Packard enthus.
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Packard enthus.
-
-
Maybe I should get white-walls for my fire engine, and re-submit THAT for "classic" status..!
What the heck..if the Board was silly enough to take that applicaton seriously...that it didn't recognize a JOKE to make fun of them.... by us "old hands"...to poke fun of them for "admitting" so many additional cars to "classic" status...they just might go for it..!
-
have you fellows notified the engineering depts of the automotive industry, and submitting them to the SAE ? Sounds to me like you have found out something they dont know, and would probably be glad to learn - but you could make a fortune with your findings...the auto industry has been wasting SO much money on all that extra machining to make "insert" rod bearings all these years.
-
hey...relax...this guy knows his stuff...he is looking for a CLASSIC car...everyone knows what that is...(the used car you are trying to sell...!)
-
You will find all kinds of "experts" in the automotive hobby who will assure you THEIR info. is the ONLY info that can be relied on. Of interest - we have some people in here who feel very passionately that "poured babbit" when "done right" is the only way to go.
Here's the problem with trying to find excuses to use poured babbit. IT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE BY ANY AUTOMOTIVE-TYPE ENGINE MANUFACTURER. I am sure if you prowl around these forums, you will find all kinds of people who KNOW they are smarter than the engineers who, since the 1930's, have confirmed "insert" type bearings are the ONLY way to go.
The fact is poured babbit DID work clear into the 1920's, when engine speeds started to pick up, as roads improved. I have some degree of familiarity with the work the Packard Company did, trying to find some way of making their engines stay together at what were then high speeds (we'd call that "in town traffic today!). They failed. They tried finned connecting rod caps, oil coolers, all manner of things.
In late 1934, to mark the introduction of the 1935 model year, Packard conducted a 25,000 mile test, in which they ran their smallest engined car WIDE OPEN for 25,000 mi ( I believe the average speed was 92 mph). FINALLY, since that car was equipped with the then-new "insert" type rod bearings, they had a connecting rod bearing design that would stay together at high speeds.
A competent specialty machine shop should be able to set up your connecting rod "big ends" to take a "modern" (meaning 1935 technology !) "insert" type bearing. I would be surprised if a competent machinest couldnt find an "insert" type bearing that would work in just about any application.
Yes, "poured babbit" did work in the old days. Well..sort of..in those days people 1) operated their cars at MUCH slower road speeds, hence engine speeds, then they do today...and 2) nobody expected an engine to go much beyond 30,000 miles without an overhaul anyway.
Chevrolet and Buick did get away with poured babbit until thru 1951 production. They used a VERY thin over-lay, which seemed to work better than Packard and others thicker babbit. If you want to see what happened when poured babbit-bearing equipped cars were subject to the higher speeds made possible by better roads, go thru the newspaper accounts of the opening days of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the late 1930's. That will say it all.
-
durn right ! And it wasnt only the employees who felt crushed and screwed ! It is hard now to understand or explain today, but customer loyalty to an American automobile product in earlier times was near religious in nature with all kinds of folk.
Again hard to comprehend today - there were two "old time" Packard dealers in areas that we went to, in Los Angeles, at frequent intervals ( Frost & French on Western, and Packard La Brea on La Brea just south of Wilshire. I remember seeing customers actually in tears, with various folk, some employees, some just passer by's, actually looking like it was some kind of funeral, when word came down that East Grand Ave was locking up.
-
you are correct - there was no clutch on the Babcock system. Of interest, is that when "factory air" again became an option in 1953, there was also no clutch on those Fridgidere compressors (these were a "modern" rotary type, entirely different than the "standard piston meat locker" type used on the pre war cars. Chrysler introduced its own "AirTemp" system about the same time - cant recall what kind of compressor or if it had a clutch.
The interesting thing about the pre-war Babcock units is they did have a fairly sophisticated air filtering system, which we only now see coming back - I think my 2001 Toyota is the first "current" car to have a cabin air filter incorporated into its air system.
-
Hey guys - dont get me wrong.. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to write about, think about, or in any other way help us learn more about Packards. Trouble is, editors are only as good as their sources. In Langworth's case, again, I never met the guy, but he has been responsible for a few "bo bo"'s down thru the years. Same with Kimes, who is, from what I have heard, a sweet-heart of a person.
I dont want to go too far off thread, so I wont go into the whoppers these two have made, that I personally know are just tall tales. Hey.. it happens - I served as Editor of enough publications myself, to know how an Editor can get caught with material that is off-base.
Dosnt mean they are bad people! Dosnt mean all, some, or even most of their work isn't worth reading.
What I DONT know, is how much they PERSONALLY actually KNOW what it meant to turn a wrench on a Packard, and deal with real live owners, when these things were in service!
-
I am so thrilled to learn this Langworth guy (writing somewhere around 30 years after Packard went into the toilet because it couldnt sell cars) knows all about 1954 Packard performance and quality.
If you want to see how bad my memory is about the REALITY of the choices car buyers have in those years, look at the various articles on Packard sales figures. WHy they went up. Why they went down. Why they went DEAD !
