Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 55PackardGuy

  1. Philippe, Neither of my 401's smoked or used any oil, but neither of them had PCV systems either! I do know what they're talking about when they say the PCV might "breathe oil" at high rpm. You can even check that yourself, at least I was able to do it on some engines; just pull the top of the air cleaner, locate the "breather" hole, giver 'er the gun and watch for a stream of bluish fumes scoot over to the carb air horn from the "breather." I put "breather" in quotes because, theoretically, that hole is meant to be a fresh-air INLET to the crankcase. I can't say for sure, but I always suspected that the reversal of this flow meant that there was enough blowby at high engine speeds to pressurize the crankcase and cause vapor to be pushed out the other way. It kind of makes sense. If you just have a "breather cap" on the valve cover like I did, you can start getting oil fouling on the cover and down the side of the block if there's a lot of pressure in the crankcase. How do you know your 401 doesn't have blowby? Compression check OK? Does it use a lot of oil?
  2. Philippe, There's a nice writeup about the differences between the Buick and Olds engines, and the use of the Buick version (yay) by the Rover folks at the website in the first link given in the post above yours. Both engines saw other performance applications, outlined on that web site as well. This link should take you right to the V8 Technical Data page of the website: http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/tech.htm Good read!
  3. John, Thanks for those informative posts... whether or not you "refute" or "redeem" an entry on the list is fine with me. But I'm glad you're including some of each. I believe yours was the only objection to the aluminum crankcase, so I agree it should probably go back on the list if no one else protests. Thanks for looking into that and finally locating a date! The steering wheel debate has long since passed as far as I'm concerned. It's like trying to figure out who invented the wheel! However, as noted in your source, it wasn't a common feature of cars, and was novel enough to cause a "stir" on the car show circuit. Another Packard feature that was uncommon was the foot pedal accelerator, but once again it's probably an example of "early adoption" and popularizing it, not "inventing" it. What I did half-jokingly mention before--but I think might be bonafide--is that Packard's early steering wheel HAD a unique feature. I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a refutation of this one... it was mentioned in Kimes, page 40, regarding refinements to the 1901 Model C: "The major change was the steering wheel, <span style="font-style: italic">which tilted forward for ease of entrance and egress</span> on the first group of twelve Model C's produced." (emphasis added) Aha! The first tilt steering wheel? Also mentioned in this same quote was one other mechanical change in the Model C, and a probable Packard innovation: "...the cylinder...was revised from a square casting with flat copper sides for cooling to the new--<span style="font-style: italic">and soon to be patented--</span>round copper cooling jacket." Sounds like a "first" to me: The round copper cooling jacket. The "H" pattern shifter mentioned in Kimes seems to refer to the earlier introduction date, referencing as it does material in the Packard news release for the 1900 Model B, but the most telling quote (page 39) empahsizes that "the 'H' gear slot [was] patented by Packard," so it's a definite bonafide Packard innovation. You may have found another innovation in that "sliding gear 3-speed transmission" in the Model L in 1904. As for the use of that pesky 4th lever position in the 1900 Model B, here's a desciption of the setup from Kimes, page 38, quoting from the Packard news release: "The two forward speeds, the reverse and the brake are controlled by a single lever in the right hand of the driver." (It also mentions that there is in addition to the hand brake a "powerful foot brake.") SO... it appears that 4th position was originally the hand brake! Thanks for asking about that, I'd have never thought to look. This statement kind of puzzles me: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">55Packardguy: When people like you want to let the rest of the world know how good Packard actually was, and the true accomplishments they they acheived, you had better be darn good at unearthing materials that can back those claims. Especially when someone comes along with refernce material that can refute those claims, like the alot of the ones originally posted by PI , pertaining to the Packards First list.</div></div>I'm puzzled because it still sounds like you think I'm some sort of booster regarding the original PAC (not PI) list that I started this thread with. Please go back and read the original post--I specifically made NO endorsement of the list. The reason I posted it was <span style="font-style: italic">specifically</span> to have it discussed and critiqued by our own "Packard experts" on the forum, as I suspected a lot of the items were debatable. The additions I've suggested since then are, generally, things I've backed up with materials I've "unearthed." I certainly didn't make them up out of the blue sky. Some things I conjectured on, but specifically put them out there as speculative. As for the later-posted PI list, I think I will check with those guys about where they came up with their variation. They were very nice about allowing portions of their copyrighted tribute to Alvan Macauley to be posted here. I already asked PAC about having the gentlemen who were credited with that list give us some background, but they apparently chose not to follow up. (I don't think they're just being difficult, and they certainly don't owe me anything.) But I'd LOVE to get some people who know the source material from those lists to contribute here, or perhaps to verify our speculations that the lists are based on some "traditional" (and a bit stretched) factoids put together by the Packard PR department. Also, I've got a couple more conjectures to make for Packard innovations. Hint: they're mentioned in my original post. Can't imagine how I've neglected them all this time! Thanks everyone for your continued input on the "Packard Firsts" topic. No, it won't always be "nice weather" but at least it's an interesting climate!
