Pierce66

I agree - of course it dosnt make any sense to be historically accurate in the preservation / restoration of old cars. Why stop at the finishes ? Why not use modern materials in the chassis, engine, transmission, electrical systems ? C'mon...be serious...within the context of the AACA and the CCCA, we are supposed to be interested in ACCURATE history and restorations. Many of us, myself included, are ALSO hot rodders and customizers, taking advantage of so much of what modern technology has blessed us with. But...that is not what we do HERE as auto HISTORY buffs! I DISagree with you as to your belief that you can make the modern "two part with clear coat" LOOK like an authentic lacquer job. Again, I just took delivery on a beautifully restored '28 Rolls Phantom. Marvelous "two part with clear coat" paint job. I am sure when I exhibit it at public auto shows, where people go to impress other people with how shiny their cars are, it will do well in the "people's choice" category. My '38 Packard Twelve was re-painted with the correct nitrocellulose lacquer. Again, I submit even the UNtrained eye can spot the richer, admittedly "less shiny" finish. But dont you see - again, if we are seriously interested in the goals of AACA, the CCCA, and the various other historically-oriented organizations, we should try and PRESERVE history and re-finish our cars ACCURATELY. Incidentally, if you think it is EASY to paint with these new "two parts", you are in for a big surprise. I trained as a body and paint man back in the early 1950's under a man who had been the paint shop foreman for the Murphy Body Company during the classic era. So I think I know JUST A BIT about refinishing techniques. I can ASSURE you, the two part finishes are MUCH "fussier" to get that right balance of a good level finish, between "orange peel" and "run" (known as "painter's tears). Again...let's think about what we are doing here as AACA and CCCA members...we have to be honest and recognize technology keeps producing better and better materials thru out the construction and finishing of automobiles. BUT THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE ! Dog Spot

For Skyking: Of COURSE you are correct- lacquer IS a "thing of the past". Which is precisely why it should be used on cars of the past ! At the risk of repeating myself, of COURSE the modern two part paints, "topped" with a "clear coat", are far more durable and glossy than the finishing materials of the 50's and earlier. That is the POINT ! They are SO much "better" than the historically correct finishes, they are OBVIOUS even to the un-trained eye. Even the untrained eye will notice the difference in the way light reacts to a correct laquer or "synthetic enamel" paint job, than a modern high gloss clear coated "two part" finishing system. After re-finishing a car, I always keep enough left over, so that I have the same batch available to re-finish a good portion of the car should damage repair be necessary. I recently re-shot a fender on my collector car, with the same batch of thinned lacquer I painted it with in the 1970's. No problem ! ( Of course I properly seal my surplus paint before long-term storage !) So the argument about lacquer becoming obsolete, even if true (which it isnt - you can get lacquer just about anywhere if you know where to look) is not a good argument for using "modern" materials. Now - let me qualify all this - my latest aquisition ( a '28 Rolls Phantom ) has been beautifully restored using a modern "two part + clear coat" finish. Of COURSE it looks "too shiny", but if you are more interested in impressing some idiot who knows nothing and could care less about history that's what you SHOULD do. The other good reason for using a "two part", is if you are planning to use your "collector car" as a daily driver and/or dont have indoor storage. Under those circumstances, of course I would recommend the FAR more durable modern finishes. All depends on what your personal priorites and choices are. Dog Spot

