Non-TL 55 Packards

[55PackardGuy]

There's been a lot of discussion of the Torsion-Level suspension on these threads, but I have seen no mention of the 1955 models that had a conventional suspension. Just wondered how many have familiarity with them--personal or otherwise--and how they compare in ride, handling and durability. They would seem to have been rare, because the TL was such a "hit" and as I understand it most cars were sold with it when it was offered as an option in '55. I believe it was standard on some '55 models and also standard on all '56 models. Any experts on this out there?

[Guest Albert]

A friend of mine has a 55 Clipper Deluxe that I have driven quite a bit bot city and hiway and it seams no different that the 54 Clipper Special as far as handling that have leaf and coil springs, but will have to compare it to the Patrician I just got in November when i get it plated.

[55PackardGuy]

I imagine the '54 and conventional '55 would be quite similar--maybe even the same? But the real test will be comparing your '55 Pat with TL to the '55 Clipper Deluxe conventional. I'd like to hear about that. Especially if you can do a back-and-forth comparison between the two on the same course of road. Especially over bumps and around corners. Also, my dad used to argue that there was more road noise transmitted by the TL than conventional suspensions, and as a kid I remembered that I noticed many conventional cars seemed quieter and felt "smoother" on regular pavement. But I'm pretty sure they didn't handle as well or take big bumps in stride like the TL. I've always thought of the TL as kind of like today's "sport" suspensions and European cars like the Mercedes.

[Jack Harlin]

I will try to answer your questions on handling. I raced a couple 52 2drs mostly 1/2 and 1 mile dirt tracks. We got them to handle pretty good after changes we made to them. We then got a 55 Panama, springs, and did similar changes to it as the 52s. Installed Henny coil spring R. front, Double shocks, 3/4 Ford floater rear. It was still front end heavy, & didnt handle as good as the 52, but was good enough to compete with the Chev. & Fords, but they were better in the corners with front end being so heavy.

Hearing so much about geeat handling sports cars with tortion, we bought a totaled 56 Clipper HT with TL, thinking it would solve our problems. Not being able to control sprung weight, it was imposable to drive turning left. It lost rear traction, accelerating, out of turns, and was a costly mistake. I understand we dont abuse them today like this, but for high speed driving, and over all, handling is better with sprung ones than TL, but not the ride quality.

I have radials on the 56 Clipper HT & I do notice road noise, I hadnt noticed with bias ones. I thought probably tread design could be the reason??? Jack

[Jack Harlin]

TORSION SORRY

[55PackardGuy]

Thanks for the reply. I heard some rumors about people who had successfully raced TL suspension Packards, but that was obviously not your experience. I remember doing some dirt-road "racing" with our '55 400 when I was a kid, and it seemed to corner real well and was very forgiving when you "hung out the rear end." They also cornered very flat (without "body roll") on pavement, which I thought would be an advantage in racing. You're starting to poke holes in my fantasy about the world's best race-car Packard with a T/L suspension!

You mentioned being unable to control unsprung weigh--why was this a problem? I've always had trouble with that "sprung" and "unsprung" weight concept. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Jack Harlin]

HI: I dont know how to reply about the successfull racing a TL equiped one. It would be nice to know what they did to it to handle in the corners, as that was our problem. Any way you could find out? Im guessing it must been raced in Mid West area as I dont know of any Packards in the East that any one was crazy enough to try, except us. The TL problem, the bars were not stiff enough, & with no adjustment provided except longer links, seemed like that was why the R.front bottomed out going in the corners? We lenghtened the RF link & it helped, but not much. We even had some big name drivers take it out to get their experience, over mine, but they had same handling problem. Its still a mystery to me, why none of the BIG 3 never picked up on this torsion suspension, unless it was too expensive? Had Packard stayed in business I do think they would have made improvements, such as a way to adjust it? Jack

[Steve Brown]

My 55 Panama which I had out for a long run yesterday has convention suspension. It doesn't ride much different than other cars of that period. But then, I don't try to go over road humps at 40 either. I'm guessing that would be the big difference if it had TL. Most of the noise and little bumps I get are coming from those sorry bias tires which one day - if they ever wear out - I will get rid of.

[55PackardGuy]

Sorry, but I don't have any real info on racing of TL Packards, just rumor. I can't imagine they'd be all bad, since the '55 Pat did an endurance run at an AVERAGE of 105 for 25,000 including all stops. I agree that it seems weird that no other manufacturer followed up on producing this great design. Maybe the thing was tied up in patent disputes? As we know, Chrysler went with front torsion bars about the same time and continued for years. (My '96 Dakota 4x4 has MASSIVE front torsion bars.) I know of no car that ever had front-and-back integrated bars other than the Packards. Maybe someone else knows of another one? Granted, it wasn't a suspension that could be "tuned" for different track conditions, but I always thought it would be a good racing suspension in many situations... I'd still like to hear about a side-by-side comparison with a conventional Packard vs the TL if Albert gets the chance.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's been a lot of discussion of the Torsion-Level suspension on these threads, but I have seen no mention of the 1955 models that had a conventional suspension. Just wondered how many have familiarity with them--personal or otherwise--and how they compare in ride, handling and durability. </div></div>

To be accurate, only "junior" models (Clippers) in 1955 could be had with the 1954-clone coil/leaf suspension. Most 1955 junior, all 1955 senior and all 1956 had T-L.