  4. Don't forget the "F"-body!! Camaro/Firebird designation, I believe from introduction on. Did I mention I sold my '89 IROC? Sadly, I bowed out of the GM family for a while. But what a fun ride for a few years, and nearly got my money back from a pretty thorough restoration. When I think about the T-Tops, TPI 350, posi, and all the boy-racer gadgets, I get a little regretful. But my bank account is happier. Life's a series of tradeoffs...
  5. Oh, and they've been around a looong time since then. I believe it was only a few years ago that Land Rover quit using that li'l aluminum V8. As I recall, the design got sold to someone else first, and eventually wound up in your neighbor's snooty English SUV. Somebody here might be able to chime in with more details. Another place to look for specs that's pretty darn complete and accurate is carnut.com. They have hp, torque, etc., even plug gaps for lots and lots of classics.
  6. Interesting, informative replies-- as usual from the "Buick guys!" Somehow I thought the term "nailhead" must have come from the racing circuit. Thanks for confirming that! And the intake valve size makes the most sense as the inspiration for the name, as I've usually heard it was. I wonder though about the "oversquare" design of the nailhead limiting top-end performance as much as the small valves and ports did. The short-strokers are often the higher-rpm motors, due to decreased piston speed versus the long-stroke designs. You'd think that if it was free-breathing, a short-stroke engine would make a good racing design. Never thought of engine-bay size as a deciding factor in the design. But those older cars did have some restrictions. There was PLENTY of room for the 401 in my '65 Electra. I had two different engines in it, and NEITHER of them smoked--even a 100K plus miler. BUT, I never got the gas mileage with that car that my dad's 430-powered '69 Electra did. I think the fact that the 430 seemed happy with a lot of ignition advance made that the case, and also was the reason the 430 didn't feel as torquey as the 401. The 430 pinged like crazy, too, even on premium. It probably ran pretty lean. I always thought the nailhead was a natural "wedge" combustion chamber design... not a "semi-hemi." It would seem to make sense as a wedge, with the valves coming straight down as they did. Thanks for the history lesson!
  7. This thread has always meant to focus on How Good Packard Was rather than how good any individual might be at unearthing information to support that assumption. But I certainly want want to make sure that everyone's contributions are recorded if they have withstood the challenges of the AACA readership. It's less important to me that individual acknowledgements are made, although I tried to do that through earlier in-progress reports, in the interests of documentation. Individual contributors know themselves what they've provided, and I think are generally satisfied with that knowledge and aren't looking for additional recognition. I also appreciate the interest and comments of those who haven't necessarily had the time or inclination to make suggestions for changes or additions. They have shown by their readership and participation that there is a lot of interest in Packard's achievements and attempts to record them accurately. It has been one of my fondest wishes since childhood that Packard be recognized for the special car that it was--and should have continued to be. Even though my experience was limited to the '55 models at the time, I sensed that Packard was something special and deserved wider appreciation. So, a discussion amongst those who appreciate Packard cars is very gratifying for me, and I hope we all can continue to shed new light on the innovations and "mystique" that made Packard special.
  8. The Buick "nailhead" of the '50s and '60s was eventually discontinued and replaced with another excellent Buick V8. I've always wondered what advantages Buick engineers saw in the unique cylinder head arrangement, and why the design was abandoned--and never replicated by any other manufacturer to my knowledge. So, Nailhead fans (me included) what say you about the theoretical and practical advantages of the famed design? What I remember most about it was the tail-twisting torque that made a massive Electra feel light as a feather, and the impeccable reliability of the big 401. And secondly, how about the origins of the popular name for this design? I have heard at least two different explanations for the Nailhead terminology. The most common is that it referred to the small valve diameters, which made the valves (particularly the exhaust) look like "nails." The other story was that the vertical orientation of the valves made their motion like pounding in nails, albeit upside down. A true history of the origins of the Nailhead name would be an interesting find. I wonder if there were any references in the annals of Buick, or if it was a purely customer-applied name. Sounds like something that could have its roots in the racing circuit. So, to sum up: 1. What was the theory behind the nailhead design and its practical advantages, and why was it discontinued and never replicated? 2. Where'd that unforgettable name come from?
