Packard "Firsts"

[Guest]

PackardGuy: Still waiting for an answer.

[55PackardGuy]

This thread was started as a place to share information and ideas celebrating Packard's accomplishments. Given the 8000+ views so far, it seems that a lot of people enjoy reading about those accomplishments. It would be nice if more of them would share their own viewpoints here, but I can understand the hesitation to face the prospect of receiving one of the downright spiteful replies that are occasionally expressed here in response to thoughtful posts.

But please don't hesitate-- there is still a place for positive discussion here, as there has been in the past.

[Guest]

55PackardGuy: Upon reading your revised list of Packard Firsts that you posted n 7/27/06. Something that caught my attention that might be incorrect on your list, after doing reading and research, maybe Numner 11 on your list. power operated windows 1940. I have found the following information.

The Buick Y Job construction was started in 1938 and introduced tot he public in 1939. Some of the features on the Buick Y Job included the following electrically powered operated convertible top, electric doors, and ELECTRIC windows. Now I take this statement to mean that the windows on the Buick Y Job were power windows operated by electrical means.

Source of information do a Google search Buick Y Job, or visit on the internet www.prewarbuick.com

John F. Shireman

PS: For your viewing pleasure another fine Packard from Hershey

[Guest imported_Speedster]

The Buick Y-job was a special Concept car (one of a kind), Not a production car. If I remember correctly, it was the very first Concept car done anywhere, it was designed by Harley Earl and it was his personal daily driver for a long time.

[Guest]

Speedster: You are very correct about the Buick Y Job. I will also point out that one of the Firsts claimed on the the list rear reverse slanted window. This design feature was on the Pakcard show car the 1953 Balboa, the design feature never appeared on any production Packard. So it seems to me that if the slanted rear window can be claimed as a first, then the power window claim is fair game.

From the research that I have done I think that Packard might have been first to put the feature into production, allthough Packards power windows weren't powered by electricity.

As with most things that Earl gets credit for he never actualy did, such as design the Buick Y Job. Earls design talents are vastly over inflated. His design talents never stack up to the greats like Raymond Dietrich and Dutch Darrin, and others.

John F. Shireman

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Yes, the question as wheather the Concept cars should be included in the 'First List' is a Good one? Including them makes it more Interesting and Fun, I think. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And We know that we All need More 'Interesting and Fun'. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_Speedster]

The Power Window question has always been a Difficult one, since even with hydrolicly powered windows, there was an electric Pump that operated the cylinders. So they All had Electric motors Involved in Some way. The location of the electric motors in the systems, is what made the systems different.

[Guest]

Rick: The only reason that I sighted the Bucik Y Job and its version of power windows, is because of remarks made by a recent poster calling my post of correct information which challenges the Packards First. Now those posts that I made are now being called spiteful.

There is still no doubt in my mind that Packard was the first to introduce them in the USA as a production first.

John F. Shireman

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I guess No One Likes to be told they are Wrong. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> (Some Take it Harder than others) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

But, The way you go about telling them they may be wrong, makes a big difference in their Response, Also. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Speedster: I guess when you tell people what you think without any hoeny on it does seem to upset some people. Come to think of it by being blunt about certain things, hasn't made me to popular with one car club that I know of. In the end I am not going to miss any sleep over it.

John F. Shireman

[Guest]

55Packardguy: I was doing some light reading today. The book I am reading is titled HISTORY OF THE MOTOR CAR written by Marco Matteucci published by Crown Publishers, Inc in 1970. One page 237 I found a very interesting paragraph titled AHEAD OF THEIR TIME. It reads at follows.

Among other multi-cylinders layout were the V8 DeDion of 1910, which was produced only a few years after the abandoment of the single cylinder to which De Dion had been faithfull for so long. Winton's double four engine, and OVERHEAD VALVE V12 ENGINE BY MARVEL-SCHEBLER IN THE UNTIED STATES, the narrow V6 of Delahaye and the V4's built by Aries in France. These engines never went into quanity production, however as they were ahead of the mass manufacturing methods avaible at the time.

I guess the information provided by Mr. Matteucci only helps confirm what I have posted on the first V12 engine before, based on information that I have from a book written by Beverly Kimes.

