classic-era Packards

[Guest]

For those of you who may be interested in such things, and/or wonder why there really IS a "Packard Mystique" that has lasted down thru the years IN SPITE of what Packard did to itself after World War Two ( i.e. fascination bordering on worship of the Packard Company and its fine products ) I strongly recommend recent issues of THE CLASSIC CAR (the magazine of the Classic Car Club Of America - should be avail. in any large library with a good auto section). <P>The articles center around a series of "Evaluations" done along the lines of the famous "Motor Trend" Road Test articles of the 1950's and 1960's. While this particular article focuses on "big" cars, it disclose what is true for ALL Packards during their "golden era" i.e. whatever the price class of the Packard you bought, it was a TREMENDOUS bargin for the money. <P>The Classic Car Club Of America traditionally is focused on "classics" i.e. "the best of the best" / the largest, most powerful luxury cars of the late 1920's thru early 1940's, Thus the article focuses on comparing the Cad. V-16, Rolls Phantom Three V-12, and the Packard, Pierce and Lincoln V-12's.<P>And, in comparing these superb "road locomotives" as one writer called them, or "engineering exaggerations, magnificently overdone" as did another, is where we find the basis for the "Packard Mystique". The Packard Twelve was by far the LEAST expensive of the tested vehicles, yet at least equaled and mostly out-shone cars costing twice as much or more.<P>Bottom line - THAT is why there is a "Packard Mystique". As Packard buffs, we really CAN take pride in what the Company was, what it represented, and what its values were. I was actually BORN in a '36 "120", and we had that thing until my early teen age years. I would compare that car with ANYTHING in its price range, and with many costing much more. <P>I can tell you from personal experience the articles are correct - at one time, in addition to my '38 Packard Twelve, I owned the "Mae West" '38 Cadillac V-16 Imperial limo. No question that the Cad. was a bit quieter and smoother than the much more "gutty" Packard Twelve, and certainly its equal in fit and finish. In normal sedate driving, the differences were not dramatic. But take em out on the road, and start really roughing them up, and the Cadillac was your typical "slushmobile" , sloppy handling, marginal brakes, and performance, that while certainly good, NO match for the Packard Twelve which costs THOUSANDS of dollars LESS. (in days when a thousand dollars was nothing to sneeze at !). <P>A reading of these articles may satisfy those who may have wondered how Packard could DARE make the claim that the Packard Twelve was the "soft spoken BOSS of the road". And better explain why there really IS a "Packard Mystique".<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

REFUTATION:<BR>I cannot imagine ANYONE not being interested in the Packard Mystique. Yes, it HAS lasted for decades after the companies demise IN SPITE of those that have tried to kill the post war reputation of Packard and its products. I strongly recommend that everyone seek out a 55 or 56 Packard for sale in their own locale and take it for a test drive and look it over and learn about its many features UNIQUE to ONLY the 55 and 56 Packards.<P>Compare these SUPERB 55 and 56 BIG ROAD BURNERS to ANY other car past present or future and then tell me that they are not one of the most beautifuly styled, comfortable and powerful cars that r in a class unto themselves as well being a car that 'NOT just any man can own'<P>Bottomline: IT IS the 55 and 56 Packards that still boast TIMELESSLY among the largest and relatively high powered automobiles in the world. I was actualy born about 1 mile from the Packard Plant in Detroit 2 years before my 56 rolled off the line. Despite a few of the cars engineering shortcommings (that CAN be corrected) i defy anyone to draw a parallel between it and ANY other car. The Torsion Level suspension alone is a representation of the 55 and 56's exlusive world of exotica.<P>I can tell u from personal experience that owning a 56 Packard has been a real pleasure. AND YES, i have to work on it to keep it going. NO, I've never sniffed the seats of Mae Wests' Cadillac but i do have ORIGINAL proprietary pics of CERV I,and II as well as the LIghtweights and Grand SPorts with a few of my GM mentors standing around them such as Mauri Rose, Harold Krieger, Zora Duntov, and Pete Estes. All of these were men who TAUGHT ME about automobiles from a very early age... some of it in ways and at times I'd rather NOT have learned it.<BR>I miss them..<P>Yeah, Yeah, Thats right. NOT just ANY man can own one. THATS what gives them the mystique.<P>For I AM the MAN with a BIG V8 - better known as PackardV8.

[Guest]

Peter: Since you owned the May West Imperial Limo. Please tell us what the wheel base was and the name of the custom body builder.

[Guest]

Packard V8: First i might say that styling is a matter of taste. While torsion bar suspension was a brand new idea in the USA for automotive use, the same can't be said for across the pond. Over in countries like England and France torsin bar suspension had been used since the 1930's. I can tell you about suspension system inttoduced about 1955, that makes packards torsion bar suspension look like chump change

[Guest]

For '53 Packard - in answer to your question about the "Mae West" Cad. V-16<P>First of all...I presume we are all friends in here - any special reason why we can't know your name ?<P>The Cad. V-16 I had for a very short time in the late 1950's was definitely Mae West's. She had donated it to a Catholic girl's school in the hills above West Los Angeles . I now forget the circumstances as to why they got bored with it, but a good friend of mine paid them (I do recall the amount, because I felt he paid too much) $75. to "take it off their hands". This was about 1956. It was in essentially NEW condition, very low mileage, and sparkling fresh inside and out. In those years, Cadillac used the same body for both the 75 (V-8) limos. and the V-16's - my recollection is this body was used from '38 to '40. It was a standard production Imperial, meaning it was a Formal Sedan on a long wheelbase limo. chassis/body. (Packard did not have an equiv. model in '38 - my Twelve is a Formal Sedan - but the Packard Formals were on the "short" / "close coupled" or 134" in. chassis. ) I do remember that once, when cleaning out the rear compartment, we found a receipt made out to Mae West, from a Florida hotel, and it was for BIG bucks ! <P>I couldn't tell you the wheel-base without looking it up, but again, the "Imperial" series was a standard production 75 - 90 limo body. The Imperial meant they blocked off the rear quarter windows and had a "formal" top and small rear window.<P>If you are curious, I will look around and see if I can find a picture and E mail you .....me standing in front of it....as a teen-ager...in 1956 !<P>I heard the car is still around, and still well-maintained. Not much more I can tell you about it - that was a LOOOOONG time ago!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

