Packard enthus.
-
Posts
328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Packard enthus.
-
-
for wherstem - sorry..I just couldn't resist my smart-alec response. Seriously, you obviously arent aware that "factory air" meant 6 volts in the first years of factory air (1940-1942 & Packards 1953-54.
I personally dont need mechanical refrig. that bad up here in the high country where I live. But if I lived in a high humidity area, you BET I would air-condition my 6 volt collector cars. It is no big deal. The way I would do it, is, rather than to try and hunt down old 6 volt blowers and compressor clutches, is just "go modern" as to the electrical supply, meaning, of course, 12 volts.
You'd have to make up some brackets to add a modern 12 volt alternator ( I believe most, if not all modern alternator are internally regulated, so you'd only have ONE wire coming out of the alternator to be concerned with). Any number of modern compressors would work just fine - a simple on-and-off switch would handle the compressor clutch.
And, of course, you'd have to find a place for a small 12 volt battery. With a little imagination, about the only give-a-way that you had a modern electrical system would that 12 volt alternator & the compressor. Many modern units are physically quite small.
For the parts of the air conditioner that you have inside the car, there are a number of after-market "evaporator" units for just about any installation problem. Personally, I prefer the trunk mounted units - my own personal taste is I hate to see a collector car with that obviously "tacked on" dash unit so common in the 60's.
The big problem is the condensor. It has to be REALLY big - to be effective. You did not mention what era car you want to air condition - if we are talking about a car built before "false grills", as in pre, oh..around 1935...you might consider putting the condensor UNDER the car and having a powerful fan blow over it. Once you have a modern alternator, it will provide MORE than enough electricity to run a whole bunch of fans.
"Sizing" the evaporator, compressor, and condensor to work together at peak effiency, can be tricky - you get too far off, and the system will not cool effectively. If you can afford it, buy a complete "kit" with all the components "sized" to match each other by a responsible after-market air conditioning supplier.
So - dont let my first smart-alec "post" discourage you - of course it can be done, and it need not be expensive.
-
yeah...I agree with HH 56's post about a "leak" in the Electromatic. If our Electromatic had started leaking...well...
-
NO - it is not possible. All those air-conditioned pre World War Two Packards, Cadillacs and Chryslers, are just a figment of the imagination of us car buffs.
-
For Wayne:
PLEASE...PLEASE be assured I was not critisizing Rest. 32. I have no idea who he is. From the little I have seen of his "posts", he seems like a competent guy who wants, as I hope the rest of us want, just to be of service to other car buffs who may not have had the opportunity to have as much contact with old car issues as we have.
I am sorry if my "posts" confused you about relative engine bearing loads. Yes, SOME of the big-engined classics of the late 1920's and 1930's most certainly WILL do 100 mph or better. I never did find out the top speed of our '41 "180" coupe with over-drive !
The point is, what I was trying to illustrate, is the RECIPROCATING loads on connecting rod bearings, not that any of us would try and go 100 mph in our collector cars ! The point I was trying to make, to illustrate how much harder on rod bearings our old cars are with their long strokes and low gearing, is that at 50 mph our connecting rod bearings are being "punished" with loadings probably as great as a modern car, with its short stroke and "high' gearing, would be at 100 mph or better.
THAT is the reason why I strongly recommend "insert" / precision shell bearings when a classic-era Packard (or any other make that was not already factory equipped, as Packard was from 1935 on) as opposed to poured babbit.
As '32 notes, CRANKSHAFT MAIN BEARINGS can be re-poured and work out nicely - both the surface SPEED of the bearing on the "mains", and the RECIPROCATING loadings on the CRANKSHAFT are obviously much lower than what happens out at the crank-pin.
And of course a poorly thought out modern "insert" CONVERSION, like any other "botch job" can ruin a motor. Let me give you an example of what NOT to do. To do this I have to give you a little background.
The ASTM/SAE "standard" for the thickness of the insert shell itself, has changed. Pre-war shells were thinner. For 1935, Packard "stroked" the V-12 out from around 440 cu. in. to just under 480 cu in. They had to come up with a "skinnier" connecting rod - the rod and con rod bolt is ONE chrome moly forging. Because modern insert "shells" are thicker, during restoration, some machine shops made the mistake of "nicking" the rod bolts (again, there are no bolts...the shaft of what would be a bolt on most engines is part of the rod forging itself) when boring out the rod "big end" to take a modern bearing.