John F. Shireman

[55PackardGuy]

These words of wisdom from Beverly Kimes were posted way back in July of '05, and I think they bear repeating:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What the foregoing description [of the 1900 Packard Model "B"] did not include,of course, was <span style="font-weight: bold">the historic significance of some of the Packard features</span>. Though it is a dangerous course always to state categorically that someone was first with something--someone else might come along and discover an earlier "first"--<span style="font-weight: bold">it is not irresponsible to note the areas in which the Packard pioneered</span>. The automatic spark advance, for example, was a feature not to become common on other automobiles for a number of years--and note should also be made of the rotating governor built into the automatic spark, which at maximum speed would pull the rotating cam on the shaft beyond the point of contact so as to stop the spark. (The rotating cam also had a tapering operative face, to bring the wider portion of the cam into operation as the speed increased and the narrower portion as the speed decreased.) The "H" gear slot, patented by Packard, would become the most generally used pattern in years to come. And certainly not many vehicles of that era could boast a foot pedal to control engine speed." Packard a History of the Motor Car and the Company, Beverly Rae Kimes ed., copyright 1978 Automobile Quarterly, page 38-39.</div></div>

My comments at that time were as follows:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that Packard pioneered many innovative features and put them into production early on, introducing them to mainstream automotive use in the U.S. and probably elsewhere, is testimony to the philosophy of sound engineeering and continuous improvement that helped put Packard on the map as one of the great early marques. The fact that this philosophy continued all the way through Packard's last years, in spite of dwindling resources, attests to the company's legacy of innovation.

Compiling information and evidence about the pioneering atuomotive efforts of Packard is a way of honoring that legacy. Any list of these accomplishments should probably be divided into categories, including patented inventions, documented first applications in the industry, first applications in the U.S., early adoption, and special innovations that did not become widely applied in the industry but were exclusive to Packard and proven to be reliable and useful. (Such as the Torsion-Level Suspension)</div></div>

I would add this now:

The items included in the list were introduced in a regular run of manufactured cars, not customs or specially built vehicles.

Also, the "historic significance" of an item is probably the most important criterion for inclusion in the Packard Firsts list. That is what would make them worthy of consideration as milestones for the automobile industry (particularly in the U.S.) and not just for the Packard Motor Car Company. Did they introduce a new standard into the <span style="font-style: italic">mainstream</span> for the motoring public?

[Guest]

55Packardguy: A correction for your Packard's First List. Number 13 the date on the introduction of the electric powered antenna, which on your list states that happended in 1952. From the information

that I have on Packard this option was actually introduced on the 24 series ie 1951 model year. the signal seeking radio with electric powered antenna with rea speaker was a $125.80 option. This was the same price in 1952, and was increased to $132.00 in 1953, and was a $132.00 option in 1954.

Source Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946 to 1975 edited by Ron Kawalke.

John F. Shireman

[Guest Randy Berger]

John, thanks for updating that. I believe Guy got the info from me as our 1952 Mayfair had an electric powered antenna. I didn't know if it was earlier than 1952 or not. Didn't someone have a vacuum operated antenna? Perhaps before that??

[Guest JT]

Does anyone know what car company paraphrased the Packard slogan around 1917 by using this slogan in their ads;

[color:"blue"] "ask any ------ owner"?

I happened to see this while looking up some Packard "first".

[55PackardGuy]

Randy,

Yes, I believe I was going by your information, and kudos to John for finding a verifiable intro date. As long as we call it an "electric" antenna and not just "power" it should be accurate, regardless of the existence of a vacuum operated alternative.

Some folks over on the AACA General "Packard Firsts???" thread commented that some of the Packard innovations seemed "trivial," but look how much convenience the electric antenna has brought to drivers--and how common it is as an option today.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I will also point out that one of the Firsts claimed on the the list rear reverse slanted window. This design feature was on the Pakcard show car the 1953 Balboa, the design feature never appeared on any production Packard.</div></div> Fair enough. It's also been established that, contrary to rumor, the rear window did NOT lower. Kimes comments on this and references a production photo that clearly shows an "X" brace on the body below the window that would interfere with any window-lowering.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now here is a direct challenge to you, please contact PI and ask them to list the