I never met this Langworth fellow, so I have no idea what his mechanical background is. I dont know what Packard he personally owned, worked on, or drove.
But to suggest that the straight eight Packard engine was in the same league, performance wise, with a modern short stroke "cross-flow head" V-8 of its era, does raise my eyebrows. Especially since, being half crazy and senile, I have this wierd belief that the road tests I am aware of from that era, support my own recollections.
Seriously, you are partially right - a "stick" equipped 327 or 359 with a four barrel WOULD get out of its own way. But, a "stick" equipped '54 Cad (if there was such a thing - I dont think there was) or a "stick" equipped Buick or Olds of that year...c'mon..man - the Packard driver would be lucky to see the competitor's tail-lights with binoculars! The CLAIMED horsepower dosnt put the power to the road. An "L" head engine just cant breathe anywhere near as well as an overhead engine. That is why, except for the cheapest, smallest industrial engines, I dont think you can find the "L" head design still in production. It simply "dosnt cut the musturd" from a performance standpoint.
So the Packard with Ultramatic ( as about 98% of them were ordered) had two strikes against it - a miserable transmission that would not let the engine spin at its best power range, AND an engine whose design prevented it from having much of a power range compared to the competition's MUCH more modern design!
The problem was, the new car luxury buyer did not order a car with a manual transmission. I dont have the figures in front of me, but most luxury cars by that era, in fact, the overwhelming majority, came with automatic transmissions by the early 1950's.
Because the GM Hydramatic had FOUR speeds foward, GM cars could be geared "tall" for long-distance high speed crusing, and still, with the extra low first gear, REALLY snap your neck off in a drag race. Again "L" head engines simply cant brathe as well as over-head valve engines, especially, with "cross-flow" cyl. heads.
The problem with the Packard Ultramatic of that era, is that it was a NO speed transmission! Seriously! It had a convertor and a "lock-up" clutch. You started out in a mushy fluid-like drive, and then, depending on the throttle lever, you would have a "lock-up" in direct drive. That was IT. Now, you could move the column selector into a "low" range, and bring into place a reduction gear set, but it was still only a NO speed in the so called "low range". Again, it would start out in "convertor"...then you'd get a "lock up" into "reduction-direct", and when the car was moving over, say about 20 mph, you could MANUALLY move the column shifter into "high".
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NEW CAR BUYER, WHO WAS EXCITED ABOUT AUTOMATIC SHIFTING, WANTED TO HEAR !
Part of the problem with you guys in here..is...we all here, are CAR BUFFS ! We like to monkey around with our cars, play with em, we are willing to accept shortcomings, and we fix em.
The new car buyer of 1954 wanted to drive out of the dealership, perhaps beat the next guy at an impromtu stop light drag, and/or have passing power on the two-lane highways of that era.. and then have a trouble-free car. Crusing along at , oh, say 50 mph, and "flooring" an Ultramatic Drive equipped Packard of that year, and the "lock-up" clutch dis-engages, and you are back in that sluggish slippery fluid-type drive. (yes, it was a torque convertor, but the slippage rate was absurd).
No matter how many times some guy like Langworth will type in some book that they THINK Packard "build quality" met industry standards, wont change the fact that it FAILED. People stopped buying Packards because they saw too many of them going back to the dealerships on the back of tow trucks. People stopped buying Packards when they opened the hoods, and even BEFORE they saw that perfectly reliable 1920's era engine design, felt how flimsy the hood was, compared to a GM product of the same year. Add that all together with the miserable "buld" quality (yeah...right..I am senile...eh...) and that explains why neither new customers, nor previous "re-peat" Packard customers came back for more.
Enjoy your Packard...whatever year or price-range it is. But try and keep an open mind on hsitory - Packard is DEAD. It committed SUICIDE. All the conspiracy theories in the world...all the fancy economic theories, wont change the fact that what came off the transporters at the dealerships were sub-standard products, that failed miserably to meet customer expectations.
As a personal note, once, when my mom ruined the engine in our '51 convertible, I went into a junk-yard and bought the engine out of a wrecked Packard '54 ambulance which, of course, had the four barrel carb. and higher compression than the '51 "327".
I figured out a way to play with the linkage on the Ultramatic, so I could get the "reduction gear" - "low" range start, then a solid "lock up" at about 20 mph, then manually shift into high range. With that combination, other cars of that era could still pull ahead of me at stop lights, but not by much!
0ne fine summer, soon as I finished my Army Reserve duties, I drove the thing to New York to see a girl..left the George Washington Bridge in NYC, and pulled off the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles, in TWO AND A HALF DAYS ! And that was before the Interstates, so you can imagine how fast I was going once I cleared the big cities....! But that didnt help Packard sales. The public made a choice ! The public HAD a choice !
Funny..I just cant recall seeing Langworth around any of the garages I worked in in those years...!
Everyone..if you have a Packard product...get it on the road and enjoy it. Today is today. The past has passed! But trying to ignore the lessons of history, is not good, either as car buffs, nor as individuals!