For Packard V-8<P>Regarding the Packard V-8 55-56<P>If you'd take a deep breath, and read your OWN "post" again, you will see why these cars KILLED Packard. Well..that isn't fair; by the time they came out, Packard's earlier reputation for a "good buy the buck" had been so besmirched by a combination of poor quality materials, poor "build" quality, and miserable engineering, I rather doubt if ANYTHING could have brought its customers back in sufficient numbers to save it. Interestingly, the introduction of the V-8 / torsion bar cars in late '54 DID cause a "spike" in sales; I remember some pretty dramatic advertising showing how vastly superior the Packard torsion-bar equiped cars were over some roads, than the same year GMC, Ford, or Lincoln products. <P>Trouble is, as "word of mouth" spread, the "spike" failed, and by '56 they couldn't GIVE the things away. <P>I can assure you from personal experience, at least at the Packard dealerships I was familiar with, there were no armed thugs with Haloween masks trying to scare off lines of eager customers. <P>Again, you have to recognize the NEW car buyer does NOT want to "tinker". He wants to DRIVE the damn thing without having to pull into a mechanic to have a "do it yourself" kit worked on. Sure, if you put enough yankee know-how into the things, you can make them serviceable. Trouble is...that SHOULD have...but most certainly was NOT done..by the factory. You probably cant imagine how what yOU think are "correctable faults" enraged both what was left of the Packard new car buying public and what was left of their dealer organization.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

I have owned 2 1956 Cadillac 7 passenger sedans, and 1 1954 Cadillac 7 passenger limo, and do not feel that the Packard of that era compared to the Cadillac as far as fit and trim. Pre war is another story. Packard was the leader then.

[Guest]

Peter:<BR>I would like to respond just a bit to your last post. I have read with interest alot of the things you have said. I have agreed with some and dis-agreed with others, ain't America wunnerfull. With regard to your previous post in this thread. In my opinion from all I have read, I feel you are being a bit to simplistic. Other manufacturers, big names as well as small names have made poor quality, lousy, missed the market completely products and survived. Do I need to list them, corvair, edsel, chrysler airflow just to name a few. The quality of the late fifties chrysler products was atrocious, but they survived. It's like saying slavery was the whole cause of the civil war and we all know that is just not true. The same goes here. The poor quality, the bad product development were just a part of the problem. If that were the "ONLY" problem<BR>Packard might have survived, tag on the Studebaker fiasco, the cutback in government contracts, the death of George Mason which deep sixed the AMC S/P merger and there you have "ALL" the reasons for Packards demise. It is not a case of being "Hard-Headed" or refusing to accept the reasons. It's just that you cannot condense Packards demise into one neat little package and I honestly believe from all I have read that if someone could have removed one or even two of those reasons we might still be buying Packards today.

[Guest]

I agree with David and Peter about post war Packards compaired to some other makes of cars. The fact is Peter you can sit there and bad mouth the Packards like my 53. If i wanted to own a GM product of that eara I would have one instead of a Packard. But one sad fact you tend to over look. My 53 is better built, better handling, better cruising, abd better engineered car. Than your 38 V12 and at about one half the price. The one main reason for Packards slow decline was a lawyer and an engineer to busy playing with planes, and not paying enough attention to the fine details of the core business. Deverting profits away from the car business. I might also add playing with speed boat engines. In all the aircraft ventures and boat engine building did packard every really make a profit from these ventures. Sure the so called senior cars where nice, but in the 30's they never turned a profit for Packard. In the sense that Peter always knocks the so callled junior Packards of te 30's. THIS IS ONE FACT THAT CAN'T BE DENIED BY PETER. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE 120'S AND 110'S YOU WOULDN'T BE OWNING AND UNRESTORED 38 PACKARD V12. So the so called senior models of 30;s for Packard where the last to recieve engineering improvements. They allways went to the junior models first. I wonder why that was?

[Guest]

I Have no doubt that before WWII packard model for model, made a better car than Caddy. This comes to my question I am about to ask. WHY WASN'T PACKARD ABLE TO PUT CADDY OUT OF BUSINESS.

[Guest]

For DOldfield - regarding your "post"<P>Your and my "feelings" about the post-war Packards, along with the other chatters, is certainly interesting, and fun to throw around. Trouble is..what MATTERED, was the feelings of the buyers who USED to buy enough Packards to keep the plant open. The sad FACT is...you not only are right, and "dead on", but your feelings represent the feelings of the post-war car buyer. <P>I have read a lot of "excuses" as to why Packard went down. The sad fact is, they are all "excuses", all refusing to deal with the simple fact that Packard Motor Co. came out of World War Two FAT with profits, but elected to dissipate those profits in fat executive salaries and "perks" rather than improve and develop the product, and keep up its quality and reputation.<P>But that wasn't the only bad decision Packard made - personally, I feel their decision to abandon the super-luxury "big" engined car, was as big an error as their post war mistake of wasting profits in "perks" that SHOULD have gone into product development. Packard erroneously believed the market for expensive cars would never again be strong enough to suppor them. Cadillac/GM had more faith in the American capitalist system, and they "cashed in big" on that after the war. Packard, on the other hand, continually "down-sized" into an area where they did well initially (the Packard "120" did very nicely in the market place, as it deserved to) but could not compete successfuly where the limitations of "economies of scale" prevented them from keeping up with the "majors". <P>You may have seen my "post" to our friend "53Packard", who I DARED to park it alongside a '53 Caddy, Buick, or Olds, and compare ....crawl underneath the front end of his car, and then look how much better built the competion was...raise the hood...grab it and twist it..and see the difference in basic sturdiness. Then, line em up at a stop light, and when the light turns green..."floor em". <P>Yes, I agree with you...but I suspect the "hard heads" in this chat room will insist on denying reality.<P>That is the sad part...we are supposed to be, as car buffs, automotive historians, with at least SOME concern for the realities of what really did happen.<P>Oh well....back to my Britney Spears Dance Videos.....now THAT's the kind of "performance" I have ALWAYS enjoyed....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

