Post 1957 "What If?" Packards

[WCraigH]

In the spirit of putting to rest the ersatz 1965 Packard V-12 (See Almost perfect Cormorant Published ), there have been design studies, commissions and other "What If?" imaginary Packards rendered over the years. Without much trouble, I found two in past issues of the self-same Cormorant.

A Brooke Stephens commission which looks a lot like a Lincoln Continental:

Dick Teague's "Last Design" of a 1992 Caribbean(no "oxbow"! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />)

Anybody have any more? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[RO]

Top one looks T-birdish/Dodge Polarish at the back.

[Pierce66]

Sorry, Craig - I didn't know we were supposed to submit "posts" to you for approval. I have deleted my post.

[WCraigH]

Pierce66: please delete this irrelevent post out of my thread.

[Pierce66]

Hi B.H.:

Not sure what you are driving at in your comments about "bashing". If you were referring to "53 Pack"'s "posts" - yes..some of them have been forceful, perhaps even agressive. But that it just his personal style. I did NOT take personal offense when he called my car a "rolling chicken coop", because I looked beyond a possible interpetation that this was personal, to see what we could all LEARN from another's contribution. In that case, as in the case of so many of '53 Pack's interesting "posts", he is RIGHT - as you go back in time prior to the 1940's,. many cars had bodies of "composite" construction. They are WOOD structures, on which small sheets of hammer-welded steel were NAILED on. Yes...they ARE "chicken coops"...offering little more protection in a roll-over than a well-starched bed sheet !

If you are referring to the "post" I deleted, on the erroneous assumption Craig was some kind of "monitor", be assured there was nothing in that, or any of my "posts" that would "bash" another car buff. I was simply commenting on the problem of assuming ANYTHING Packard would have done after the debacle of their last years, could have saved the Company, and gotten its old buyers back.

It might interest you to know that we had a major Packard meet in Orange, California, last year, and were fortunate enough to have as guest speakers, a couple of guys who actually worked on Packard's assembly line in its last years. Be assured we did not "bash" these guys - we are CAR BUFFS, and as such, we LOVE to learn about ANYTHING related to our historically oriented hobby. I hope you dont think that ANYONE at that event would have "bashed" either these guys, or anyone else there for their taste and/or participation in any aspect of the car hobby.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me again suggest that we focus on what we are here for - to exchange ideas about our hobby. We just waste the time of the others, if we let ourselves worry about individual personalities.

Greetings from the far western portion of Hillis Hills, Long Island, New York...with a great big friendly W O O F !

[Pierce66]

B.H:

The post I deleted at Craig's request was meant to add information, to complement the original post - not "bash" or "hi-jack".

The history of the Packard Motor Car Company, how it burst on the automotive technology scene like a shining star, and how it fell, what it was, and what it could have become is a fascinating one, with many lessons.

Individuals, businesses, even whole empires, rise, then fall. Of COURSE it is interesting to speculate "what if", but it is also quite relevant to a "fantasy" to point out why the what if, failed, and was ONLY a "what if"...and not a "what really COULD have been".

I noted with interest that some of the speculation on what Packard COULD have produced centered around "Lincoln-like" designs. Sadly, that shows us part of the problem with what Packard had become in its dying days. Packard had lost its way ! Instead of original designs that high-lighted its special place in automotive technology history, it was reduced to poor attempts at copying others. Are you aware that as Packard was falling apart, they seriously contemplated buying old LINCOLN bodies and running gear from FORD, re-badging them, and trying to pass THAT off as Packards ?

You are probably aware that when even that hair-brained fraud on the auto buying public failed in its inception, they came up with something even worse...in 1957 and 1958, they had an outside vendor make up some trim parts, pasted them on Studebakers, and tried to pass THEM off as Packards !

Of COURSE I wish there was a NEW Packard Twelve that LOOKS like a Packard, at our local Packard dealer - of course I have my own fantasy about what that would be like. But again - in discussing our fantasies about such things, we can learn much from a study as to why the fantasy..is only a fantasy.

So - in the deleted post, I simply commented my own view that no matter WHAT Packard had come up with, it had so ruined its reputation, that people stopped buying their product. You cant pay the salaries of a design team, or keep a business open, if people reject your product. That IS what happened. And a study of it IS useful to us, as individuals, as businesses, and as nations !

How different is it, from a human behavior standpoint, when German staff officers were taken off duty, or even worse, when they warned that a Russian campaign could take more than six weeks, and thus troops should have winter gear?

How different is it, from a human behavior standpoint, when Packard management FIRED any factory rep, who would come back warning that they'd better do something about the "quality gap", or they would lose even more sales.

