Guest Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 After a rather boring summer at this web site, things sure got lively! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 It is the PAC website that has all the various rules and stipulations regardimg what can or cannot be posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 Being a member of both PAC and the SDC, I await what response may come in the newsletters next month. There were so many postings about this farce on the Studebaker newsgroup, it'd take too long to read them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2002 Share Posted August 20, 2002 It is GOOD that our complaining has set the tone for change. NOW ,its up to every member to see to it that the changes are put into motion. If everyone just sits back and forgets about it then it will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 I was totally UNDERWHELMED by the responses in both Packard and Studebaker newsletters this month! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 This IS a credibility issue. WHY do the rest of you continue association with that club???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B.H. Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Yeah, it reads like they're still holding out some hope that this fantasy can be proven as reality. I don't care how many articles the author had published previously, I wouldn't believe him now if he told me the earth was round. Seems like that sentiment is upheld by the chatters over at the Studebaker newsgroup.Mind you, I do have some recollection of a "tale" that Sherwood Egbert had once been presented with a plan to revive the Packard marque, but the story I heard was that it was quickly dismissed. Clearly, they didn't have that kind of money to play around with back then. Heck, they even had to "recycle" a Lark convertible chassis just to make the Avanti a reality - a chassis that, save for the "powerteam," was already pretty long in the tooth.I have also attended a few Sutdebaker regional meets and recall that Egebert's personal secretary - a Martha Fleener (sp?) - was a guest of honor on one or two occassions. I believe that she has since passed away, but I don't recall any mention of such a revival from her.I don't believe for a minute that any credible shred of evidence will surface regarding this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 I just got my copy of The News Bulletin, and I was very anxious to see how the Powers-That-Be would handle the embarrassing business of the 1965 "revival" of Packard. I was VERY disappointed in the luke warm apology expressed by Bud Juneau. He seems to still be looking for an "out" even though all you have to do is look at the pictures as published to know they are a fakes. Bud Juneau asks the question: Does this (the obvious computer tampering with the photos) cast doubt on the story that went with them? Well, Bud, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer fakes (which you so euphemistically call computer enhancement) YES! It definitely casts doubt on the story. They are not just enhanced photos, they are out and out frauds, and you all should be ASHAMED that this story was allowed to be printed in the Quarterly. And you should be doubly ASHAMED that you all aren't men enough to stand up and say "we were taken in for suckers on that one." If you can't do the job you should step down and hire someone who is willing to at the very least, proof read the stories before you cavalierly let them be sent to the printer.You make it appear as if you printed this story just to get some "good natured dialog" going. Do y ou take us for fools?I forgot to log-in. I'm tfred@maxiis.com if you care to respond. [color:"red"] [color:"black"] [color:"red"] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 Yeah, they had a month to check it out more thoroughly and now they seem ti imply this fantasy could be real if everyone just waits for whatever little piddly "investigation" they are going to do. As others have said, they SHOULD admit they were taken, admonish those repsonsible...refuse to accept renewal in the clubs for printing the obvious nonsense. What still gets me is the stupidity to show these supposedly lost 1965 cars next to SUVs and Dodge Rams and the other modern day cars in the photos. They did a miserable job of presenting the material and there were no editors to be found amongst either newsletter. Wonder what excuses will be written in the next newsletters or will they just try to let it fade away. This is like a cartoon now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 I'm still waiting to see the '..van that so impressed Mr Egbert' as was WRITTEN in an editors note on the last page. This is a case of someone at the helm who is more derelect than what they think we are.CANCEL !!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Fellows next month is Hershey if any of you need reminding. When I go to Hershey nxt month I intended to stop by the PAC tent. I am going to talk to some people there about the article and how it got printed. When I am done they are oing to know that I am very unhappy about the whole thing. I stronly recommend that anyone elsegoing to Hershey do the samething. Its time to send out some more emails and let them know we ar unhappy about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlK Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 O.K. I guess I have stayed out of this long enough. Let's see where to begin, An article was sent by someone who was considered reputable and it got printed. Now unless there is someone out there who has prnted a newsletter, I suggest you have no frame of reference as to what it takes. I have only a small inkling of the operation, having done a newsletter for a local club. The article was a hoax and it got by the editors who were brand new to the operation. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now comes a group who is so incensed by this hoax that they seem ready to tear apart the entire organization. They call for explanations, reasons etc.etc. Then into the chat room comes one of the people who was in part responsible and admits what happens, which by the way was what everone screamed for in the first place. He then goes further to post a 1/2 page notice in the next news bulletin and says that he will get to the crux of the matter and resolve how, what, when and where and to see that it does not happen again. Have I got it so far. Does this satisfy the witch hunters. Apparently not, so now for the burning question. WHAT THE BLOODY HELL MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT???????? The disbanding of PAC, The resignation of the entire board and the election of a whole new slate of officers, a new editor, WHAT????? If any of that came to pass, would any of you guys who are so vocal in your criticism step forward and take over??? I highly doubt it. They made a mistake. If any of you can come forward and state without doubt that you have never been scammed and have never made a mistake then take over and I will support you. I have a 30 year collection of Cormorant quarterlys and news bulletins. I find it informative and sometimes entertaining. I view everything I read in it with a cautious eye, and if I question somthing I try to find out the answer. Hoever to negate and gainsay, everything that has ever been written in there because of one hastily written and submitted artcle would be akin to calling the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepenence false and misleading because of the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination. Has anyones projects been slowed down by this article, mine hasn't. Has anyone missed a good car show or swap meet because of it, I havn't. If you have to lay blame, lay it where it belongs, at the writer of the article in question. Contact him and see what he says. Don't lay the blame solely on PAC's doorstep, they were taken in because they trusted someone, how many of us have been there? And no, I am not an officer in PAC or any other club, I am a member of several just like a lot of you. I read the article, I questioned the photos, thought they were strange and a bit odd, and with that i laid the book to rest with the others and went out and worked on my cars. May I suggest you all do the same.Al Kahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 sure. we can all 'turn the other cheek' BUT, we ONLY have TWO cheeks. The article CLEARLY stated another issue was forthecomming about a 'van that so impressed Mr Egbert'. Like a CANCER GROWS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B.H. Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 AlK -You bring up many good points, but there is one problem. Several people from the Studebaker Newsgroup have reported that they contacted the author, but it appears that he has an answer for everything. For example, when questioned as to why so many alleged S-P cars in the "engineering department" bore a strong resemblence to modern day vehicles, the author thanked them for noticing how forward-looking his designs were. Obviously, there's no reasoning with this guy. (Of course, one would expect a good "poser" to have an answer for just about everything.)I don't pretend to speak for everyone who has posted here, but I feel that the expectation is that the "powers-that-be" in the clubs (both PAC and SDC) should be actively investigating the facts and making a statement one way or the other - since they gave the article the green light to be published - instead of sitting on the politically-correct fence. Hopefully, they will act swiftly, yet justly.Another point to consider is that it is a common practice for guest speakers to be given a free meal, and sometimes free lodging (and who knows what else) in exchange for their speaking engagement. It's sad to think that our dues were wasted on a total fabrication. Beyond the fact that "urban legends" are rather persistent, if this guy gets away with this now, how far will it go the next time?Clearly, the dues-paying members want some "bank for their buck." Again, history is nice, but that article did nothing to further genuine interest the marque (or help keep the remaining cars functioning). When was the last time PAC surveyed its members to find out what they were looking for from the club?Frankly, there's a lot more valuable information on Packards presented by way of this free forum and its regular participants than I have seen anywhere else lately, yet we all seem to be able to make enough points and counterpoints, in this free-thinking venue, to separate what works from what doesn't (as well as fact from fantasy).While you can't please all of the people all of the time, any club that continually fails to meet the needs of a sufficient number of members will whither away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John N. Packard Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Al, I agree with you wholeheartedly! I think those who are protesting so vehemently have a deeper reason for resentment of PAC and perhaps other clubs as well. When they go to the PAC tent at Hershey they will encounter fellow hobbyists who are volunteering their time to man the tent. A little unfair I think to chastise a volunteer. Actually, I thought it was a fascinating article because I had always hoped for the revival of the Packard name. I recall news releases at the time suggesting that it was under consideration. As an AACA Region newsletter editor I have let a few articles slip through that I wish I hadn't. It seems to go with the territory! Also, I don't understand the demand that PAC has the responsibility to keep Packards on the road through providing information on servicing and maintaining the vehicles. I thought, as owners, that was our job! Oh well, thanks Al for at least one balanced view of this whole affair!jnp <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 I am a bit puzzled by how angry you guys are getting over