A CHALLENGEN TO THE EDITORS OF THE CORMORANT

[Guest]

Mr. Blond I have finally obtain the story of the 1965 Packard V12 article published in the Summer 2002 edition of the Packard Cormorant written by Paul B. McKeehan. I would like you to relay the follwing message to the editors of the Packard Cormorant. Since it seems like it might take along time for the truth to come out about this article lets shorten the time for this to happen. I would like to DEBATE Mr. McKeehan face to face about this pack of lies he has written. Lets see if he has the balls to come to Toronto and defend this article and bring some real proof with him. I say that I can proof that it is all a bunch lies and cooked photos. I will also take on any editors of the Cormorant who thinks the rubbish is a factual story. Relay this message to Mr.McKeehan. Then notify me in this forum the time date and place were the debate would take place in Toronto at the July meeting. I will be there.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

3 cheers for Packard53 !!!! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[6219_Rules]

I understand the nature of this problem, friends, but I am not clear why it is causing such a dust up. I have read the entire set of threads so I do have a history on this.

The article was clearly a work of fiction by the author. It was presented as fact de facto, a mistake by the editorial staff.

I am not a member of this club nor an owner of a Packard, but as a car lover, and a writer I would like to know why this has caused you all such pain.

Lies and secrets only cause hurt and ill will....the clear light of truth will set the mind and spirit free and give the soul peace. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest B.H.]

One thing that bothers me is that the author in question has been making his "rounds" with the SDC, PAC and most recently the AOAI (Avanti Owners Association International) - often at the expense of member dues. Where will it end?

A lot of that has to do with letting the subject article stand as published - as fact, when it has more of an appearance of fiction.

Long before this article appeared, I'd heard rumors that Studebaker had "considered" reviving Packard, but I don't believe for even a New York minute that anything ever materialized - no surprise if you ever studied their timeline during the 1960s. I could cite a lot of circumstantial evidence that would further erode any credibility of the story, but the fact is that not one piece of credible, tangible, and irrefutable evidence has ever been presented to the readers to support it - unlike other concept cars produced by Studebaker or even Packard.

With no word of such a "project" until nearly 40 years after the "fact," the subject story first appeared in PAC's <span style="font-style: italic">The Packard Coromorant</span>, along with a sidebar by George Hamlin that seems to embrace and endorse it as fact. What bothers me here is that Mr. Hamlin, whom I've met only briefly at Hershey, is a widely regarded (and rightfully so) historian among Packard and Studebaker enthusiasts.

In fact, after I found my father's old Executive sitting in a field back in 1976, the second magazine article I found on newstands about the V8 Packards was a <span style="font-style: italic">DriveReport</span> on the '56 Patrician, published in <span style="font-style: italic">Special Interest Autos</span> (Issue #36) - penned by none other than George Hamlin (though I knew nothing of him a the time). I found that article to be so well-written and compelling to read that I wanted to learn even more. There was even a nice sidebar about Packard evaluating fuel injection in '56 - actually fitted and road-tested on a car (fact, NOT fiction). I still have that very issue today, but found even more great articles when I joined PAC several years later. I'm not much for travelling all over the country to attend meets, but simply joined to learn more about these fantastic cars, in hopes of owning, working on, and driving them someday. That's just one piece of evidence of how much weight a truly knowledgable person carries in attracting people to the hobby.

Yet, getting back to the future, Bud Juneau, PAC's V.P. of Publications (and listed as Acting Editor in the issue of TPC containing the offending article), came to this forum and apologized, advising that those photos and that story had somehow gotten by the editors of TPC. Now, that's a bit hard to swallow when you consider how long people like Mr. Juneau and Mr. Hamlin have been involved in researching and writing about Packard product and history. Still, I accepted his stated apology and promise to resolve the matter, but the only thing published about this matter since then was a mere request for information. A year has since passed.

Now, the recent article on the legendary Monobloc Twelve was a shining example of research and publishing at its best, but that doesn't change the fact that the revival story still stands - unretracted.

Meanwhile, the author in question has published another article and continues about his business of telling "tall tales" - though thankfully not within PAC, as far as I can tell. Yet, the question remains - where will it end?

Even if the author keeps working his "magic" outside of PAC's jurisdiction, whatever happened to taking responsibility and making reparations for one's mistakes?

I used to just roll my eyes and let such posers think they got away with something, but someone has to take a stand now or this kind of stuff will only get even further out of control.

Randall, if you could only read this tale and study those photos, even with only a general perspective of automobilies, your intelligence would be insulted.

[6219_Rules]

Ah it is now so very clear. Oddly enough we have this problem throughout the field of archaeology. And often, highly respected men have turned out to have made up stories and falsified sites to support vague theories. I know several first hand. It is a terrible shame such things happen.

You are right, B.H., I would (and am) insulted by this kind of fraud. I remember seeing a link here to the proposed V12 or something like it and it appeared to me to be as you all have described it, a faked (and badly at that) set of photos.

The fact that this person can continue to swindle the members of several clubs is a sad state of affairs.