  9. Yeah, Thriller, but it has MY initials on it, so keep away! '69 was a wonderful year for Buicks. It seemed they pulled out all the stops on quality and refinement. With such low mileage and desireable features--a convertible with AC? wonder how many came with those two options--you'll be able to go for a premium price. Also, I bet the car was special ordered, and since it was in the family, you probably have good documentation. It sounds like a two-step process would be in order: First, a thorough cosmetic going-through. I notice you don't have any engine pics--is it clean under there? Underhood detailing is a must, as with the rest of the car. Make sure every little thing works. Second, put it up for sale with a nice, hefty "firm" price. If you find someone with the money burning a hole in his pocket, maybe you can part with it. No need to hurry! But most important, DRIVE IT! At 45K, a few more miles will do nothing to affect the price. Enjoy the experience of driving a car that is APPRECIATING in value! And it'll get noticed by more people that way, too. You can bask in their compliments, and at the same time casually let it drop that it's "For Sale" to a good home at the right price. If you can't get top dollar for it, wait another year and get MORE for it next year! Meanwhile, in nice weather, you'll have fun driving a dream car. I wish I was you...
  10. As I understood A.I.R. systems, you basically shoot a little fresh air into the hot exhaust gases and get the unburned hydrocarbons burning inside the pipes. Always seemed a little mickey-mouse, but the corporations did what they had to do to cobble together systems that helped lower tailpipe emissions. All I know is that, with a manual transmission and some aggressive shifting, you could get a heckuva nice rumble and bang through the exhaust when letting off the gas between shifts! Had a 302 in an '84 Mercury Capri that did that... rumbled like a big-block with overrich carb jets. But it was one of the last--if not THE last--"non-computer" 4-barrel (Holley) equipped V8s to pass emissions. And it got outstanding gas mileage: high twenties and even 30 on trips in those 55 mph days, just a touch above idle RPMs at speed in 5th gear. Rumble rumble rumble. Really miss having a car that sounds like that.
  11. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">two contributions to the Packard First list, which both you and 55packardguy have over looked.</div></div> Can't think of anything that was overlooked from anybody. I certainly removed a few things at your behest including such treasures as the V12 engine. I remember one excellent note that you had about a "first" that involved, I believe, a Packard education program. The reason that didn't go on the current list was because it is not an automotive engineering feature that appeared on a Packard. I believe at the time I suggested another list topic, probably suitable to another thread, of non-automotive "firsts" from Packard. A few suggestions also mentioned on this thread were neon signage, steel reinforced concrete construction, and there were even a coupe on the "original" PAC list--the Phillips screw and diesel aircraft engine--that I left off because they weren't automtive engineering firsts. Even thought it's an oldy, I do recall reading the post quoted by Packard8 above. I was surprised by the confrontational tone, considering that this thread was presented for enjoyment rather than to provoke competition. I think that many people who post on these boards have made great automotive accomplishments, both with their hands and their heads, but the goal of this discussion was primarily to tout Packard's accomplishments. I'm not pointing any fingers--sprited discussion is a given in this forum, particularly when anyone claims that their favorite marque was "first" with something. I think that there has been a lot of productive input, and am kind of pleased with how ruthless posters have been in keeping us honest about what Packard really did. I doubt this kind of discussion would've allowed so many of the original claims to survive intact, had it been another motor car manufacturer that was taken to task. Whether or not we ever find the source of that original list and its similar versions, I think that without it there would have been no starting point with which to begin the discussion. It served a valuable purpose in that regard. I don't doubt that the orignal list(s) was based on something existing out there in the archives of the Packard Motor Car Company, probably in the marketing or PR material from the '40s. (Note how the list fails to mention the additions from the '50s made by contributors here.) For those who love to pore over old records and do primary research into original sources, there's still a chance someone will find that original document if it exists. BTW, the argument above about "page-turners" versus "real researchers" just points out two different, but equally valid, forms of research--one aimed at synthesizing and expanding on previously published material, and another that digs into original source material and interviews of those with firsthand knowledge. With enough people venturing into these areas, one hopes to arrive at something closely approximating "the truth." Not always a cut-and-dried sort of conclusion, which is why discussion and consensus-seeking are so valuable. Here's to "living history" with an eye toward gleaning what evidence we can to support the accomplishments of our favorite automobile marque!