That sets up a potential stress area. Bad move. VERY bad move.
-
I would think that ANYONE who advocates the use of "poured babbit" rod bearings for ANYTHING other than a stationary "trailer queen" exhibit, instead of "precision shell insert" type bearings, (except in, say, pre 1918 or so engines with "red lines" of around 800 rpm) would demonstrate their sincerity by writing articles explaining why ALL those engineers for ALL those motor companies, cars, trucks busses, marine, aircraft engines etc., FOR SIXTY OR MORE YEARS NOW... are wrong.
After all...ALL those engineers for ALL those motor companies..trucks..cars, busses, aircraft engines, marine engines ALL OVER THE WORLD...MUST be wrong to waste the mfg's money for the extra machine work to set up for "precision insert" type bearings, when a simple poured babbit bearing would do,... MUST be doing that just to annoy the "experts" in here!
Then, when you get done writing those articles explaining why ALL those engineers, for ALL those motor companies...trucks..cars, buses, aircraft, marine engines, for some sixty or more years now...are wrong...I recommend a reading of John Steinbeck's famous GRAPES OF WRATH, written before World War Two. There are some interesting references of rod bearing failure in that book, showing this was VERY much a part of life with motors, until the curse of the poured babbit bearing was cured forever, with the UNIVERSAL ( as in world wide ) application of the "precision shell insert" type rod bearing in the years that followed.
When you are done reading GRAPES OF WRATH (you should already have read it in your American Literature classes)...really amusing reading can be found in the newspapers covering the celebration of the opening of the first stretches of the Penn. Turnpike in 1938.
While some of the newer cars blasting down the Penn. Turnpike on opening day did have insert rod bearings, and made the trip successfully, many did not. Buick and Chevrolet were the last "hold outs", foisting this primitve concept on their purchasers. Read what happened to then NEW Buicks and Chevrolets when they tried to stay with the "insert" bearing equipped cars that day.
When is the last time you heard of rod bearing failure on a car PROPERLY set up with "insert" type rod bearings ? It just dosnt happen (absent, of course, grotsque abuse). And also remember, modern motors in automotive service have it MUCH easier than the pre-war long stroke engines, which, even at modest speeds, develop MUCH greater "loadings" on their crank pins. And then there is the matter of gearing.
I am not competent to do the math..but I am willing to bet, the loadings on the crank-pins/con. rod bearings on a modern car at 110 mph are far less than that of the typical pre-war motor at 50 mph.
-
Let's first remember WHAT vapor lock is, and WHERE it occurs. In the old days I often marveled at the guys who put clothes pins on the fuel lines, cow-bells, or prayed to the Great Space Monkey.
Vapor lock does not and CAN NOT occur between the fuel pump and the carb. For the simple reason that when gasoline is under pressure, it will not turn to a vapor.
Vapor lock occurs when the pressure on the fuel is REDUCED. Such as when you SUCK it from a tank by a fuel pump.
It gets HOT under a car on a hot day, especially on that portion of the fuel line BEFORE the fuel gets to the fuel pump. THAT is where vapor lock occurs. Cow bells, clothes pins, and praying to the Great Space Monkey only SEEM to help coincidentally. Keep the fuel line COLD on a hot day (not practical)...or pressurizing the fuel from the tank foward, is the simple solution.
Also, modern fuels have a lower "Ried Vapor Pressure" than gasoline avail. prior to the 2nd World War. Thus today's gasoline is much more prone to vapor lock. I have NO explanation why some pre-war - even some 50's cars NEVER seem to get vapor lock, others do at the drop of a hat. Wierd.
Simple solution...PRESSURIZE THE FUEL AT OR NEAR THE FUEL TANK. There are still several vendors selling 6 volt electric fuel pumps. I got so tired of vapor lock, and of the risk of a diaphragm failure, I simply removed the diaphragm pump from my car ( a Packard V-12) and run off the electric. (actually, in my installation, I have TWO in paralell, in case 1) one goes bad...and/or/.....2) someone in a Cadillac V-16 needs to be taught a lesson on a long uphill high speed grade....!).
