was tabloid size, not magazine size, printed on newsprint, not glossy. Does this ring a bell with you? By the way, the reason I remember it so vividly is that I was awestruck by a Packard with such a notorious history, and because I somehow lost track of the publication and was FOREVER disappointed that I lost it. It was a great photo of the front of the car, with holes in the windshield which I now know were put there by Sheriff Heflin, who was literally "riding shotgun" (or rifle, actually) with Chief Robert Ainsle of Douglas WY and shooting at Starkweather. Blew out the rear window, too.

Ah yes, but the '55 Pat endurance run was on a circle track! (still think--hope--the TL might be underrated for that application). I wish I could get in one again and "let the ride decide." Anyone from around Minnesota want to give me a ride? I also note that one post blames BIAS tires for noise, and another blames RADIALS! Maybe it depends more on tread design, but since these cars were made to run on bias plies, maybe they don't work as well on radials? I'm old enough to remember the switch from bias to radial, and the talk back then was about "radial tuned suspensions" that benefitted from the new tires. I remember driving some radial equipped '70s "boats" and that was just how they handled--like boats. Much less directional control than with bias ply tires. The extra "give" in the radial sidewalls seemed to mess them up something fierce. But I should stay on my own topic... does anyone have definitive info on what years and models had the T/L standard, optional, or unavailable? And just why didn't another manufacturer ever adopt this system? Or did someone else have an integrated full torsion bar system at some point? Please "weigh in" if you have the answer.

Sorry, but I don't have any real info on racing of TL Packards, just rumor. I can't imagine they'd be all bad, since the '55 Pat did an endurance run at an AVERAGE of 105 for 25,000 including all stops. I agree that it seems weird that no other manufacturer followed up on producing this great design. Maybe the thing was tied up in patent disputes? As we know, Chrysler went with front torsion bars about the same time and continued for years. (My '96 Dakota 4x4 has MASSIVE front torsion bars.) I know of no car that ever had front-and-back integrated bars other than the Packards. Maybe someone else knows of another one? Granted, it wasn't a suspension that could be "tuned" for different track conditions, but I always thought it would be a good racing suspension in many situations... I'd still like to hear about a side-by-side comparison with a conventional Packard vs the TL if Albert gets the chance.

Thanks for the reply. I heard some rumors about people who had successfully raced TL suspension Packards, but that was obviously not your experience. I remember doing some dirt-road "racing" with our '55 400 when I was a kid, and it seemed to corner real well and was very forgiving when you "hung out the rear end." They also cornered very flat (without "body roll") on pavement, which I thought would be an advantage in racing. You're starting to poke holes in my fantasy about the world's best race-car Packard with a T/L suspension! You mentioned being unable to control unsprung weigh--why was this a problem? I've always had trouble with that "sprung" and "unsprung" weight concept. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Rocketraider, Actually, Jayne died in a 1966 Electra on her way to New Orleans in 1967. It's a spooky story. This site has the scoop and pictures... not for the squeamish: # http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/m/Mansfield/jayne_mansfield.htm

I imagine the '54 and conventional '55 would be quite similar--maybe even the same? But the real test will be comparing your '55 Pat with TL to the '55 Clipper Deluxe conventional. I'd like to hear about that. Especially if you can do a back-and-forth comparison between the two on the same course of road. Especially over bumps and around corners. Also, my dad used to argue that there was more road noise transmitted by the TL than conventional suspensions, and as a kid I remembered that I noticed many conventional cars seemed quieter and felt "smoother" on regular pavement. But I'm pretty sure they didn't handle as well or take big bumps in stride like the TL. I've always thought of the TL as kind of like today's "sport" suspensions and European cars like the Mercedes.

There's been a lot of discussion of the Torsion-Level suspension on these threads, but I have seen no mention of the 1955 models that had a conventional suspension. Just wondered how many have familiarity with them--personal or otherwise--and how they compare in ride, handling and durability. They would seem to have been rare, because the TL was such a "hit" and as I understand it most cars were sold with it when it was offered as an option in '55. I believe it was standard on some '55 models and also standard on all '56 models. Any experts on this out there?

