A CHALLENGEN TO THE EDITORS OF THE CORMORANT

[55PackardGuy]

Centurion,

Sorry that my posts did not sit well with you, and thanks for replying. My goal was to point out that maybe we could gain something by looking at the matter-of-fact way that the Buick forum answered PacakrdV8's query on lifter noise, and note that the Buick guys weren't too steamed up about looking for problems. I kind of DO expect hobbyists to give their beloved cars the benefit of the doubt and consider it admirable to stick up for your favorites. That's one of the things that keeps us interested in cars! The reason I copied the quotes was that I couldn't figure out how to "carry" them over to this forum with the "Quote" tool. I don't think it works between forums. I thought it would be fun to present them to others who might not take the time to go look at them... and I gave in to the temptation to make some glib comments, but they were not meant to be serious criticisms or call anyone's honesty into question. I also thought it was valuable to emphasize that Marvel Mystery Oil has a good reputation, even with dealerships, and might be worth a try. Your forum gave me an outside source of recommendation.

This also gives me an opportunity to spout off about how much I like Buicks. My first car was a '65 Electra 4-door hardtop "with a post" and the 401 "nailhead" and I loved that car--and defended it against any naysayers. My father bought a '69 Electra 4-door hardtop used with 115,000 miles. It was yellow with a white vinyl top and tan interior. It was soooo beautiful and still looked new at 200,000 miles when we (sadly) sold it. The 430 was never torn down, and delivered WELL over 20 mpg on the highway. The car only went out of service because a hailstorm (supposedly) knocked out all the glass. The local man who bought it had run it up to 250,0000 miles with no major overhaul.

I look at the Buick discussion forum regularly and, frankly, I haven't joined in because I feel I lack the technical expertise, and don't have the historical knowledge of Buick that I feel helps me contribute to this Packard forum--at least on the '55 and '56 models.

Best wishes from a '65BuickGuy...

[Centurion]

55PackardGuy, thanks for your explanation and gracious comments. In retrospect, I was probably overly sensitive to statements which I felt implied that we weren't being honest about problems with the early V8 Buicks. Please accept my apology for my harsh reaction.

Part of the fun of owning old cars is dealing with the technical aspects and -- yes -- problems that are unique to a particular make and model. The early postwar era reflects a time of significant technical advancement, and the automakers were still "feeling their way" with respect to V8 engine and automatic transmission design. Some ideas worked well, and other ideas did not. That makes the cars from this era -- whether Packard or Buick or anything else -- so interesting.

Here's an example from my own experience. My '59 Buick Electra was a one-owner car from my small, rural hometown. The car is equipped with the extra-cost and notoriously complex Flight Pitch/Triple Turbine transmission. This "infinite pitch" Dynaflow was produced for only two years, and was discontinued because it was so costly to manufacture and rarely ordered. The transmission gained a bad reputation as an oddball, and, in fact, the early 1958 versions suffered failures until running changes were incorporated during the course of the '58 model year. All things considered, the transmission is regarded as an engineering failure. Most of these transmissions have been replaced by the standard Twin Turbine Dynaflow. Thankfully, mine runs fine, and I hope I never need to have it rebuilt. Would I ever consider replacing my transmission with the regular, standard-equipment Dynaflow? No way! Part of the history, character, and technical interest of the car is the unique transmission. Besides, I love the jet-like scream during moderate acceleration! Similarly, regardless of the technical challenges presented by Packard's first V8, Twin Ultramatic, torsion level, etc., these characteristics give the '55 and '56 Packards a unique place in automotive history. Thanks to all of you for preserving these beautiful cars.

[Guest B.H.]

Wayne -

Unfortunateley, GM didn't reach that agreement with the FTC until 1983 or later - as best I recall. You may have simply run into the problem long before that, but you'd think that agreement would have allowed for some reimbursment of previous repairs. While GM didn't have to contact every owner (like a recall), the agreement was highly publicized by the media at the time.

With so many shameful service issues in the early 1980s, I walked away from GM at the dealer level and went to work for Chrysler in the field (though that didn't last to my liking). I still own GM product today, but - with a few notable exceptions like my '88 Riviera - I have never looked at their vehicles with the regard I held before 1981.

As in the case of the subject article, once an image is tarnished, it takes a long time to regain much credibility.

[Guest B.H.]

Randy -

WRT the Buick V8s vac pump, see the attachment to my earlier post (of 12/09/03 06:51 PM) in this thread. The '57 vac pump rotor looks identical to that of the Packard, but the vac pump body/cover is quite different in that it has an integral oil pickup cast into it. I'm not sure what arrangement the earlier Buick V8s used though in that regard.