The beauty of these forums, is that we can learn from others ( even '53 Packard!) if we try and keep an open mind, and not waste time looking for personality disputes.

Yes, those "fantasy designs" of what "could have been"...tell us MUCH about Packard's failure, if we will only listen.

[Packard8]

Thanks BH, very interesting link. Seems that a lot of ?borrowing? went on in the design studios. The 65 Exner/Bugatti rear quarter looks suspiciously like a Stingray, the Exner/Pierce-Arrow much like an Jag XKE FHC with a Jensen Interceptor rear quarter-window grafted in, and the Exner/Mercer is?well?.a waste of a perfectly good Shelby Cobra (IMHO)! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Brian: You are sure right that I can get RILED UP AT TIMES. What riles me up is people whom come into this forum room and tells lies and half truths, or makes statements that he can't back up with fact.

Lets take Pierce 66 for example

1. This is certainly not an exact quote but hte statement made by him goes something like this. I don't need to read the history of Packard because I was there or part of it. Turns out that he can't even answer a simple question like how much money Packard had in the till after WW II.

2. He comes in here and claims that the 1928 Rolls engine was rated at 150 horse power and 300 pounds of torque. Turns out that the Rolls engine is only rated at 125 horse power. Then he turns around and asks me were I got the horse power figure from since Rolls didn't publish horsepower figures. Yet he knows its 150. The rear end ratio that he claims is the the Rolls if memory serves me correct is the same gear ratio that is suppose to be in his 1938 Packard. I could give many more examples but I don't have the next two hours to do so.

Some times when Pierce 66 makes some of the claims that he does, I just feel that I have to come in and give the correct information. Often in dealing with Peter, as he has pointed out my replies are forcefull and strong in nature when dealing with him. This happens to be the way I treat people whom I know make claims that they can't back up

[Pierce66]

For PACK 53:

Your comments and mine are a bit off track for this particular "thread" - hopefully the other readers will be patient with us.

First of all, still waiting for the info. you have on my Rolls. Again, I ESTIMATED the h.p. of this monster, just a rough guess. Not sure where you got the idea I was making firm statements on this.. again - I just dont know exactly. Perhaps you will share the info. you have with us ?

And you havnt yet E mailed me your own E mail address - if you do that, will be happy to send you some photos of it. Did you look it up on Fantasy Junction's Web Site ? As of a week ago, it was STILL shown as being in their inventory - great pictures and description there.

As for rear axle ratios - perhaps you can enlighten us on that too. The Rolls experts tell me that there was a MUCH wider range of rear axle ratios available than I would have thought - my guess is this thing has about a 3.2 ratio, which, with 21" wheels, would work out roughly, again ROUGHLY, to about 1-9 / 2.2, factoring in the much smaller outer diameter tires of a modern car.

As a side note, once you go as far back as the 20's, the further back in automotive history you go, at least amongst the big powerful "super" cars of the ultra rich, the HIGHER the rear axle ratios go ( meaning lower numerically) - but this reflects the further back in time you go, the lower the r.p.m. of the engines, not necessarily the potential top speed of the cars.

My best guess is - and again, I know little about Rolls Royce ( I didn't even know how to start the thing until I got on the phone and started tracking down Rolls Royce guys and got hold of a manual ! ) ( these guys say the Phantom is little more than a Ghost chassis with four wheel brakes and an overhead valve engine !) ( I think they are right, from what I am learning..!) the ratios Rolls was offering, were originally calculated out for the earlier, much slower turning Ghost engine.

I dont know where you got the idea the Rolls of this era would be similar to the Packard ratios of later eras.

Packards in the thirties had MUCH lower axle ratios than cars from the teens and early twenties. They ran typically around 4 and a half to one, (mine was 4:41 ) even lower on some of the heavier cars. Even in so called "modern" engines, meaning engines built 1935 or later with "insert" type rod bearings, I dont think it is wise to try and drive something like that much over 45-50 mph. Just asking for trouble. With those ratios, and given the relatively long strokes, you are forcing inertial loads on the rods and crankshaft at 50 mph FAR more punishing than a modern car would be at 100 mph ! Remember, when you start talking about centrifugal loads, you are talking GEOMETRIC, not arithmetric force increases. Perhaps you were thinking of later (meaning 1930's era Rolls Royces, which may well have had much lower axle ratios..again, I just dont know ).

Incidentally, your '53 Packard, assuming it is an Ultramatic, most likely came with a 3.54 rear axle ratio, meaning that if we both set out on a cross-country trip, and I was in a STOCK geared Packard Twelve, say we went 2,000 mi - my car's engine and drive-line would have to go an extra THOUSAND miles to cover the same distance ( now you know why I "built" a center section for it with a 3.08 axle ratio ! ). AND, say we were both cruising at a modest 60 mph, mine with the stock ratio would have been beating itself to death to keep up with you - effectively doing about 90 mph to match your 60 mph.