references they have in their records which would varify the claims they have made, concerning the Packards First list. Heck invite them to come in the forum, and prove what I have posted about the list, as being false. I am pretty sure that my challenge to you will go un-answered.</div></div> Geez, John, I wouldn't really know how to answer that. I've suggested in earlier posts that, for those curious about the sources for the PAC list that they could follow up on that. I guess what you and some others have NEVER understood, although I've stated it many times--including in the Original Post on this thread--is that <span style="font-weight: bold">I only used the PAC list as a STARTING POINT for coming up with our own AACA Forum list based on input from anyone who wants to make suggestions or changes</span>. I never endorsed it in any way, other than to say that if only <span style="font-style: italic">half</span> of it was true, it would be a pretty impressive list.

But I don't see the point of rolling over and accepting EVERY challenge at face value, as some of the OTHER information out there on which these challenges are based is not "set in stone" either. That's why I wanted some concensus from many contributors for changes, deletions and additions.

Also, I do find it curious that the PAC list and the PI list agree on many points, and that a few other sources have similar lists which I have mentioned. I don't know if they were independently arrived at, but if so the number of agreements is striking and in itself really lends quite a bit of credibility. I think what they really lack the most is qualifying statements (such as First in a Mass Produced Car or First in U.S. or First as Standard Equipment or First Successful Application or a First Design that Became Generally Adopted by the Industry (such as Packard's Power Steering design).

Those kind of explanations can open up a lot of legitimate claims, and explain why many of the items on those existing lists were included.

Now, if anyone wants to go to the sources of those lists, such as PAC and PI, and find out what the documentation is that they are based on, I'd certainly like to be part of the effort.

BUT, it has to be done diplomatically or we won't get anywhere. If you approach them with "well we know you'll never admit you're wrong, but we think you are full of it" what do you suppose the response will be? Deafening silence.

A request or suggestion doesn't have to be honey-coated, but vinegar-coating won't get anywhere.

I think that the revised list, on which I've made a few modifications today including the 1951 intro of electric windows, the deletion of the reverse window and the aluminum crankcase, is getting pretty nicely tightened up-- and it's still a darn impressive list. It has been trimmed back considerably, with more deletions than additions, but that was probably to be expected. As Kimes points out, claiming categorically that you're "first" is a tough thing to defend. (We started out with 43 automotive "firsts" and the list now totals 21--just about half.)

Tilt steering wheel in 1900, anybody?

[Guest Randy Berger]

Guy, I agree with your assessment on how to approach PAC or PI or anyone for that matter. Your documentation is pretty sound now after winnowing out most of the doubtful "firsts". Either club may be willing to accept your "FIRSTS" list after you describe your documentation process. I would at least contact the PAC webmaster and give him the benefit of the doubt at accepting/rejecting your efforts. I am not a member of PI and do not know how protective they are of their opinions. It may be that both clubs used a "Firsts" list written up by a third party. It's surprising how much life and authenticity some article has after it appears in print somewhere.

[Guest]

55Packardguy: I am very suprised that you would make a reply, to a person like me, that has made SPITEFULL posts about the Packards First list, according to you.

I also don't see the point of rolling over for two clubs, that have published this list, and has to know there are many flaws in what they have published. You have asked to document my findings, now I ask you tell me what documentaion the clubs used to compile the list. Your afraid to aproach any of the two clubs in question to find out what documentation they used to compile the list. You had no problem asking Katz for permission to publish the list in this forum. So it seems to me that it should be no problem for you to ask the parties in question about the documentation they used. No one had to hold your hand in asking them for permission in the first place.

I remember awhile back when I challenged Stu Blond about the list several months ago I believe his reply was this. If there are any mistake in the list blame the publicity department at East Grand. There will never be any changes made in the list by what is posted in this forum. The only way any changes would be made to the list published by them would be, for a person to submit the list to him, and that he would submit the list to the PAC board for consideration. So what it amounts to is that PAC knows the list pulbished on thier web site is incorrect, but aren't realy willing to do anything about it, and are entitled to re-write automotive history any way they please, and to not give credit to persons that deserve true credit for automotive firsts. Even if the list was given to Stu and changes made, I am sure that not a person from this forum would get any credit, and the person who submiited the list would take all the credit. They hide behind a wall of silence because they lack the nerve or courage to admit when they make a mistake. Seems one of the editors of the CCCA has no problem admitting when she make a msitake.

John F. Shireman

[Packard8]

I fail to see how sending the cumulative research and discussion results of this forum to the two Packard Clubs would be ?rolling over?. As PackardGuy and Ms. Kimes pointed out, much of the knowledge is in a grey area as to who manufactured what when, and whether or not to include show and concept cars, or stick to strictly showroom production cars.

Re ?getting credit?, no one ?owns? knowledge, it is in the public domain. If corrections and/or additions to a published list can be offered, why not just do so? I?m not a member of either PAC or PI, but I would not hesitate to forward a link to this thread to either if I were so consumed by the inaccuracies. What they do with it is strictly their business.

[55PackardGuy]

Packard53,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am very suprised that you would make a reply, to a person like me,</div></div> Well, I guess that just shows you can't always predict what I'll do, as you seem to be trying to. You also erred in telling me what I was "afraid" and not "afraid" to do, and whether or not I ever needed any "hand-holding," as I have corresponded with PAC regarding both the sources for their original list and the possibility of including the revised list that has been produced here with the help of a lot of (uncredited) contributors. I invited others to contact PAC specifically because I don't want to appear to be "running" this thread, as it has always been meant to be a group effort. I don't have any interest in whether I'd get any "credit" for what is produced here. I know what I've contributed and what I haven't, no matter what anyone else might think.

I've found the folks at both PAC and PI to be very approachable, and resistant to change only in the amount that any organization would question challenges to the status quo. They graciously agreed to have their lists posted here, even though they knew that they would be open to challenge and debate. What they do with the results of that debate is up to them, and they certainly are under no obligation to take any of the suggestions for changes--but I think it would be a nice outcome if they did.

It's interesting that you note Stuart Blond's comment that the list probably came from Packard's Publicity Department originally. That would make sense, as the PR people would be willing to "stretch" some of the accomplishments. It also seems likely that there would be no concrete sources or corroboration for the claims, but that the list has simply been "passed down" over the years and become accepted by Packard fans, and probably unnoticed by people who might have been more discerning.

Posting the original list(s) here was an opportunity to open them up for "review" and commentary by the readership of the AACA forums--which is probably as credible a review committee as you'd find out there.

I think even as it stands now, the revised list, based on the input from this forum, is an improvement over the old list. It contains many new items that have been pretty well documented and reviewed, as well as items from the original list that are more widely corroborated and in some cases ammended. Maybe someday it'll get wider circulation. But that would just be gravy. The main point is that the list makes for interesting, entertaining discussion, and keeps alive the memory of Packard and its many engineering achievements.

After all, if anyone deserves credit for having any kind of "firsts" list, it is the Packard Motor Car Company, without which we wouldn't have anything to discuss.

[55PackardGuy]

Randy and Packard8,

Thanks for your clarifications, which are pretty much in line with my thinking on how to proceed. I'm not a member of PAC or any other club, and if I'm not mistaken, these organizations are much more "answerable" to their membership than they are to an outsider. Anyone who's a member would probably stand a better chance to persuade their club to consider using the revised list--if they want to give it a try.

Personally, I think that an Internet forum is one of the best places to "publish" a list like this, since it's almost infinitely debatable and lends itself to ongoing discussion, rather than being "set in stone" (or printed on paper).

Maybe eventually I'll just re-post the best we can come up with surrounded by some official-looking curlicues like you see on legal documents or licenses. That'd be cool. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Packard8]

Good points Guy, and thank you for starting an interesting thread and thanks to all who have contributed? It?s been interesting and educational.

The people who deserve the primary ?credit? are those sharp minds who conceived and produced these milestones, and secondarily, the dedicated authors like Kimes and others who have spent countless hours researching and publishing the history of this fine marque.

Hopefully, in the interest of historical accuracy the two clubs mentioned will avail themselves of the solid research presented here on the AACA forum and update their ?Packard Firsts List?.

[Guest]

55Packardguy: I fail to see where I made any errors in what I stated. I am glad to see that finally all my chidding you over the last month, has finally forced you to except my challegne which is what I have wanted all along.

Your position about contacting PI and PAC certainly has changed fromm your position that you stated on October 29, when you were reluctant to contact them on your own. At that time you thought it should be a group effort, before you would get involved. Just how long have you been in contact with PAC and PI about the sources they used. In the past when you have challegned me about certain things concerning the firsts list, I have stepped right up to the plate and answered the challenge. One the other hand when I have made a challenge to you, you have been reluctant to step up to the plate

The bottom line is this I issued that challemge to you over a month ago. I gave you my sources on were I obtained my information from. In some cases when I quoted my sources of information it was from two different sources. I haven't seen you listing the sources that PAC and PI used to come up with the inflated firsts lists that they both have published.

I do wish you well in your current venture.

John F. Shireman

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">finally all my chidding you over the last month, has finally forced you to except my challegne which is what I have wanted all along</div></div>Huh? I didn't accept any "challenge." What work I have done on this was on my own volition, not because of anyone's "chiding." I don't respond to ANYONE if I feel "forced," and this case is no exception. Suggestions, on the other hand, are always welcome.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">n the past when you have challegned me about certain things concerning the firsts list, I have stepped right up to the plate and answered the challenge. One the other hand when I have made a challenge to you, you have been reluctant to step up to the plate</div></div>Congratulations on feeling you have "stepped up to the plate." I have no idea what plate that might be. It seems you consider this exchange a series of lines drawn in the sand and responses to "challenges," while I consider it just a discussion which may have results that reach beyond the forum--or may not. I often don't respond to posts, particularly if they seem patronizing or coercive. I don't come here to listen to lectures or get told what to do--it doesn't pay enough!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your position about contacting PI and PAC certainly has changed fromm your position that you stated on October 29, when you were reluctant to contact them on your own. At that time you thought it should be a group effort, before you would get involved.</div></div>I didn't change anything following my post of October 29th, you had just assumed that I hadn't already contacted PAC, which I had. I think a "group effort" would have a much better chance at recognition than just a communication from one person. Also, as I said earlier, I would think that anyone who is an actual MEMBER of these clubs would carry a lot more weight if they were to approach them about adopting an updated list.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard V8: Let me give you a spelling lesson u wehn refering to another person is spelled YOU. I know perfectly well what the Packard torsion bar suspension is all about, and perhaps have more information on the Packard system than you do.

The fact still remains that across the ocean torsion bar suspension had been used since the 30's in different varations. Just so happens that Packard cameup with thier own varation, unlike some others. PACKARD WASN'T THE FIRST TO USE TORSION BARS IN THIER SUSPENSION. While this system that Packard came up with was light years ahead of any other American auto manufacture, the system was far behind another suspension system that was introduced in 1955.

<span style="font-weight: bold">When it comes to what I know about Packards and the history of Packard, and the history of the auto industry in general, you aren't in my league</span> </div></div>

Ya know, I asked myself how a civil discussion regarding automotive firsts degenerated into a pi$$ing contest wrought with ?challenges issued? and ?gauntlets thrown? so I started reading this thread from the first. It was pretty civil until your post (quoted above) in April of last year.

So what?s it gonna be?pistols at twenty paces?.......broadswords? ?..baseball bats in the alley?

There is a difference between an automotive historian and a page turner/mouse clicker. One actually does the hard research (scouring now defunct company documents, interviewing former workers, executives, dealers etc) and then PUBLISHES that information in a coherent and accurate work. The other merely takes advantage of the historian?s hard work and posts the results on the internet demanding ?credit?.

55Packardguy makes a good point. There are ppl who buy one share of a stock so they will have the right to attend the annual shareholder?s meeting and stand up and speak their mind. Anyone who has an issue with PI or PAC has the right to become a member and air their concerns at the annual national meeting.

And as Forrest Gump would say??that?s all I?ll have to say about that???LOL

[Guest]

Packard8: I would like you to look at any book that Bev Kimes has written, and see how many other peoples research material she has used in writting any of her books. She is considered one of the leading automotive hsitorians. Because she uses others people research material materials, does that also make her simply a page turner.

With the constant reading and research I do of other peoples research work and books they have written, has made it possible for me to be very knowlege-able in the feild of automtoive history. Some other people have had enough respect for my knowlege to ask me do two feature stories. Which I did a couple of years ago for the old web site Classicar.com. In which they came to me and asked me to do stories for them on Fall Hershey, and the Street Rod Nationals at York, Pa.

In this last year, I help a local well known historian in the Williamsport area do an article, on cars that were built in the my home town of Williamsport, Pa. For that I recieved public thanks from him in the article he wrote. The article was made possible because of the research I had done in the past, and my great ability for my re-tension of such material.

Im May of this year a letter written by me on the history of the English automobile Invicta was pulbished in the CCCA Bullentin, by the editor Beverly Kimes. Beverly Kimes even took the time to drop me a short note, thanking me for my super letter that I had written to her about Invicta.

I would point that what I had said to Pakcard V8 wasn't the first time I have made that statment and have done same to some other persons.

The last thing that I would like to point out that my page turning and reading other peoples research, has made it possible for me to make two contributions to the Packard First list, which both you and 55packardguy have over looked.

My page turning and reading of other peoples works has given the ability to be able to name more than 20 cars, that were produced in your state. Can you do the same. If I am nothing more than a page turner, then I am dang proud of that. Being a page turner has broaden my knwolegde of the history of the automotive industry in the this country, as well as of other countries of this world.

John F. Shireman

[Clipper47]

John, When are you going to post the Brad Berry story?

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">two contributions to the Packard First list, which both you and 55packardguy have over looked.</div></div> Can't think of anything that was overlooked from anybody. I certainly removed a few things at your behest including such treasures as the V12 engine. I remember one excellent note that you had about a "first" that involved, I believe, a Packard education program. The reason that didn't go on the current list was because it is not an automotive engineering feature that appeared on a Packard.

I believe at the time I suggested another list topic, probably suitable to another thread, of non-automotive "firsts" from Packard. A few suggestions also mentioned on this thread were neon signage, steel reinforced concrete construction, and there were even a coupe on the "original" PAC list--the Phillips screw and diesel aircraft engine--that I left off because they weren't automtive engineering firsts.

Even thought it's an oldy, I do recall reading the post quoted by Packard8 above. I was surprised by the confrontational tone, considering that this thread was presented for enjoyment rather than to provoke competition. I think that many people who post on these boards have made great automotive accomplishments, both with their hands and their heads, but the goal of this discussion was primarily to tout Packard's accomplishments.

I'm not pointing any fingers--sprited discussion is a given in this forum, particularly when anyone claims that their favorite marque was "first" with something. I think that there has been a lot of productive input, and am kind of pleased with how ruthless posters have been in keeping us honest about what Packard really did. I doubt this kind of discussion would've allowed so many of the original claims to survive intact, had it been another motor car manufacturer that was taken to task.

Whether or not we ever find the source of that original list and its similar versions, I think that without it there would have been no starting point with which to begin the discussion. It served a valuable purpose in that regard.

I don't doubt that the orignal list(s) was based on something existing out there in the archives of the Packard Motor Car Company, probably in the marketing or PR material from the '40s. (Note how the list fails to mention the additions from the '50s made by contributors here.)

For those who love to pore over old records and do primary research into original sources, there's still a chance someone will find that original document if it exists.

BTW, the argument above about "page-turners" versus "real researchers" just points out two different, but equally valid, forms of research--one aimed at synthesizing and expanding on previously published material, and another that digs into original source material and interviews of those with firsthand knowledge. With enough people venturing into these areas, one hopes to arrive at something closely approximating "the truth." Not always a cut-and-dried sort of conclusion, which is why discussion and consensus-seeking are so valuable.

Here's to "living history" with an eye toward gleaning what evidence we can to support the accomplishments of our favorite automobile marque!

[Guest]

Packard8: I also went through and re-read the entire thread. Through my efforts of page turning as I have noted, made it possible for me to add two items to the Packard First list of achievements. As a I have read the posts you have made in this thread, I see that you have made NO contributions that could be added to the list. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

John F. Shireman

[55PackardGuy]

This thread has always meant to focus on How Good Packard Was rather than how good any individual might be at unearthing information to support that assumption.

But I certainly want want to make sure that everyone's contributions are recorded if they have withstood the challenges of the AACA readership. It's less important to me that individual acknowledgements are made, although I tried to do that through earlier in-progress reports, in the interests of documentation.

Individual contributors know themselves what they've provided, and I think are generally satisfied with that knowledge and aren't looking for additional recognition.

I also appreciate the interest and comments of those who haven't necessarily had the time or inclination to make suggestions for changes or additions. They have shown by their readership and participation that there is a lot of interest in Packard's achievements and attempts to record them accurately.

It has been one of my fondest wishes since childhood that Packard be recognized for the special car that it was--and should have continued to be. Even though my experience was limited to the '55 models at the time, I sensed that Packard was something special and deserved wider appreciation. So, a discussion amongst those who appreciate Packard cars is very gratifying for me, and I hope we all can continue to shed new light on the innovations and "mystique" that made Packard special.

[bernardi]

Well said, 55PackardGuy!

[Guest]

55Packardguy: Re-reading the Packard First's list number two on the list Packard introduced the H slot gear slector pattern. Since the 1900 Packard model B had a two speed planetary transmision with reverse gear. I wonder what the fourth slot could have been for. Being as the planetary transmision wouldn't have required a fourth slot.

I wonder if the Kimes book you have on the history of Pakcard might have anything written in the book that might answer that question.

John F. Shireman

[Guest]

55Packardguy: When people like you want to let the rest of the world know how good Packard actually was, and the true accomplishments they they acheived, you had better be darn good at unearthing materials that can back those claims. Especially when someone comes along with refernce material that can refute those claims, like the alot of the ones originally posted by PI , pertaining to the Packards First list.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">55Packardguy: When people like you want to let the rest of the world know how good Packard actually was, and the true accomplishments they they acheived, you had better be darn good at unearthing materials that can back those claims. Especially when someone comes along with refernce material that can refute those claims, like the alot of the ones originally posted by PI , pertaining to the Packards First list. </div></div>

Well, this is ironic?YOU were the one who posted that Packard introduced the ?H? pattern shifter in 1900 ?. See your post in this thread #289424 - 04/09/05.

?The people whom compiled the list of Packard firsts doesn't know the history of Packard to good or automotive history

1. <span style="font-weight: bold">The introduction of the H pattern was in 1900 on the Model B.</span>

2. The introduction of automatic spark advance was in 1900 again the Model B

3. The introduction of the steering wheel 1900 on a special 12 horsepower model

4. If you look at the body styles that Packard offered in 1908, I would like to know what they classified as a rumble seat.

5. Packard never produced a station wagon. What was introducedin 1948 was a Station Sendan

6. No one can prove for sure who introduced the first V12 in the USA. National could have been the first as they also introduced theirV12 in May 1915.

7. I think that W.O. Bently was he first to use aluminum pistons in a car engine.

8. The Panthers of the Grey Wolf II,s were designed by Teague in 1953 and not produced until 1954. The Corvette had to be the first.

9.The torsion bar thing as I have proven was not a Packard first?

?When people like you want to let the rest of the world know how good Packard actually was, and the true accomplishments they they acheived, you had better be darn good at unearthing materials that can back those claims.?

I guess that this is a ?challenge? to?. yourself??? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Randy Berger]

Enough with the pi$$ing contests. It doesn't matter who brought up what first and who disproved something. None of this is copyright material and so credit isn't warranted anyway. If you can contribute to a thread, any thread, then

please do so. If it is merely to chide someone or make snide remarks, then

please find another venue. We are all here to learn and help each other learn. If that is not your intent when you post then don't bother - PLEASE!

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Randy,

That's like telling the Weather to Always be Nice, It's 'Never Gonna Happen'. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

55Packardguy: I have been trying to come up with the year that Packard first started using the aluminum crankcse. After going through some of my old Packard books, the year happens to be 1904 with the introduction of the Model L. This seems to preclude when Marmom started using an aluminum crankcase by several years. I would say that that should be put back on the list.

Upon making that statement I guess it is time for me to eat some grow. If you are doing the serving please serve highly season.

John F. Shireman

[Guest]

55Packardguy: The aluminum crankcase that was introduced on the 1904 Model L was cast in three pieces. Another new feature that was introduced on the Model L was a sliding gear three speed transmision. Which some historians consider the true introduction by Packard of the H slot gear selector pattern.

John F. Shireman