It may just be that the Buick actually has no major problem with its engine oiling system, which is so similar to the Packard V8. Hence, the post-Packard fixes for the oil pump may be founded in misguided underlying theories.

Again, I am thinking all this stuff about the vac pump (namely warping of the separator plate) being such a problem with the Packard oil pump design is highly overrated (the likes of which P.T. Barnum would be proud). Obviously, the separator plate would be subject to wear that affects oil delivery, but - if prematurely so - surely that could be handled by replacing it with a better grade of material. That's one of my goals when the time comes to make any such repairs (with the intent of historic preservation).

I also lean toward the suspicion of some misalignment of the pump relative to the engine. That might account for the perception that a lower bushing is needed to stabilize the driving shaft; notice that the Buick has nothing like that.

Warm fuzzy feelings aside, we have to be careful about letting myths stand as fact.

[Guest B.H.]

Guy -

To the best of my knwoledge, all the "Quote" tool does is format the text by placing a pair of opening and closing UBB codes in your post. Whatever text appears between those tags is "indented" in a "box." You still have to cut-n-paste from your source, but it is easier to read and identify as a quote (versus your original thought).

[6219_Rules]

Gentlemen....here is my thought on the matter of lies and subterfuge in the media, including the publication you have been quoting. Remember, a lie is only effective if we accept it. We can only accept it if we do not question everything we read, hear or speak. I have been at fault as anyone else accepting what I see in print as truth. We will for the moment forego the obvious argument on the viability of ONE Truth...but in such matters that can be explained through historical endeavors there is a margin of accuracy to be had. While I cannot say for certain what Thomas Aquinas was thinking at any given time, I can with reasonable accuracy quote him on his thoughts as published. The Cormorant published an article that was a work of confabulation. The huckster given his rewards is living well on this account but will eventually fall. The key is that no one on this forum accepts this story as anything more than a story but there are those who unwittingly or with malice of forethought have accepted it and perpetuate it as historically accurate. They are the ones that should be decried, as are the people responsible for its being published. I cannot fault a man for accepting a fact as fact if he has researched it and finds that it passes some criteria. I DO find fault with a man (or woman) who accepts a fact as fact with no discernable critique or study. We all are responsible for our actions and beliefs. If you take something on faith, then more the fool you. Faith is left for religious conviction and ontological inquery...not for subjects such as history or subjects that can be readily supported with fact.

Is it so hard to admit one has been fooled? I for one have admitted and accepted my responsibility in such moments...difficult yes, but better for you in the long run.

As the old Scottish adage goes "Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me!"

Just my thoughts on it.

<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Guest B.H.]

Randall -

Thanks for your well-put, sage advice.

I believe that PAC only unwittingly printed this story, but without sufficient fact-checking when, in fact, so much of the Studebaker corporate record is preserved in South Bend. Surely, such a project could not have taken place without some financial record of approval for spending. In even that one regard, I fully agree that the publishers are, first and foremost, the ones who should be held accountable.

However, I wouldn't be surprised, in our highly litigious society, if a publisher (regardless of which club) was concerned that an author might take civil action if he was deemed to be any sort of fraud - that is, without a sufficient preponderance of evidence. Yet, what evidence is there to gather? For a project that was reported to be conducted under a veil of "minimal exposure," we are presently left with only the word of the author and his rather circumstantial evidence - scary.

Now, to play devil's advocate for a moment, one might argue that building such protoypes ARE possible by virtue of what was accomplished by Mr. Roy Gullickson with regard to a more recent attempt at a Packard revival - complete with V12 engine - in the late 1990s.

According to a Forbes magazine article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...he bought the Packard trademark for an estimated $50,000. By 1996 Gullickson had developed his own full-size model for a modern Packard... Over the next two years he and five engineers and technicians (plus a stylist from the original company) pounded out a handcrafted working prototype at a cost of $800,000."</div></div>

It is unclear as to whether the reference to "the original company" means Packard-Bayliff (who previously owned the Packard trademark), S-P, or even PMCC.

However, my point here is that it took such a great combined effort to produce just one driveable car and within just the past few years. That V12 engine was actually built by a third-party - Ryan Falconer Industries, which (now) boasts over 30 years of building racing engines. Also, the balance of the aluminum chassis and body of this prototype seems much more conventional - for the time - than the alleged 1965 prototypes.

Getting back to the heart of this thread, it seems to me like an open debate would not put the club at legal risk, but I doubt if the author would ever agree to such challenge. Even if he did, who's to say he won't have convenient "answers" that are as crafty as the handywork in the published photos?

It is truly frustrating.

[Guest JT]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The key is that no one on this forum accepts this story as anything more than a story but there are those who unwittingly or with malice of forethought have accepted it and perpetuate it as historically accurate. They are the ones that should be decried, as are the people responsible for its being published. </div></div>

Randall, I have yet to hear of anyone who believes the 65 V12 story. Do you know of some who do and are repeating it as accurate?

[55PackardGuy]

Brian,

Thanks for posting the link to the Forbes article. Very interesting. It's nice to hear about a possibly serious attempt to put out a Packard worthy of the name. I wonder who the former Packard stylist might be that they claim is involved in the project? Anyone in the Arizona area know where this effort might be happening? Craig? Also, a picture would be nice--and worth the proverbial thousand words.

[6219_Rules]

Not off hand, JT, although I do remember reading in here somewhere that the author was still being treated well by the hierarchy. Still I suppose that could mean anything.

I have read else where, on the CLC forum, this same story being put out as near gosple with the Cormorant being the unequivocal source. Someone had to buy it or at least accept it as a good story to pass it around, probably on faith though I do not know for certain.

[Guest B.H.]

Guy -

I have no idea who the alleged stylist was, but Dick Teague had passed away in 1991.

I had spoken once, by phone and in the summer of 1998, to the fella who launched this project; at the time, he was looking for investors to put the thing in production (way outta my league). I later received a catalog of promotional items - featuring several "trinkets", but some pricey items, too (which made me think of the whole Tucker things).

He also established a website:

http://www.packardmotorcar.com/

I believe this prototype was on display at some car show(s) - maybe even a Packard event. However, I quickly grew disinterested, and I never went to look at it. Frankly, if you take away the grille, nameplates and hexagons, and it could be "any" car.

Also, I think the fella underrated the whole issue of meeting federal standards for motor vehicles; even if the car was technically compliant (that is, would pass every test with flying colors), you still have to submit vehicles (emphasis on plural) for a variety of testing - a substantial sunk cost that caught up the with Avanti operation in 1989-90.

Anyway, the whole thing (not even fully operational as a manufacturer) was put up for auction in August 2000 on eBay, but it failed to meet the reserve price.

You may find other threads about that revival in this forum by searching on "1999" - as I think it was originally billed (then) as the forthcoming 1999 Packard (obviously to cash in on the centennial of the original company founding year).

Regardles of what opinions we may have as to the attmept, at least there is genuine, real-world evidence of it - unlike the case of the subject article.

[6219_Rules]

I think my question would be, is this a serious attempt to produce a special market car with the Packard name and if so, what are its chances of coming to market?

The reason I ask is because over the last ten years or so I have seen several attempts to bring a special market car into the general market from the Bugatti to a Packard and a good replica of the '48 Tucker. The Bugatti will see release and I know the Tucker is available (the only major difference in the car from what I read was the use of the Cadillac Northstar engine). The Packard I saw was a V-12 (I think) sedan which looked like most of the modern sedans with the Packard grill, a modified 50s grill, not the design from the 30s or early 40s. It reminded me of the Bentley GT model with a nose more remaniscent of the Hyundai Sonata, and rear styling that recalled the more recent Lincolns. Not a bad looking car really although I prefered the Bugatti sedan concept in styling. Neither struck me as something I would want to sink $400K + into but that is another matter.

So what do you all think? Are these just dreams of the designer or is there something 'real' there that could conceivably go to market? And who would own it? I will try and find those sites again if anyone is interested.

Thank you...I know I am not a PMC member or owner. I appreciate your indulgence.

Addendum! Brian beat me to it!!! That was the car I remember. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[55PackardGuy]

Y'all,

I've posted a thread on this whole Packard name revival deal... hope to have some further discussion over there.

[55-400]

Gentlemen, this is my first visit to this site and all I see is belly aching. Let me ask you when is the last time you sat down and submitted a tecnical article to the CNB to be published? Most articles in the publication are sent by Packard owners, why not for a change do something constructive instead of being so negative. If you want to challenge Mr. McKeehan's article why don't you PERSONALLY contact him. Why must we all hear your name calling. You contact him, you write a correct article ! Get busy or knock off the complaining! No, I am connected with any of the publications just a viewer of this site.