Yes - I agree...there is a REMOTE risk of a diaphgram failure. But there is a greater risk of getting rear-ended if your car vapor-locks.
I say - go for a SIMPLE "series" installation - with your new electric fuel pump mounted as LOW and as CLOSE to the gasoline tank as possible.
-
What a novel idea - NICKEL impregnated bronze. Bet that would work just fine in your particular application.
Yes, I do make fun of the "Joe Six Pack" types who come in here and all have a better idea than the tens of thousands of legit. mechanical engineers, and the technical papers they write, who all came to the same conclusion, now universal in the automotive internal combustion industry i.e. "precision" steel "shell" or "insert" type con. rod bearings.
But every once in a while, one of us shade-tree wrench turners comes up with something that would work in a unique application. CONGRADS ! GREAT IDEA>
-
Timothy - it is a free country ! If you want to run around yelling the word "classic" at cars you like of ANY era, of ANY make - ENJOY. I cant imagine anyone who understands what it means to be an American and live in our wonderful country, taking it upon themselves to tell YOU what to call cars YOU like !
But, somehow, you have found this "site", where people who are interested in the Classic Car Club Of America come to talk over Club issues, and the cars WE think are "classics". Hopefully, just as you and others who look into these sites enjoy the freedom to say what YOU think are "classics", you will respect OUR right, as CCCA members, to put in OUR "two-cents" worth on what WE think are "classics".
The Classic Car Club of America, and its two largest regions, was formed in the early 1950's. Some of us thought of ourselves as "rebels", rebelling at we felt was the loss of elegance in the design and execution of cars for the upper-most classes after the war.
In those years, it never occured to us that our cars would be valuable. What appealed to us, was how "classy" they were, meaning, the biggest, fastest, most elegant "super-luxury" cars of the late 1920's up to the end of automobile production in the United States in Feb. 1942 for the duration of World War Two.
It also never occured to us to see much value in the ordinary old cars of that era, or the ordinary cars any other era, for that matter. As our Rule Book says, we admire those who show an interest in ANY auto of ANY era. We have proceedures for holding "joint meets" with all manner of old car, old boat, old train, old airplane and other historical interest groups. From our earliest years, we have sought out "joint events" hoping people would see something worthwhile in saving, again, the biggest, most elegant, most powerful "super-luxury" cars (bear in mind much of the CCCA membership likes & admires ALL kinds of old vehicles and the people who save them. I bet it would amaze you to know what some of us own and operate BESIDES what WE call "classics".
But what to call our Club ? I wasnt a member for the first couple of years - so I can only guess that someone noted that the word "classy" is like the ancient greek word classicus"...or "classic", which, if you had a formal education, you'd know had a duplciate meaning - first and foremost, meant "the highest standard". Thus, in those years, we were interested in saving cars like the Cadillac V-16 and V-12, Duesenburgs, Packard Super Eights and V-12's cars, the BIG Lincolns ( Zephyrs and Cadillac 8's Packard "120"s etc., need not apply...!)
The other parallel meaning of the word "classic" was "form follows function"...a "school of design" that went out of fashion when the "steam-lined" / "art deco" era hit. That is why we did NOT consider post-war cars "classics". After all..just look at a streamlined post war car luxury - it is the very antithesis of a big 1930's car in that fenders and headlights ooze into one streamlined mass, rather than stand proudly representing the function of each.
I recently rented a late model Chevrolet ( I am suspicious that it is a re-badged Toyota Corolla) that had chrome lettering on the back that said "Malibu Classic". You can order "Classic Coke" and "Classic Chicken" at a fast food restaurant.
But please be aware, that within the Classic Car Club Of America, WE think WE should have the right to be just as specific about what WE think the word means, as you do in your well written and interesting articles !
-
brass is considerably harder than "babbit". "Babbit" is a general term for various "mixes" of lead, tin, and, depending on how durable you want the bearing to be, other metals such as copper or aluminum.
My concern, is that brass would have too high a "surface friction" with your crank-pin surface, wear rapidly, perhaps even over-heat and burn out.
Since I do not think I alone have all the answers to automotive engineering issues, I tend to "go with the flow" of COMPETENT automotive engineering technical journals ( I know..I know...why read the SAE technical papers when Joe Six Pack is around to tell you how much more he knows about engine bearings, than automotive engineers)....
Anyway, while I normally have a fit if I hear of anyone trying to use babbit in a post "antique era' car...in your case, given the VERY low rpm, light use, and light crank-pin "loadings", I would probably put babbit back in there.
Given the VERY low rpm REAL antique car motors run at (for those who think a car built after around 1920, when cars started to get balloon tires, four wheen INTERNAL EXPANDING brakes, and on-board battery-generator electrical systems, are "antiques"...well....have a nice day...!
-
Hey Grand ! Are you ever RIGHT about how unsafe the old "composite" bodies are. Especially now that the wood is all dried out, and in some cases, some places, starting to rot !
But here's something you guys may NOT know. And explains why, if you "bump" the tire pressure up, and keep the hydraulic oil level up in those monster shock absorbers, they give INCREDIBLE handling for their size and weight.
A big-engined senior series pre-war Packard has a MUCH lower "center of gravity" then you might think, low or LOWER (yeah...you are going to have a hard time accepting this) then the typical modern car. Here's why. Think of where the greatest "mass" of the car is, in relationship to the wheels. On my Packard V-12, for example, the body only, coming down the assembly line to the "body drop" all trimmed out, but just before mounting on the chassis, weighs about 1,300 lbs. The complete car itself, with gas, oil, tools and my incredibly charming self aboard, comes in at just a hair under 6,000 lbs. Think about where the "mass" of a modern car is. With MUCH lighter, efficient engines, transmissions, suspensions, and unitized body construction, their "center of mass" is considerably higher than the "big" pre-war Packards.
You are so right...if someone ever did "roll" one of those, no question it would dis-integrate, whereas if you rolled my Toyota RAV and were properly strapped in, you would probably walk away.
But...at least it dosnt have ULTRAMATIC....!
-
G R E A T post ! Well done !
-
Hey Twitch - Do I understand correctly from the caption on your "posts" you live in So. Calif..?
where you going to be this Sunday ? You within driving distance of the Lakewood Country Club in the Carson area ? You can google it to get exact directions. Sunday 10:00 am to, oh..I guess it will start breaking up by 2:30 - 3:00 pm - we will leave the cars on the lawn out front, and go into our buffet lunch at around noon.
C'mon over, and I will get you straightened out on how a big Packard with the Saf-T-Flex IFS and stock rear sway AND separate anti roll bar can manuver. And I will have with my the DATA BOOK which will bring you up to speed on brakes...!
Serious - do show up - I will get there by around 8:30. Again...SUNDAY 20th - Lakewood Country Club's front lawn. Classic Car Club Of America, So. Calif. Region meet. I should be pretty easy to spot - while our typical turn-out has at least 60% Packards, mine will probably be the only dark blue '38 V-12 Formal Sedan with ARIZONA license plates...!
Be there or be square !
P.S. - you are right - I do NOT look foward to Los Angeles freeway driving. I will leave my rig at my business at Whiteman Airport up in the north Valley, and drive down Sunday morning. And I am not TOO worried about what would happen if I were hit by modern rice or sauerkraut.....(ever looked under and seen what a Packard V-12 frame is like..? hint...a Packard V-12 rolling chassis, coming down the assembly line, BEFORE the body drop, weighed in at around 4,300 lbs...or a couple of hundred pounds MORE than a complete post-war Packard..!
-
DONT take the transmission out! READ the post above. 99.5 times out of 100 NOTHING wrong with your transmission ! Get the linkages set up right and you will almost certainly solved the problem.
-
RE - ENCOURAGING A FELLOW PACKARD BUFF TO BUY A "BATH-TUB"* PACKARD !
For Pack8 & Twitch - regarding your above "posts"
We are pretty much in agreement on some things. On others, I disagree.
First and foremost - yes, while I personally prefer the superior performance OF THE "356" motor, no question, ANY Packard when given half-way decent maintainence, is a joy to the owner.