someone having a little fun at your expense.C'mon now....Bud was "taken for a ride". It happens. The old car hobby is NOT immune to human nature. People LOVE to make up stuff to sound important. That is what people DO. Get over it !Look how angry John Shinerman is.....over THIS "revival" nonsence....yet HE is angry at ME for my suggesting that relying on a couple of drawings, to make up a whole article on an IN LINE Twelve....was a bit of a tall tale!I agree it is a shame that publications that are SUPPOSED to be interested in historical accuracy, get so far "out-of-line". I suspect that when Bud is done "wiping the egg off his face" he is going to be a little more energetic in filtering out the nonsence in the future.Let's get over this, and move on to RELEVANT issues of technical interest to those of us who actually CARE about old cars !Pete Hartmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Pete. its not question of whether or not WE can get over it BUT rather a question of PAC NOT letting it happen again. Brian:Your post is an EXCELLENT analysis of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlK Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 O.K. Now that we have aired this ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum, can we now all agree that a hoax has been perpetrated and that the appropriate people are aware of the situation and are , at least, via word of mouth attempting to get to the bottom of it all. Let's give them until the end of November to come up wth some type of resolution and/or explanation and for the time being put this thread to sleep for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 AL K: I am the one who made the first on the second page of this thread. My question who could have been so STUPID to print such an article. Anyone who knows the final history of S&P knows the article has to be a hoax without even reading it. When such obvious BS like that is printed members of PAC should be raising hell. The trouble ith some of the PAC board members is that they think they are acountable to no one. You could bet your bottom dallor that if it weren't for my open letter and emails from other people in this room, that no one from PAC would to address this hoax and how it got printed. Now Peter if I recall I really didn't have too much to say about the Packard 12 article. Some other people in here seem to think it might have been posible who knows for sure. Back around 1910 Franklin built an experimental straight 12. That article seemed to be backed by some good documentation. Where as the article about a Packard V12 being built in 1965 was not. I will remind you that when it comes to automotive history and and picking fight with me, YOUR GETTING IN OVER YOUR HEAD WITH ME. So as the old saying goes leave sleeping dogs alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JT Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Al, I'll second the agreement with you. PAC publications have provided many years of informative, pleasurable reading that easily offset this mistake. I also assume we won't see the author of this 65 packard piece in any future PAC lit. I'm sure Bud and other PAC board members have gotten an earful over this and will continue to do so much to their chagrin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlK Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Packard53: J.S. I fully understand your ire, and I realize that your initial post got the ball rolling, however that was fully 40 days and 40 nights ago, and there are still people hunting for heads. Someone asked for someone from the PAC board to come in here and explain what happen, and Bud Juneau came in here and gave what I felt was a plausible explanation as to the how, why, and whatfor, and darn near got his head handed to him to play with. Then a response was asked for in the next news bulletin and that came about and it still was not good enough.Now we got someone who wants to go to Hershey and tear some one a new rear end. My question still stands WHAT MORE DOES EVERYONE WANT????? Everything that was asked for(read demanded) has come to pass and it does not seem to be enough. I still say it is time to pull back our fangs and claws, hang up our whips and chains and let's wait and see what happens in the next reasonable length of time. I know I can speak to PAC members in the 2 regions I belong to, and some of you can speak to the people in the regions you belong to, but if all we do is rant and rave about how dumb, stupid, and ignorant the editors are for letting this happen, they are just going to turn a deaf ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Wow! This is really a big deal for some posters, I guess! I tend to agree with the calmer posters, to wit: to the most casual observer, it's obviously a hoax. So the credibility of the PAC Cormorant and SDC magazines have been sullied, but maybe EVENTUALLY they will figure it out and post some kind of retraction or correction.However, I do worry about this article becoming part of the "Urban Lore", so that those fine fellow who buy our Packards from us current caretakers will eventually believe that there was a 1965 Packard "incarnate" (V-12 et al).In the meantime, all of us current Packard custodians should let this thread go to sleep... for the meantime until a proper retraction or NOT is forth coming.Only MHO. (I don't really expect this thread to go to sleep, but...) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/ooo.