[Guest]

55-400: let me be the first to welcome you to this forum. First all no one is belly aching. Let me first ask you have seen and read the trash that was written. I feel that I am doing something constructive by being willing to debate this fellow and expose him as not telling the truth. His side of the story heas been printed and now its more than time for my side of the story to be put forth. By having this debate it will shorten the process of exposing this fellow. I might point out that the story by McKeehan submited and printed by PAC wasn't from a Packard owner. I also feel that by not complaining loud and clear that PAC would leave the matter die. I will make you a deal if you have seen or read the story please tell me what you think might be true about the story and the pictures that were publshed, and I will tell why I know its trash.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

This topic has been ongoing for well over a year now. Has been covered under at least 1 other topic title and NOT just this one. I do not remember any 'name calling' nor deliberatly insulting posts. IF there had been poor judgement in posting/complaining then the AACA moderators would have stopped it A LONG TIME AGO! Some members feel that the 1965 Packard V12 article was only the beginning of more non-sense to come and wanted to stop it before it got out of hand.

WE WILL CONTINUE with this. There are plenty of other topics that we ALL can participate in. NOONE is required to participate in this dicussion if they do not like it.

[Guest B.H.]

55-400 -

As far as we can tell, the subject article, as published, is substantiated solely by the word of its author and a handful of photos (provided exclusively by the author) which have been obviously altered (NOT "real world" images from the period cited).

Yet, by publishing such an article, the club is equally liable. To expect anyone to believe that article is an insult to their intelligence.

That The Packard Club (PAC) has allowed this article to stand as "fact" and for so long only serves to perpetuate and expand upon an "urban legend," which - if left unchalleneged - would misinform future generations of those looking to learn more about Packards and the company that built them.

If all you see is "belly-aching" in this site, you must not have read many threads. Yes, the "1965 Packard V12 Revival Hoax" is a hot topic that has prompted several threads - this only being the latest. However, we have covered many subjects of a more technical nature that are strictly "VERBOTTEN" on the PAC website.

While that club was promoted and published a "fairy tale," we promote open discussion that leads to problem-solving and fact-finding. As such, we welcome your constructive participation.

Now, why should any of us submit an article to the CNB for publication when we get have such a great, free exchange of information here?

[6219_Rules]

The belly aching could be easily remedied were the editors of the Cormorant to apply a little pepto in the form of an official retraction and apology. Being a published author in a small newsletter, I would retract an article were it shown to be erroneous, immediately and published with an apology! Since this has not been done in the years since it was published, I think a little grousing is completely understandable. Trust is a very fragile thing and it has taken a major beating over this fairy tale. An insult to all faeries everywhere!!!

sorry guys...I couldn't help myself.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.....

[Guest Randy Berger]

55-400, It is difficult for me to understand your attitude. The majority of the threads on this forum are of a helpful nature and there is also very little name-calling. We don't get into political discussions or berate the clubs for their faults ad nauseum. We do have a legitimate complaint about that article which has falsified history under the banner of PAC. It is not only Mr. McKeehans fault but also PACs. They bear as much responsobility as McKeehan.

I am a co-author of two books on Lionel trains. We had a lot of silly garbage sent to us which we had to winnow out. Our credo was "we may have errors of omission but no errors of comission". Yes we did make mistakes and in the second edition published 12 years after the first we included an "Errata and additions" chapter attempting to cover new-found items an correct old mistakes. No publication is perfect, but to publish this V-12 farce and then not issue a retraction or apology when it is acknowledged by the current editor is just hoping that if they ignore the problem it will go away. That is NOT what this club should be about and I think there are members in high position who are arguing that very point. We have been told it will be corrected by two officials of PAC. We just wonder when?

In the meantime welcome to this forum and please participate. Everyone has some knowledge to share and we welcome yours.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[55-400]

Thank you for the welcome I am sorry you thought I was saying you were name calling I was not. I was simply saying lets be positive not negative, this hobby maybe dying with the present older generation. The young people only think foreign cars. Therefore we have to do all we can to be a positive not negative force. We can not argue between us we have to do all we can to make this hobby survive!

Saw reference to Lionel books caught eye as collect late 40's Lionel.

Yes there are many postive threads up on line and I have gotten much information on my new 55-400 from them.

[Guest Randy Berger]

55-400, Late 40's Lionel - a little beyond the purview of our book "Lionel Standard of the World 1900-1943" but anyone who likes trains can't be all bad <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Don't let us get started on trains or we'll be ostracized from the forum for boring the other participants, but if you want to email me about trains, then send to mrberger2@comcast.net and I'll be glad to swap lies and pictures <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

YFAM, Randy Berger