As I noted in the other "thread" about "driving in today's traffic" I no longer feel all that comfortable, either on the big city freeway OR out on the Interstate, and in my own case, my '38 Packard V-12 certainly WILL keep up with the best of em !
I also agree keeping our cars "factory original" is the best choice. Yeah..I know..I know..I did figure out a gear ratio change for my Twelve, to lower the engine rpm for sustained extreme speed driving (but I do have a stock 4:41 ratio rear end ready for when I am done with the car).
And I am not so sure you are right about "loss of value"..that putting one of the Packard club's "kit" Chrysler 3 speed 737 tranny in, would necessarily depreciate the saleability of a Ultramatic-equipped Packard. Yeah..might for some, others might pay extra for that !
I have to admit to a special personal hatred for the Ultramatic transmission. You see..guys..I was a "Packard Lover" back when the things were NEW ! I have a special fond-ness for our '47 Super Clipper. With the "356" engine, and over-drive, I loved to raise hell on the streets and highways of So. Calif in the early 50's. About the only cars that could "take it" were the Olds and Cad V-8, and, of course, those hemi Chryslers. So you can imagine my disgust when I was unable to talk my dad out of ordering his new '53 Packard with...damn...ULTRAMATIC.
C'mon..guys...the Ultramatic didn't make a Packard "sub-standard" by TODAY's standards..it made them SUB STANDARD WHEN THEY WERE NEW ! In a "post" above, I explained how you can get a BIT better performance out of an Ultramatic by "mickey mousing" the linkage, so you wont get rear-ended by garbage trucks. But they were still "slugs" BY THE STANDARDS OF THAT DAY ! People who bought Powerglide equipped Chevies accepted the fact that a cheapo car might not keep up...but people who bought Packards...had a RIGHT to expect the best in their respective price ranges. In earlier years..Packard DELIVERED.
Let's encourage this guy to get his "bath-tub" *. I am sure he will enjoy it if he gets a good one. But..no question..and stop being silly...that he most certainly WILL enjoy one with the "356" motor and 3 speed/overdrive...just a bit more !
-
I dont understand why you got annoyed. Your post, which you repeated in your response, is very clear and, if my memory serves, very wrong. The 1941 Clippers with the "120" engine were not listed as "Seniors". If you insist there were some "short nose" Clippers built BEFORE the war, I will have to take your word for it - as I noted in my post, I dont recall any.
I did not make my "post" to annoy you. I DID make it feeling it would be helpful to all who might be interested, to clarify, that your general statement about "all clippers having the same sheet metal" was only PARTIALLY correct, by explaining the difference in the "front clips".
Can you think of some wording that you might have used, that would have been more friendly, to correct my apparently mistaken impression about pre-war "short nose" Clippers ?
-
For Twitch:
I disagree with you on your theory on how Toyota and Honda got so successful. Price may have had a lot to do with SOME of the people who FIRST started buying their products when they first came into the country. There were some real quality and performance issues with their very first attempts, and that hurt their sales.
But look how fast they learned ! By the time we first started buying Toyota and Honda products (1971 model year) our motivation was based primarily on the reputation for durability they worked so hard to establish.
One of the Packard clubs, prints with each new issue of its newsletter, what a tough and rewarding "master" a reputation for value and quality is. Toyota and Honda seem determined with a vengence to maintain their hard-won reputation for durability and value in the respective price range car you buy from them.
I suggest THAT is their secret for success.
-
For Packard8
I dont think the three illustrations you gave (Buick, Chrysler, and Chevrolet) prove what you want to prove. Here in Prescott, Arizona, there IS a Buick dealer..there IS a Chrysler dealer, and there IS a Chevrolet dealer. Yes, the Chevrolet "1st series" Powerglide was the only car tested by Clymer that showed accelleration times even worse than a "1st series" Packard with Ultramatic. The reason that isnt a good example is in earlier days, people accepted the fact that the lower-priced cars were not supposed to be as fast as the expensive ones. By the mid 1950's, - yes, you are right, the Powerglide had developed a reputation for reliability. Sadly, the Ultramatic did not.