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 I wish "PACK 53" would go spend a little more time crawling under his '53 Packard and work on my suggestion to him about "perking up" that "dog" of his, and a little less time worrying about some damn fool hoax (or was it a practical joke)...that didn't fool anyone !Pete Hartmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Pete Hartman:This is exactly the kind of comment that other posters get P***-off about.Maybe you can take five minutes between your original post and your editing of same and simply reflect upon it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> P.S. Or maybe you should cut down on the amount of JD you're sippin later at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Craig, your point about the article becoming "urban lore" is well-taken. I am co-author of two books that were written as technical references. The biggest critic was a laconic German friend of mine who said "no matter how careful you are, you are going to print some errors or mistakes and these will become irrefutable facts because they are in print". He, of course, was right. Even when you print corrections or acknowledge an error, some people will argue with you because they read it in print. It will take some time for The Cormorant to regain respectability and that's as it should be. But Al's right - let's get on with good info and questions about our second love - (my first love is trains, but don't say that out loud).YFAM, Randy Berger <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 I?ve got to admit that I was ecstatic when I first saw 1965 Packard article. A Studebaker buddy of mine shared the article over a cup of coffee, and I couldn?t wait to get back to the house to share it with some of you. I quickly scanned a page and sent it to several of you with high hopes of ??? When I did, several of you said ?whoa?big fella, slow down and look at those pictures!? ??..darn my Packard zeal clouded my normally better common sense. Typically, I always question what most people say. (It makes good sense in my full time occupation) As one of the Packard ?rookies? around here, I jumped to believe ?hook, line and sinker? that the article was the real deal. Damn, I was so hopeful to have a Packard finally manufactured after I was born! Shucks! I was had! So, someone somewhere made an assumption and trusted the information they got & printed it without checking sufficiently enough. I?ll bet that the Packard staff will be a bit more careful in the future! As a cool old bumper sticker conveys, ?---- Happens!? Heck, let's get Skully & Moulder to look into this mystery. I can see it now, "The Packard X-Files"!Time to move on as so many people here on the site have observed. For people wishing to personally confront, DON?T! This hobby of ours is supposed to be fun I?m told. Let?s all take a deep breath and then exhale. Life is precious and too dang short to let things like this ruin even one day. BTW I haven?t lost one-minute of sleep in the entire process. I love this hobby! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Looks like most everyone thinks I am wrong. I thank you all for your advice except for Peter. I would like to remind all of you of one thing. By remaning silent on this issue your doing what the PAC wants. By doing this th issue will quietly fade away as they want it to. Then they can go on doing as they dam well please without answering to its members for its actions. This is my last comment on this thread that I started. Peter your right my Packard is a dog. Its a GREYHOUND that your rolling CHICKEN COUPE won't ever outrun. With the stock gearing in both cars you would get me off the line, but my GREYHOUND would bury your CHICKEN COUPE on Top End. You bring your Packard back east to Pa here and and I will show you what my dog will do against your car. There is one catch to the whole thing. YOU HAVE TO PUT THE STOCK GEAR RATIOS THAT CAME FROM THE FACTORY BACKIN YOUR CAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin AZ Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Re: the 9/18/02 5:45 pm post......hey looks like I forgot to Sign my name to that post....Kevin Gillooly Southern Arizona...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Hey! Let's have a drag race here!That will settle it once and for all.Until you two guys meet... COOL IT, if I may be so humble to suggest such an obvious solution. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin AZ Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 John....wrong ? Right? That's not the point! This forum is to exchange ideas & learn. Don't personalize. Your points are as valid as anyone else's here. Frankly, disagreement is a good thing. Challenging ideas doesn't have to equate to challenging the person. Your 53 is a hell of a car! Even though I bought the 55, the look of those'53 Patricians still makes be swoon. BTW your time at Hershey man..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Sorry...who is kidding who....your '53 Packard Ultramatic is no "grey-hound". Its lack of accelleration was a bad joke when they were brand new. Remember, my family owned em, I worked on em, bought em and sold em...wrecked em..re-built em..made love in em...made sex in em...etc...etc....I KNOW the damn things...WELL....!If you would spend a little less time arguing with everyone, and a little more time UNDERNEATH that thing, and followed my suggestion on how to get a bit more "zip" out of it, then you could beat me "off the line" (but just barely !)I am a little confused over your understanding of technology. Let me explain something. Because technology advances, a 1918 Packard will blow the doors of a 1908 Packard, even tho some 1908 Packard buffs think their cars are pretty neat. A 1928 Packard will blow the doors off a 1918 Packard, even tho the owners of 1918 Packard think THEIR cars are pretty neat. A 1948 Packard Custom with the 356 engine, and over-drive, will blow the doors off a stock '38 Packard 12 like mine, and, incidentally, will blow YOUR doors off too ! Why, because Packard started down-hill, steadily reducing its performance and "build quality" each year, until it managed to so destroy its reputation that towards the end, it could barely GIVE the damn things away. The thing to do, John, is think about comparing cars of the same era. A stock '38 Packard Twelve will eat a Cadillac V-16 for break-fast! A stock '53 Cad. will....well...bet you've found out....havnt you....! Same for a '53 Olds or