Isn't it amazing how ego will keep otherwise intelligent, capable and honest (partly) men from acting with honor? While embarrassing, I would rather get it over with and have a reputation for recognising I had been flim flammed than substantiate and support a lie. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for your indepth appraisal of this situation. It has been a great eye opener. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest B.H.]

Randall -

Thank you for your open-minded approach to the situation.

I can only say with respect to the author (McKeehan) that I don't doubt that he worked for Studebaker in the period he claims (and likely substantiated by corporate records which have been presevered), but not in the capacity of such a broad and complicated undertaking. It's one thing to design some trim pieces, render a styling proposal or, outline a plan, but the design and construction of even one single, but entire and completely-new, road-worthy vehicle is a whole 'nother matter. As such, I can't consider this gentleman to be deserving of much respect.

Now, with regard to longstanding, respected, and actively-involved members of PAC who should be the most qualified experts on such matters, it is bad enough that they let this get story get published without checking the "facts," but very disappointing that they would leave it stand as fact. On the other hand, had it been published, up-front, as fantasy, there would have been little controversy.

Outside of this one venue, it appears that PAC has only "publicly" admitted that the article caused some controversy. By default, they give the appearance of standing by the article as it is (if not trying to sweep things under the rug, hoping it is simply forgotten) - at least, until such time (if ever) that it is "officially" declared to be untrue.

The same could be said of SDC, but as a Packard enthusiast, I'd like to see PAC be the "bigger man" and take the lead on this issue.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly enough we have this problem throughout the field of archaeology. And often, highly respected men have turned out to have made up stories and falsified sites to support vague theories. I know several first hand. It is a terrible shame such things happen.</div></div>

I humbly suggest that we change this topic's name to the <span style="font-weight: bold">Piltdown Packard</span> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[6219_Rules]

touche, Craig!

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

The 1965 V12 article was really more than just an article. It took up about 4 or more full pages with plenty of pics that resembled a 85 LTD or something. Ok. None of that lifted my eyebrows UNTIL i got to the LAST PAGE. On the last page was an inset claiming FUTURE coverage of a "1965 Packard V12 van that so impressed Mr Eggbert". Eggbert was a big shot at PMCC. THIS INIDCATED TO ME THAT THE FARCE WAS NOT GOING TO STOP with just one try!!!!!!!

You would have to own and operate a Packard (especialy the post war models and (especialy-especialy the V8 models) ) to understand the kind of relations and climate that exist in the Packard world. I've been involved with Indian, Cushman, Chevrolet, Harley Davidson, Jeep, AMC for over 30 years. It was not until 7 years ago that i got involved with Packard so i am somewhat of a newcommer to Packard relative to my other experiences. IN VIEW OF THAT, NEVER BEFORE have i ran into such poor PR, ineptness, snotty attitudes and just a generally demeaning-intended atmosphere among nameplate specific organizations that seems to be so very wide spread with the Packard nameplate. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS but they are few and far between. I have met and done business with a few Packard owners and ONE Packard vendor that are EXCELLENT but they are the EXCEPTION and not the rule.

I own and drive a Packard and i like it and i intend to continue owning and driving it. I ALSO INTEND to bring some sense of CREIBILITY back to the Packard name. WHY??? Just ask the man who owns one.

For I AM the man with a BIG V8 - better known as PackardV8.

[Guest JT]

I thought there might be more than just the 65 Packard article eatin at some in here and now I see at least some of what that is. As a pre war owner (lowly 120) I would have to say I have met many very helpful Packard folks from all over the country in the past 5 years, most over the phone and concerning technical issues. I've talked with a Packard parts dealer I didn't consider very helpful but I've had the same treatment from a generic supplier as well.

I'll also say I have seen and heard comments from some that think their pre war or senior Packard is superior to others but those types of pompous asses are universal and not exclusive to the Packard name, at least from what I've seen <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Guest B.H.]

Actually, the article published by PAC took up a full FOURTEEN pages (over a third of that issue of TPC), including a two-page centerspread that featured a "rendering" by the author, but the subject also occupied the front cover.

I don't remember the bit about a van being part of the PAC article, but it might have been brought up in a sidebar in SDC's version of the story (which a Stude friend had loaned me) as I do recall reading something about it. Thankfully, we haven't seen anything more about that one in print - yet. (I chalk that up to the controversy that has been publicized in forums like this.)

Now, I never built a car from scratch, but I have been around the industry most of my life - working on cars as long as I've been able to drive them, working in dealerships, working in the field for Chrysler, and working in specialty manufacturing at Avanti. From my few years at Avanti, I saw just how hard it is to come up with a new body and fit it with all the requisite hardware - even using composite materials, even when mated to proven, rolling chassis, even for just one running (never mind road-worthy) prototype.

As such, especially when you consider the "evidence" presented and view it against the reality of the times, I find the building of such prototypes to be completely implausible - if not downright preposterous.

[Guest B.H.]