I think, (but am not sure, because my old road test articles are packed away) that you are wrong about the comparitave accelleration rates, IF we are talking about cars in the same price range. Of course I remember how sluggish Dynaflows were, at least when in a Special or Super, which had dinky little motors in the 230 cu in range. A Buick Roadmaster with the 320 in. overhead valve straight eight, or the '53 with the first "nail head" V-8? My recollection is that while they would not snap your neck on accelleration, they would cream a Packard Ultramatic of the same year.
The "de-rating" of Packard's reputation for performance, while the rest of the industry was going for more peppy cars, in my view, was one of the many factors in killing Packard.
As I have noted earlier, I believe much can be learned about the public's perception, and the potential "saleability" of the Packard name, even as late as the fall of 1954. Being a Packard "buff" even then, I distinctly recall the pride we Packard nuts felt when we saw that advertisment campaign for the new 1955 Packards, that "Packard Was Back", highlighted by the famous high speed tests and roadability demonstrations. My recollection is that a "bone stock" Packard 400/Patrician was able to run 25,000 mi. at WELL over 100 mph, breaking several records up to that date. And then there were those ads showing what a torsion-bar equipped Packard could do to ANY other big car of that era, going over rough roads (who remembers that really funny movie showing how a '55 Patrican went over a raised rail-road crossing in perfect control, whereas the other big luxury cars shown, bounced all over the place.
The idea in the buying public's mind that it was true, that "Packard Was Back" resulted in exploding sales - my recollection is that they went over 50,000 units in the first few months of the 1955 sales year. I will always be convinced that if the Packard product of 1955 had been assembled properly, and met customers expectations, Packard would survived. Sad fact is so many of them were so badly assembled, the public perception was that they were bad cars. My fellow Packard car buffs in this chat room, dont mind getting their hands dirty "tinkering" with things to make them right. But the new car buyer dosnt want that, and will not accept that. Look what Honda and Toyota are doing to the rest of the industry based on the well-founded belief they are put together right, and stay together.
I remain unclear what the thought-process was, that released for production, a "NO speed" transmission! GM "got it right" with the four speed Hydramatic, a transmission so rugged it served well in our light tanks of World War Two.
So, at the risk of repeating myself - to the guy who is thinking of buying a "bath-tub" Packard (meaning, the 1948-1950 "re-style" of the '41 - '47 Clipper" - GO FOR IT - THEY ARE GREAT CARS.
-
for Twitch and Pack8
I dont agree with a couple of your points. I think the introduction of the Ultramatic, and the thinking behind it, was a significant part of why the public rejected Packard products to the point they had to go out of business for lack of sales. here's my thinking:
I think you are wrong in your assumption that the typical hi-end buyer wasnt all that interested in performance. I beg to differ. Let take the '50 - '54 era for example. Yes, the "356" engine was still available to the end of 1950 production, and with a "stick and overdrive" combo, sure, one F-A-S-T car, at least as fast as a Cad. or Lincoln Hydramatic. The problem is, 1) as noted, I disagree with your assumption, again, that a hi end buyer wasnt interested in performance. Given the culture of the day, such people might CLAIM they werent interested in performance, but the fact is, these buyers voted with their feet, which carried them AWAY from the Packard dealerships and into Lincoln, Cadillac, and Chrysler dealerships. 2) when these people ordered an "automatic", as other posters in here have noted, they wanted an AUTOMATIC ! Let's review what a Ultamatic REALLy was as a mechanical device, compared to the Hydramatic of that day, and see why it was a miserable failure.
First and foremost, the Hydramatic was a FOUR speed transmission. That made it possible to have a "high" final drive ratio (low numerically, typically, around 3.23) and still have real gut-wrenching accelleration when you "put your foot" into it, at ANY gear at ANY speed.
Do you guys know how many "speeds" the Ultramatic had in HIGH..? NONE...it was a NO speed transmission. All it had was a torque convertor to get it moving, then, depending on throttle position, the convertor would "lock out" and you'd be in direct drive. Want to pass ? On the Hydramatic-equipped cars, it would AUTOMATICALLY shift to the best gear ratio for the speed you were at, at that moment, and you WOULD accellerate. FAST. With the Ultramatic, it had NO gear speed to down-shift to. THERE WAS NO OTHER 'GEAR'. All that the pathetic thing could do, if you "floored" it, was to dis-engage the clutch, and you'd be back with the slushy convertor, but still in direct drive.