-
My own experience is that any well-equipped competent radiator shop can take your radiator, remove the lower and upper tanks, and fit you up with a modern core.
I do suggest you spend the extra money ( they will probably give you a choice of price ranges, which will reflect its capacity) and get the best one you can = most expensive.
Here's why - basic law of thermodynamics - the lower the compression, the more inefficient the engine and the more heat is wasted going out the cooling system and exhaust. As you get back into the 1940's and earlier, you run across ever lower compression ratios, which mean less efficiency and more wasted engine heat to get rid of.
In my own case, when the radiator went bad in my Packard V-12 - (a 480 cu. in monster with only 7 to 1 compression) the guys at the radiator shop were amazed at how heavy-duty it was, so they didnt argue too much when I wanted to best (meaning most capable) radiator I could get.
I am very pleased with the result. With a properly restored cooling system (chances are any modern radiator core you get will be more efficient than what was in there) Packards ARE NOT CAPABLE OF OVERHEATING. IT IS AGAINST THE PACKARD LAW....!
Good luck !
-
for '55
I read your posts - PLEASE - be assured I personally APPRECIATE your enthusiasm for the V-8 Packards. I can tell you our family, being long-time Packard nuts, practically whopped for joy when, in the fall of 1954, the advertisements, Packard salesmen calling our home, industry scuttle-butt, all screamed from the roof-tops...PACKARD IS BACK !
YES - those '55 / 56's had some tremendous "leap fowards" ! I dont know how to direct you to it, but somewhere out there in computer-land, I will BET you could buy a video of a promotional film I saw, that showed what a '55 Packard with the new suspension system could do to ANY of the competing luxury cars. It was REALLY funny ! It was a high-speed "run" over a raised bump - believe it was a rail-road crossing. The then-new Packard literally floated over it, obviously giving a smooth, stable, and controllable ride. The other competing luxury cars just about lost control trying to keep up with it.
As a result of what the new '55's could do, Packard sales didnt just come out of the toilet..they went thru the roof. Well..for the first few months the cars were available.
But the sad fact is, once it became disgustingly clear that the "build quality"/reliability was so poor, sales plumeted even lower than before, to the point that by the 1956 year, you couldn't give one away !
As you point out, "I have nothing to compare it with". That your problem..and it isnt your fault ! You werent "there! I was !
In the fall of 1954, when the 1955 Packard line was introduced, Packard wasnt the only manufacturer offering new automobiles ! Other manufacturers were too ! See if you can get someone to give you a ride in a well-mainted '55 Cadillac or Lincoln. Look at how the hoods are braced, study carefully the "fit and finish" of the dash, window hardware, etc. NOW you see the problem ! NEW car buyers DID have something to compare and they VOTED WITH THEIR FEET !
So -you are wrong - Packard could NOT have "gutted it out". Th simple economic fact is, if you cant sell product, you cant keep the factory doors open. All the apologists, excuses, fancy theories in the world wont change that simple fact. The public got tired of Packard's excuses for shoddily built products.
It is that simple.
Now, PLEASE - do not think I am making fun of you and your particular car. There are two Packard clubs with enthusiastic Packard V-8 owners who can help you with any "bugs" your car might still have, to get them out. Once "de-bugged", I am confident, even with my own VERY LITTLE experience with the '55 - '56 Packards, you can have a LOT of pleasure out of owning and operating it.
The "trick" of enjoying these forums is to see what you can learn. SOME of what you can learn about the Packard Motor Car Company and its products is pretty exciting. Some is pretty frustrating. As you get into a study of the decisions, you wonder "why'd they do that" !
PLEASE - dont think I poke fun only at the later years. Even during its glory years, Packard pulled some whoppers! Its chief engineer, in the 1920's, got it into his head that a STRAIGHT TWELVE would be kind of cute. Can you imagine the silliness of wasting valuable research time on an IN LINE TWELVE ? If the article I saw in one of the Packard publications inst a fabrication, they actually built one ! Of course anyone who stayed awake in even a basic engineering course would know that was a crack-pot idea, and that isnt the only one.
One of my favorite pet peeves is, even during the glory years, they didnt put enough bolts on the heads. Packards, even the mighty Twelve, were notorious for blowing head gaskets - for the simple reason there werent enough studs to hold the damn heads down !
Again, trick is to see what you can learn. In life in general, as well as the Packard hobby, sometimes, learning more can get uncomfortable. That's life !
-
Perhaps I can help answer the above three questions & comments of Twinfour, RW, and Lloyd. You are in what is called a "thread" of the PACKARD Foreum. Think of a "thread" as a "chapter". Any of us can start a "thread", and, within reason and taste, name it what we wish. This particular "thread" is entitled "Summer of '56; written by someone who is obviously interested in the failure of the Packard company in that year ( Some Studebakers were manufactured in another state, with "Packard" emblems, but I dont think that would be relevant to what the people who were commenting in this "thread" were concerned with).