JT -

My issue is with the publication and endorsement of this article as fact, but I don't personally find that belonging to a club is essential to owning and maintaining a Packard these days - though that shouldn't be the case.

When it comes to people as individuals, I've met some good people and some bad ones in any aspect of the hobby. I've met good Packard people who are members of either or both PAC and PI. However, I've met many good people who own Packards that don't belong to any club, and open-minded online forums like this have made that even more possible. I've even seen groups of owners of other cars come together on the internet, but they later voted overwhelmingly against the creation of a formal club.

Personally, I find "tea parlour societies," inner-circle politics, missionary mentalities, political-correctness, and control freak attitudes to be a real turn off. Yet, I'm not thin-skinned when it comes to any snob who has some twisted goal of getting me out of these "darned" V8s and into the Packard of THEIR choice; I just walk right past (or away from) them.

Now, I didn't truly commit myself to collecting V8 Packards until after I had found a few good sources for parts and researched numerous magazine articles, past and present (much of it on microfilm), about these cars, and that was before I joined PAC. Joining a club just seemed like the next logical step to find that which wasn't publically available and continue to learn more about these cars and their origin.

Granted, I learned a lot from reading issue after issue of <span style="font-style: italic">The Packard Cormorant</span> as they were published under Richard Langworth. I even went and bought all the back issues I missed - even some that were out of print, no longer available from the club. However, things seemed to reach their peak for Packard at some point in the 1990s.

Could it be that all the <span style="font-style: italic">bona fide</span> history regarding Packard has been fully-researched and published? If so, what's left to write about then - within the parameters set forth by the club? Perhaps that explains, in part, why people jumped the gun to publish this particular article - thought they had a real "scoop."

Well, I certainly want to see the controversy of this particular story resolved in the same venue where it was printed, but if there is any doubt that this story is not "untrue," then a public debate, as proposed by Packard53, seems like a darned good idea.

[Guest]

JT and Brian, I have to somewhat agree with what you are saying here. I own a Packard and have had an interest in the cars and the company for about 50 years. I was a member of PAC in the 80's and early 90's and then again just last year when I discovered the excellent PAC webpage. I agree that the Cormorant has deteriorated in content quality since the days of R. Langworthy and others. I don't nearly enjoy it as much as I used to because like most publications nowadays you don't get much for the money. I appreciate what the club members and editors are doing since it must be a very hard job come up with "new" material every quarter since as you suggest much of the history has already been researched and covered. I am not particularly surprised about the article of the V-12 since it must have seemed a Godsent to be able to fill an issue about what appeared to be factual information. I wish I had the education and dedication to assist with research and to write articles to keep the Cormorant as a high quality magazine. I appreciate very much that others have taken the challenge to attempt to do just this. I live in an area where contact with other Packard owners and club events are always a long way away but I will remain a member of PAC for as long as I own a Packard which is to say until I die. I would even like to own a V-8 someday! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Yes, developing material for ANY kind of publication IS a labourious and difficult undertaking. However, i am sure that at least 2 pages in every publication could be filled with reference to many tech issues that have surfaced right here in this forum. NOT that such articles need to supply any proven procedures necessarily but could at least address the issues. As i understand it there is at least one person involved with a major Packard publication that is ALSO involved with one of the major vendors. I would be most surprised if that person does not have access to helpful information (perhaps factory publications) to address many tech issues.

I also realize that not every publication, organization or any other entity for that matter can be all things to all members. BUT, if they are looking for content then maybe right here in this forum is a good place to start for ideas on publishing articles.

Albeit, any divisions that exist within the Packard world of post war vs prewar, V8 tyrants, and so on and so-forth still does not set a presedence for fairy tales. OR, to put it another way, if the top-of-line prewar crowd types do not want to hear about the V8's then WHY would they want to hear about 1965 (sixty five) V12's?????

Yes, undoubtedly this 65 V12 fiasco is probably getting beat a little to hard by a few of us. NONETHELESS, any V8 owner is shackled with tech problems. Problems that could be addressed to help fill some of the publication in a positive and helpful way. OR, any other tech problems of other models.

[Guest]

I agree that technical articles are very important and I think that the Cormorant News Bulletin was the best place to address questions and technical advise. The Packard Cormorant should be reserved for historical articles and photo studies of the various Packard models. I cannot say that i share your opinion vis a vis bias against the V-8 models in PAC. I only attended one annual meet but i found that even though at the time I didn't even own a Packard I was treated very well by al the people I spoke to. One owner even gave my wife and I a ride and permitted me to drive his prewar V-12 (Thanks Dave) and another owner of a 1941 Super Eight spent 1/2 hour discussing his car with me when it was obvious he had other things to do. I find that this forum seems to be primarily one for discussing the V-8 models and I guess that's is because you are a younger more computer saavy group that those of us who own the older Packards. Either that or our cars are so much more reliable that we don't need to discuss valve lifters ad nauseum. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I agree that this forum and of course the forum on the PAC website would be an excellent source of material for the print publications especially those problems which seem to garner the most space on this forum since there seems to be an obvious need for owners of the V-8's.