Here's something to think about. Air conditioner blowers, if they are going to be large enough to push enough air fast enough to handle the incredible heat loads of cars of earlier eras, (especially if they are of darker, as in "radiation absorbing" colors), are going to take a LOT of electrical power. The largest 6 volt generators you normally find in typical production cars produced around 32 amps. That would be the same electrical power as a 12 volt system prodcing 16 amps. Ever seen a 16 amp. 12 volt system (either generator OR alternator...!) See my point ? The solution ? Those small highly reliable internally regulated "small case" Delcos from the 70's produce SIXTY amps - most cars today have MUCH MUCH more electical power in recognition of the high power drains of air conditioning. As Chuck notes, some people have figured out a way to make an air conditioning system work on 6 volts. I do not know how they do it - never seen one myself - I have a lot of questions on how well this actually works out in service. Biggest problem, as noted above, is the question of raw electrical power - again, you are going to need a LARGE system to competantly handle the heat loads. Then, on top of the power demand of the blower, what about the magnetic clutch for the compressor? To my knowledge, no such thing as a 6 volt compressor clutch. The pre-war Babcock system used in those Packards and Cadillacs so equipped, were "direct drive" units, in which the only way to turn the compressor off, was to disconnect its drive belt. I do not know how they did it on the '53 - '53 Packards - which, of course, were 6 volts - perhaps someone with one of these with "factory air" can tell us. I concur with the other posters in this "thread" who suggested adding a 12 volt alternator. The "small case" Delcos you can find in any auto parts store for about fifty bucks are internally regulated. You should be able to cobble up a bracket to mount the compressor so it wouldnt intefere with or look too out of place. You wouldn't need a very large battery - as once the engine is even idling, you'll have enough electrical power to run the system. Yes, there IS going to be some ingenuity required to fit a large enough condensor in front of the radiator. And I concur with Chuck's notes about cooling capacity issues. A quick point on cooling capacity. There is a REASON why the older cars had such massive cooling systems. Has to do with thermal effiency. The lower the compression, the more energy comes out as heat, and the less comes out as mechanical energy. You will HAVE to revise your cooling system with a modern heavy duty radiator core, and build a radiator shroud if your car dosnt already have one. You will also need a "fast idle" system to add throttle when the compressor engages. Modern cars do this thru their computer systems - cars of the 1960's had a system you could probably adapt - a vacuum powered throttle advance. Going to be an interesting project - keep us posted ! Dog Spot

For B.H: Well-written post - for once, we are in COMPLETE agreement ! Dog Spot !

For Packard V-8: Your information is correct as to the era of generator you are familiar with. Suggest you review maintainence manuals from the era this fellow's car is from. Dog Spot

Will be interesting to see what kind of power you get out of that thing now, what with BOTH your armature and field coils being re-wound. Should be MUCH more durabile with modern insulation; hopefully, the voltage wont be TOO high. If the voltage is much above 7.8, I would suggest you have them re-wire it to take a modern (meaning post 1935) full VOLTAGE AND AMPERAGE regulation. If it is LESS than about 7.8 volts, only thing left for you to do is determine how much CURRENT (meaning AMPERAGE) you want, that is both consistent with your driving habits (obviously, for night driving you'd want more amps, but you'd have to leave your lights on during EXTENDED day-time driving to avoid over-charging), or a lower setting if you are just doing mostly day driving. SPOT

What can you tell us about what was done to your generator ? Were the field coils re-wound ? Armature re-wound ? Modern materials will be MUCH better able to handle higher temperatures, meaning you can run with a higher charging rate than originally contemplated. Any good-sized electronics store should carry an inexpensive voltmeter. You already have an ammeter built into your car, which may or not be EXACTLY accurate - but dosnt matter. To accurately monitor the "health" of your generator, you need to know the VOLTAGE your generator is putting into the system. Assuming a given amperage, the higher the voltage, the 1) faster your batter will charge BUT 2) the quicker you will come to that point at which the battery will be OVER-charged and start "gassing" or bubbling out its acid solution. Here's what I would do. I would set that third brush to just a bit above "factory", and then monitor it - to see how fast the battery starts to get warm to the touch, how hot the generator gets (should get quite warm after a half hour or so of charging, but NOT too hot to touch ). And I'd be watching to see the voltage wasnt up beyond, say 7.5. Sounds like a lot of trouble ? Well...now you know why the industry went to external current and voltage regulation ! You have to be a bit more "involved" in the operation of older cars, than the newer ones, where more is done for you automatically. In the old days, people often ran with their lights on during the day on long trips, to prevent over-charging. Dog Spot

Interesting ! You SURE this is a legit. Packard item ? I dont ever recall seeing ANYTHING like that. Bear in mind there was a lot of "funny stuff" on cars that makes no sense today. For example, how many of you have seen an extra spark plug on an INTAKE manifold. That was a common thing on many cars of that era ( Packard called its version the "Fuelizer"). It was because the Ried Vapor Pressure of the fuel was so low....manufacturers had all kinds of wierd ways of getting a car started on a cold day. One way..was to hit the fuel/air mixture with an extra "charge" as it went thru the intake manifold into the engine. Another way is the rather wierd "starting carbuerator" on my Rolls Royce from that era. Yes...an actual separate carb. just for starting. Of course with today's fuels and their higher vapor pressure, this makes no sense. But that was then. Hope someone can explain that wierd thing to us. SPOT