  12. Good eye! I noticed there were other Packards (except never saw the '54) but I couldn't identify them by year or model. How did you keep track of them all, take notes? The 48-49 (how do you tell them from a 50?) sedan was the most prominently featured, but it sure was a Packard-lover's movie overall. I think I have an idea why--I've heard the Clint Eastwood is a big Packard fan, and here was a chance to show several models from over the years in his film. I agree, it's a must-see movie. Unbelievably realistic in a "you are there" kind of way.
  13. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">finally all my chidding you over the last month, has finally forced you to except my challegne which is what I have wanted all along</div></div>Huh? I didn't accept any "challenge." What work I have done on this was on my own volition, not because of anyone's "chiding." I don't respond to ANYONE if I feel "forced," and this case is no exception. Suggestions, on the other hand, are always welcome. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">n the past when you have challegned me about certain things concerning the firsts list, I have stepped right up to the plate and answered the challenge. One the other hand when I have made a challenge to you, you have been reluctant to step up to the plate</div></div>Congratulations on feeling you have "stepped up to the plate." I have no idea what plate that might be. It seems you consider this exchange a series of lines drawn in the sand and responses to "challenges," while I consider it just a discussion which may have results that reach beyond the forum--or may not. I often don't respond to posts, particularly if they seem patronizing or coercive. I don't come here to listen to lectures or get told what to do--it doesn't pay enough! <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your position about contacting PI and PAC certainly has changed fromm your position that you stated on October 29, when you were reluctant to contact them on your own. At that time you thought it should be a group effort, before you would get involved.</div></div>I didn't change anything following my post of October 29th, you had just assumed that I hadn't already contacted PAC, which I had. I think a "group effort" would have a much better chance at recognition than just a communication from one person. Also, as I said earlier, I would think that anyone who is an actual MEMBER of these clubs would carry a lot more weight if they were to approach them about adopting an updated list. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
  14. Randy and Packard8, Thanks for your clarifications, which are pretty much in line with my thinking on how to proceed. I'm not a member of PAC or any other club, and if I'm not mistaken, these organizations are much more "answerable" to their membership than they are to an outsider. Anyone who's a member would probably stand a better chance to persuade their club to consider using the revised list--if they want to give it a try. Personally, I think that an Internet forum is one of the best places to "publish" a list like this, since it's almost infinitely debatable and lends itself to ongoing discussion, rather than being "set in stone" (or printed on paper). Maybe eventually I'll just re-post the best we can come up with surrounded by some official-looking curlicues like you see on legal documents or licenses. That'd be cool. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
  15. Packard53, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am very suprised that you would make a reply, to a person like me,</div></div> Well, I guess that just shows you can't always predict what I'll do, as you seem to be trying to. You also erred in telling me what I was "afraid" and not "afraid" to do, and whether or not I ever needed any "hand-holding," as I have corresponded with PAC regarding both the sources for their original list and the possibility of including the revised list that has been produced here with the help of a lot of (uncredited) contributors. I invited others to contact PAC specifically because I don't want to appear to be "running" this thread, as it has always been meant to be a group effort. I don't have any interest in whether I'd get any "credit" for what is produced here. I know what I've contributed and what I haven't, no matter what anyone else might think. I've found the folks at both PAC and PI to be very approachable, and resistant to change only in the amount that any organization would question challenges to the status quo. They graciously agreed to have their lists posted here, even though they knew that they would be open to challenge and debate. What they do with the results of that debate is up to them, and they certainly are under no obligation to take any of the suggestions for changes--but I think it would be a nice outcome if they did. It's interesting that you note Stuart Blond's comment that the list probably came from Packard's Publicity Department originally. That would make sense, as the PR people would be willing to "stretch" some of the accomplishments. It also seems likely that there would be no concrete sources or corroboration for the claims, but that the list has simply been "passed down" over the years and become accepted by Packard fans, and probably unnoticed by people who might have been more discerning. Posting the original list(s) here was an opportunity to open them up for "review" and commentary by the readership of the AACA forums--which is probably as credible a review committee as you'd find out there. I think even as it stands now, the revised list, based on the input from this forum, is an improvement over the old list. It contains many new items that have been pretty well documented and reviewed, as well as items from the original list that are more widely corroborated and in some cases ammended. Maybe someday it'll get wider circulation. But that would just be gravy. The main point is that the list makes for interesting, entertaining discussion, and keeps alive the memory of Packard and its many engineering achievements. After all, if anyone deserves credit for having any kind of "firsts" list, it is the Packard Motor Car Company, without which we wouldn't have anything to discuss.