Considering the way I personally abused our Ultramatic-equipped Packards, me and my family actually had pretty good luck with them. But the sad fact, on an industry-wide basis, their reliability record was poor.
Yes, you could move the column selector to the "low" range, which would bring in a reduction gear. A "partial" cure if you want to keep your Ultramatic-equipped pre '55 Packard from getting run over by garbage trucks, school busses, and farmers hauling produce to market, is the following:
DISCONNECT the long rod that connects the throttle linkage to the transmission governer control. Wire the governor control lever on the side of the transmission, to the position it would have been, at "closed throttle". Now you can start out in "convertor reduction gear", and about 22 mph, the convertor will lock out. Now you will be in "locked convertor reduction" which will give you ROUGHLY the same ratio as the average car in 2nd gear. Then you can shift into H when you so desire. Of course the kind of full-bore start that it will take, to keep up with the garbage trucks, etc, will shorten the already miserable life of those direct-drive clutches, but the alternative is to get rear ended by that garbage truck...!
So - that's the bottom line, folks..the sad fact is, there is a REASON why so many Packard owners who like their Packards for what they are, convert the transmissions over to the three speed Chrysler (one of the Packard clubs sells a "kit" to do this.
So - I repeat my recommendation to the guy who is looking for a "bath-tub" Packard ! First and foremost, make sure you get the "356" engine. With that engine, and a three-speed with over-drive, you will not be in the way of anyone, on or off the Interstate ! If you find a really nice one WITH the Ultramatic ( my recollection is only the 1950 had that "curse"...!) enjoy it for what it is, which is a good lesson in why Packard isnt around any more ! When you get tired of its disgraceful performance...KEEP THE CAR...THEY ARE GREAT CARS !
Just convert it over to a LEGITIMATE automatic transmission that actually has "speeds"...!
-
If you are lucky enough to find a decent "356" (that was the "big" Packard engine avail thru the end of 1950 production) with a manual transmission and overdrive, you will have one of the fastest, if not THE absolute fastest production car of that era. The only problem is the column shift mechanism - loose bushings in the arms and levers can cause a "lock up", so that the car will not move until you get out, open the hood, and manually un-jam the column shift gear selector levers. Fairly easty to fix.
Those Borg-Warner overdrive units are pretty reliable. Over the years, the internal wiring, points, etc, in the selenoids and related systems can make them cranky. When working properly, they are a delight.
Remember, the better the shape the car is in, obviously, the more you will pay for it. As noted elsewhere thru-out these threads, there is general agreement that it is always MUCH less expensive to just go out and buy a decent car, rather than to try and re-surrect a badly abused problem car.
Over the years I owned a number of "356" ( again, referring to the displacement of the "big" or "Senior" Packards of the 1940-1950 production run) found them a VERY satisfying, reliable, and FAST piece of transportation !
GOOD HUNTING !
-
gggrrr....!
-
trick is to try and stay friendly when the whacko comments come in. Of course we all get these "hey..buddy..bet that thing will pass anything 'cept a gas station"....."where did you get tires for that"..? The one that I do have to say has caused me to get just a trace aggravated..is...when they ask me if I BOUGHT IT NEW....!
The old car hobby is going to need all the help we can get, to protect us from all sorts of people..some well-meaning, some not, who want us off the road, out of site, and under "control". My suggestion (and...yeah.I really DO try and follow my own suggestion..but sometimes....) is to take the silly comments with a smile, and try and engage em in a conversation that just MIGHT make a new old car buff....!
-
I most certainly did NOT insult the guy with the Chrysler. (yes, he did mis-lead me by saying he had a Packard Darrin, but he is a young person, and I do not fault them for their lack of precision of speech..it is the way they are raised).