For BH and his "followers": I really am sorry you and some of your friends feel so passionately about those issues about Packards that you cant stand to see discussed. Again, I think B.H. has performed a valuable service for those people by publisizing this "ignore" feature. So USE it ! Don't you guys realize, that the louder you make your accusations that I would engage in inappropriate speech, "bashing", vulgarity, etc, the more people are going to become curious and read my posts ? If you dont want conflicting ideas discussed, STOP MENTIONING them and people who provide them! The "what if" designs for Packards after the failure of Packard, are certainly an interesting subject for discussion. I dont understand why you react so passionately to a discussion of the BACKGROUND of those fantasies. But that is your business. Again, I suggest you pay more attention to what information you can provide, and learn, from this marvelous form of communication, USE the IGNORE feature to keep out thoughts and ideas you feel are hostile to your belief system, and STOP mentioning me ! You are wasting people's time ! And, more important, this "hostilty" bit you are engaging in, could very well be a "turn off" to the very people we would like to bring into our hobby. Dog Spot

Let's see ! Spot

Hey Chuck - about that government clerk who wanted to call your classic a "Ford"....you dont suppose...she was on to something....! (ha..couldn't resist that...!) Seriously, Chuck, I hope you dont think your great state has a monopoly on government employees who have limited vision when it comes to dealing with old vehicles...! When I brought my '36 American La France V-12 into California for the first time, the DMV clerk refused to accept the paper-work - let me explain something to our younger readers - the idea of a many-digit "Vehicle Identification Number" on a plate affixed to the top of the dash, is relatively new, starting with a then new Federal law in the 1960's. Prior to that, a manufacturer could assign any kind of number/letter combo. it wished, and THAT is what wound up on your title. In my case, ALF had a FOUR digit number, mine happens to be "7755". The clerk didn't like that - wanted more digits - wanted the "VIN" (again, that only dates back to the 1960's). I told her several times that the number #7755 was the CORRECT number, the only one assigned by the manufacturer, and that is what she was to use on the new California title, just as the vehicle had been titled for so many years by other jurisdictions. It gets worse. She insisted I go back outside to the fire engine, and "just look up on top of the flat portion of the dash-board, it has to be there". I explained to her it is an "open cab" vehicle..there IS no "flat portion" on top of the dash-board...dosnt exist !". Well...she said,very huffy..."you will just have to write the manufacturer, and get a letter from them explaining why they did not comply with the VIN law". I explained to her that American La France's factory was long closed, and the plant razed to the ground LONG before - there was nothing ..nobody there to write to. HONEST...she said VERY tersely..."THAT'S NO EXCUSE".....! Dog Spot

I think B.H.'s discovery that there is a mechanims for him and others in his group to IGNORE ideas he dosnt like to hear, is an excellant solution to his problem. Obviously, his attempt to silence those who disagree with him, has failed. His repeated claims of "bashing" and other inappropriate chat-room behavior have only encouraged others to read the so called "offending" posts, to find the only "offense" is disagreeing with BH ! So - B.H. finally did come up with the best solution for all of us. Those who want to silence information they disagree with, now have a way to do it, without inteferring with the right of legitimate car buffs who enjoy exchanging ideas. Congradulations ! Dog Spot

Hmm...a car whose name rhymes with "FORD"....... Spot

Bill P - Regarding your comment on connecting rod bearings - you might be interested to know that a much wider variety of bearing materials than you indicated, is available for 'insert' type rod bearings, depending on the application. As you may know, Federal Mogul and Packard pioneered the "copper-lead" concept, and this has worked out so well down thru the years, it is still the first choice for long life/high load applications. Many manufacturers have offered aluminum and even silver combinations. I have confidence in Shawn - he has been around old cars long enough to know that each era's technology has to be dealt with - again , you can bet he isnt going to drive a 1930 car the way he could have driven his '41. I am sure you know that a 1930 car is light-years behind a 1940 car in terms of, for lack of a better term..I will just call "driveability". Of course you know Shawn's prior classic, a '41 Cad., was essentially a modern car, in that it had hydraulic brakes, independant front suspension, and most important, a much 'higher' (lower numerically) final drive ratio, and, of course, "insert" type connecting rod bearings. Shawn is an experienced old car buff, thus is fully aware that steady speeds that would destroy a 1930 car can be enjoyed in a 1940 car - isn't it interesting how much changed in only ten years of auto technology ! I am pleased that you had the opportunity to see the exchange between Shawn and I over his "new" Packard. As you may know, Shawn and SOME of his friends have significant differences with me on certain aspects of Classic Car Club Of America policy. But as you have seen here, in the best tradition of the old car hobby in general, and CCCA members in particular, all that fades into the background when we start bouncing ideas off each other about our cars, and how we can help each other enjoy them. None of us individually has "all the answers". Together, we have a lot more fun, and life with old cars gets a lot easier ! Dog Spot