If you are interested specifically in 1956 Packards, you might want to start your own "thead" or "chapter" here; we have a number of participants who are far more knowledgeable than I about the details of those cars, and would be happy to answer your questions. But again, from th title of the person who started this "thread", and from the comments of other participants that followed, the focus appears to be why the company failed in 1956, not a detailed discussion about the technical aspects of the 1956 Packard.
Burgess seems concerned that "some of the regular members" might be in some way irritated at discussions about Packards. That is certainly possible - we have no way of knowing how many of our participants actually care about Packard products or the Company, indeed, somne of them may just be in here for personal reasons to "vent" against those who do. I dont know. My suggestion is, best thing to do, if you do not like being exposed to information you find disagreeable, is try a chat room dealing with a car and/or manufacturer you DO find pleasing.
There is nothing new and novel about people hating Packards and what they stood for ! In fact, hating Packards, and what they stood for, was even practiced by Packard management ! There is an interesting article about Packard, in a 1937 FORTUNE magazine article, where the new management referred to the Packard tradition of the highest quality cars, as 'THAT GODDAM SENIOR STUFF". That executive headed the decision team that elected to physically "gut" Packard's "Senior Division" production facilities so completely, in 1939, that Packard could never again make really large, elegant cars (everything after that was based on the very nice middle-class Packards known as the "120" series.
So - again, being offended by, or even hating, some aspects of the history of the Packard Motor Car Company, is not new, and some have good reason for their resentment. I think their views should be respected, encouraged to discuss them in here. Who knows what interesting information about the rise and fall of the Packard Motor Car Company is yet to be uncovered..!
-
for Pack8
Looks like you have the same problem as Al. How about YOU ? You also indicate you are unhappy with one or more of my "posts". Could you "put a lid" on your unhappiness with some personality issue, and help the other Packard buffs in here learn more about the car and the Company ? BY TELLING US WHICH POST YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH, AND SPECIFICALLY..WHY ?
Perhaps there is some aspect of a Packard product, or about Packard management, you feel I have in some way mislead other Packard fans ? What SPECIFIC issue about Packards and the Company can we learn more about from you ? Discuss, please..?
-
wow - and it is a "classic" (well...the guy says it is..along with his Chevrolette Chevelle...!)
-
Alk - you are obviously unhappy with one or more of my "posts". WITHOUT getting into some silly personality fight that would NOT benefit other Packard enthusiasts, I would like very much to discuss with you whatever Packard "issue" you think we can learn something about.
Would you PLEASE pick a SPECIFIC post of mine that you think other Packard enthusiasts can benefit from reviewing ? Let's talk.
You dont help your fellow car buffs by walking away. Stay and express your enthusiasm for Packard and its products. Who knows - you and I BOTH might learn something new !
-
Hey Steve !
Thanks for your gracious words - be assured, I have, and I wish others would have a thick skin about silly stuff.
Also be assured, I NEVER EVER use fowl language. FOUL language..? Well..that's a different story..not often..but when a wrench slips off..... but..again..I do NOT speak birdese...so I will NOT tolerate being accused of using FOWL language...
My personal prejudice is that people are...well...HUMANS...which means some of them are going to have less patience with conflicting views than others. Best thing to do is not let them get to you.
Funny...bitter-sweet irony here - when I was in high school, actually did lose a couple of friends because they not only thought I was so dumb for paying twenty five bucks and riding around in my then 17 year old Packard V-12, SOME of them got so irate about being seen in the damn thing, they actually broke off their friendship !
Now, 60 years later, we've got a couple of guys not all that happy with me because I have a Packard Twelve !
Fact of life - no matter where you go, what you do, or what you are, there is alway someone with a bigger one, a faster one, a prettier one, etc. Trick is..not to let it bother you.
So - again, thanks for the gracious words, and for those who are not so gracious, I say BIRD SPEAK to you ! (naw..just kidding)....
-
For Packard 8 & his buddies...
I kept a copy of my discussion with the young woman about the Packard "110" she was THINKING of restoring. If you like, I can e mail it to you to review. I will not "post" it, as our Editor would prefer we just leave these personal discussions out of the Forum..and I DO AGREE !
Let's remember we are ALL Packard buffs, or we wouldn't be in here. The REAL question is how we can better serve fellow Packard enthusiasts with an exchange of info. that is as accurate as we can make it.
Your info. about what you THINK I said about "110" series Packards is not helpful or accurate - let's you and I work together to see how we can help obher Packard buffs better learn about the cars and the Company.
Fact is, over and over again, I have repeatedly tried to educate people on what made Packard great. The "110" and "120" series, as I have said over and over again, were typical of Packard's long-standing attitude of trying to provide the best, most "honest" car for the money. A study of those cars, and a comparison with other maker's products of the same era, will show why Packard did so well when it entered that price field.
Yes, the Packard V-12 was a great example of what Packard could do in that particular price field. Packard sold only about 500 Twelves in 1938 - out-selling Cadillac's V-16 ten to one. I am sure we all agree neither company could have kept the doors open on sales like that !
Bottom line - the "110" and "120" cars were so good, that it brought all kinds of new business over to the Packard Company. And those people who bought em, came back, meaning "repeat" business. That says it all about how good the "110" and "120" were within their price range. Anyone who thinks poorly of that price-range Packard, and/or thinks those cars "killed Packard", should study the REPEAT sales those cars generated !
Again, I think we can learn much, both in the understanding of our car hobby, and about life in general, by taking a clear view of what companies can do when they set their minds to success, and..sadly..to failure! But it is quite a "stretch" to say I dont like Packards other than my own !
My suggestion to the young woman considering putting money into a "110", was that she first LEARN more about our hobby, and RECOGNIZE there are BIG differences in Packards. By learning more about the various Packard products, it was, and remains my view she could then better select one that would give her satisfaction. While a Packard "110" was a fine car for the money, wouldn't she have more fun in a "120". And suppose she could get her hands on a "160" or "180"? wouldnt that give her more "bang" for her buck ?
All the excuses in the world wont save us from the awful truth that the Packard Company is no longer with us. Please DONT BLAME THAT ON ME !! I PROMISE...I DID NOT STAND OUT IN FRONT OF THE PACKARD DEALERSHIPS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND TELL LONG LINES OF PEOPLE BEGGING TO BY THE PRODUCT, THAT THE "110"'S WERE NAUGHTY CARS...!
Let's see what we can do to INFORM people about our HOBBY ! I personally am just not that exciting a subject!
-
What is the advantage to our readers, of you making up obvious hostile nonsence and then claiming that I said it? No matter how desparately you want to turn this into some kind of personality fight, the facts are simple.
Specifically, I did not say that "post war Packards are junk". Apparently, you got so upset about REALITY, you failed to understand (or did not want to) see what I was saying about the post war Packard Custom Clipper we had, and how my father wanted it BACK!
I am also a little confused by your calling the 356 cu in. block used beginning with 1940 production, ending in 1950, a "Clipper" engine. I believe you are inaccurate there too - I do not recall EVER seeing any data, technical info., or sales literature identifying the "356" block as a "Clipper engine". Packard had two other engines also available in lesser-priced Packards (using the same bodies, but with a shorter front end & hood).
Yes, the 356 cu in. block was used in in the biggest Packard cars known as Clippers, but it was also used, as you are apparently aware, in the '41 - '42 "160" and "180" series, as well as the '48 - '50 Custom Eight. My recollection is that the least year of the "big" Packard or "356" was 1950.
You are also mistaken if you think I look down on ANY car buff, no matter what their choice. PLEASE..I do NOT blame YOU because Packard decided to commit suicide!
You dont seem to want to face the truth about the later Packards, and that is certainly understandable. If you focus your car buff activities upon them, more power to you! But you are seriously mistaken about the '54 Packard 359 "giving a good accounting of itself". Simple proof is the public rejected them. Why ? Beacuase it was a PACKARD, and by that time, Packard's own research confirmed it had generated such a sorry reputation for itself it couldnt sell its products! I have a simple test for you - next time you are around a bunch of '54 cars, kneel down, look underneath, and take a critical look at the front bumper supports of a '54 Olds, Buick, or Cad, and then compare how they are built, with a '54 Packard. You wont even have to lift the hoods to see the difference in structure, to do that !
THAT is why Packard put so much effort into promoting the '55 production, in late 1954.
You REALLY think a '54 Packard would have a CHANCE against a '54 Cad or Olds similiarly equipped ? Your making a statement like that, and claiming "you were there", raises credibility issues.
History isnt always pleasant. The decent people who liked Packards, who bought Packards, or who worked at the Packard factory, got "sold down the river" by a greedy management that came out of World War II fat with profits, and with a single-minded determination to keep as much of that as they could, with as little of that as possible going into product. Direct your annoyance back thru time to those who ruined Packard, not to a fellow car buff sixty years after the doors closed !
P F H
Bottom line - I know where the nearest Cadillac show-room is - not sure where the nearest Packard show-room is..!
-
Are you sure you followed the correct method for adjusting the 1930's era Packard "Senior" series vacuum assist brakes?
I am going to SPELL IT OUT so that there will be no confusion. I am not sure, by his post, that our Aussie friend LISTENED to my instructions to check the service manual AND actually carried them out "to the letter"...!
1) if it has MECHANICAL (lever and cable) brakes, (meaning 1936 and earlier) DISCONNECT each cable at the adjusting turn-buckle. Make certain the cables all move in and out with minimum friction "drag". This is VITAL. If there is ANY significant friction that prevents the cables from moving in and out, FIND OUT WHY! Perhaps it just needs an injection of - oh - I think gun oil or sewing machine oil would be just about right, because they are formulated not t0o "gum up"). If the car is a '37 - '39, (meaning hydraulic brakes) go to step two.
2) Our Aussie friend apparently DID follow my instruction about READING the service manual, and carrying out the "eccentric pin" adjustment. The rest of you - this is VITAL to do before trying a brake-shoe adjustment with the "star wheel".
3) Now - for the CORRECT proceedure to adjust the shoes with the star-wheel. Jack up the wheel you are going to adjust, and make sure it turns freely, by 1) making sure the bearings arent tight and 2) back off the star adjustor till there is NO lining drag. PULL the drum and put a TRACE of gun oil where the shoe slides against the backing plate, so that there is no induced friction there. Make sure the threads on the star adjustor are CLEAN and OILED.
4) With the drums back on, spin the wheel by hand, as you gradually tighten up on the star adjustor (with your brake-star wheel adjusting tool inserted into the slot (these "star-wheel adjusting" tools are generic - can be bought nearly anywhere auto parts are sold) you lift UP on the tool to TIGHTEN the brake lining against the drum. Keep tightening until you feel SIGNIFICANT "drag" against your turning the tire by hand. When you have SIGNIFICANT "drag" (not just the beginnings of "drag" from a possibly slightly out of round drum and/or "shoe" that is a bit off ) START BACKING OFF on th star wheel TEN 'CLICKS' ! (you will "feel" the little "clicks" as each "nub" on the star wheel slides momentarily up against the lower shoe spring - that is why you want FRESHLY OILED threads on the star adjustor, so you can feel this.
5) With the brakes now properly adjusted, let's check the vacuum assist mechanism. Do you have good and steady vacuum at the cylinder ? There is (should be - some production didnt have it) a 1/4 in. plug for you to insert a vacuum guage in. If there are any "leak downs" in the system, you'll find it that way.). Re-connect the brake cables if a mechanical brake car - they should be a TRACE "saggy loose", so that, unlike a HYDRAULIC braked car, you dont get a "hard" pedal until you are about, oh...I'd say about half way down - maybe a trace more.
NOW hook everything up, and tell me how those brakes feel...!
3)
-
the question of why Packard died is VERY easy to answer. Just pick up one of their earlier advertisements, now re-printed of part of each issue of one of the Packard club's newsletters. It is entitled "REPUTATION". The article, written as an ad during Packard's glory years, explains the value of having a good reputation, and the punishment that will fall as a logical result of disgracing a good reputation with ever poorer quality and poorer performing products.
Packard management changed towards the end of the 1930's, with each successive change getting more self-destructive, greedy, and incompetent.
I remember a Packard salesman actually in tears, when the new 1953 Packard Patrician my dad ordered, took delivery of, drove for the first time, and then DEMANDED our "trade in" (our '47 Clipper Custom) back.
For obvious reasons - not just the increasingly bad "build quality". Why did Packard start de-rating its engine power after the war (the 1940's big Packards had a 356 cu in engine that would blow the doors off just about ANYTHING of their year, whereas the smaller displacement engine introduced in 1951, gave Packard the unenviable "prize" of being the SLOWEST accellerating post war car EXCEPT for a 1949 Chevrolet with the first Powerglide...!
If you know what happens when you "step on it" in 1947 Packard Clipper Custom, and then try that in a 1953 Patrician, you know why my father was so out-raged, and demanded the transaction be cancelled. Many years later, when I owned some '51 - 54' Packards, my dad would shake his head if we went over a good bump and got those cheaply made hoods to flutter, wondering at how they could build such crap after those great pre-war designs (the Packards up to 1950 were essential pre-war in design, and pretty much so in quality control).
That Packard COULD have survived is well-demonstrated by the TREMENDOUS jump in sales in late 1954 - early 1955, when Packard ads insisted "Packard is back" with cars that would keep up the Packard tradition of producing the best, fastest cars for the money in each of its respective price classes.
I recall the ads bragging about a bone stock '55 Packard V-8 by FAR out-handling ANYTHING else of that era (they showed how superior the new torsion bar suspension handling was, compared to the other luxury cars, in photos taken doing high speed "jumps" over bumps..such as rail-road crossings). And then there was the ad about the famous 25,000 mi. "run" that set some kind of world record for "bone stock out-of-the-box" production cars.
Sadly, the "build quality" by that point, had gotten to be such a disgraceful industry joke, that once in the hands of customers, "word got out" - so that by the 1956 production, dealers couldn't give the things away. I recall when Packard finally closed, one of the problems of the receivers was what to do with the THOUSANDS of un-sold new Packards still in inventory, that no-one wanted.
I was actually BORN in a 1936 Packard "120" club sedan - a car that showed Packard was faithful to its buyers no matter what price range the particular Packard they bought, was in. I'll match that car against ANYTHING in its dollar class.
In the year my 1938 Packard V-12 was built, it out-sold the Cadillac V-16 TEN TO ONE!. Stop-light drag race, twisting road course, or flat out highway brawl, what a 473 cu in. Packard V-12 would do to a 440 cu. in Cadillac V-16 is funny - far cry from how things changed - drive a well-maintained 1953 Packard up alongside a 1953 Cadillac, Buick, or Olds 98, and you get your doors blown off..not just in performance, but in every aspect by which cars are measured. EVERY.
The Packard Company had importance to American industry far out of proportion to its relatively small size. Its pioneering work in engineering draftsmanship standards, quality control, foresaw and probably had much to do with the rise of American industry as a leader in the world. Sadly, its later determination to self-destruct thru ever poorer quality products ( who remembers the famous incident at a 1954 auto show, when the President of Packard, got inside one during an interview, and had to KICK his way out, because the door fitting was so miserable). foresaw how the entire American auto industry later lost ITS "cause".
Who remembers how determined the later Packard management was, to destroy Packard's heritage as a quality leader? That famous "memo" in the early 1950's, from management to Packard Service Stores (the factory parts department) (even tho the parts dept. consistantly turned a net profit) to stop providing parts to pre-war Packards "why help keep out-of-date products on the road.....because unfair comparisons between products from another era are causing problems in marketing our present product line..."
The REAL story of how Packard self-destructed is pretty simple - it is certainly understandable that many today do not want to face it, and try and cover it all up with complex excuses.
Bottom line...if people stop buying the product...you cant stay in business.
I have told this story before, to illustrate the problem. Lunch-time at Beverly Hills, California Packard. Late '54. I am sitting on the curb with some senior Packard mechanics, as they eat their sandwiches. Big truck/auto carrier pulls up with a fresh load of brand new Packards. I wont repeat their eaxt language here...something to the effect " oh gawd...here comes another load of "do-it-yourself" kits.....!
The salesman at Earl C. Anthony in downtown Los Angeles remembered delivering my own '38 Packard V-12 to its original owner. He told me the proceedure in Packard's glory days was - clean the car, inside and out, of any traces of shipping paper-work (they were shipped in sealed box-cars). Take the hub-caps and cig. lighters out of the trunk and install them. Check the fluid levels. Fill the gas tank. Drive it around the block to make certain everything is perfect. Deliver the car.
How sad the American auto industry has been copying the death-wish of Packard management - will they go the same way..? "he who forgets the past.....is condemned to re-live it".
-
As I noted above, I did get the photos from our friend "down under"; my question is a bit off-point for this particular "thread" - I hope I will be forgiven for having my curiosity piqued...!
The '38 "Super" Eight is obviously a Formal Sedan - or at least, appears to be in the photo. That would be body model 1112. The bodies on the formal sedans for the "Senior" cars were IDENTICAL, meaning, EVERY single body part (with the exception of upholstery trim) is the same for the Super Eight Style 1112 and the Twelve 1132. (of course NO parts on the chassis are the same - virtually everything on the Twelve's chassis, brakes, suspension, etc, are entirely different and heavier, but that is another story)
But look at the Australian Super Eight. Its back window is NOT the "stock" small window typical of Packard "senior" formal sedan back windows that were identical from 1935 to the end of "Senior" production in 1939.
Our Austrilain friend's formal sedan has what appears to be much larger "stock" window that would be found in any of the other sedan or limo body styles.
Bet there is an interesting story there...! Looks like the Packard factory had a few "tricks" up its sleeve that even I didnt know about...! (either that, or someone at some point in time took a Body Style 1103 and "custom made" a formal sedan out of it.. ? ? ? ? ? )
I am also curious about Australia's laws about "right-hand drive". Packard offered a right-hand drive conversion kit for its eight cylinder cars from its earliest days, down thru the end of "real" Packard production. But I am NOT aware of any right-hand drive parts for Twelves - in fact, unless they had come up with a complete manifold/exhaust conversion, I dont see how this could be done. What's the story on that...are there any Packard V-12's in Australia ? If so - did they get an exemption, or did the owners come up with some kind of cobbled/after-market way of steering from the right side of the car...
? ? ? ?
-
I DID get your pictures ! Can you "post" them in here so that everyone can be as jealous as I am, at how marvelous your Packards are ? But you do need to make some repairs quickly - your steering wheels are all on the wrong side.....!
-
I dont know how to send pictures ! Of COURSE your '38 Super Eight steers a bit lighter than your '35 Super Eight ! Do you know why ?
Packard pulled a "fast one" on its customers by de-rating its entire eight cyl. line. They dropped the REAL "Super Eight" ( the 384 cu. in. torque-monster you have in your '35). The reason - the 384 cu in eight was too long for practical use with the "independant" front suspension introduced on the "big" or "Senior" cars for 1937 production.
So they called the "Standard Eight" - a 320 cu in. motor, the "Super Eight" for 1937-39 production. Then they called the "baby" Packard Eight - the Packard "120"...around 280 cu. in....a "Packard Eight".
The Packard "Super Eight" of 1937-1939 was, being a Packard, a pretty good car for the money. I believ you could have ordere the '39 Super Eight with overdrive. The problem with the Packard Standard Eight that you have in your 1938 "Super Eight", is that it was by then quite out-of-date - it was pretty much identical to what was introduced in the mid 1920's to take the place of the "small-engined" Packard six.