For those of you who are wondering what the comment about me "insulting a guy with a '40 Darrin" is about, let me explain. A well meaning young person had INHERITED a hot rod - apparently, much of the car was the remains of a 1940 packard, but it had been "gutted", the apparently long-deceased relative who had given it to him threw away the Packard "guts" and installed a modern Chrysler V-8 drive line. While I personally would not do that to a Packard myself, I certainly would not critisize what OTHER people do to THEIR property, if that is what is necessary to meet their needs.
What apparently happened, was the guy had kept the "positive ground" electrical system and that confused the young person who inherited the car. From my own experience, I explained to him that ALL Packards were POSITIVE GROUND until the late V-8's, and he could have damaged the voltage regulator if he hooked it up NEGATIVE ground.
Had he explained to us that he had a MODERN car drive-line, around which were the PARTS of a real Packard, I would have not have commented, because without seeing what KIND of electrical equipment he was talking about, I would have been incompetent to comment - I would have no way of knowing what the guy did when he converted the car over to modern Chrysler components.
Of course we are all terribly sorry that the car buying public rejected Packard more and more in the mid 1950's, finally causing it to go out of business for lack of sales. I am willing to take a lie detector test if that is what it will take to prove to the hard-heads in here...I DIDNT DO IT. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT PACKARD WENT OUT OF BUSINESS !
When the issue of what was wrong with those 1950's Packards comes up, will SOME of you PLEASE stop trying to avoid an honest discussion of the truth ?
-
Wes - you lose ! Next time you get a chance...go to a Toyota dealer and look at the "Monroney" stickers. In the case of the Toyota Sienna, for example...it is an AMERICAN car. American designed..sourced HERE of AMERICAN parts, built here! (which may explain its superb quality...the Japanese have found their over-all bottom line is better here in AMERICA with our highest quality AMERICAN labor !
I just got rid of my 2001 GMC 6500 because I couldnt STAND the poor quality one more day. MEXICAN transmission (yeah...said "Spicer" on it...a famous old American name...)....Rear axle...said "Eaton" on it....famous American name..from SPAIN !. About the only thing that was REALLY American, as far as I could tell...was SOME of the sheet metal stampings.
-
When you fellows make posts that a early 50's Packard/Ultramatic would offer performance in the same league as a GM V8 with Hydramatic, dosn't it ever occur to you that some people reading these posts actually KNOW these cars & have worked on and driven them? Aren't you just a LITTLE bit embarssed to post such nonsence ?
For those of you who are interested in what these cars were REALLY like, look up their ACTUAL performance in old road-test magazines.
The sad fact is Packard went from its tradition of being one of the fastest cars in its price range, to, when equipped with Ultramatic, just about the SLOWEST car of ANY price range.
If someone will tell me how to do it, I will set up a "post" here so you can read some road test reports from that era -I have one that confirms the awful truth that about the only car one of the major test groups tested, that was slower than a '53 Packard with Ultramatic, was the 1949 Chevrolet Powerglide. Declining "build quality" and performance were a major factor in the public rejecting Packard products; the dismal failure-rate of the Ultramatic certainly helped making Packard the laughing-stock of the industry.
Wanted: Formal Sedan rear window and vanity
in Packard - Buy/Sell
Posted
what is a "1938 era" formal sedan ? I'd be happy to photograph the hell out of mine, but it MAY not be relevant. Mine is a '38 V12 - the 1935 & up V-12's and the so called "Super" Eight Formal Sedans used the same body (on an ENTIRELY different chassis and running gear). The '39 V-12 Formal Sedan bodies are identical to the '38's.
BUT...do you have '39 "Super" Eight (from 1937 production to the end of "Super" Eight production for the 1939 model year? ( these so called "Super Eights" were warmed over 1928, yes 1928...STANDARD EIGHTS of 320 cu in) the '39 so called "Super" Eight is basically a "120" body shell, and thus if you have one of those, the body is entirely different from the "big" Packards - I cant help you with detailed photos.
Just as a "side note", the "REAL" Super Eight (a 384 cu in. motor MUCH faster and more powerful than the "Standard Eight" was dropped at the end of 1936 production).
Bottom line - folks, a number of us will bend over backwards to get you info, photos, etc...IF we know what you've got. Tell us...SPECIFICALLY ! YEAR,,,SERIES !