[Guest B.H.]

Dave -

Many of the regulars who post here were previously assembled at a chat site that later dropped offline, when the bubble burst in the dot-com world. I guess owners of Packard V8 models just naturally attract talk from other owners of same. Why, we may even have to set up our own exclusive club someday. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes, there sure is a lot of talk about Packard V8 engines and the lifter noise issues (and not just here), but perhaps that is because the clubs have failed to address this properly - letting a bad reputation grow much bigger than it needs to be. Ironically, a Buick V8 of the period had a similar valvetrain and oiling system, INCLUDING a vacuum pump driven off of the bottom of the oil pump to assist the vacuum wiper motor. It's funny that you don't hear such a bad reputation about Buick V8s and nobody ever suggested eliminating the vac pump on those cars. Regardless of whether someone is keeping secrets, the debate on the Packard V8 oiling issues will continue here and - sooner or later - WE will, openly, get to the bottom of it.

However, there have been a significant number of posts made here by a growing number of '51-'54 (24th-54th Series) owners on their own issues. Based on what "PackardV8" accomplished with his parts cross-reference thread, I had suggested that '51-'54 owners do the same to attract more visitors, which would grow their knowledgebase and might promote more exchange on other topics, but nobody has stepped up to the plate. You can't blame apathy on V8 owners, as you cane see how vocal we are. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Owners of earlier Series have posted here as well, but it's a bit troubling that some questions have gone unanswered. Again, you can't blame that on V8 owners - we don't pretend to be experts on every model, let alone every make or company. Most people tend to chime in only when they genuinely know something about the subject.

Now, you say that (of the two cited pbulications) the CNB is the best place for tech matter, but when was the last time anything like that was published there? Seems to me that they've let that go by the wayside, hoping the website forum would handle that, but (nevermind the overly restrictive nature) that forum is not set up so you could ask a tech question to a designated expert and get an answer from that expert. I refuse to participate in that site, but even the old method didn't work that well. Several years ago, a question was posed about modification to the V8 oil pump, and the answer published concluded with the line "come to the National Meet and I'll show you." Now, how does that benefit the V8-owning members at large - especially those who may come on board years later? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

It is no wonder, then, that people would look elsewhere for support.

When it comes to matters of any bias against V8 owners, of course, we should not generalize, but I have run into attitudes like that more than you'd expect. It only take a few bad apples to give the impression that the whole bunch is spoiled.

Mind you, I am still a member of PAC, but I persoanlly see less benefit for my membership dollar with each passing year, and the subject article is a big black mark that stands unretracted.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

BH. Thanks for the tip on Buick with similar problem. SEE MY INQUIRY up in the Buick forum titled "195? Buick V8 lifter noise". Lets see what kind of insightful responses we can get there.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I have recently met and talked with Mr Donald Taconne on 2 or 3 different occasions this bygone summer. At those times i did not realize that he had been recently appointed as president or somekind of high ranking oficial with PAC. Donald strikes me as being a very streight forward and upright man as well as technically astute AND a an owner of at least 8 or more 56's.

I am most optimistic that Donald will do great things for the club in his newly acquired position. Of course this will no doubt take time to accomplish.

As for prior issues with the various clubs i can only conjecture that it is due to the close association of the clubs with vendors. i.e. what vendor wants anyone to have any technical info or other info without themselves benefiting or acting as middle man???? OR, to put it another way: they want to sell what they have.

It is superb forums such as this one that allows individual owners to correspond in a civil (tho not necessarily endearing nor congenial) manner about their cars and issues pertaining.

[55PackardGuy]

?V8? Folks,

In case you need some ready ammunition next time the debate comes up about the importance of the last generation of Packards, here are a few quotes on the new '55s to keep in your wallet:

Auto Age: ?the best car of the year?its combination of brakes, steering and far superior suspension not only give it the edge in handling but mark it as THE car for ?55. [Auto experts have] been complaining for years that we didn?t have one really stable American car. Now at last Packard has broken the ice and come up with a new feature that is more than just another sales gimmick.?

Floyd Clymer: ??different from any other car?for stability, both front and rear ends have independent stabilizers?You can drive into a corner at high speed with this car and the body remains almost level?It is the most comfortable ride I?ve ever had with a feeling of security at all times.?

Car Life: [the suspension is] ?a great contribution to the world?s motor industry?at least one manufacturer realizes that the conventional coil and leaf springs leave much to be desired?Not only is the 1955 Packard safer than many of its contemporaries, but it is much more comfortable.?

Motor Trend: Everything else dims by comparison with ride?The test crew couldn?t tell when driver deliberately steered car over projecting manhole covers on road under repair. What a fantastic ride!?

(Thanks again to: Packard, a History of the Motor Car and the Company, edited by Beverly Rae Kimes, 1978, Automobile Quarterly.)

Press like this leads one to believe that these last Packards are more than worthy to stand alongside earlier models and lay claim to the Packard heritage.