Installing an over-drive is not a major problem. You have plenty of space to do it. I recommend you build a sub-frame for the overdrive, then RUBBER MOUNT the sub frame. Bolting the over-drive rigidly to a metal frame WILL transfer gear noise, and that can be an annoyance. Yours is a fairly heavy car, with a motor that is not all that powerful. The "stock" final drive ratio would be just right for modest city driving. With a high speed rear end, you might find the car a bit sluggish. Good luck ! Dog Spot

Hi, Albert: I hope you are right and someone will take on that job and treat it right. I havn't participated in a major restoration for a number of years, and thus have lost track of the costs, prices, etc. Assuming a hard worker could do the body and mechanical work himself, what kind of rough guess / estimate do you think would be in the ball park for: 1) the cost of re chroming a car of that type would be ? 2) What do you figure the cost of an authentic interior would be ? I have the awful feeling costs have gone so far out of sight in the last few years, this car could be an economic disaster - my recollection of the interior of the Derhams, is that they were just about as elegant and featured the same kind of extremely expensive and rare Laidlaw-type broadcloth and Wilton "moss-tread" carpets as the traditional "top of the line" Packards from before World War Two. I was quoted MANY years ago a price of TEN GRAND to re-do my '38. Dont want to THINK what it would cost today. Which gets us to the real tragedy of why we don't see as many "project" cars being restored these days. It has always been the case that it costs far more to restore a rough car, than just go out and buy the same type of car in good shape. Trouble is, the costs are so much higher these days; probably scares people away. Somewhere around the house I have a copy of Robert Gottlieb's CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES, published around 1952, which tried to explain to the general auto buff public why some of us crazies thought the big luxury cars of the pre-war days were worth saving. I think I am quoting exactly when he said "it makes no sense to pay $75. for a classic that needs work, when you can buy a sharp, serviceable one in near new condition for $175......! I dont know which would be the greater shame - letting that rusted out hulk disappear, or have someone take it on who can NOT do it justice, so that it is not "restored" in the REAL meaning of the word. An accurate restoration of that incredibly rich-looking interior would be a gift to history. An inaccurate restoration would not explain to people what we mean when we say "the best of the best". Dog Spot

A fifty TWO Henny limo ? Didn't know there was such a thing. But again, the sad, rusted mess in the photos, does NOT to me appear to be anything more than a standard Patrician/400/300/Cavalier shell. "Stretched" in the rear door area? Sure looks like it. You sure about that "'52 Henny" business? Again, only Derhams I ever saw had '53 front clips and rear trim and, again, were on the Patrician/400/300/Cavalier shell. Never saw a Henny fitted out as a "Derham". As we can see from the Packard Club photos, there were also '54's, and some on the so called "Henny limo" chassis. As far as the curved, rather than sharp corner upper windshield - yeah...we know that is not regular 195THREE production - bet there is a story in all this as to why the upper body shell is '51 / '52 and the front clip a '53. Best guess, is they shipped out to Henny what they had handy in Parts Stores that afternoon..! Dog Spot

