Jump to content

Twin Six versus Light Eight...guilt by association ?


Restorer32
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quoting Colonel J.G.Vincent... " To develop and build a car of the medium-priced type is one job. To make that car a Packard in every respect is quite another task...The Packard Light Eight justifies our every hope and, in itself, vindicates the long period required for its development. We now hail the result with a pride that is only equalled by that which we feel in our other new car-the Twin Six". Apparently Old Jess considered the Light 8 a "Classic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restorer 32:

I see no need for you to justify the Light Eight's Classic status, they are fine and unusual cars and were rightly recognized by the CCCA many many years ago. There are bigger and maybe better cars I suppose, but doesn't that hold true for all the other Classics? Unless you happen to be driving a Bugatti Royale, though even that could probably be challenged as well.

Your XK 140 is also quite a car, perhaps a one I might include on my post war Classics list.

Bill, an ex-CCCA member

Albuquerque, NM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restorer...I think you are being just a bit "theatrical" in your response. Again, I like old cars. ALL old cars. Heck...WHATEVER it is...if it has gears and levers and goes "whiz bang"....I have probably tinkered with it...or at least admired it !

I especially like Packards. ALL Packards ! You can BET if we are any place where old car nuts gather, and you are looking for me....give me a little time to admire ALL the old "whiz bangs" (not just cars...!) that show up....then...just find a car...with a red hex on its hub-caps, and I will be standing there admiring it regardless of its year or series.

The issue of whether a Packard "Light Eight" belongs in the CCCA was, as we all know, decided years ago, as part of the larger issue of whether we want "dillution" of our Club's original standards. My recollection of the many "Membership Surveys" down thru the years, is that

1) the overwhelming majority of the general membership did NOT want "dillution"

AND

2) for whatever reason, those, such as myself, who did NOT want our "acceptability list" expanded........WE LOST ! AND WE LOST OVER AND OVER AGAIN on the "dillution" issue, the clear STATEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY in our Handbook notwithstanding !

While some in here believe in "freedom of speech" only so long as THEIR view is supported, the fact remains that others of us DO have opinions, and in a free society, you have to accept that. ( Well...maybe YOU accept the idea of "freedom of speech"...but, as you can see, not all in here share that view).

As we have seen in recent National Board decisions, the pendulum is swinging back towards our original purpose. While the Board did recently expand our "list" BACKWARDS in time to those cars IDENTICAL to 1925 models, it now appears unwilling to further expand our "list" in any other direction.

Again, as I noted in my now deleted "post", I can't imagine anyone seriously thinking of kicking cars OFF our "Acceptability List" once previously admitted. Just as I have to deal with the fact that my Packard Twelve is not as big, fast, or as elegant, as, say a Hisso J12 or a "Doozie", you will have to deal with the fact that your car is not as big, fast, or elegant as a Packard Super Eight or Twelve. These are FACTS, they should NOT prejudice your enjoyment of YOUR car.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, Az

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I don't delete posts lightly. It is done only as a last resort.

Your post was condescending and downright nasty. it was deleted. the light 8 is a CCCA approved car and therefore discussions about it have always been permitted on this forum. Some people are afraid to discuss their cars here for fear of being jumped on, by primarily you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are different than personal attacks. This type of elitist badgering will not be permitted on this forum. You do have some good things to say, and I am hoping you can stick to those more positive things, and remain a contributor to this forum.

I, and I think most other CCCA members, really dont want to hear any more about how you think some CCCA approved cars dont belong in the club. they are just as valid historically as the most rare and expensive CCCA approved cars. they ARE approved cars, and the last thing we need to do as a club is alienate their owners.

Give it a rest. these issues were decided years ago and your faction lost. We are all on the same team here so lets act that way.

Shawn Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come to the forum to talk about cars. I am soooooo tired of listening to people complain about other people, other peoples interests, other peoples cars, etc., etc.

In an effort to get things back on track, I propose a new forum for those that would rather complain about things instead of talk about Classic cars on the Classic Car Club Forum.This new forum would be called "Mommy" and it would be the place for all this whining and crying. We could have such topics as:

He's picking on me.

He's picking on my car.

My car is better than your car.

My car is bigger than your car.

If you don't like my rules, I'll take my marbles and go home.

I don't like your rules, so I'll take my marbles and go home.

All the other crap that constantly interferes with real discussion about Classic cars that goes on and on, ad nauseum.

With this new forum, when someone posts this childish stuff, we could tell them to go tell Mommy.