Add to the suspension raves an impressively powerful and nearly indestructible new V8 engine, limited slip differential in '56, luxury and style...and some lifter noise under certain conditions seems like a petty gripe. Kudos to those who strive to fix even this, and make great cars that much better.

[55PackardGuy]

PackardV8

Regarding the Buick lifter noise, as I mentioned earier in this forum (not this thread) MANY of the early V8 hydraulic valve trains were noisy--they didn't call it the Oldsmobile RACKET V8 for nothing. That's why I think some of the fretting over oil pumps, pressure relief valves, air bubbles, notches in the lifters etc. is a little bit of overkill. In fact, it might perpetuate the perception that this is THE GREAT BIG PROBLEM with these engines, when, in reality, it is often more of a cosmetic thing. The engines are still torque-monsters, they are almost unbreakable, and they are over-built like crazy! Hence, they are cool, whether they make some extraneous noises or not. In fact, I kind of liked the way our 400 ticked--it sounded meaner that way.

[Guest B.H.]

Guy -

Yes, through my continued research, I am finding that "some level" of lifter noise should be considered accceptable for engines in this period of automotive manufacturing. What I recently read in a '57 Buick shop manual about such noise echoes much of Packard's own advice in their '55-'56 manual and subsequent bulletins.

So, in spite of some naysayers past, evidence shows that Packard WAS working to resolve the cause of abnormal lifter noise, but I believe that they just didn't have sufficient time left on the clock to get to the bottom of it.

Another reason that we longtime V8 owners are so concerned about this is that lifter noise has been an indication of genuine oiling issues, which have lead to catastrophic failure - like a broken connecting rod and block. Yes, I agree that the Packard V8 is generally a very stout and reliable mill - until unusual lifter noise creeps in (usually after 50K, but some as early as 30K - though, again, never in my father's Exec with nearly 75K).

Also, information published in the past few decades seems geared at frightening people into tearing out their original pump and having it "castrated" (removing the vacuum pump), yet some of these folk have reported that it didn't solve a thing. I agree that approaches like that promote a stereotype of bad product. Of course, not all engine noises are equal, nor are they the result of the same or necessarily a single cause.

Our goal in discussing this so openly and so often is to promote early detection, a thorough diagnosis, and arrive proper course to cure (not merely "treat") it. Eventually, we'll have some sort of checklist or flowchart that even Packard engineers would have been proud of.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regarding the Buick lifter noise, ...(snip) In fact, it might perpetuate the perception that this is THE GREAT BIG PROBLEM with these engines, when, in reality, it is often more of a cosmetic thing. The engines are still torque-monsters, they are almost unbreakable, and they are over-built like crazy! (snip)</div></div>

I totally agree!

Because of "scary" postings on this forum, there's been more than one "new" owner of a V8 model who was convinced that he would have to swap in a brand X engine as soon as he drove his V8 Packard home, hoping it wouldn't explode on the way there.

However, I do encourage PackardV8, RO, BH and even myself for trying to get to the bottom of this "problem", especially if there is measurable low oil pressure that's not otherwise explainable. But it's not like V8 Packards are lying dead by the side of the road due to oiling problems. As I've stated many times on these threads, my 55 Pat has [color:"red"] ZERO lifter noise, except occasionally at cold start and then it's just one lifter and that noise goes away in a couple of seconds. We know what the cause of that is and it's not the oil pump or the lifters per se.

[Guest B.H.]

Craig -

I didn't go back and check the posts, but I just don't recall anyone saying that they had concluded that they needed to replace their Packard V8 mill specifically because of posts made in this forum on the oiling issue. If so, perhaps they need to study the posts - as well as widely available info - a little better.

There's nothing wrong with someone coming here and asking for some facts or opinions, but how could anyone reasonably come to a technical conclusion that they need to do away with the Packard engine by virtue of the number of cars discussed just in this forum? Anyone who truly reads and understands RO's excellent thread on his trials and tribulations with "engine noise" ought to be able to see that the oil pump is not fully to blame - may not even be a Packard engineering problem at all. (I often wonder if "speed-reading" was such a good thing to promote in our society.)

Obviously, I don't have much patience with anyone who won't - for whatever excuse - do some basic legwork before they turn one screw on something that they are not very familiar with.

One of the first things I did when I seriously wanted to know more about the V8 Packards, before I owned a running example and even before I joined any club, was to pick-up the shop manual and parts books for the car - widely available in reprinted form at affordable prices, even outside of the clubs. I also obtained copies of some, though not all, Service Technical Bulletins and Service Counselors from a fellow V8 owner, by mail, in the early 1980s. After I joined PAC, I eventually picked up a copy of the Service Counselor set for '55-'56. Later, after working on my first Patrician, I realized the value of the supplemental info, and began trading copies of bulletins with other V8 enthusiasts - even made a trek to a couple of automotive archives - to come up with a complete set of STB's. I even picked up earlier editions of the Service Counselor sets from the club, knowing the V8 body and chassis was a derived from the '51-'54. (As luck would have it, about 1995, I stumbled across two file folders full of original bulletins for all of $15.)