  16. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now here is a direct challenge to you, please contact PI and ask them to list the references they have in their records which would varify the claims they have made, concerning the Packards First list. Heck invite them to come in the forum, and prove what I have posted about the list, as being false. I am pretty sure that my challenge to you will go un-answered.</div></div> Geez, John, I wouldn't really know how to answer that. I've suggested in earlier posts that, for those curious about the sources for the PAC list that they could follow up on that. I guess what you and some others have NEVER understood, although I've stated it many times--including in the Original Post on this thread--is that <span style="font-weight: bold">I only used the PAC list as a STARTING POINT for coming up with our own AACA Forum list based on input from anyone who wants to make suggestions or changes</span>. I never endorsed it in any way, other than to say that if only <span style="font-style: italic">half</span> of it was true, it would be a pretty impressive list. But I don't see the point of rolling over and accepting EVERY challenge at face value, as some of the OTHER information out there on which these challenges are based is not "set in stone" either. That's why I wanted some concensus from many contributors for changes, deletions and additions. Also, I do find it curious that the PAC list and the PI list agree on many points, and that a few other sources have similar lists which I have mentioned. I don't know if they were independently arrived at, but if so the number of agreements is striking and in itself really lends quite a bit of credibility. I think what they really lack the most is qualifying statements (such as First in a Mass Produced Car or First in U.S. or First as Standard Equipment or First Successful Application or a First Design that Became Generally Adopted by the Industry (such as Packard's Power Steering design). Those kind of explanations can open up a lot of legitimate claims, and explain why many of the items on those existing lists were included. Now, if anyone wants to go to the sources of those lists, such as PAC and PI, and find out what the documentation is that they are based on, I'd certainly like to be part of the effort. BUT, it has to be done diplomatically or we won't get anywhere. If you approach them with "well we know you'll never admit you're wrong, but we think you are full of it" what do you suppose the response will be? Deafening silence. A request or suggestion doesn't have to be honey-coated, but vinegar-coating won't get anywhere. I think that the revised list, on which I've made a few modifications today including the 1951 intro of electric windows, the deletion of the reverse window and the aluminum crankcase, is getting pretty nicely tightened up-- and it's still a darn impressive list. It has been trimmed back considerably, with more deletions than additions, but that was probably to be expected. As Kimes points out, claiming categorically that you're "first" is a tough thing to defend. (We started out with 43 automotive "firsts" and the list now totals 21--just about half.) Tilt steering wheel in 1900, anybody?
  17. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I will also point out that one of the Firsts claimed on the the list rear reverse slanted window. This design feature was on the Pakcard show car the 1953 Balboa, the design feature never appeared on any production Packard.</div></div> Fair enough. It's also been established that, contrary to rumor, the rear window did NOT lower. Kimes comments on this and references a production photo that clearly shows an "X" brace on the body below the window that would interfere with any window-lowering.
  18. Randy, Yes, I believe I was going by your information, and kudos to John for finding a verifiable intro date. As long as we call it an "electric" antenna and not just "power" it should be accurate, regardless of the existence of a vacuum operated alternative. Some folks over on the AACA General "Packard Firsts???" thread commented that some of the Packard innovations seemed "trivial," but look how much convenience the electric antenna has brought to drivers--and how common it is as an option today.
  19. Just saw the film, and a Packard appears in a scene with Ira Hayes, but it's not a '56, it's a "bathtub" 4-door, either a '48, '49 or '50, and it's prominently featured-- definitely NOT just a "glimpse." A fellow stops the car along the road with his family to take a picture with the Ira Hayes (so his kids can meet a "real authentic war hero"), while Hayes is out in a hot field picking crops. Very sad scene. Hayes died of "exposure" a short time later, probably related to alcoholism. Johnny Cash did a wonderful tribute song to him. Maybe there's a '56 Patrician somewhere else in the film, because it does cover other characters in later years, but I didn't see one.