Incidentally, are you aware that when the "Twin Six" was introduced for the 1932 model year, as a "stunt" Packard stuck a left over "high gear" rear axle ratio (probably out of one of the 734 Speedsters) in it, and otherwise "bone stock," it "beat a golf ball" at over 120 mph !

Let's swap photos. Love to see some of your '53. I spent a lot of happy hours in my (what did you call them..."high pockets") Packards of that era.

Dog Spot

[Guest 1956Packard]

At the risk of offending - and I'm not directing this at just one poster......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your comments and mine are a bit off track for this particular "thread" - hopefully the other readers will be patient with us.</div></div>

Here's an idea. Maybe we can start a particular thread where posters can specifically argue/posture/display their feathers. That way those of us who find that these conversations are getting tired don't need to wade through them to glean information relevant to the original post.

At one time I found all these diatribes interesting. Those days are gone.

Geoff

[6219_Rules]

Good idea, Geoff. It is called the R&R section. A thread would get too cumbersome very quickly. I am following this thread because I liked the sketches and models ... I would love to hear more about it. I think we all know the Packard history at least as far as I care to at this point.

[Guest BillP]

Brian, we've been through this before. He has caused damage, insulted, been complained about, been warned, banned many times and has returned every time. The moderators are either happy or browbeaten.

Many newcomers have been repudiated and sent away; they will not return. Many oldtimers are fed up.

predict next post from Petey 66: (short version) "Forums....wonderful tool...silly personal attacks...learn together...classic coke....high speed axle...insert bearings.....my new Rolls....etc,etc."

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pierce66 (alias Pete Hartmann) -

At the risk of responding to you, if the post that you deleted/edited was anything like your last post, I can see why someone asked for it to be removed.

As started, this thread NEVER asked about Packard's failures, but was merely soliciting more info on post-1957 design studies.

(snip)

However, if you want to continue to rant about Packard's alleged failures, you should start your own separate thread and STOP hijacking others and twisting other people's words, trying to start a fight, before someone files a formal complaint with the site administrators.

</div></div>

Amen. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the risk of offending - and I'm not directing this at just one poster......

Here's an idea. Maybe we can start a particular thread where posters can specifically argue/posture/display their feathers. That way those of us who find that these conversations are getting tired don't need to wade through them to glean information relevant to the original post.

At one time I found all these diatribes interesting. Those days are gone.

Geoff </div></div>

Hi Geoff,

Great idea?sort of a surrogate ?whipping boy? thread. Profanity, contentiousness & bad manners would be prerequisite, of course.

I used to attend the old classiccar.com Packard Forum until a certain poster turned it into a ?debate for the sake of debate? society. Randall is correct?.we all know about our cars (both the good and not so good) thru hands-on ownership, and authors like Kimes & others have pretty well documented the marque?s history.

I?d encourage anyone who thinks they have a unique perspective on Packard History to write their own book & publish their thoughts?..(just don?t do it on this forum, thank you).

Hey?.how?s my ex-mistress Heather?

Cheers,

John

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I don't think any of the other designs were ever implemented on any full-size body/chassis.

</div></div>

Hi Brian,

The link you provided indicates that a Mercer was produced on a streched AC Cobra chassis (on re-reading, I see they thankfully didn?t sacrifice the whole Cobra?.).

I remember going to the local Ford showroom and looking at a brand new 289 Cobra in 1964? As I recall the sticker price was $5995.00. Shoulda bought a few and put them on blocks as they bring around $250K today.

Cheers,

John

[Guest Albert]

I kinda like BH's approch to the problem, if we could block on our own behalf some of the poster on the site. A year or so ago i saw a clay model on e-bay for a 51-54 Packard of a shortened chassis 2 door coup that i tough would have been kinda neet to drive, looked almost like an over size 56-57 t-bird with it's single front seat.

[WCraigH]

Now that this thread is "sort of" back on topic, here's another post-1957 design study I found recently on my hard drive. I don't know the artist, and cannot decipher the scribbled name:

It looks too "resto rod"-ish to be a serious production exercise, but who knows?

[Packard8]

What ever happened to the proposed V12 AWD revival car that was in the prototype stage 5 or 6 years ago? As I recall, PAC had some sort of legal tangle with the fellow who bought the rights to the Packard trademark. Seemed like it wasn?t too far from possible production and then disappeared.

[55PackardGuy]

The web site is still there:

www.packardmotorcar.com

I'd like to know the status of this project, too. It's still a "what if?" but it seems to be a rolling one.

As for this thread, I agree that off-topic posts that are intended to provoke others are not acceptable. Sometimes, something off-topic gets posted because someone "gets to thinking" due to what a previous poster says. I think that's OK as long as it's kept to a minimum, because it encourages creative thought. And the discussion can be transferred to a different thread if there's enough interest.

Sometimes it's fun to see how folks will "call someone on the carpet," but when it turns into an argument it can get old pretty quick. I often use the boards on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) and they have an "ignore" feature. I've never used it, though, because I don't want to "miss anything" including something stupid. But that's just me. I think it should be an option on this forum

One comment on previous off-topic posts on this thread: isn't it pretty easy to figure out your approximate rear axle ratio by marking the driveshaft and turning it by hand until you get one wheel revolution, while keeping track of the driveshaft revolutions? (Probably take two people.) Or, if you want to go to the trouble and find out for sure, take off the cover and count ring and pinion teeth? I guess that's the way I'd settle the question, but whaddo I know?

BTW, thanks for putting up with me, a non-owner, on these boards, and for putting in a good word about people who have a great interest in these cars and just don't happen to have one of their own--yet. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

Hi Guy,

Yep, that's the one I'm thinking of...thanks for the link. Seems to be a working, driving prototype. I wonder where the V12 engine comes from? I doubt that they have the resources to build one from scratch.

Cheers,

John

PS: It's not neccesary to own a Packard to love them!

[Guest cnbed]

That picture of the "2005 Packard" posted by WCraigH came from the May 2002 issue of the "Cormorant News Bulletin." Mr. William Packard (yep!) commissioned Jeff Teague (son-of-Dick) to design a new model, and WP was selling shares in a new company to come up with the money to build it. Both gentlemen were selling artwork of the "new" car at the 2002 PAC National Meet. I haven't heard anything at all about the venture since.

[55PackardGuy]

John,

It sure is interesting how tenaciously the idea of "bringing back" the Packard hangs on. That is attributable to the "Packard mystique" I believe.

By the way, I did send an e-mail to the address at the Packard web site. It did not come back as undeliverable, so maybe we'll see something. I suggested that a representative could post here if they have any information to share.

[Packard8]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the tip, but doing a search on ?gullickson? only brings one back to this very thread?..lol. No big deal, I was just curious as to where the V12 motor came from. I would like to see the car make it to market but I have my doubts. As I recall from the chat a few years ago they were projecting a price in the $100K range?pretty heady stuff when you are competing with Maybachs, Lambos & such.

BTW?what is the car in your avatar photo? Funny thing is?I can only see the photos when I?m not logged in.

Cheers,

John

[55PackardGuy]

John and all with interest in "What If?",

Well, my jaw literally dropped. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I got a response from my e-mail to The "Packard Motor Car Company" regarding their Packard prototype. It sounds like the project is very much alive. The company is also considering getting into repro Packard running boards. I have asked for permission to post the e-mail here, and as soon as I get it, I will start a new thread tentatively titled Packard Motor Car Update.

Stay tuned!

[Packard8]

Brian,

Thanks for the info on display preferences, now I see the pix! Your ?56 caught my eye as it is the same color scheme as my ?56 ragtop. I know what you mean about the ?back burner??my ?56 is about 75% done and I?m saving up to ?bite the big bullet? re a new interior.

Good info on the ?ignore? feature?.an easy way to inoculate my computer from the PFH virus?.

Cheers,

John

[Packard8]

Thanks Guy,

I really hope the project does come to fruition (maybe they need a volunteer ?test marketer? to drive one around for a year or so?). Perhaps they will post some fresh info here?..hope so.

Cheers,

John

[Guest Albert]

This is similer to the prototype clay model I had seen on e-bay, but for some reason cant seem to read the disk anymore, This is a Cut and Paste of my Patrician, Dont want cause any problems with stories in the Cormorant..

[Pierce66]

I think B.H.'s discovery that there is a mechanims for him and others in his group to IGNORE ideas he dosnt like to hear, is an excellant solution to his problem.

Obviously, his attempt to silence those who disagree with him, has failed. His repeated claims of "bashing" and other inappropriate chat-room behavior have only encouraged others to read the so called "offending" posts, to find the only "offense" is disagreeing with BH !

So - B.H. finally did come up with the best solution for all of us. Those who want to silence information they disagree with, now have a way to do it, without inteferring with the right of legitimate car buffs who enjoy exchanging ideas.

Congradulations !

Dog Spot

[Packard8]

Nice looking car Albert. At the 1995-96? Palo Alto Concours Packard was the featured marque. One fellow showed a ?53 (I think) two seat roadster that had been channeled about 3? and shortened maybe 10?. It was very professionally done and the proportions were right. Wish I had a photo!.

Cheers,

John

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (snip)I just noticed something in the user's profile page - a page that anyone can access by clicking on any user's name in the column to the left of the body of text in any of their posts. When logged-in (except when viewing your own profile), a link appears at the bottom of that page to <span style="font-weight: bold">Ignore this user</span>; click on it and every post by that user will be replaced (for your own viewing pleasure) with "<span style="font-weight: bold">*** You are ignoring this user ***</span> - that is, until you go back to their profile and click on the link to now <span style="font-weight: bold">Stop ignoring this user</span>. It might be necessary to use that link to police your posts ocassionally to make sure you haven't been "hijacked." (snip) </div></div>

Brian, thanks for "discovering" this feature. I just tried it on pierce66 (PFH) and it works as advertised. That's good enough for me.

[Packard8]

Hi Brian,

My ?56 is white/orange/dark gray. From your photo, the ?heather? looks almost like my orange. Has anyone done a ?56 Carib interior recently?.....I?m afraid I?m in for a big shock?.lol. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Cheers,

John

PS Thanks again for the tip on the ?ignore? feature?works fine and makes this place much more pleasant to visit!

[6219_Rules]

There is a Caribbean here in Longmont that runs about now and then...a beautiful car in blue with white interior. Very nice car. I love convertibles although I prefer sedans, yeah I know...how boring, even over my Eldo. Had a ball driving the '47 yesterday, even in the rain!

Do you have a link to pictures of your Caribbean? I would love to see it. Thank you.

[Packard8]

Hi Randall, I don't have a link, but I'll try posting here. Not a good pic...buried in the back of the shop waiting for "time & money"....lol. I have the body, paint & chrome done...needs the interior and the new motor (sitting on the floor) installed.

Cheers,

John

PS...LOVE those Eldos...what year?

[6219_Rules]

Oh well! My Eldo is a 1977, a Biarritz, and the first year of the return of the package after the convertible was dropped in 1976. You can see it in the Photo Post area at My Eldorado

Its sovriegn gold with saddle tan interior, with most of the available options like split bench power seat with power recliner, climate control, twilight sentinal and Auto Dimmer, Wonderbarr radio, power trunk release..etc. It is a beautiful car, and great to drive. All that for less than two grand!

[Packard8]

Hi Craig, I tried posting a pic of the carib here for Randall but it didn't stick (too many pixels? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />) If its okay, I'll email it to your site and maybe you can post it in your '55-'56 "showroom"?

Thanks,

John

[Pierce66]

For BH and his "followers":

I really am sorry you and some of your friends feel so passionately about those issues about Packards that you cant stand to see discussed. Again, I think B.H. has performed a valuable service for those people by publisizing this "ignore" feature. So USE it !

Don't you guys realize, that the louder you make your accusations that I would engage in inappropriate speech, "bashing", vulgarity, etc, the more people are going to become curious and read my posts ? If you dont want conflicting ideas discussed, STOP MENTIONING them and people who provide them!

The "what if" designs for Packards after the failure of Packard, are certainly an interesting subject for discussion. I dont understand why you react so passionately to a discussion of the BACKGROUND of those fantasies. But that is your business.

Again, I suggest you pay more attention to what information you can provide, and learn, from this marvelous form of communication, USE the IGNORE feature to keep out thoughts and ideas you feel are hostile to your belief system, and STOP mentioning me ! You are wasting people's time ! And, more important, this "hostilty" bit you are engaging in, could very well be a "turn off" to the very people we would like to bring into our hobby.

Dog Spot

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hi Craig, I tried posting a pic of the carib here for Randall but it didn't stick (too many pixels? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />) If its okay, I'll email it to your site and maybe you can post it in your '55-'56 "showroom"?

Thanks, John </div></div>

I'll indeed include your 1956 Caribbean convertible in my next website update! In the meantime, here's a link to it:

John's 1956 Caribbean

[Packard8]

That?s great Craig?.thanks a million! The car runs (sort of) but is ?landlocked? behind another car that is down waiting for parts. Next time I get it out and cleaned up I?ll take some better pix and send them to you for your website.

Best regards,

John

[Guest Randy Berger]

John, great looking Caribbean. It's good to know another one will soon be on the road again.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[Packard8]

Thanks Randy,

I hope it's "sooner" than "later"....lol. That's a nice looking car you have too. Do you have it posted on Craig's site?. The little "avatar" pix are hard to see.

Cheers,

John