For Packard 53<P>You made some interesting points, and raised some interesting questions in your last "post".... I agree with much of what you said !<P>First of all, I fully agree with you about the "120" (and to a lesser extent, the "110" series) "saving" Packard. We agree that the market for the "super luxury" car just about disappeared towards the end of the "classic" era. Packard only had orders for six hundred V-12's in 1938. While the larger cars were MUCH higher profit items per unit than the "juniors", no question ..the Senior alone could not have kept the doors open. The PROBLEM with Packard's thinking, was that the luxury car market ( again, with its MUCH higher profit-per-unit potential) DID re-appear, and Packard either would not or could not be bothered going after it. <P>Packard DID "bury" Cadillac in those price ranges in which they were in more or less direct competition. My recollection is Packard sold about TEN "super luxury" cars to every ONE Cadillac was able to sell in those years. But again, we agree...Cadillac's seventy five or so V-16's in 1938, compared to the six hundred or so Packard V-12's...very impressive statistically, but as we agree...that isnt going to keep the doors open.<P>I am NOT so sure I agree with you about Vincent's activities being related to Packard's later down-fall. And Packard's "defense" business was VERY profitable - all the more reason why it SHOULD have plowed those profits into going into, and keeping the large car market to itself - the market grew SO large after the war Packard probably COULD have been the "Mercedes" or "Lexus" of that era, had it had the vision, and determination to continue its legacy of quality.<P>As for your liking your '53 - well...heck..I can PROVE to you I liked '53 Packards too...between my parents and I, we had four or five of them, plus a half a dozeon other '51 thru '53 Packards of various series. By the time I got done with my "Ultra-matic transmission fix"...and a few other tricks...they could ALMOST get out of their own way. But the fact that you and I are NUTS about ANYTHING with a red hexagon on its hub-caps, dosnt change the fact that if we put a '53 Patrician side by side with a '53 Cadillac Fleetwood......the reasons why Cadillac gobbled up the remaining "super luxury" car market...are PAINFULLY obvious !<P>Best Wishes to you and yours for a great Christmas...and a good Packarding New Year....! <P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ<P>P.S. I am unclear what can be accomplished by comparing a '53 Patrician to a '38 V-12. When your car was new, it was not competing for the sales dollar against a previous era !<P>What do you think a 1918 Packard would do to a 1908 Packard in a drag race..?<P>What do you think a 1938 Packard would do to a 1928 Packard in a drag race.<P>What do you think a 1953 Packard would do to a 1938 Packard in a drag race..? Well...if it has a manual tranmission WITH over-drive ( I saw one once in a wrecking yard in Long Island...damn..do I ever wish I'd bought it-had power windows and factory air...!) it would most certainly "clean my clock". But it if had Ultra-matic like yours.....you dont want to know....!

[Guest]

For AL K:<P>First, my best wishes to you and yours for a great holiday season and coming GOOD year!<P>Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting post. I disagree with just about EVERYTHING you said ! <P>Yes, you are correct that Chrysler Corp. put out some pretty sub-standard products in recent years ( at least as to "build quality-I do suspect you would agree that SOME of their engineering is top notch)<P>But I disagree that "they survived". They did not survive. They were "bailed out" by you and I, and a vew hundred other American tax payers. Not once....what was it...TWICE...? I believe their declining sales, their failure as a business, and the fact they wound up as a lauging-stock in the various consumer oriented publications, is a DIRECT result of their doing EXACTLY what Packard had done so many years before - some kind of wierd corporate "sickness" got a hold of them, and they simply lost the WILL to put a decently built product on the road.<P>Are you aware that the fall of 1954 saw a RUSH of Packard buyers - and a dramatic INCREASE in sales ? This was becuase of some highly effective advertising, some of which can be found re-printed in the various Packard hobby club publications ( if you are NOT a member of BOTH of the Packard Clubs, I would strongly recommend BOTH of them to you ). Packard came out screaming to the world that "it was back" in the luxury car business, and had the powerful engines and handling to get back on top. There was a highly publisized long-distance extreme speed "run" ( clearly a copy of the famous "run" in '35 when they publisized the new "high speed" connecting rod bearings). And some VERY dramatic films comparing "roadability" ( showing how superior a ride the then-new torsion suspension was over a same year ) - I think you can still get a copy of that on video - shows a '55 Pat. 400 going over a big bump, barely ruffled, and other '55 luxury cars practically coming apart trying to hold the same speeds over the same bump.<P>Al - I can think of no more dramatic under-scoring of the proposition that Packard COULD have "come back" had it been able to DELIVER on what was promised. The market was THERE, and it WANTED what was promised. Trouble is, the cars were of SUCH poor quality, that within a few months, "word got out". The declining and finally evaporating sales of the remaining months were a DIRECT result of this terrible publicity. What better under-scoring of this tragedy, than the proof that IF these cars had been properly put together, they MIGHT have "made it" for Packard...than the fact that right here in this Chat Room, we have people who HAVE '55 and '56 Packards, and are getting good service out of them! (AFTER they apply some "tinkering" and "yankee ingenuity...!) ( Again...a new car buyer does NOT buy a car to play "do it yourself....!).<P>It was PACKARD owners who drove the final stake thru the rotten heart of the corporation - they "voted with their feet". And you can't blame them. <P>Sorry, Al...we disagree..I was there..I saw it..it really WAS that simple..I dont care if Packard would have merged with both heaven and hell...if you cant sell the product...you dont stay in business. It IS that simple !<P> <BR>