  20. The brown/tan looks pretty classy. Darker colors have one sure disadvantage-- they get hotter in the sun. Especially an issue on an open car. I got talked into going with a very dark red on my boat seats and regretted it because of the scorching you can get, especially if you're wearing shorts on a hot day (and how likely that is!). Awesome looking car, and the tan really seems to "fit" the overall look nicely. So that's my vote, FWIW.
  21. These words of wisdom from Beverly Kimes were posted way back in July of '05, and I think they bear repeating: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What the foregoing description [of the 1900 Packard Model "B"] did not include,of course, was <span style="font-weight: bold">the historic significance of some of the Packard features</span>. Though it is a dangerous course always to state categorically that someone was first with something--someone else might come along and discover an earlier "first"--<span style="font-weight: bold">it is not irresponsible to note the areas in which the Packard pioneered</span>. The automatic spark advance, for example, was a feature not to become common on other automobiles for a number of years--and note should also be made of the rotating governor built into the automatic spark, which at maximum speed would pull the rotating cam on the shaft beyond the point of contact so as to stop the spark. (The rotating cam also had a tapering operative face, to bring the wider portion of the cam into operation as the speed increased and the narrower portion as the speed decreased.) The "H" gear slot, patented by Packard, would become the most generally used pattern in years to come. And certainly not many vehicles of that era could boast a foot pedal to control engine speed." Packard a History of the Motor Car and the Company, Beverly Rae Kimes ed., copyright 1978 Automobile Quarterly, page 38-39.</div></div> My comments at that time were as follows: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that Packard pioneered many innovative features and put them into production early on, introducing them to mainstream automotive use in the U.S. and probably elsewhere, is testimony to the philosophy of sound engineeering and continuous improvement that helped put Packard on the map as one of the great early marques. The fact that this philosophy continued all the way through Packard's last years, in spite of dwindling resources, attests to the company's legacy of innovation. Compiling information and evidence about the pioneering atuomotive efforts of Packard is a way of honoring that legacy. Any list of these accomplishments should probably be divided into categories, including patented inventions, documented first applications in the industry, first applications in the U.S., early adoption, and special innovations that did not become widely applied in the industry but were exclusive to Packard and proven to be reliable and useful. (Such as the Torsion-Level Suspension)</div></div> I would add this now: The items included in the list were introduced in a regular run of manufactured cars, not customs or specially built vehicles. Also, the "historic significance" of an item is probably the most important criterion for inclusion in the Packard Firsts list. That is what would make them worthy of consideration as milestones for the automobile industry (particularly in the U.S.) and not just for the Packard Motor Car Company. Did they introduce a new standard into the <span style="font-style: italic">mainstream</span> for the motoring public?
  22. This thread was started as a place to share information and ideas celebrating Packard's accomplishments. Given the 8000+ views so far, it seems that a lot of people enjoy reading about those accomplishments. It would be nice if more of them would share their own viewpoints here, but I can understand the hesitation to face the prospect of receiving one of the downright spiteful replies that are occasionally expressed here in response to thoughtful posts. But please don't hesitate-- there is still a place for positive discussion here, as there has been in the past.
  23. One thing that'll help these old cars sound a LOT less stressed at higher RPMs is... work on the fan! A great deal of the noise emanating from under the hood is fan noise. If you want to go high-dollar there are electrics, but even replacing with a clutch-type or plastic-bladed fan can help a lot. Clearance is often an issue, especially on the old P15/D24 models of '46-'47-'48. Don't know about the other MOPARS such as your '52. Then, naturally, there's always overdrive. I bet that Chrysler that did 95 had overdrive! Almost had to, unless it was down a mountain and the clutch was pushed in...
  24. Now I know this is asking a lot, but it sure would be nice to see some pictures of those cars! What a nice tribute-- a gallery of racing Packards. And not just from the old, old days when they had a factory program, but an acknowledgement of the few who went out there and raced Packards just because they <span style="font-style: italic">liked</span> them. After all, in the '40s '50s and '60s, how much crowd appeal did a Packard have?? The owners and drivers must've been some "true believers"! Ask the Man Who Races One...
  25. Gee, thanks Packard 8. I don't know exactly what-all has been said previously, but I think you just said it best... and YOU deserve the credit! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
  • Create New...