I e-mailed the guy who wrote the review on "Murder in the Heartland" on the Internet Movie Database. Since he was so enthusiastic, I thought maybe he'd have some info. Yes, the "Search for Video X" shows up when you search under that title, but it has nothing to do with the one we're looking for, as you point out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Getting back to the topic at hand, I look forward to your further reports on the Starkweather "getaway" Packard. </div></div> Brian, Since you were last to express interest in the Starkweather "getaway" Packard, I'll address this post to you. I have made a good contact with the widow of the Sheriff who pursued the Packard, and she has graciously put me in touch with her son and his wife who she said would be able to provide more information. She was VERY PLEASED that there is continued interest in this topic. She remembered the filming of part of the ABC special in Douglas, WY (she even spoke to the owner of the Patrician used in the movie--didn't remember his name, though). It'll take a little more patience and a couple of phone calls, but I think I'm getting close. She even sent me a Christmas card, so I doubt she's going to let this drop. P.S. Please let us know if you see another T.V. listing for a showing of "Murder in the Heartland." I found a very favorable review of it on a web site, and confirmed that it is not available on tape. I have yet to check out "Badlands" to see if it uses the correct car. My video store doesn't carry it. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Craig, Yeah, willing and brave enough. I have a vivid memory of how much tension is on the main bars. Brace yourself, because the following will make everyone wince: When we parted out a '55 Clipper, my dad decided the torsion bars were such nice pieces of spring steel that he wanted to use them elsewhere, so he CUT them out with a torch. Man, when those bars let go... SPROING! I still wish he'd kept that rolling chassis complete for a future project. His only comment: "How would you like one of them to let go like that while you were driving down the road?"

Ah yes, things which once had "spring" in them can sag eventually. Like my step, my waist, etc. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, as the "v" is pronounced "b" in Spanish, Latino Low-Riders used to refer to their "Chebbies" and "Ribbies" (Rivieras). Dig out an old "Cheech and Chong" album sometime. I'm a little confused about the controversy over lowering a T/L suspension. As I recall, one of the attributes of this suspension was that it was nearly impossible to "bottom" it even over huge bumps in its stock form, so would a little less suspension travel be all that bad? Also, G's55 has disconnected the leveling system, which means the car can't find its center. Maybe he can find a "stance" that suits him by simply using a manual override to select the relative front-to-back height. It sounds like the rear is settling down due to lack of leveling action... I remember going out to the garage and finding our '55 squatting or riding high in the back when the leveler was on the fritz. These cars don't look good dragging their tail. As I recall G's55 has been "converted" to negative ground. Might this also affect the operation of the leveling system?

Isn't it interesting how a smaller engine in a lighter car (307 in a Chevelle) is sometimes less efficient than a much larger displacement engine in a heavy car? It was interesting to see the responses to this gas mileage post, because it appears that some combinations just plain work better, regardless of engine displacement and weight of car. All I can say for sure is that there are many Buicks of the sixties and early seventies that were remarkably efficient given the amount of metal they were toting around. And then there were some that weren't so hot (my '65 Electra with 401, as I mentioned--and I tried tuning it every-which-way--stubbornly refused to get much over 13 mpg). The ones that did get the mileage seemed to have just the right combination of engine design, carb, and gearing to give them a broad "sweet spot" of peak efficiency while touring. There's one thing I would bet on: when those old carbs were set up and working right, they could do a more efficient job of metering fuel and mixing it with air than fuel injection does. I think fuel injection systems overall, on average, are more efficient because they stay "in tune" more of the time than the average carb, but the carb still has the greatest potential for ultimate efficiency. Thanks to all who contributed experiences... and Happy Holidays!

...and you also, PackardV8. Thanks for the Greetings!

Jim, It appears that the 4th "ventiport" has been added in front of the original three. In the detail photo it appears just slightly misaligned. If I put my finger over it, everything looks right again. As others have noted, the "ports" were re-installed in reverse orientation so they look like air inlets rather than vents. Someone may have thought it looked cooler that way. It's a very interesting car--especially the 2-door HT configuration and manual trans. It seems that someone may have ordered it specifically as a high-performance alternative.

Centurion, Oh yeah! I think I remember hearing that somewhere. I wonder how many years Buick stuck to the 225-inch length, that is, if all Buicks so designated actually are that long? Anyway, "Deuce-and-a-Quarter" has found its way into popular lore, including songs, so its place in history is pretty much assured alongside 88 and 409 etc. It would be fun to put together a list of "numbered" car models and how they got their designations. I'll add this one, (which everybody probably already knows): The Olds 442 was a designation derived from the cars 4 barrel carb, 4 speed transmission, and dual exhaust.