[Guest]

'a 1918 do to an 1908' ??????? 'a 38 do to a 28' ?????? 53 and 38??????? Hmmmmmmm. Well i am here to say that there r not many 1998 anythings that will out run my CLASSIC 56 Executive on the high end of the speedometer. Out on the Interstate hwy it will run with the best of them. (if i ever get the damned thing back together)

[Guest JT]

As far as Packard putting Cadillac out of business that would have been difficult with Caddy having GM behind them would it not?

[Guest]

Trent: Thanks for answering my question. I think every one in the chatroom already knew the answer, with exception of one person

[Guest]

Packard V8: Just how fast do you figure your 56 will go on top end? Are you interested in hearing about a suspension system that was more advanced, than Packards torsion bar suspension. The suspension system I am talking about was introduced in France in 1955.

[Guest]

Peter:<BR>Somehow you dis-agreeing with me or anyone else does not surprise me one bit. You would probably dis-agree with your pedatrician about the time of your birth, because after all you were there. It seems that with your advanced years you'd be a little more tolerant, and maybe have picked up some wisdom but I guess that was to much to hope for. It still boils down to, there was not then nor is now any ONE reason for Packards demise and I wish there was some way to that thru your thick skull but I am thru trying. And please, no wondering what is wrong with me or any of the other drivel that you are so famous for. I do not mind you or anyone dis-agreeing with me, but try using some common sense doing it. Sayonara Peter.

[Guest]

For Al K...<P><BR>Common sence...? Al K - look who is asking......be serious...would we be trying to keep these old relics on the road if we had any common sence...!<P>Al - I propose a question for you...think about this. WHY did the "120" series "save" Packard in the middle 1930's ? There is one OBVIOUS and SIMPLE answer - PEOPLE BOUGHT EM! And after they BOUGHT them, they liked em so much they came back a few years later and bought MORE Packard products. The Packard product of those years was an EXCELLENT value in comparison to its competition in whatever price-range you were dealing with. THAT is the simple "key" - page after page of convuluted theories and apologies in by Packard buffs writing articles can't change that simple fact. Now we get to the 1950's. If you are honest with yourself, when you compare in your "mind's eye" a Packard product of THAT era, the answer is CLEAR why so many of those buyers who previously bought Packard products, went elsewhere. Think about it, AL...Packard failed for the simple reason people stopped buying their products in sufficient numbers to keep the doors open !<P>Sure, my 1950's Packards were "nice" cars. But I DARE you, as I "dared" our friend '53 Packard, park a Packard from that period alongside a competitor's product of the same price range and era alngside each other, and just crawl around it. There is NO excuse for those cheap hoods and too light framing...hood "flutter" at the slightest provocation at anything over 55 mph.. Just LOOK, for example, at a '53 or '54 Cad. Fleetwod, compared to a '53 or '54 Packard Patrician... at how much better built, how much faster, etc. etc.<P>Heck, even the cheapo economy cars of that era had a feeling of greater solidity. Or compare a '53 or '53 Packard Clipper with an Oldsmobile. <P>You read my "post" above. You saw my notes on how there was TREMENDOUS consumer interest when Packard came thundering back on the scene with the introduction of the '55's. On the strength of what was LEFT of Packard's reputation, plus the technical attributes of these cars (Packard's famous 22,000 mi. hi speed run made headlines in every newspaper I saw, and was picked up by local news). PEOPLE STARTED BUYING PACKARDS AGAIN ! Trouble was, the cars were so poorly assembled, and had too many technical "glitches" that should have been worked out in "pre production" people got angry. I think the big difference between you and I, is that you just can't imagine how bitter the "revolt" of the consumer was. Al ..do some research...LOOK at the sales figures. They are around - again, I recommend both of the Packard clubs and their publications to you - if you will be intellectually honest with yourself, you will see this is NOT "rocket science" !<P>I agree with you to one extent...there IS something "complicated" about this...the only thing "complicated", is our own complex natures as human beings. Looking back, I wonder about the human element..why people are so blind to the obvious. No, I am not picking on YOU..Al K.., in this rhetorical question..I am pondering the question of WHY Packard management engaged in such self-destructive policies...over and over again. THAT is the complex mystery. US ! As human beings ! Why do we do these things ? <P>Human nature....being THICK HEADED ! I am certainly guilty...I confess...you are right....that is ME you are talking about...because...just like you...and Packard management..we are HUMAN..and that IS apparently one of our defects ! The "trick", Al K...and this you CAN take as a personal criticism....is how guilty are YOU of this very normal human trait ! <P>Again...Happy Packarding, and best wishes for a good Christmas and better New Year...and TROUBLE FREE PACKARDING...!<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