Granted that's more than most need to do, but I'm just saying the info is out there and available. Let's make full use of it.

Now, the occasional lifter noise at cold start in your Patirician is not at all what we've been concerned about - in fact, it is described in the Packard shop manual and bulletins as normal.

Yet, I feel, that by open discussion between, you, me and anyone else who is genuinely interested, we will collectively arrive at a better resolution for genuine problematic engine noise and oiling issues than have come from anyone else previously.

[John N. Packard]

Brian,

I get much quicker answers to my technical questions on the '51 - '54 models by posting them on the AACA Technical Questions portion of the discussion forum. My assumption is that most of the participants here are V-8 owners who don't necessarily have knowledge of the earlier models. I'm often reluctant to answer questions at either location because often someone will challenge your answer. I think that has become increasingly true over the past few years. Many persons who frequently answered technical questions don't seem to be active anymore. Also, the V-8 owners in particular seem to be interested in upgrading their cars to modern technical standards; whereas we who own older models often are more interested in restoring them to the original condition.

jnp

[6219_Rules]

I agree with everything that has been said...it is all true in its context. One thing I try to do when I read a post or am asked by a member on whether or not to replace their XYZ engine with a crate 350 and a TH400 is to consider what they have. In almost every case the original engine, if running and in relatively good shape, is an excellent power plant and should be maintained. Rebuilding a 346 Flathead V-8 will cost about $3200. A well built new engine is over $5K. Anything less would work but be a waste of money and time. If they decide to go ahead and modernize the car, then please keep the engine and tranny for the next person who takes on the car. I understand if the car is a hulk and is rebuilt to modern specs for enjoyment of its original looks alone, hot rodded etc.., it is at least out on the road giving enjoyment to its owner and admirers.

But in my humble opinion, there is nothing quite as sad as a functioning example of a classic car that is chopped or modernized without regard to its provenience. I recently saw a 1947 Cadillac 6269 sedan, like mine, that had been 'modernized' with all new steering, engine, tranny and suspension. The interior was near original but for the 1978 Cadillac steering column and wheel, and the modern pedals. It was a beautiful job....but it was no longer a 1947 Cadillac.

I have no idea what shape it had been originally so I cannot and will not judge what was done or why, but I can say my heart sagged just a little to realise one more brother to my car had been lost. A silly sentiment really but there it is.

[John N. Packard]

Here's a direct quote from the 1954 Packard and Packard Clipper Facts Book:

"Packard's L-Head Engine Design is superior to Valve-in-Head

As indicated in the illustration below, (see attachment) a comparison of the Packard's L-head arrangement engine with the V-8 valve-in-head design shows that the Packard arrangement has fewer moving parts to wear and become noisy. Because of its clean simplicity of design, the L- head engine is definitely superior by a wide margin for smoothness, quietness, and trouble-free operation. This arrangement, plus a special angle-set valve arrangement, permits the practical benefits of Packard's deep-breathing, high turbulence and high compression type combustion chamber. In the more complex valve-in-head engine, valves are mounted over the cylinder and actuated by long push rods. Because this engine has over 100 more moving parts than the Packard L-head, the average valve-in-head engine has a much more complicated problem of lubrication, adjustment, and wear."

An interesting comparison don't you think, just prior to the introduction of Packard's own V-8 designs in the 55th Series model year?

jnp

[R W Burgess]

John, No doubt in today's marketplace the engineer that touted the l-head design would have been fired when the V-8 came out the following year. Wayne

[55PackardGuy]

Brian,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do believe you folks are doing commendable things and I understand the drive to tenaciously track down and treat any imperfection. NOTE: the '55 400 I spoke of had a mechanical oil pressure gauge mounted inside, and we kept an eye on it to avoid such "catastrophic failure" as you mentioned. Although lifter noise can be an indicator of insufficient oil pressure, as many of you know, it isn't always. By the way, like your dad's Exec, we had two '55 Clippers with the 352 and over 70,000 miles, neither of which had lifter noise problems. Two out of three ain't bad!

Take a look at the Buick site and note their careful replies to PackardV8 regarding his post about Buick lifter noise. They tend to minimize any problem, thus protecting their brand's reputation. One thing they mention as a fix is Marvel Mystery oil. Although this is often prescribed for "sticky" lifters, as it removes varnish, I wonder if it also helps defeat air or foam in the oil, as it claims to improve oil viscosity. On this same note, some newer engines, (Mercedes is one) have a problem with oil foaming. It might be worth looking into their service bulletins for recommended additives.

[55PackardGuy]

John,

Thanks for the direct quote... I like direct quotes! (See above those from the Kimes book on the '55s.)

Also, thanks for the reminder that engineering "advances" usually come with costs. The simplicity and smoothness of the L-Head straight eight is a wonder to behold. I think Packard realized that the marketplace had changed, and that people would regard the straight eight as an "old fashioned" design. However, it powered the record-setting Panther Daytona, proving that it could still run with the best of the day.

[Guest B.H.]

John -

As I understand it, this Packard DF was only established a little over two years ago - relatively new in comparison to others, but pretty active. However, understand that there was a substantial group of Packard V8 owners (from a defunct forum) that jumped right in from the beginning, and I feel that our discourse has attracted even more V8 owners.

Of course, any Packard owners that were using the AACA forums feature prior to that would have had to use other, previously-estalished DFs here, and we're all creatures of habit. Yet, I am sure some of them (like you) check in here on occasion, especially when they catch a topic of interest in the "Main Index" or the "Who's Online" page.

So, I merely proffer a counterpoint to those who feel that this DF is mainly a V8 owners' group - regarding the issue of bias. That is, I feel that all Packard discussion is welcome here, but understand that it takes time and work to grow a substantial base of members to support any particular subgroup of related models and years.

(Rest assured that any disappointment I expressed with regard to forum utility in paragraph 5 of my reply, of 12/08/03 10:06 AM, to Dave Kenney was NOT made with regard to this excellent site that is provided by virtue of the AACA.)

When it comes to giving technical advice, while I do understand the potential backlash in even any tribal situation, there's an often used expression that "the truth shall set you free." Yet, I know that the changing economic climate in this country has greatly impacted the dicretionary time and income of many people in the hobby.

Just don't ever feel bashful about checking in here from time to time, and chiming in.

[Guest B.H.]

Randall -

I see this same phenomenon happening with 1975-76 Cosworth Vegas.

Someone invariably finds a solid example that needs little work and - not understanding the powertrain - the first thing they want to do is drop a hot-rodded, small-block V8 in it, making it little more than a V8 Vega with special stripes - a real shame. In my humble opinion, that's even worse than some folk who have scrapped the innovative EFI system in favor of a dual Weber sidedraft carb conversion.

While factory emissions systems choked that car's rating back to just 110HP (net, not gross - and some '75 Chevy V8s weren't much better), it's only a 2700-lb. vehicle and just over 3500 were built. Also, the CVOA has published several "tweaks" to improve performance of the factory mill and many are are not highly visible and have been proven to still pass emissions tests. Again, it's a shame that some people don't do the legwork.

It's not my name on their title, but such drastic, highly-personal and often-irreversible changes only serve to enhance the value of my bone-stock original car. I guess we can only save the cars that we can afford to own and maintain.

Thankfully, some discarded Cosworth Twin Cam engines have found their way into the hands of more knowledgeable folk - giving us a supply of parts that have otherwise been unavailable. Yet, you may find it odd to know that some of those supposedly less-than-desirable Twin Cam engines have found their way into other custom cars and even some bona fide racers.

[Guest B.H.]

Guy -

I just had a chance to check that thread in the Buick DF, and I see that they - at present - offer a lot of the same advice that we have tendered here previously, with regard to engine oil and supplements.

I find it especially interesting that one poster cited 1953 as the year for bad/noisy lifters in the new Buick V8. At least one former posters who took issue with Packard's product quality in this DF would have us believe that GM built a highly superior product, but it is clear now that GM had their own teething problems during corresponding points in their product development timeline.

Yet, given the fact that the Buick V8 uses a very similar (though not identical) oil and vacuum pump arrangement (image attached), I still find it odd that there has been no cry to do away with the vac pump on those cars - not that it would be as easy, though.

I am just thinking that, in time, we might find some difference between these obviously simliar (though not copycat) Packard and Buick systems that might account for some of the tougher noise/oiling issues - something Packard engineers didn't get to in time.

[55PackardGuy]

Brian,

PackardV8's question on the Buick forum:

"what year 50's Buick V8's had lifter noise problems????? Can someone enlighten me (and the rest of the Packard community) on this issue???? What was the fix for the problem??? Thanks, -Keith"

received these two answers that I thought were striking:

"Working in a Buick dealership in 57 and 58, there was no real problem with lifers AS LONG AS DETERGENT OIL WAS USED, AND AN OCCASIONAL CAN OF CD-2 PUT IN

WITH THE FRESH OIL.

Marvel Mystery oil was used to clear up sticky lifters, and valves. A pint in a fresh oil change, and 1/2 quart to a full tank of gas."

and...

"NO problem unless you used poor oil or filter"

Two reasons they are interesting to me:

1. Some practical tips.

2. This kind of brand loyalty is inspiring. It's all YOUR fault. The cars are great!

Note: Can we lift quotes from other forums, or is that a no-no? Cut and Paste are my middle names.

[Centurion]

I'm a Buick guy with a strong interest in the V8 Packards since 1972, when I first considered buying one. I've followed this thread with interest, and, since the comment has been made a second time now, I have to weigh in with a response.

The assumption has been made that those who post regularly on the Buick forum have not rushed to reveal lifter problems with Buick V8's because of brand loyalty and a desire to protect the brand's reputation. I do not believe this is a fair or accurate assumption, and I think that, if you monitored the Buick forum for any period of time, it would be evident that the Buick guys are every bit as forthcoming about design and assembly problems with their cars as any other old car hobbyists. You are free to make assumptions and draw whatever conclusions you wish, but that does not mean that the assumptions and conclusions are true. I am not trying to stick up for my marque -- I'm simply saying that the guys on the Buick forum are just as honest as the guys on this forum. Have I made my point?