Just a note on the "445 Wildcat" designation. It refers to engine torque, which is VERY healthy (today's wimpy cars get all kinds of press for producing over 300 foot pounds of torque, and rarely surpass 250.) Good torque is the reason the old Buicks don't feel as heavy as they are when you hit the gas. You noted two other numbers, 401 (which as noted above is the standard displacement engine) and 425. There was a 425 cubic inch displacement engine option. If yours is the original engine and air cleaner cover and it says "445", it should be the 401 engine. My 1965 Electra was equipped this way, and it was a very reliable, smooth riding car. As if these aren't enough numbers, you will see people referring to 455 (four five five) Buick engines, which are a different design that came out later and had a dispacement of 455 cubic inches. In earlier years, Buick "advertised" the torque of their engines, which is unusual. In later years, they referred to the cubic inch displacement as most manufacturers do. Now I need some enlightenment-- What did the designation 225 stand for?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps were we to lobby a large automaker, like VW, it could be done.</div></div> Yep, my point exactly, except for the VW part. It would be hard to swallow a "foreign" manufacturer adopting the Packard name. It will be interesting to see how things develop on the auction of the present company. Are they taking bids on the name as a separate property? How about simply alerting the presidents of the "Big 3" that the name could be up for grabs. Of course, they could simply buy it and sit on it. But you never know...

Y'all, I've posted a thread on this whole Packard name revival deal... hope to have some further discussion over there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you...I know I am not a PMC member or owner. I appreciate your indulgence.</div></div> Randall: They put up with me (so far), so why not you? Brian: Thanks for the link and the background on this "Packard Company." As I'm starting a new thread (this doesn't have much to do with Challenging the Editors of the Cormorant any more) here is the link again: http://www.packardmotorcar.com/ Frankly, I think it'll take an established company to "adopt" the Packard name for a special interest car. I think VW's Bugatti is a HOOT. What is it, like 1000 hp from a W18? If you're gonna revive a classic name, ya better make the car REALLY different. If this guy that owns the name would shop it around to the big domestic manufacturers with an appealing concept for the car, something might actually happen... I could imagine Cadillac or Lincoln or Chrysler getting excited about it (remember Lincoln and Chrysler expressed an interest before, oh right, that was 47 years ago). It would give them an excuse to come out with a V12, naturally, and they'd be foolish not to use the TL suspension.

decembro, As a die-hard Packard fan (from my earliest years of viewing the world from the back seat of a '55 Clipper Custom) I appreciate your mention of the passing of this marque. The question of whether "the market decided" whether a brand would live or die is an inadequate explanation, in my view. It assumes that "product demand" necessarily follows "the right product" and both combine to produce a successful company. It does not account for a myrial of other factors that keep a manufacturer in business. There was probably a sufficient number of people wishing to buy a real Packard in '57 to keep the company afloat--if Packard had been a reasonably healthy company. The factors that caused the end of the corporation were so numerous that they have, literally, filled books. In particular, Packard lacked sufficient dealer and customer service support, adequate marketing resources, and an efficient production facility. They could not adequately service their customers, or market to new buyers or even meet the demand for delivery of their cars. Packard probably put too much emphasis on engineering and ignored the rest of the marketing "pipeline" that could have kept them in the black. For those who don't know, Packard produced a brand new "clean sheet" V8 engine, a completely unique (and to this day unequaled) full torsion bar suspension, and a new limited slip differential during their last two years ('55-'56). The cars received rave reviews from auto magazines, particularly for the new suspension system. But Packard had a cramped production facility (presumably bought to save money), a discouraged dealer and customer service network, little advertising budget... and no other divisions to "keep them alive" until they could get back on track.

midgewidge The Riviera name has its own niche, and I wouldn't expect Buick to apply it to a radically different car now. I was just using the milestone cars as an example of the spririt of the vehicle I had in mind. I wouldn't really care what they called it, but I mentioned the Wildcat name because it's distinctive and has been out of circulation for so long--like 35 years. I'm just dreaming about the kind of Buick that would get me in the showroom now. It's interesting you mention the Grand National name, which was a car I seriously considered back in 1984. It was out of my price range, though, and I could get a Mercury Capri RS with a 302 4bbl and 5-speed for like 2/3 the cost (about 10 grand--those were the days). It was my first new-car shopping experience and it turned out well. I also think the Grand National name should keep its Busch race heritage, so it would best be associated with a V6 engine.

I AM close to 50.

RO, That is REALLY COOL! I'm impressed with your sleuthing. Something should be done to follow up on this, but I'm not sure what... other than buying the thing. I suppose everybody is as cash poor as I am at this season.

70 Electra, Once I got started on you 1960 Buick website, I was hooked until I read it all! Really nice work, and easy to get around in. I had a '65 Electra and my father drove a '69. I posted some "warm fuzzies" about your site, and a link, on the "LeSabre goes over the hill" thread.