Hi Trent :<P><BR>You are wrong. Packard almost DID "put Cadillac out of business"...! The success of the PACKARD ONE TWENTY series thundered thru the automotive industry like an earth-quake! The PACKARD ONE TWENTY series cars were SO good, the differences between them and the "super" cars were still there, but simply no longer as great as they once had been. If you are familiar with how nice a car the "120" was for the money, you can understand why many car buyer wanted to know why they should pay for or FIVE times as much for the "super" cars.<P>There was an element in GMC management that came to the same conclusion Packard's managment did...that the era of the super-powered luxury car was over. And we KNOW from surviving memos, MUCH of their questioning of the logic in keeping the Cadillac name going, was based on the success of the Packard "120".<P>There is a lot of merit in the argument of getting out of the "super luxury" class, if you look at it thru the eyes of that era. Technical improvements ( rubber engine mounts, lighter, higher compression engines, "insert" connecting rod bearings, improved suspensions, etc...etc...made it possible for the ordinary car to improve so much, that the differences between the "super" cars and the ordinary car became less and less dramatic. And then there were the complex economic and social issues. Would there ever again be a suffiicent market for the kind of arrogant excess that the super luxury car represents..? <P>Over at GMC, cooler heads, with more confidence in American capitalism, fought against the idea of terminating the Cadillac name. Cadillac stayed in what was left of the "super car" field, and, after the war, "ahd it for breakfast". <P>PFH

[Ed Miller]

Greetings from Eddie in Naples, Florida. Peter, H. if you happen to be in my part of the country during March 21-23, 2002, stop by for a CCCA Grand Classic. I hope to have my 1933 Packard 12 Convertible Sedan in exhibition. Also, my latest acquisition. For those who cannot tolerate heresy, read no further: a 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton. Granted, it isn't as much car as the Packard but it makes me respect my Packard's great qualities all the more.

[Guest]

ED: How could you do such a thing, buying a Caddie. Please tell us in what areas is the Packard better than the Caddy. If Peter came to Florida maybe he should work on your 33. Then maybe it might get 10 miles to the gallon. How abut telling us what kind of cars willbe at the show in Naples.

[Ed Miller]

Member 4816 (sounds like an inmate at Alcatraz) I bought the 1932 Cadillac after searching for one of the following: 1934 Packard Super 8 Convertible Victoria, 1935 or '36 Auburn S/C Cabriolet, 1934 Lincoln KB Dietrich Convertible Sedan, 1937 Cord S/C Phaeton and a 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton. I came very close to buying a Cord and also a Lincoln. I didn't come close to buying the Packard. The reason was I couldn't find any in acceptable condition and price.<BR>I don't know what Full Classics will be at the Grand Classic in March. But here a few few that will definately be there: my 1933 Packard 12 Convertible Sedan and Cadillac, a 1933 Packard 12 Custom Dietrich Sport Phaeton...those are the only ones I know will definately appear. I would expect between 40 and 50 Full Classics.

[Ed Miller]

I almost forgot...later I will try to give a comparison report between the Packard and the Cadillac. Keep in mind the Cadillac is only an eight and really should be compared to the Packard Standard Eight as far as performance is concerned. But as to quality of build, handling, braking etc. it should be a more or less fair comparison.

[Guest]

Dec 30<P>For Eddie :<P>Thank you for your very gracious invitation. Perhaps we can get together and tell some lies about how clever we are !<P>It so happens that I WILL be in Florida, but,unfortunately, too early to take in the Spring Grand Classic. I purchased an amphib. ( a Lake 200 EP ) which is getting re-certified, up in Laconia, New Hampshire. I am going to get it next month, and then come down to Florida for the big amphib. aircraft convention at WinterHaven Feb. 3 - 7. I will be in Florida for about a week before, and several days thereafter. <P>Are you near an airport ( or a lake big enough to "flop" in with my "bird"..?) (would need the GPS co-ordinates to find you)<P>I agree it would be most unfair to compare a Cad V-8 to a Packard V-12 of the same era. The differences are so great, that they can be used for a discussion of WHY we originally formed the "Classic Car Club Of America". This is NOT to say that either the Packard small eights or the Cadillac V-8 were bad cars - they were expensive upper middle class luxury cars, and their superiority in every respect, to the ordinary cars of their day, is overwhelming. <P>But...the SUPER luxury cars, such as the Cad. V-16, the Pierce and Packard V-12's, the Marmon V-16, Dusenberg, etc. - THESE were the cars that were so so superior to even the typical luxury cars of that day...that we formed a car club to revere them, and came up with the word "classic" to distinguish them from the lesser cars of their day.<P>We in the Classic Car Club Of America should take satisfaction that our bringing the word "classic" into the automotive hobby, has become so wildly succesful, that today, people have become SO "fixated" on the word "classic"...they are unable to even TALK about ANY old car, without tacking on the word "classic". Can you imagine...people are now even calling old Chevrolets and Packard Clippers "classics". How FLATTERED we should feel...!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Ed Miller]

Peter: It's true the word "Classic" has lost its original meaning. Today anything that is ten years or older is called a "Classic." The CCCA is attempting to luxury automobiles built from 1925 to 1948 by calling them "Full Classics." This attempted new designation does not have the resonance of the name. "Classic" is a perfect description of CCCA automobiles that everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. Noone else has a desire to use the term "Full Classic"...including those who own "Full Classics." <BR>I'm puzzled. True, the 12s and 16s are generally at the top of the pecking order in CCCA terms. But the humble 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton on a 140 inch wheelbase still is permitted entrance into the hallowed inner sanctum of the Club. <BR>I'm located in the southwest corner of Florida in Naples. It's on the Gulf of Mexico. I hope that's enough water for you. I don't have its GPS location.<BR>As soon as it stops raining I'm picking the Cadillac up at the Car Hospital. I intend to drive it as much as possible...no trailer queen shall she be.

[RO]

Ed, I ponder what became of my Dad's '33 Cadillac V-8 he maintained into the 50s. I have only seen maybe two or three 1933s since then and none the big black 4-door his was. It was awesome with a very loud exhaust whistle he installed. FYI, CCS is making a comeback.

[Guest]

Peter: I just finnished reading the CCCA list of classic car. Please explain to me how a Packard six cylinder models from the 20's can be consider in the same league as the Packard 12's. Packard 6 cylinders are on the CCCA list

[Guest]

For Packard53: I am flying a bit blind here but I think the answer to your question lies in the criteria for inclusion on the CCCA list. If someone could post that information I think it would go a long way toward explaining how a car is designated a classic. Off the top of my head I think unique design characteristics comes to mind, impact on the auto industry etc. I could be totally all wet here but I think that is what I read somewhere. Can someone from CCCA clarify this???

[Mark Huston]

From the CCCA web site it says:<BR>The Club defines Full Classic™ Cars as "...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948. These very special cars are distinguished by their respective fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship."

[Guest]

It always amazes me, the argument of what qualifies as a Classic Automobile. Especially when the so-called "standard" was set by an elitist group of "stuff-shirts", bestowing a dubious qualification standard upon a small group of largely unattainable vehicles. It's ironic too, since these groups rely so heavily upon the membership of the general, "un-washed" collector and enthusiast. When it comes right down to it, its the automobile enthusiast, not special interests groups are what drive the terminology of what "is" a Classic Automobile, not a list of ancient iron that's mostly un-drivable and tailored around like a horse. Whether its a 1930's Packard or a 1957 Chevy, the general public sees very little distinction when applying the term "Classic", in fact, in some circles, the Packard wouldn't qualify. So save the wind on "titles" and enjoy whatever it is that fits your taste. I haven't see very much on wheels that I didn't like, they are all Classics to me!! Happy New Year!!

[Guest]

Yes - Bill Davis..I agree completely...you have "hit the nail on the head". You are DURN RIGHT the Classic Car Club Of America was originally just for "elitist stuffed shirts". That is the whole point. We were ONLY interested in the "best of the best". As fellow "chatter" 53 PACK. points out..it is just plain NUTS that the CCCA now includes the Packard SIX as a "classic". As other members point out, these days EVERYONE wants to call EVERY old car they are trying to "un-load" a "classic".<P>All that points out, is that we original members of the CCCA were successful behind our wildest dreams when we picked the word "classic" to describe the cars we were trying to save. Over the years, we have educated the public to believe there is significant historical value in these fine monuments to those who desired the "best of the best", to the point now EVERYONE is so impressed with the word "classic", many people are simply not capable of discussing ANY old car without "tacking on" the word "classic".<P>The contempt and hatred for the very, largest, most powerful, and most luxurious luxury cars of the 1920's and 1930's, that we were fighting against in the 1950's, when we were trying to save as many of these magnificent engineering exaggerations, is still with us today. And for good reason. These cars are the very definition of ARROGANCE and flamboyant excess. As an example of the absurd "excess" that makes a TRUE classic a REAL classic, my '38 Packard Twelve's bare chassis, coming down the assembly-line BEFORE the body drop, weighs HUNDREDS of pounds more than a complete ordinary Packard sedan of the same year! <P>Of COURSE many people resent the REAL "classics" - by DEFINTION they were and ARE supposed to be "engineering exaggerations, magnificently over-done". The idea that the very good but still quite oridinary luxury cars of that day would ALSO be called "classic" never occured to us in those years.<P>With success...comes the people who want to make a fast buck. By the early 1960's, our standards in the CCCA started to get watered down, as people with lesser cars who wanted to make a "fast buck" of them, continually pressured the CCCA to expand its definition, so as to include the car THEY were trying to sell.<P>It has reached the point now, where many of us, recognizing the term "classic" simply means "old junker I want to get rid of" are now thinking of starting a new club, called the NON CLASSIC Car Club Of America....the requirememnts...? The car has to meet the definition of a REAL Classic automobile, as defined by the CCCA in its early years !<P>Happy New Year<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

Peter: Tel us about the founding of CCCA. What part you played in the forming of the CCCA, also when did you become a member of the CCCA.

[Guest]

Packard 53<P>I was NOT a member of the "national" CCCA until 1958. Let me explain. The movement to preserve what we then called "classics" (again, the "best of the best of the biggest, most powerful luxury cars of the late 1920's thru 1940) actually began simultaneously on the west and east coasts in the early 1950's. Let's just put it "delicately" and say there were "personality" issues - the western group, headed by auto author Robert Gottlieb, called itself Classic Car Club Of So. Calif. The group in the east called itself Classic Car Club Of America. We didnt finally get back together and "patch up" our "issues" until 1958, thanks to the spendid "statecraft" of Jack Nethercutt.<P>Which reminds me - Bob Gottlieb's book " CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES", first published in 1953, is an excellent "window" into how the movement got started, WHAT we meant by the word "classic", and WHY we felt so strongly that the Club should NOT "dillute" our "acceptability list" with "lesser" cars. I strongly recommend it to you. I think it has a LIBRARY OF CONGRESS number, and thus you might be able to find it somewhere.<P>I did have a small part in drafting some of the revisions to the CCCA Handbook, and I hope you will permit me a little egomania in saying I think the paragraphs that I wrote, that were accepted word for word, were and are of good service to the Club, and to the public's understanding of what we within the CCCA are trying to do.<P>Of COURSE a TRUE "classic" automobile is the very essence of arrogant superiority. You have seem me say many times that the "lesser" Packards and other ordinary old cars of the classic era were certainly good cars for what they were. <P>But the bottom line, on that long up-grade, on that hot August day, that big arrogant long-hooded big engined monster IS going to pull far out ahead of the ordinary car of its era. The determination to have the highest standards, to demand the very best, is what we celebrate in the CCCA. It isn't "politically correct" to revel in the fact that all cars were not created equal....<BR>BUT IT SURE IS FUN !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann<BR>I'm a student of automotive history. Can you provide me with published references to the period in time when there was 'hatred and contempt' for the large old classics? How did people demonstrate this 'hatred and contempt'? You say 'we' were fighting against this situation; who was fighting, in what manner, and with what results? <P>You go on to say that the large classics were 'engineering exagerrations'. Can you explain your comments? Was it the specific brief of the engineering departments of say, Packard, Pierce or Peerless to produce a vehicle to this code? Was it the aim of these manufacturers to produce an item that embodied 'absurd excess'? Again, documentation, please.

[Guest]

In answer to JIM SMITH's questions above<P>It is difficult to explain to today's car enthusiasts what the attitude was, in the early 1950's, towards the "super cars" of the late 1920's and 1930's was. There is an interesting article in this week's issue of OLD CARS WEEKLY that touches on the subject; explains how our culture has changed. Perhaps you may have seen re-runs of the old I LOVE LUCY series - in one of them, the "story line" shows how DUMB Lucy is..because she buys a beautiful old Cadillac phaeton, Fred Mertz (one of the stage players) explaining she should have bought an ordinary old car). The other night, we just saw SUNSET BLVD (a famous early 1950's movie). To us car buffs...the "star" of that movie was a beautiful Issota Frachni town car. There is the famous line in that movie by non other than Cecile B Demille (it's just an old car...I will buy you five old cars like that).<P>Car dealers would occasionaly stage "car bashes" to attract "floor traffic". They'd go to a used car lot, buy the most aristocratic old luxury car they could find and you could pay twenty five cents a "whack" to hit it with a sledge hammer. Perhaps you have heard of Jack Benny, who had a radio and later a television show, where he was made fun of because he had an antique car ( what better illustration, the writers thought ) that he was a mean old silly skin-flint...than that he owned an antique car..!<P>There have been a number of good articles written down thru the years, on why the lower classes hated these symbols of the upper class so much. Way too complex to discuss with any depth, in here. The fact is, the hard work of the Classic Car Club Of America DID help generate "car enthusiasts" by showing these things were worth saving. Obviously, we were SO successful, now EVERYONE wants to say THEY have a "classic"...the modern car enthusiast is MOST adamant that HIS old piece of junk is a "classic"...when he wants to sell it to YOU!<P>An example of what we felt was a "true classic" can be seen by comparing 1938 Packard Super Eight Formal Sedan, with a 1938 Packard Twelve Formal Sedan. The Super Eight was an excellent luxury car, giving good performance and reliable service, in keeping with Packard's tradition for giving the car buyer a good value for his dollar. <P>However, in EVERY era of car manufacturing...there were those who demanded "something more"..MUCH more. The Packard Twelve, while using the same exterior sheet metal as the Super Eight, cost MUCH more..had a MUCH more sophisticated engine design, developing MUCH more power from its THIRD again larger engine, MUCH more rugged frame, suspension, and larger brakes. The interior fittings were MUCH more expensive and luxurious than the Super Eight. This devotion to "excess"...to the BEST of the best.. is what we felt was a "classic".<P>Similar differences can be found in the product lines of other luxury car manufacturers...all of whom "fielded" excellent buys for the money in their respective price ranges...BUT..if you REALLY wanted to spend WAY more money than was necessary for comfortable, reliable transportation....you could have the BEST of the BEST. Compare the technical specifications of a Cadillac V-16 with the Cad V-8. These "super luxury" cars DELIVERED on their promise of excess. Trying to preserve a few of these "automotive monuments" is what the Classic Car Club was formed for.<P>That the "super luxury" car of the late 1920's thru 1940's is a rolling statement of arrogance...that STILL breeds resentment in those who for some reason, can not or will not aquire one for themselves, is a tribute to their superiority flamboyant excess. REAl classic cars WERE not and ARE not for everyone.<P>The trick is - keep a sence of proportion. SURE I am jealous of the guy who can afford a Cessna Citation, Lear Jet, or Grumman Gulfstream. As I chug thru the skies in my 200 mph airplane, I can see them way above, leaving contrails. Fact is, in every aspect of life, some people have it better than others. Aspire to the best! Don't let the facts of an unequal universe get you down !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann<BR>Several anecdotes recounting popular culture of the fifties do not convince me that 'hatred and contempt' for classic automobiles was the scourge you claim it to have been. If you base your belief on what Jack Benny or Lucille Ball acted on their TV shows, you are mistaken. <BR>One facet of Jack Benny's entertainment persona was that he was parsimonious. What better way for the writers to illustrate this than to have him still drive the (alleged) first car he ever owned: a Maxwell, hardly a heavy-weight classic. In truth, he wheeled around Beverly Hills in a variety of late-model, expensive cars, one of the last of which was a '67 Imperial convertible. The image was for him to appear 'cheap', not an anti-elitist, or whatever similar conclusion you attempt to promote. <BR>I participated both as organizer and 'basher' in several 'car smashes'. The object was not to get a glorious old classic so the great unwashed could vent their fury on a symbol of elitist capitalism. We looked for heavy cars like Buicks, etc., because there was a lot of meat there, enough to sustain an afternoon of whacking by paying customers. Yes, the Boy Scouts did it for the money, not to generate floor traffic. Dealers didn't want that kind of publicity.<P>I do not accept the notion that resentment against rich people and their automobiles resulted in destruction of the classics. There was a time when classics automobiles were just used cars. They suffered the same fate of neglect, extended or ignored maintenance and indifferent storage that lesser cars suffered, especially during the depths of the Depression. Your whole premise of hatred, contempt, arrogance, etc., is unsupportable rubbish. <BR>A very good case could easily be made for the noble and uplifting idea that many great old cars from the classic era; true, beautiful and unique automobiles, were saved and preserved not by members of a club necessarily but by individuals who saw the beauty and appreciated the magnificence of these fine pieces of machinery. <P>Give it a break.

[Guest]

For JIM SMITH ( regarding your "post" above.<P>I can understand why you want to "give it a break". It is a normal and human thing to dislike conflicting opinion, "lose an argument"..etc. Be patient - it wont be that long before those of us who were actually THERE, will be gone, and there will be no-one left to disagree with whatever the "politically correct" idea of the moment is. We had ONE chatter practically in tears because he wanted to badly to believe a 1938 Packard Super Eight and a 1938 Packard Twelve had the same chassis, running gear, brakes, etc. He had GOOD reason to be upset - he READ it in a book (Beverly Rae Kime's book)that they were the same. <P>I can tell you from my own personal experience, I could keep LOTS of dates happy if I borrowed some non-descript modern car of the early 1950, but rarely tried to take a girl out in the Twelve. But you are right; why SHOULD you accept ANYTHING from people "in-putting" into a chat room; frankly, much of what I read in here is laughable nonsence. <P>The above notwithstanding, I still think this is a marvelous, valuable mechanism for exchanging information about Packard-related subjects.<P>I just thought of another "antecd" that might interest some of those in here - I happened to be employed in the early 1960's by a major private financial investigation firm. A dispute was going on between a WELL known MAJOR car collector, and his family and their banks. As late as the early 1960's, the bank attorneys frankly and candidly set forth what to them was OBVIOUS evidence of the mental deterioation of this individual ...PROOF...he spent money restoring classic cars ! ( LOTS of money ! ).<P>You are "avoiding the issue" if you think they selected bigger cars for "car bashes" because they were more substantial. In fact, ALL cars of that era HAD to have the same grade sheet metal in their body panels. Remember, car makers didn't make their tooling - there were "industry standards" on what kind of metals could be "drawn" into what kind of shapes. Actually, you have it all back-wards. By the late mid-1930's, most cheapo economy cars actually had STRONGER bodies than the big classics, as they were "all metal" and thus more resiliant to sledge hammer attacks. THe bodies of big heavy powerful classics like my Packard Twelve were still being made in the old "composite" way (essentially wooden "boats" with small sheet metal sheets NAILED on)...and thus they would fail MUCH sooner and MUCH more spectacularly than the body of a dinky little economy car !<P>JIM...sorry...we cant "give you a break". Exchanging ideas is what we are all here for. The ONLY way to avoid the exchange of ideas, is not to come in here in the first place. To refuse to participate in a discussion because you don't like what you learn, would be denying both yourself, and the group, of a great learning experience. Stay around...and lighten up !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

Peter: You have allways give us the impresion that you help found the CCCA. After reading the history of the CCCA I am a little puzzeled about a few things. Since the CCCA was incorpated in 1953 with about 200 founding members. How could you claim to be one of the founders since you didn't join the CCCA until 1958. One other thing we Packard people are very smart and I dowubt if there is any automotice subject matter that would be to conplexe to talk about in the chatroom.

[Guest]

For "53 Packard"<P>Do you have a real name ( I like to know who I am talking to ).<P>You do an excellent job of de-bunking things you claim I said. Only trouble is, what you claim I said rarely bears much resemblence to what I DID say.<P>Stop and think. How could I have been involved in the START of the Classic Car Club Of America, when it got started by Turnquist and his friends in NEW YORK. <P>If you had paid attention to my prior posts, you would find I personally did not join NATIONAL until the late 1950's (although I was even in my EARLY teens a rabid "classic car" enthusiast, and was in contact with some of the "personalities". <P>I perhaps should have explained to you in more detail that the "classic car club" movement got started at the same time on BOTH coasts, and I lived until recently in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Without looking at old records, I cannot recall from memory, other then Turnquist and Jader(something) the names of the organizers of the CCCA operating out of New York. I rather doubt if very many of them are still alive. Sadly, most of the orginators of the "California crowd" have also passed on. <P>In California, we had a little "personality dispute", so that for several years we operated as the Classic Car Club Of Southern California. Thanks to the good graces of Jack Nethercutt, around 1958 we "re-joined" National, so that while the corporate structure of "Classic Car Club Of Southern California still technically exists, we are and have been since 1958 (again, the year I personally joined "National") effectively the Southern Calif. Region of CCCA National.<P>It might give you an idea how "fussy" the definition of a "classic" was at that time, by reading Robert J. Gottlieb's book "CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES". In that book, (published around '54) you will find a not-very-flattering picture of my '34 Super Eight 1103 Sedan, along with a bitter comment by the author to the effect that "the differences between this ordinary old car and a true classic Packard are so great they require no further discussion.."<P>You might also find helpful in understanding how the concept of a "classic car" has evolved down thru the years, by going thru back issues of THE CLASSIC CAR (magazine of the CCCA. Perhaps you can find the issue that dealt with the question as to whether the '41 60 Special Cad. Fleetwoods should be allowed into the CCCA and considered "classics". You will find a very passionate article by an OWNER of one of those fine cars, arguing AGAINST it, correctly, in my view, pointing out that by 1941...the way cars were manufactured, their shape, design, and engineering, was WAY too "modern" to be part of the classic era.<P>But..I don't understand....why would you want to know or care about this early organizational history ? <P>I think you could have much more fun utilizing this marvelous form of communication if you'd pay a little more attention to what is ACTUALLY posted, and put a little LESS energy into looking for insults. <P>I understand you young people have no way of relating to a time when fine luxury cars of the classic era were a subject of scorn and ridicule. I again recommend to those who are interested, back issues of the two Packard Clubs, and the magazine of the CCCA). <P>For another "taste" of what I am talking about, there is a cute article in this week's OLD CARS WEEKLY which does briefly discuss the social / class distinctions that were so much more important to an earlier generation.<P>If you are THAT interested in precisely WHAT sections of the CCCA HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY I personally drafted, we will have to continue THAT discussion in private - I can't imagine taking the group's time on anything so petty, or of such little value or interest to anyone else. <P>PFH<BR>