I am puzzled why you have 8:25 x 16 tires on that '38 Super Eight. It SHOULD have the smaller 7:50 x 16 size. The after-market 8:25 x 16 tires are only available in bias cord - for some odd reason, they make the cars handle horribly. I pulled the front suspension apart on my '38 12 twice, looking for something very wrong and/or very loose, before I finally realized it was the TIRES and not the car. On top of that, they are notorious for blowing out at anything over sustained modest speeds, owing to internal friction. Why they cant make a modern "repro" bias tire that gives the same handling as the REAL bias tires we had in the old days - I have no clue.
A few years ago I installed a set of 7:50 x 16 radial white walls (whose dimensions are a bit less than the original 8:25 x 16 but have MUCH superior load capacity). Now I have the handling, cornering, and high-speed reliability Packard owners have a RIGHT to demand from their vehicles. I suggest you consider selling off those 8:25 x 16's to some guy who is of the "trailer-queen car show" type, and get a set of 7:50 radials. You will REALLY love the way that thing handles then !
Sounds like you have a real "original cream puff" - would love to see some detailed photos!
-
Randy - relax - perhaps you mis-understood the application ?
The Armorall (or any other kind of "mouse milk" that would serve as a softner/lubricant, isnt going anywhere NEAR this guy's hydraulic brake system - for the simple reason he DOSNT HAVE ANY !
That era "Senior" Packard has "rope" (meaning CABLE brakes). Yes I would agree with you, I sure as hell wouldn't use that stuff on ANY part of a "juice" (again, slang)...hydraulic brake system. He wont hurt his leather piston with anything that is o.k. for use on fabrics - about the only thing I WOULDNT use would be any mineral oil based lubricant whose solvents might start dissolving the leather piston seal.
-
may I respectfully suggest you go to some car shows, and talk with some owners, before actually "BUYING" a "1934 Packard Club Sedan"...
Let me explain why. For 1934 production, Packard had ONE club sedan body, but offered it, depending on how much you wanted to pay, on chassis in three VERY different price and performance classes. I am prejudiced - so naturally..I think ANY Packard product of that era that you would buy (provided it is in good condition)...would be as good if not superior in all respects, to any other car in its price range.
But...again, Packard had three VERY different price and performance ranges. The lowest price Packard in 1934 was called the Packard Eight. It would have a 320 cu in engine. Very good performer for its class. But, if you want to hav some "punch" when you put your foot in it, you will pay more for the Packard Super Eight of that year...384 cu in, and believe me..you feel those extra cubic inches when you press the "go" button.
You will pay MUCH more for a Packard Twelve - in that year...about 440 cu in. As good as the Packard Super Eight is, the Packard V-12 was vastly superior - not just because it had so much more cubic inches and bigger brakes, but also because of the engine design. The Eight and Super Eight were ordinary "flat-heads". The Twelve has a MUCH better and freier breathing design...both intake and exhaust. So just noting the much larger displacement of the V-12, is not the whole story.
So - again...LEARN more about the Packard products of 1934, before you get too excited. All Packards of 1934 used the same bodies for any particular body type. But...like the hot-rodders and "ladies of the evening" will tell you...THERE AINT NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CUBIC INCHES....!
The more you learn about pre-war Packards, the more you will be amazed at what tremendous value Packard provided in ALL its cars, for each respective price and engine-size class. And the more you learn, the more you will appreciate that you cannot expect a car from one price class to be fairly compared with a car of a much more expensive price class. Packard did NOT become such a legend for integrity by cheating its customers ! Again, the more you learn, the more fun and value you will get from the Packard hobby..!
Whitewall overkill
in CCCA - General
Posted
At the risk of being called a "party pooper", let's get back to the original poster's question. It is a valid one. As many of us noted, there were no white-walls being produced in the immediate post-war era. As one of our posters pointed out, in his submission of an interesting advertisement, a Buick ad SHOWED a new Buick with white-walls, but the "small print" confirmed that they were not yet then avail !
My own personal view is that the initial question had a valid point, but one that does not require formal action by the National Board of the CCCA. It is certainly POSSIBLE that some dealer or supplier SOMEWHERE, still had some pre-war white-walls in storage, and thus it is certainly POSSIBLE that somewhere, somehow, some new car buyer in that immediate post-war era, got their car delivered with genuine white walls.
Yes, our judging rules are designed to encourage AUTHENTICITY, as distinguished from encouraging the kind of "show car dress up" that car clubs whose primary function is putting on exhibition car shows have in their rules. But I think at SOME point you have to be a bit flexible.
So - while technically I agree with the basic thought of the original "poster", again, if I were still active in Club managment, I'd recommmend "no action" should the issue of "taking off points for authenticity, for while walls", arise.
P.S...American La France only used the Pierce Arrow engines as an "economy measure" for its less expensive line. My "Type 400" (which does look like a giant sized classic car...!) was the "top-of-the-line, meaning it had the "in house" American La France V-12 - about twice the size, and probably four times the raw power of the Pierce-derivitive you are referring to. The Type 400 V-12 was nearly 800 cu. in, and was a much more "modern" OVER HEAD CAM engine than the Pierce.