Lincoln....and what a Chrysler will do to that '53 Packard......!Fortunately for the people who like post-war Packards, Packard was pretty much out of the car manufacturing business by then - the problem is not so much what they are made OF ( since they are mostly assembled from bits and pieces bought from General Motors entities and Chrysler Corp) but how the factory threw them together. Thus, I found that with a little work, my post-war Packards gave fairly decent service, and, with a few "tricks", ALMOST decent performance. John, did I tell you I once drove one of my '53's from the Manhatten side of the George Washington Bridge, to the Barham Blvd, off-ramp of the Hollywood freeway, in two and a half days....AND I SLEPT A BIT AT NIGHT ! (smoked the tires...tho....!).Now - where was I - oh yes.....hoaxes......! Yeah...they happen...get over it!Hey...Bud...I'd like to apologize on behalf of these bad tempered sore loosers who are giving you a rough time over that little fiasco. I was lucky - when I put out various car-oriented publications, I caught all the attempts to "put one over" on me...and there were several ! On behalf of SINCERE auto buffs everywhere, I'd like to thank you and your people for your good work and USUALLY excellent and interesting publications, and know you will do even better in the future. I can assure you if I was in your situation, and "got had" the way you did, the "nit pickers" who would gripe, would get a bit less gracious a response that you gave em !Good show !,Bud !John...lighten up !Pete HartmannBig Springs, AZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Bud. Do NOT accept any apologies from PFH on MY behalf. I offer NO apologies for anything related to this HOAX. I will Rag on it ad-infinitum just like PFH rags on the usage of the word 'Classic'. Tho NOT that i am in disagreement with him.I see that other threads have been started all of a sudden in order to create a diversion from this particular thread.The BEST way to put all of this behind us is to cancel membership or the club start providing better answers restoration needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 i posted the 7:08 post. PackardV8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Harlin Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 A quick fix to improve "51"--"54" (no gear starts) acceleration. Put trans. in neutral, wind engine up and hook lo-gear, don't lift till you run out of RPM's then shift into high. Works every time. No gear ratios changes. Run what "U" brung. The improved performace will amaze you.NOTE *** Its a little hard on rear axels, so carry spares, and tools to fix. Jack Harlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 Jack: using that technique, shouldn't you carry an extra tranny also??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Craig, I never tore up a trans. with starting that way. I thought I had though but it was a broken axel, that happened two times. My friend and I only started that way when challenged buy Olds "88", Hot Hudsons with 7X engines, etc. when we needed all we could get. We used to split the exhaust manifold, block it, weld on a second exit, and install duels. After beating them some would think a V/8 was under hood, and would collect another $20.00 proving them, wrong again. And we were no drag racers, only roundie roundies, HA Jack Harlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Harlin Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Didnot sign on for above, sorry. Jack Harlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Jack Harlin is right - I was getting ragged on real good one evening in 1958 by a guy named Cy Tack who lived in McKeesport, Pa. and had a 53 Olds Holiday. He kept goading me to pull my Mayfair out on the street to prove what a dog it was. I finally got PO'd enough to line up with him and threw it in neutral, cranked it up and slammed into L when the starter dropped his arm. Beat that Olds to the top of Pennsylvania Ave. where I turned around. Cy claimed he missed a shift from Lo to Super. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> We revved up again and when I pulled into the lot at Bud's Red Hots, Cy kept going toward Mckeesport. He never opened his mouth again. Several months later after doing this many times, I had to replace the tranny AND a big rubber tit that was supposed to keep the driveshaft from hitting the floor. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> The 53 Olds and Caddy just weren't that hot. A 50 Olds 88 (really a chevy body) with a V8 was a different story.I have a picture of me and the 52 Mayfair when I was 16 if anyone wants an autographed copy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> YFAM, Randy Berger <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Getting back to the subject at hand (why a hoax was permitted to occur in a club magazine dedicated to historical accuracy) I have the following thought:The reason what happed is WRONG is because what happens when 40 years from now some unknowing young guy buys some old magazines at Hershey & reads the article. He's going to think it's real. Whether he knows this or not, the editor who allow this crap to be printed was in fact trying to alter history. Trust me, someone unknowledgable on Packards in the future will read that article & think its true. We as antique auto enthusiests have a duty to make an honest attempt to report history accurately. The editor who allowed this to be printed failed in that attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Amongst the stupid things I have read in here...."racing" a motor in neutral, then shifting an automatic transmission into "gear", has to be at the top of the list. There IS a way to dramatically improve the ZERO - SIXTY time of the '50 thru 'late '53 Ultramatic, without over-stressing it, but in view of how many mechanical genuises we have in here..I'd be wasting my time to discuss it.Pete Hartamnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now