Be that as it may, one of the major dynamic difference between coil/leaf & T-L is in anti-dive and anti-squat affecting braking and acceleration respectively. The T-L had much greater anti-dive/squat than 1954. This was pointed out in several road test car magazine articles of the day.

Another major difference was that the frame/body "floated" on the main T-L bars. This gave a T-L Packard its "magic carpet" ride and also made it feel like it was not really connnected to the road, when in reality it was. This also isolated noise, bumps and vibration from the body/passengers, so a T-L Packard would ride [color:"red"] quieter than a coil/leaf one. I don't know where you heard that a T-L Packard was noiser, but this is not really possible if you think about it. If everything else is equal (tires, shocks, A-arms, etc), then having the major suspension components [color:"red"] isolated from the body [color:"red"] must reduce the noise/shock/vibration transmission to the body and hence to the passengers.

T-L Packards were never designed to run circle track (ala Jack Harlin) or road race, but were designed to carry the butts of wealthy passengers over the bumpy roads of the era. On a modern super highway, you won't see much difference with other cars of the era. [color:"red"] But, if you come upon a good "dipsy-doo", the T-L Packard will navigate it with aplomb, but a coil/leaf car will act like a flopping fish out of water. Been there, done/seen that!

[Jack Harlin]

Citing from memory, foggy some times. In 55 the Clipper Custom was omly model

with TL. In 56 Clippers, coil & leaf springs available on Deluxe models, only.

Both years, when driving them when new, the TL equiped were quieter on the same road than coils were. On a smooth, fairly new road there wasnt that much difference between the two. Was a big difference in wavy & rolling up & downs in road, & the TL made a great difference in smoothing it out. The TL also removed the slight vibration you feel in the steering wheel on worn out mecadam.

I get some of that now, but I blame it on the radials, but Im not sure. Jack

[55PackardGuy]

Ah yes, but the '55 Pat endurance run was on a circle track! (still think--hope--the TL might be underrated for that application). I wish I could get in one again and "let the ride decide." Anyone from around Minnesota want to give me a ride? I also note that one post blames BIAS tires for noise, and another blames RADIALS! Maybe it depends more on tread design, but since these cars were made to run on bias plies, maybe they don't work as well on radials? I'm old enough to remember the switch from bias to radial, and the talk back then was about "radial tuned suspensions" that benefitted from the new tires. I remember driving some radial equipped '70s "boats" and that was just how they handled--like boats. Much less directional control than with bias ply tires. The extra "give" in the radial sidewalls seemed to mess them up something fierce.

But I should stay on my own topic... does anyone have definitive info on what years and models had the T/L standard, optional, or unavailable?

And just why didn't another manufacturer ever adopt this system? Or did someone else have an integrated full torsion bar system at some point? Please "weigh in" if you have the answer.

[Guest]

My "evidence" on bias vs. radial tires is strictly anecdotal. When I bought my Executove, it had realtively new Bias wide whites on it. In doing some work, I switched over to Coker Wide white radials. I think the radials are definitely more quiet, demonstrate much less road "wobble" and all in all provide a much better ride, not to say a safer one.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Reference group 14.000 model 5540 and 5640 (body 5622) had springs.

All others had TL.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[55PackardGuy]

Thanks for the figures!

Here's the rather anecdotal breakdown that the Kimes book gives for the 1955 introduction:

"Torsion-Level was offered in different ways because Packard was not convinced the market would swallow it whole. It was standard on the Caribbean, a required option on the Patrician and Four Hundred, optional at $150 on Clipper Customs... [William D. Allison, the inventor, said]: 'It was brand-new, a big gamble and they decided to hedge their bets. First they weren't going to put it on the Clipper at all, then they decided to offer it on the Custom at additional cost. The decision was made to build 25 percent of the Clippers with torsion bars [but] three months later the dealers were ording Torsion-Level on 75 percent of their cars.' Thus the system was later made available on Clipper Supers."

Then, in 1956:

"Initially [in 1956] Torsion-Level suspension was available on the [Clipper] Deluxe and a mandatory option on the Custom, but on May 1st it was made standard on all Packards and Clippers."

Quotes from: "Packard, a History of the Motor Car and the Company" Edited by Berverly Rae Kimes, published 1978 by Automobile Quarterly.

We all know that there are 1955 Constellations out there with TL too, so I don't know how they fit in the mix. Were they considered 2-door bretheren of the Custom or the Super, and thus qualified for the option in '55?

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Citing from memory, foggy some times. In 55 the Clipper Custom was omly model with TL. (snip) </div></div>

My Dad's 1955 Clipper Super 4dr had T-L. With Packard, particularly near the end, one can never say "always".

[Jack Harlin]

How true, "Towards The End". I have the show room literature for both years

& quoted from them. Where I worked very few 55 Clippers had TL, but that could been the way the company ordered them. In 56 it was a different situation. Even in 54, one Clipper had the 53, three gauge cluster in the dash, so I shouldnt have typed the word only, even though they did. Jack

[55PackardGuy]

This agrees with the Kimes quote that "the system was later made available on Clipper Supers." (in 1955). I'm still interested in how the Constellation fit in here.

[55PackardGuy]

Thanks. I should've looked that up. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />