Packard Motorcar Prototype Updates

[55PackardGuy]

Here is a copy of an e-mail I received to a recent inquiry about the "Packard Motor Car Company" prototype.

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

Thank you for the invite. We'll give it a try, although we have a limited amount to time to respond to direct questions, we have no problem with posting periodic up-dates on our activities. We do get a lot of enquiries about the new Packard project as well as general questions about older Packards, all of which we answer to the best of our ability.

Ninety percent of our time is spent on the new Packard project in efforts to get in place a solid, long-term financing arrangement that will allow engineering completion and begin low volume production. We have two companies now that are interested, and we are expecting proposals from them soon.

We've had excellent response to the concept, the business plan, and the new Packard itself and we believe it just takes patience and a reasonable amount of exposure for the right connections to be made. We have the assistance of a financial services firm in Scottsdale, AZ, International Mergers and Aquisitions, who are confident of an eventual satisfactory deal.

We anticipate doing styling up-dates, interior styling and refinement in the next stage of development.

At the present time, we are also tooling for the running board side trim for 1940 series 1803 and up Packard Super Eight One-

Sixty and One-Eighty models. These are un-available at the present time, and they were very subject to internal rusting and damage. This is a very low-volume item and will be doing well if the costs are covered from sales, but we felt it was a good thing to do.

We'll try to keep you up-dated. Feel free to post this.

Regards,

Roy Gullickson</div></div>

Their web site is:

www.packardmotorcar.com

[Guest Randy Berger]

Guy, thanks for the update - I thought they had given up.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[Guest AlK]

I would have to look at this whole thing with a great deal of skepticism. "we have had good response to our prototype packard" then why was the whole Packard company, protoype and all up for bids on e-bay about two years ago.

[55PackardGuy]

Alk,

Couldn't say for sure, of course. Feel free to be skeptical! The fact that the web site hasn't been updated in a long time makes me wonder, too, but I feel the jury is still out. This thread was started as an FYI, a place to post updates, and a forum for comments. No guarantees as to the validity of the project at this time are expressed or implied by me. I thought as long as I had received a reply from someone who is listed on the web site as a spokesman for the company made it worthwhile to post it here.

I pursued the topic in response to questions raised about it on the "1957 What If" thread.

[Pierce66]

For B.H:

Well-written post - for once, we are in COMPLETE agreement !

Dog Spot !

[Guest AlK]

Guy:

I was not asserting that you were guaranteeing anything, I was merely posting my 2 cents worth. If I gave the impression that i thought you were guaranteeing the site or the content I am sorry, nothing like that was intended.

Alk

[55PackardGuy]

Alk,

Hey, no offense taken! At first I was a little disappointed that my "work" to get in touch with the company and start this thread was not "properly appreciated," but I began to think as I wrote the post that this was a good opportunity to clarify that I'm not a shill for anyone's project. I do continue to take a great interest in what these folks do, because they seem to have gotten farther than anyone else to at least make a custom one-off that apparently is not just a body grafted onto an existing chassis. They could very well be setting us up for disappointment, but I'll take a chance and remain cautiously hopeful. I also like the car, apparently more than Brian does. It's "mainstream" enough to feasibly appeal to the motoring public while still being very distinctive. What makes it a Packard? I guess I would say that most of the cars being manufactured today are less true to their marques than this one is.

That may be a good direction for this thread: what makes a Packard a Packard?

Comments and skepticism are good. And so are optimism and a willingness to dream. If someone hadn't had a dream, this project wouldn't have gotten started. If someone wasn't pragmatic enough to ask hard questions, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it did, IMO.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) That may be a good direction for this thread: what makes a Packard a Packard? (snip) </div></div>

Good idea!

Off the top of my head, in no particular order, for the 21st Century Packard:

Retro and Packard styling clues, the "Oxbow" grille motif being mandatory.

Body style that doesn't look like an innocuous "jelly bean".

Advanced suspension; maybe even a 21st century update on the Torsion-Level.

Finest interior materials, not just the ubiquitous leather, real or syn.

A unique engine: V-8 standard, V-12 optional.

Advertising: "Ask the man who owns one." 'nuf said <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

Hi Guy, thanks for posting.

I certainly applaud the effort to ?bring it back?, but as others have noted it will be a long, hard row to hoe. How many will the DOT mandate that they crash test for certification?....(ouch). The days are long gone when people like Allard, Cunningham, Shelby etc can just ?build a neat car and sell it?. I wish there were legislation permitting cars under a certain production limit to bypass all the cumbersome regs

I do give them credit for designing a whole car as opposed to the late Avantis which were mostly a fiberglass shell dropped on a Chevy platform.

Cheers,

John

[55PackardGuy]

Craig,

I've always had a passion for reviving the woefully underutilized full torsion bar suspension of the '55 and '56 model years. Chrysler literally went "halfway" with the front torsion bar suspensions on their cars, and in recent years, Dodge and Chevy (maybe others?) use front torsion bars on trucks. My '96 Dakota has 'em. Real robust pieces. I consider it my homage to my Packard roots. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Two words that reverberate in my mind when I think of Packard:

"Opulence" and "Performance"

And, of course, the slogan on the old Packard facility: "Quality First."

While the grill as a "styling cue" is a must, even in the elongated full-width form of later years, there may be others from over the years that make clear statements. I just can't think of 'em. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[WCraigH]

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

I've always had a passion for reviving the woefully underutilized full torsion bar suspension of the '55 and '56 model years. Chrysler literally went "halfway" with the front torsion bar suspensions on their cars, and in recent years, Dodge and Chevy (maybe others?) use front torsion bars on trucks. My '96 Dakota has 'em. Real robust pieces. I consider it my homage to my Packard roots. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

Another application of the front "halfway" torsion bar is the FWD Caddy Eldorados. I used to own a 1972 coupe and was surprised one day to see torsion bars instead of coil springs up front. Of course, there was no comparison in ride quality or ability to deal with rough roads between the Eldo and my 55 Pat. The Packard is vastly superior, particularly in actual follow-the-leader comparisons.

It would be very interesting to see the blueprints for the 1957 Packard Torsion-Level, which was supposedly different than 1955-56.

[pac400]

That would be cool.

[Guest bkazmer]

To me, a distinguishing characteristic of Packard was attention to detail, especially mechanical details that didn't show on the showroom floor but made a better car. There are so many examples, from the fine thread bolts, hypoid rear axle, nine main bearings on the 356, safe-t-flex, lock-up on automatic transmission, etc. Unfortunately, this is exactly why it would be hard to bring this aspect back - these are the components that require engineering and testing.

Perhaps a new Packard could be an "assembled car", but with "all-star sourcing", and a custom body/interior. Using a truck chassis is easy but long obsolete technology for cars. Modern monocoque/unit body construction for cars is hard to alter a great deal. A space-frame vehicle would be a more suitable platform, but there aren't many out there.

As far as transmission, either CVT or clutch-less manual (e.g. Ferrari, NOT a manually shifted torque converter).

my $.02 worth

[55PackardGuy]

Really interesting ideas coming through here!

Last night I got to thinkin' (always a bad sign) that Packard's traditional engine cofigurations were the V12 and the Straight 8. Those accounted for virtually all the senior and "premium" Packards until '55-56. Even though the V8s were impressive and innovative, a standard V12 would seem more to be something that traditionally makes a "Packard a Packard." A Straight 8 would be an interesting engine option, too, but probably not practical (not even as practical as a V12!?) in today's world.

Ideally, how about a V12 based on the '55-'56 V8, as was at one time very tentatively considered? Think of taking a basic 352 and slapping another 50% of an engine on to it. YIKES! Can you say "alloy block and heads?" <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest bkazmer]

BH, I appreciate your first hand insight. Let's build a Packard! But a 2005 one.

While I understand the advantages of body-on-frame, the strength/weight is usually very poor. I agree that front wheel drive is out, but monocoque and rear/all wheel drive is a good handling combination. Modern cars designed this way handily out-handle (had to say that) older body-on-frame, and the approach goes back to the 60's (the E-type Jaguar for one). But it's too hard to modify, I agree. Space frame with the cheaper low volume panels as you point out makes sense - the savings in skin will offset the more expensive frame. This can be compatible with Torsion Level - there will be an expense for the attaching points to the space frame (aluminum castings or CRC machined?). Moment of doubt - Torsion level was an electro- mechanical way to accomplish what would probably be done better today with computer control of 4 independent wheel units. So the self-leveling might not use torsion bars.

A straight 8 doesn't make sense in a modern engine, as you point out. A V12 made from a V8 is an inherently flawed approach (remember the Zephyr/Continental?) - the angle of the V for harmonics for one. There are a number of good modern V12's. No pushrods! A possible historical link would be to use DCX's V12, since Mercedes was partnered with Studebaker-Packard.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BH, I appreciate your first hand insight. Let's build a Packard! But a 2005 one. (snip) </div></div>

There was an interesting documentary on TV the other day about the development and manufacture of the new Porsche Boxter and Carerra (and Mercedes S-Class). Porsche is using computer controlled robotic assembly to manufacture both (quite different) models on the same assembly line, completely intermingled!

Couple that approach with Computer-Numerical-Control (CNC) machining from Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) and Computer-Aided-Manufacture (CAM), and maybe it's feasible to today to produce extremely low volumn cars almost entirely by computer and robots.

Granted, as pointed out above, it would probably make sense to purchase the major subassemblies from 3-rd party suppliers.

It apparently is economically feasible to manufacture low-production special interest vehicles in this day and age, citing the Shelby cars as one example.

[55PackardGuy]

Brian,

Yes, it is I who am guilty of bringing up and then shooting down the Straight 8 idea. I guess it just seems to me to be more practical and feasible to come out with a V-12 as a Packard "signature" engine. Perhaps a 60° design would save some weight and space, if it is possible to make a 60° V-12. I'm way over my head when it comes to figuring any of that out. I just know that almost any configuration seems possible, give the various V's and even W's out there!

The "space frame" idea is a good engineering compromise, I think. As I understand it, it's a "rolling chassis" that does not depend on the body for rigidity. Depending on what automotive articles you read, it could be considered the "wave of the future" for chassis engineering. If you're talking about using fiberglass or composite body panels and changing styles regularly, it seems to be an excellent way to go. You mentioned the Fiero as a pioneer of this and the Lumina van and others. One not mentioned yet is Saturn, which I believe uses this technology on all its vehicles. It's evidently becoming a very popular way to build cars.

[Guest bkazmer]

60 degrees is common for a V12. My point on no pushrods was to have overhead cams for breathing - it's hardly new (Duesenberg and Miller). Cylinder deactivation is a separate thing - many remember the terrible Cadillac system from the 1980's but DCX has theirs in production for a few years now, first with Mercedes and now with Dodge and Chrysler on V8's - I haven't heard the same outcry. But I'd leave it out of our Packard project.

Pushrods, a cobbled 90 degree V12, and a full frame in a current design sounds to me like a pick-up truck, not a top end car like Packard.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) Pushrods, a cobbled 90 degree V12, and a full frame in a current design sounds to me like a pick-up truck, not a top end car like Packard. </div></div>

Pushrod OHV V-8s are alive and well, ala the LS-1 family (1991+) Gen III Chebby engine family. These produce 400+ HP in 5.7L displacement.

60-deg are definitely required for V-12s.

IF I won the $100M+ lottery and were so inclinded to do such a commercial venture, I'd just use the Gen III V-8 and a BMW V-12 and concentrate on the styling, updated T-L, etc. Most who drive it wouldn't know/care about the drive train part anyhow. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest bkazmer]

I think using an existing engine is a must without a corporate "parent" for development, federalization, etc. The supply issue is a fair one, but I think our Packard's volume will be below the corporate radar as far as market concern. If there is a V8, I'm aware of the Corvette pushrod motor, but it's used for cost reasons only - there was an internal GM study before the C6. GM is particularly fond of pushrods and particularly bad at doing 4 cylinder engines with advanced valve trains(the need is greater on a small engine), so I don't think their trends are very representative of the industry as a whole.

The design downside of a 60 degree V12 with overhead cams is size - it's both wide and tall. I drove a Jaguar XJS with this set up and the engine bay was of the "throw in a quarter and it won't hit the ground" variety. But a Packard is not a small car. The BMW V12 suggested in an earlier post would be a good choice, and I believe ZF already has a tranny to handle the torque. (Can't the Cambiocorsa clutchless manual be an option?)

We need some suspension design help with the torsion level II. I suspect the budget is going to need to cover some Magnesium here.

Let me introduce a new wrinkle - the space frame should be designed not to rely on the part above the beltline for structure. Else how will we be able to do the retractable hardtop convertible Caribbean?

You know we're all going to be rounded up and sent for a nap if we keep this up.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

bkazner: Just out of curiosity, did u drive own or operate an Audi Fox during their height of popularity circa 1980????

[55PackardGuy]

I think a "proprietary" engine is a good idea, regardless of valvetrain. It could be based on existing internal hardware such as pistons, rods, bearings, valves, etc., but making the block and head castings unique would assure that it wasn't a "knockoff." Transmissions are a whole 'nother can of worms, as pointed out above. I recall that Packard was the ONLY independent manufacturer that designed and manufactured its own automatic transmission, and that was a very tough and expensive proposition. This is an aspect where I think the cost of a proprietary design would far outweigh any impression on the motoring public. The engine is a different story, I think. Put a BMW or Chevy or whatever in it, and the public will consider the car much more of an overall knockoff of an existing product. Also, another important aspect of what makes a Packard a Packard is the "Master Motor Builders" tradition.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Brian, you said:

<span style="font-style: italic">Yet, you won't neeed to duplicate the Utica Proving Grounds for durabality testing; there are plenty of beat-up, poorly-maintained public roads and highways to choose from these days. </span> We could test it right here in Pennsylvania on the Turnpike and get the equivalent of 50K miles in about three months.

YFAM, Randy berger

[Guest bkazmer]

the VW-in-disguise, eat-my-own-valve-train Audi Fox? No.

[Guest bkazmer]

The LS430 was designed as a convertible and I think is a monocoque with engine and suspension subframes, not a space frame. The hideous "basket handles" are the result of chopping a car designed as a closed car, trying to restore the lost rigidity. I like your modular top section idea.

I still think starting from a V12 block is better, especially for "master motor builders". There are some "unnatural angle" blocks out there, but usually have balance shafts to offset the inherently bad harmonics. The idea brought up of havings special heads designed to differentiate the engine is another good one. That's the main difference between the Lincoln LS V8 and S-type Jaguar motors.

While Packard did do their own transmission design, even the "big boys" don't always today, with people like ZF, Getrag , and Aisin designing to suit the car company's engine.

It struck me that the approach we are describing is not far from what two of Packard's competitors have become - Rolls-Royce and Bentley.

[Packard8]

I?ll vote for a pushrod V12?for size consideration mainly (low profile hood). Look at the Ford modular DOHC V8?..4.6 liters and about the overall size of an old Hemi ?Elephant Motor?. Seems to me that a big cube V12 wouldn?t rely on high RPM to move the car, hence not much advantage in an overhead cam setup.

For that matter, we have NASCAR pushrod V8?s putting out 700-800 HP @ 9000+ RPM, and NHRA blown Hemi pushrod V8?s putting out 6000 HP (albeit for only 3 seconds).

OR??how about diesel? A Cummins 5.9 I6 (mounted like the old Mopar slant 6) can be easily tweaked to put out 450HP and 800 lb/ft torque?same for the GM & Ford V8 diesels now used in HD pickups. My 7500# Ford diesel gets almost 20 MPG highway?.how about a 4000# aerodynamic diesel passenger car that gets 40 MPG and outruns most everything else on the road.

http://www.bankspower.com/sidewinder.cfm

[Jack Harlin]

You may be right, but the selling price just may be same as a RR & Bently also.

With all the fine features proposed here, I wonder how many would or could afford to buy one? It sure would be nice though. Jack

[WCraigH]

Here's some ideas for the 21st century Torsion-Level:

Computer "active suspension" control of the "pre-load" of the leveling system. This would entail real time actively adjustable links at the front and rear to compensate for driving conditions. Basically, increasing the spring rate without changing the ride height, so that if one wanted a "boulevard ride" (soft), back off on the pre-load. If one wanted "sports car-like ride", increase the pre-load.

Increase the anti-sway aspect of the T-L. In the 1955-56 versions, there was one, relatively small anti-sway bar up front and essentially none in the rear since the "S" bar setup only serves to locate the rear axle. In the 21st century version, increase the front diameter to 1-1/4" (like WS6 Trans Am Firebirds) and add maybe a 3/4" bar to the rear in addition to the "S" bar, or add a "track bar" plus the sway bar in the rear.

Eliminate the rear 40" (Senior) leveling bars and associated mechanisms. Instead use computer controlled, electronic "shocks" (not necessarily air -- could be hydraulic)) to handle the ride leveling aspect. IMO, one of the drawbacks of the extra leveling bars in the back is that it changes the effective spring rate as seen by the rear wheels. This cannot help the handling in an "agressive" driving situation (maybe Jack Harlin can pipe in here).

Increase the anti-dive geometry of the front A-arms. This was pretty good in 1955, but given that the Packard was a heavy vehicle with lots of mass (inertia), under agressive stop conditions, the anti-dive was insufficient.

Food for thought! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jack Harlin]

Craig

I really dont know. Since the TL was less than 2years old when Roy & I tried to make it handle better. We always thought it was the high weight of the engine & too light in the rear with no external adjustments. You have to share some blame also. Almost 50 years too late with the adjustable links. I think if one was installed on the RF, it would have made a big difference. BUT, just how much twist could the bars take before breaking? Four bar cross torsion on race cars control each wheel, but front to rear on Packards not related. Im sure Packard TL wasnt designed for racing. Better late than never, adjustable links.

Jack

[55PackardGuy]

Wow, lots of food for thought here. I, also, would like to know more about the existing V-12 in the '99 prototype. I was going to mention the overhead cam setup as a little bit "tall," having owned a '95 T-Bird with the 4.6. A unique compromise setup that I experienced in a '73 Opel Manta 1900 is the "cam-in-head" design that eliminates pushrods but retains rocker arms. This is a very compact design with decreased moving parts and valve lift multiplication. Very slick, although threading the timing chain through the head was a bit of a challenge when it needed to be replaced.

Another advantage of the TL suspension is how well it controlls body roll. Driving these cars as a teenager, I naturally experienced their cornering limits. The tires would always let go before there was significant body roll. Truly flat cornering was a blast. Admittedly, the bias ply tires had limited grip in corners, allowing a nice slide rather than a roll. (Probably a good thing for me!) The suggested "tweaks" could result in a truly awesome handling car with a very decent ride, which is the "holy grail" of passenger car suspension designs, I think.

I always wanted to get ahold of a bare chassis and engine from a '55 or '56 as a project "car." I saw one go under the cutting torch for parts when I was about 12, and I mourn the loss to this day. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

The 60^ V's are more likely to use OHC than pushrods primarily due to a lack (or approaching a lack there-of) of cam to crank/rod clearence. With the OHC the clearence is not an issue. In my opinion the harmonics has absolutely nothing to do with degree of V. Harmonics is morea function of distortion of parts than it is anything else.

If OHC is the desired route then Dohc is the best way to go. U will find that most OHC or DOHC engines are usualy small displacement engines (in modern versions) OR very undersquare (vintage versions).

Looking to BMw or MB or DCX for "blue sky" engineering ideas is ok. However, to ignore or negate the small block chevy with its time proven record is a mistake of blasphemy and a one-way no turning back path to ruin. The SBC is THE one and only world class standard by which any and all engines manaufactured past or present are judged. IT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME. Can anyone name an engine that has been around as long as the SBC and so favoured among so many different applications???

[Guest bkazmer]

The SBC is a great V8 - it doesn't mean that it will make a great V12. Again, consider the stalwart Ford flathead V8 and the horrid Zephyr V12 derived from it(please don't kill me Continental owners). Cylinder bank angle and firing order are the basis of the physics of harmonic vibration. The contribution of sloppiness of fit or deflection mentioned is correct but is more an execution issue, not design. 90 is a balanced set up for a V8, not for a V12.

The DCX (MB), BMW sourcing idea is to avoid "blue sky" engineering - they (and Ford) have production V12's now. I'd leave the W12 engine out of this - it has a ton of engineering to tame the vibrations inherent in the configuration. I don't see a boxer 12, although balanced, being a good fit in a luxury car. No question about a SBC V8 being an easier and cheaper way to generate power, but this chain started with the idea of a V12 distinguishing the car as a Packard.

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SBC is a great V8 - it doesn't mean that it will make a great V12. Again, consider the stalwart Ford flathead V8 and the horrid Zephyr V12 derived from it(please don't kill me Continental owners). Cylinder bank angle and firing order are the basis of the physics of harmonic vibration. The contribution of sloppiness of fit or deflection mentioned is correct but is more an execution issue, not design. 90 is a balanced set up for a V8, not for a V12. </div></div>

Exactly correct. See for details:

Torsional Output of Piston Engines

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (snip) Still, CAD, CAM and CNC technologies are affordable technologies that would be of great benefit - to both any manufacturer and its suppliers. (snip) </div></div>

On TLC channel yesterday was a repeat of a "Rides" episode wherein Chip Foose turned a new Cadillac Seville into the full-size Hot Wheels "Deora II". Putting aside the rather bizarre nature of this "conversion" in which only the FWD & engine of the Caddy was retained, the relevent analogy to this thread is using CAD, CAM and a large 5-axis CNC machine to create virtually all the custom pieces. Here's a recap of the project:

Hot Wheels Deora II by Foose

Here's some info on the 5-axis CNC big enough to do a car:

How 5-axis CNC works

[WCraigH]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig - Sounds good, but I am completely unfamiliar with "real time actively adjustable links." Since the full-length torsion bars connect the front and rear wheels, is it absolutely essential to have these things at both front and rear? </div></div>

What I meant was "active suspension", wherein both the spring rate (torsion bar) and damping rates (shocks) are changed in milliseconds by a computer in response to road conditions, speed, driver input, etc. The front links on the T-L are prime candidates for "active adjustment", i.e., make longer for more preload, make shorter for less preload. Although I wouldn't want to consider exactly how to implement this right now, I think the idea has merit. Shocks that instantly change valving are available and BMW has "Active Roll Stabilization" wherein the sway bar end links cause these bars to be twisted more or less in reaction to driving conditions.

[Guest bkazmer]

Torsion level was designed to work with a live rear axle. How would its "job" change with the new Packard's independent rear?

[WCraigH]

Who said the new Packard would have an independent rear suspension? At first blush, typical IRS geometry seems to be counter to T-L main bar "reverse twist" setup. If we used some kind of "trailing arm" arrangement, then the "reverse twist" would be similar to 55-56. Hmmm...have to think about this one some more.

While we're at it, why not use titanium in all the suspension and magnesium wheels to get the lightest unsprung weight possible?

[55PackardGuy]

Hello again all Prototype Posters,

A couple of weeks ago, I sent a reminder to Roy Gullickson at the Packard Motor Car Company inviting him to look up this thread and drop us a line. It might be a little bit much to expect him to sign up at AACA to make a post, and I don't know if he's viewed this thread yet. SO, I painstakingly made a copy of the whole thread as a Word document that I can attach as an e-mail to him. No one is identified other than those who put a name on their posts, and no membership info or avatars are included that aren't used in the correspondence.

(Craig, your Packard Panther site appears several times, but I thought you might like that!)

Anyway, if there are no objections, I'd like to send a copy of the thread to Roy.

Let me know, please...

[bernardi]

No objections from me

[Guest Randy Berger]

I don't think anyone would object - I don't.

YFAM, Randy berger