I have been a BCA member 1975 and have been attending BCA National Meets since 1978. I've read every piece I find related to the old Buicks. I cannot claim to be an expert, but have had several close friends with the early Buick V8's. Frankly, the issue of lifter problems has never come up. I cannot say that there were never problems of this sort, but, if the problems existed, they were apparently not sufficiently serious or widespread to pose a concern to the thousands of collectors of early V8 Buicks. If there was a lack of response on the BCA Forum that would confirm the view that Buick suffered lifter problems, I would pose the following alternative conclusions: 1) This was not a serious problem, or 2) People who are really knowledgeable about this failed to respond. I am in no way trying to minimize Buick's product problems during the mid-1950's -- many of which have been well-documented and recounted in numerous magazine articles -- but I think we all need to be careful about making assumptions and then claiming it's the truth.

[R W Burgess]

Good point Brian, and I'll throw out another one. The infamous Chevrolet small blocks are supposed to be bulletproof, right? Well, my Dad bought a brand new 1958 Impala with a 283 and had instant troubles with the lifters. I was young then and do not know details of how the dealer tried to solve the problem, but I know Dad went to extent of putting in diesel motor oil to quiet her down. Needless to say, that was a bad move, as a few months later, the car was at the dealer with the valve covers off. The engine was completely sludged up. I don't remember what they did to it. All I know is that Dad bought a new 1960 Ford Starliner with a small V-8 "dog". His first and only new Ford. Wayne

[Guest B.H.]

Guy -

Yes, sometimes brand-loyalty gets in the way of fact-finding, but I just look at that as a speed bump in the parking lot of life. Statistical analyisis of surveys has long shown that people with the most extreme opinions are the most likely to repsond (that is, without further incentive). Now, not all V8 Buicks are owned by die-hard Buick people and not all of them may be blindly-loyal; anyone with a catastrophic problem will eventually chime in.

Next spring, I may try MMO rather than the STP I have used in past experiments.

Cut-n-paste sure does expedite things, and I see no problem with providing info from other forums or even external sites, as long as it is identified as such. (I try to use the Instant UBB "Quote" feature, provided here, for better clarity on that.) I didn't check, but am confident that AACA website policy would follow such common sense guidelines.

As long as you fully disclose the source, and put any directly quoted text content within quotation marks, you should even be within legal bounds of copyright law.

[Guest B.H.]

Wayne -

I think the Chevy V8 is so highly-regarded because they used the same basic block design from 1955 until some point in the late 1980s. (What Chevy uses now for a V8 engine bears little resemblance to what many have so highly regarded.)

Simply by virtue of that engine's widespread application there may be more small-block-Chevy-powered vehicles on the road today than any other. By virtue of continued great parts availabilty and high level of interchangability - whether you want a bone-stock resto or high-performance, it is an undeniably popular engine.

Yet, that doesn't mean it's bulletproof - some people tend to over-generalize. Anyone remember "soft" cams in the 305 Chevy V8 of the late 1970s? The 350 Chevy was also included in a settlement that GM had to negotiate with the FTC to perform cam replacement free of charge to the customer and well out of warranty - though not a recall.

I won't say that the SBC is bullet-proof, but it SEEMS to have fared better than other engines over a much longer period.

Frankly, I like the Packard V8 just as well as any Chevy V8, and - again - my father never removed the valve covers from the engine in his '56 Exce in its nearly 75K miles of daily service.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

" I'm simply saying that the guys on the Buick forum are just as honest as the guys on this forum. Have I made my point?"

YES! Absolutly. Thats why i read the Buick forum as often as i do the Packard Forum. Also, thats why i posed the lifter question in the Buick forum.

However, i honestly do not think that the 'protecting brand reputation' post was meant as any slam against the Buick forum nor did that idea even occur to me when i read it. Nonetheless, i see your point and it IS well taken. Thanks for setting us streight.

[R W Burgess]

Brian, Yes, I had one of those 305's in a 79 Chevy pick up. Cam got replaced at about 70,000 miles, sorry no warrantee. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Wayne

[Guest Randy Berger]

I read the Buick forum also and didn't think it was a slam against Buick folks. I owned a 57 Roadmaster 75 with the infamous vacuum pump and the only problem I had was that Buick didn't install a check valve in the vacuum line. Consequently at idle, when the vacuum pump wasn't pulling, the manifold vacuum would suck some oil out of the crankcase and dump it in the intake. When you took off when the light turned green, the guy behind you had to wait till the next light! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I disconnected the washer vacuum hose and left that vacuum leak in place - solved the problem. I NEVER had a lifter problem or oil pressure problem with that engine. I believe it is the same identical AC vacuum pump used by Packard.

YFAM, Randy Berger