Hi Again Shawn ! Saw some of the pictures - looks pretty good. If anyone thinks that the paint job on Shawn's car is a bit too "theatrical", let me suggest you take a look at some of those beautiful multi-color ads in the Fortune Magazine of the 20's and 30's. Yes, in those somber times, MANY, perhaps even MOST Packards came out the door dark solid colors. BUT...if you told a Packard dealer what you wanted...well..most of us know...Packard was in business to sell cars..! Shawn - a thought for another project for you (this is what I tell anyone who has just aquired an old car ). What do you know about the wheel bearings, meaning, when were they last serviced ? The front wheel bearings are pretty conventional, and obvious. The REAR wheel bearings on Packards are a PAIN. You have to "pull" the brake drums off, then un-bolt the brake backing plates to get at em. Unless you are SURE the rear wheel bearings were recently greased (meaning within the past 10 years or so ) I would love to see you go in there and check them out. Do you know how to "pull" the rear drums on a Packard ? Do you have access to the special "puller" that you MUST have to do this job without wrecking the hub ? Do you know the special "trick" to using it ? If not, call me, or I can review it for you here. I feel so strongly about this "check the rear wheel bearing" issue, that if you cant find the special "puller" locally, I will be happy to loan mine to you, and pay for the freight both ways ! Hartmann WHO...? Woof !

Just took another look at the photos...yeah..it sure DOES look like the rear portion was "stretched". Also, note the front windshield. We know this car was built as a 1953 model - but dosnt the front windshield (look at the rounded top of the windshield outer upper corners) look like the '51 - '52' roof stamping? ? Dog Spot

Great pictures - how tragic that such an elegant car came to that ! I dont know how many of these so called "Derhams" were built, but I have seen more than one '53. One of our better known Packards International members in the Santa Ana, California area has a beautiful one. I do not recall that they were "stretched" sedans - I recall them as just as standard Patrician/300 series body shells, having a "formal sedan" type rear window, and a fancy center compartment between the front and back seats - again, very elegant! Those Derhams looked so much better than the limo. they had in that year, which, if memory serves, was just the Clipper rear shell "tacked on" to an extended sedan. I dont know if they did the "Derham" treatment to any of the full limos that Packard had built by ..hmm..was it Henny ? I hope you decide to try and restore that thing - gawd...what that would entail, I dont even want to think about the time, cost, and effort. I still dont have access to my library of old Packard-related items, but hopefully someone in here will remember which publication had a full article, with pictures, about these fantastic elegant looking '53 "Derhams". Hopefully, one of our other "posters" will be able to find the articles for you, and that will whet your appettie to try and save this interesting piece of automotive history. I keep referring to them as 1953's, because I never saw or heard of any later "Derham" Patricians. Just dont know. Dog Spot

Hey Shawn - I hope Bill P was just kidding about putting a "mouse" in your "new" Packard ( "mouse" is what the hot rodders call the small block GMC/Chevrolet ). What Bill P may NOT know, is that you had a 41 Cad; because those were such great open road cruisers, you could be a bit "spoiled" by that. Having met you in person, I know you are smart enough not to try and drive a 1930 car the way you could have driven that '41 Caddy ! Shawn - here's a suggestion for your first "project". Price is right - just your own labor ! Those of us with engines who have BIG FLAT LONG OIL PANS, should "drop" them when we first get the cars, and then at least once every couple of years thereafter. Reason - even if you drain the oil when the motor is hot, those big flat oil pans hold a lot of crud from the combustion process. Bad news is, our old low compression engines dont burn all that clean - you will find all kinds of soot and abrasive-attracting crap in there - guaranteed. And remember, your new "beast" does NOT have a floating oil pump intake - it ingests oil right from the lowest point in the oil pan - not good, as the junk gets sucked up, and the oil screen on the pump intake isn't fine enough to take out engine wearing abrasives. Keep that oil pan clean, and that's a major part of the battle of getting good service out of the engine. If you look underneath, you will see this is a very simple job. The FIRST time you do this, you will ruin the oil pan gasket, as it most likely will be "welded" from old age, partially to the lower crank-case, partially to the pan. You can get a roll of gasket paper from any large auto parts house, and make your own. Once you have a new gasket, if you coat the oil pan side of it with grease, the NEXT time you take it down, it will be so easy it will be a joke, and you wont have to make another gasket ever again ( I made the one for my Twelve back in the mid 1950's..."dropped" the oil pan every couple of years...and ...this is 2004 ! Your idea of an over-drive is a good one, practical but expensive way of cutting engine r.p.m.'s to sane levels at the 55-60 mph PROPERLY SET UP wood wheels would be capable of. Not knowing enough about wood wheel technology, I have no idea what a safe limt should be on these. Sounds like you are using your head of approaching this issue with a bit of trepedation. What can you tell us about the engine ? Was it rebuilt ? When and by who ? It is entirely possible that the ORIGINAL rod bearing material is still in there, OR, that, if re-babbited, someone knew what they were doing and used a high nickel-content babbit. IF this is the case, AND you keep the r.p.m.'s down (yeah..I know..I know...after driving a '41 Cad. ...quite a come down, at least as far as crusing speeds are concerned...!) you should be all right if you dont "push" it. C'mon...be fair..you know what my car looks like...let's see yours ! Dog Spot