Steve Pugh

1926 Stutz Sedan

1926 Stutz Limousine

1927 Stutz Brougham

1929 Franklin Sport Sedan

1929 Packard Club Sedan

1929 Packard Victoria Coupe

1936 Auburn Convertible Sedan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

We do have an area for this and it is called "miscellaneous rants and raves", which you will find at the bottom of the forum list.

Unsure if your comment was directed to me, my comment to peter, or my deletion of peters post, or to peter, but I really agree with you, and long for the day when I don't have to constantly monitor this board for blasphemous comments because everyone is happy and having a good ole time discussing their full classics!

So whats up with you? Do all of these cars run and drive or are any of them under restoration? Which one is your favorite? need any parts? etc?

Shawn Miller

Indiana Region

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shawn,

I am aware of the "Rants and Raves" area, but I seldom ever even look at it. I was just trying to illustrate the childish silliness of many of the posts when they have nothing to do with cars, the history of cars, the maintenance of cars, the restoration of cars, etc., in a humorous (maybe no body thought it was) but pointed way.

My comments were definitely NOT directed at you, but to the regular contributors to the particular type of chat that, I believe, has no value and no place here.

As for my cars, they are all original cars that have suffered one sort of abuse or another. I think my hobby is not old cars, but searching for missing parts.

I recently started driving my very original 1927 Stutz. It had not been driven for over 50 years. As you may know, 1926 and 1927 Stutzes have hydrostatic brakes. The brakes have large rubber bladders filled with water that act on the 6 brake shoes per wheel. The brakes have been restored to original. The rest of the car has been cleaned and adjusted and rebuilt to maintain the original patina. The paint, upholstery, and mostly everything else is original.

With that project coming to an end, I have started on the 1929 Packard Victoria Coupe. It has a lot of rust and a lot of missing parts. The rest of the cars need one thing or another to be drivable. I hope to have them all running over the next several years.

I would have to say that Stutz is my favorite and I always need parts for one or another of the cars.

Steve Pugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

sounds like we have a few things in common. most of my cars are works in progress.

Also Your stutz are very similar to my davinci, since it was sort of a protoype for that chassis design. I too have those brakes I beleive although we havent gotten that far yet. Mine are timken. they actually seem to work. amazing how these cars can sit for decades and still operate. I also have the worm drive.

Bill Greer has become a good friend of mine, we attended hershey together the last 2 years, and so this year I went ahead and joined the stutz club. Figured I might as well learn as much as possible given the similarities, who knows maybe somday I will get lucky enough to get a real stutz! HA.

Shawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shawn,

Yes, the hydrostatic brakes are from Timken. I didn't know any other cars used them. When you get to the brakes on your car, feel free to contact me with any questions. I know more about them than any one person should know...or have to know. Needless to say although I love the fact that they are original and now work after having the bladders made and replacing them all, they are still a pain in the rear.

Steve Pugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"are we on the same team" ?

I am not so sure...Shawn. If I understood what I read correctly, you and/or Conrad are thinking of opening some or all of this "site" to non-classics.

As you are well aware, I have some vague familiarity with the CCCA, what its rules and policies are, and how they evolve.

As I noted elsewhere, I really do not believe this planet will start wobbling on its axis if someone comes in, ignores our very clear and specific caption

" PLEASE LIMIT POSTS TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CLASSIC

CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, AND CARS THE CCCA CONSIDERS CLASSICS....."

and posts something about a non CCCA car, or non CCCA policy views.

Again, while "fair comment" gives them the right to come in here and ignore our very clearly stated rules and policies, it also gives US the right to respond and comment on them.

To my knowledge, the CCCA Board has not delegated to either you, COnrad, or Gariepy the power to change our rules. Absent such a delegation of power, I again ask you to recognize the limits of what we do within the confines of this organization, accept "fair comment" on rule violators, and leave our rules alone.

I am also unclear as to where you got the idea that CCCA policy, past, present, or future, is or should be immune to criticism that diverges from YOUR interpetation of what you would LIKE it to be.

For Mr. Pugh's benefit, my "post" did not demean anyone's car. I made it clear in that post that I am a car buff, enjoying all manner of cars in general, and all manner, year, and series of Packards in particular.

That Packard and other manufacturers elected to build cars to different tastes and budgets, with vastly different capabilities, is not my fault ! That the CCCA elected to focus on the biggest and best, is also not my fault. I certainly agree with the focus of our earlier policies, and with the apparent present trend of recent Boards back towards that focus on "exclusivity".

Again, a sign of maturity is being able to gracefully accept views divergent from your own.

Pete Hartmann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...