For PACK 53: Your comments and mine are a bit off track for this particular "thread" - hopefully the other readers will be patient with us. First of all, still waiting for the info. you have on my Rolls. Again, I ESTIMATED the h.p. of this monster, just a rough guess. Not sure where you got the idea I was making firm statements on this.. again - I just dont know exactly. Perhaps you will share the info. you have with us ? And you havnt yet E mailed me your own E mail address - if you do that, will be happy to send you some photos of it. Did you look it up on Fantasy Junction's Web Site ? As of a week ago, it was STILL shown as being in their inventory - great pictures and description there. As for rear axle ratios - perhaps you can enlighten us on that too. The Rolls experts tell me that there was a MUCH wider range of rear axle ratios available than I would have thought - my guess is this thing has about a 3.2 ratio, which, with 21" wheels, would work out roughly, again ROUGHLY, to about 1-9 / 2.2, factoring in the much smaller outer diameter tires of a modern car. As a side note, once you go as far back as the 20's, the further back in automotive history you go, at least amongst the big powerful "super" cars of the ultra rich, the HIGHER the rear axle ratios go ( meaning lower numerically) - but this reflects the further back in time you go, the lower the r.p.m. of the engines, not necessarily the potential top speed of the cars. My best guess is - and again, I know little about Rolls Royce ( I didn't even know how to start the thing until I got on the phone and started tracking down Rolls Royce guys and got hold of a manual ! ) ( these guys say the Phantom is little more than a Ghost chassis with four wheel brakes and an overhead valve engine !) ( I think they are right, from what I am learning..!) the ratios Rolls was offering, were originally calculated out for the earlier, much slower turning Ghost engine. I dont know where you got the idea the Rolls of this era would be similar to the Packard ratios of later eras. Packards in the thirties had MUCH lower axle ratios than cars from the teens and early twenties. They ran typically around 4 and a half to one, (mine was 4:41 ) even lower on some of the heavier cars. Even in so called "modern" engines, meaning engines built 1935 or later with "insert" type rod bearings, I dont think it is wise to try and drive something like that much over 45-50 mph. Just asking for trouble. With those ratios, and given the relatively long strokes, you are forcing inertial loads on the rods and crankshaft at 50 mph FAR more punishing than a modern car would be at 100 mph ! Remember, when you start talking about centrifugal loads, you are talking GEOMETRIC, not arithmetric force increases. Perhaps you were thinking of later (meaning 1930's era Rolls Royces, which may well have had much lower axle ratios..again, I just dont know ). Incidentally, your '53 Packard, assuming it is an Ultramatic, most likely came with a 3.54 rear axle ratio, meaning that if we both set out on a cross-country trip, and I was in a STOCK geared Packard Twelve, say we went 2,000 mi - my car's engine and drive-line would have to go an extra THOUSAND miles to cover the same distance ( now you know why I "built" a center section for it with a 3.08 axle ratio ! ). AND, say we were both cruising at a modest 60 mph, mine with the stock ratio would have been beating itself to death to keep up with you - effectively doing about 90 mph to match your 60 mph. Incidentally, are you aware that when the "Twin Six" was introduced for the 1932 model year, as a "stunt" Packard stuck a left over "high gear" rear axle ratio (probably out of one of the 734 Speedsters) in it, and otherwise "bone stock," it "beat a golf ball" at over 120 mph ! Let's swap photos. Love to see some of your '53. I spent a lot of happy hours in my (what did you call them..."high pockets") Packards of that era. Dog Spot

Shawn - you lucky devil ! Sounds great ! Just bear in mind what we've discussed in various threads before. Think about the roads your car was designed and geared for. At the risk of repeating myself, remember that with stock gearing, at, say 45 mph, that 5" stroke means your pistons and connecting rods are thrashing about, generating many MANY times the inertial loadings as a modern car with modern "insert" connecting rod bearings, incurs at over 90 mph. Your '41 Cad. was light-years more advanced in its ability to handle modern speeds. I hope that didn't spoil you for how much difference only about 10 years made in the evolution of automotive technology ! Please feel free to telephone me if I can be of help - you know my favorite saying..there ARE NO STUPID QUESTIONS when car buffs, especially fellow CCCA members, want to add to their knowledge, and you know that I have "been there" down thru the years with technical problems involving Packards ! Double triple secret WOOF !

B.H: The post I deleted at Craig's request was meant to add information, to complement the original post - not "bash" or "hi-jack". The history of the Packard Motor Car Company, how it burst on the automotive technology scene like a shining star, and how it fell, what it was, and what it could have become is a fascinating one, with many lessons. Individuals, businesses, even whole empires, rise, then fall. Of COURSE it is interesting to speculate "what if", but it is also quite relevant to a "fantasy" to point out why the what if, failed, and was ONLY a "what if"...and not a "what really COULD have been". I noted with interest that some of the speculation on what Packard COULD have produced centered around "Lincoln-like" designs. Sadly, that shows us part of the problem with what Packard had become in its dying days. Packard had lost its way ! Instead of original designs that high-lighted its special place in automotive technology history, it was reduced to poor attempts at copying others. Are you aware that as Packard was falling apart, they seriously contemplated buying old LINCOLN bodies and running gear from FORD, re-badging them, and trying to pass THAT off as Packards ? You are probably aware that when even that hair-brained fraud on the auto buying public failed in its inception, they came up with something even worse...in 1957 and 1958, they had an outside vendor make up some trim parts, pasted them on Studebakers, and tried to pass THEM off as Packards ! Of COURSE I wish there was a NEW Packard Twelve that LOOKS like a Packard, at our local Packard dealer - of course I have my own fantasy about what that would be like. But again - in discussing our fantasies about such things, we can learn much from a study as to why the fantasy..is only a fantasy. So - in the deleted post, I simply commented my own view that no matter WHAT Packard had come up with, it had so ruined its reputation, that people stopped buying their product. You cant pay the salaries of a design team, or keep a business open, if people reject your product. That IS what happened. And a study of it IS useful to us, as individuals, as businesses, and as nations ! How different is it, from a human behavior standpoint, when German staff officers were taken off duty, or even worse, when they warned that a Russian campaign could take more than six weeks, and thus troops should have winter gear? How different is it, from a human behavior standpoint, when Packard management FIRED any factory rep, who would come back warning that they'd better do something about the "quality gap", or they would lose even more sales. The beauty of these forums, is that we can learn from others ( even '53 Packard!) if we try and keep an open mind, and not waste time looking for personality disputes. Yes, those "fantasy designs" of what "could have been"...tell us MUCH about Packard's failure, if we will only listen.

I think you are right - we dont see young people in any great numbers, doing today what our generations did - get a kick out of fixing something up. We've all heard the reasons "instant gratification"...and other excuses - my own prejudice is younger people today just havnt got the "guts" we did. Nor the technical skills. Wish I had an intelligent contribution on this - all I have is fear...fear for the future, as fewer and fewer American kids have a CLUE how to hold a screw-driver, or even CARE that they dont. Perhaps lack of pride and self-respect as to "feeling of accomplishment" is a factor - another of my prejudices is that so many young people are not embarssed about "phony things". Many of you have seen those TV shows about "CLASSIC RESTORATION", only to find they are talking about taking a 1950's era Chevrolet's sheet metal, and mounting it on modern components. And they get so angry when you try and give em a little real automotive history. As if it were part of their religion to be proud of their ignorance. Heck...I even had a guy get mad at me when I explained "Route 66" was just a silly song from the 1940's...that 'caught on'...that the REAL name was U.S. Highway 66..."routes" were the "State Sign Routes" or state highways. Wish I knew what all this means. Hopefully, we still have enough legit. car buffs around who will try and exchange ideas, and TRY to educate people as to REAL automotive history. HOW do we "reach" young people and get them interested in automotive history, and how it evolved, so that the younger generation WILL be interested in "project cars" and save a few ? Beats me. A puzzled WOOF from Dog Spot