Guest BigKev Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Ok here is a topic to spark a little discussion:If you could have changed one thing about how Packard was designed, put together, or something that they should have done to your car, what would it be? Let leave out any company politcal aspects of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 higher final drive ratio - by the early 1930's, SOME manufacturers recognized the advantages of an additional 'high speed' gear ratio for long distance high speed driving. Sure Packards could go fast with the gearing they had. but how much better they would have been, if they had higher (lower numerically) final drive ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Speedster Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 How can you change something that is Perfect? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> No, really, Where do I start? The '29 and '37 both need adjustable front seat and the '56 Clipper needs a power adjust front seat. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Morbius Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Hey SafeT - The roads in the '20's & '30's were made for upper speeds of 40 , maybe 50 mph tops. The Packard gearing was designed for the times !!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ...........Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 My prime area of interest is 1956. Keeping that thought in mind, Packard should have mounted the pushbutton mechanism forward on the side of the tranny rather than the cumbersome spot they chose. I'll leave the oil pump to others to express their opinion. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />Great idea for a thread - thank you Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardi Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 A minor change, but I believe a worth while one, would be to use a foot operated parking brake. That would do away with the "knee knocker" that disengages whenever I get into the car. It would also provide enough leverage to really lock the rear wheels to keep stress off the parking pawl when parking on a hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Cup holders and a front seat arm rest. Lighted ash trays. More head room in rear seat (56 Exec). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I agree with the others above, but here's a really nit picky one that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think: The accelerator pedal needs to be angled from 12-noon to about 1:30PM position. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />Bernardi's right about the pull E-brake handle. I think I'll put a foot actuated E-brake in my Panther. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I have to redo the whole cable linkage anyway because of the rear disc brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigKev Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 The change I would wish for is that the front spindles were more "universal" so we could do an easy Disc Brake swap using junk yard parts. I know I am asking alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Morbius Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 You know your asking alot ........... maybe the whole universe!!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> .......Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 RE : your comment about road speeds and rear axle ratiosYour comment ignores the fact that several other makers of luxury cars starting in the early 30's had overdrives or two-speed rear ends, that cut the engine speed by a THIRD. As many of you know, a bone stock 1935 Packard Eight (as in "standard eight", meaning 320 cu in, the SMALLEST and LEAST powerful of the "senior" Packards of that era) was still able to go over 90 mph for something like 25,000 mi. in a high speed endurance run, done during an auto show as a demonstration of the dramatic improvement in durability made possible by the introduction of "insert" type connecting rod bearings (try that with the earlier poured babbit bearings and in about 20 mins. you will be parked at the side of the road with a broom trying to get all the sharp fragments of what USED to be your crankcase, off the road).Obviously, as good an engine as the "standard eght" was, and as good a "buy" the car was for the money, imagine what the larger-engined Packards of that era COULD have done had they had overall final drive" ratios of the competition.The Pierce and Auburn 12's had over-drives and/or two speed rear axles, and did over 120 mph. Somewhere I saw an article that the "Packard Monkey Works" (the "experimental division) actually did, for a "stunt", put one of the left-over "high speed" rear axle gear sets into a '32 V-12, and "raced a golf ball", beating the golf ball's 122 mph speed.Now - where was I - oh, yes, Packard's experiment with a high speed (meaning low numerical gear) rear axle, as early as 1930. Of COURSE it was logical - made sense if you are an engineer (or "car buff" of more recent eras).But - WHO was buying Packards in the 1930's ? Mostly OLD RICH PEOPLE, that's who. As in VERY conservative, and generally ignorant about automotive technology. A STOCK geared Packard V-12 will barely squeak up to 100 mph, and the engine is SCREAMING at that speed.Packard KNEW its customers. Most did NOT want to shift at all. They demanded sprightly performance at LOW speeds in HIGH gear. Since Packard was selling TEN or MORE of its luxury cars for every car Pierce, Cadillac, and Lincoln, they obviously knew their market, even tho road speeds were climbing rapidly as the roads improved.You can get a Greyhound bus to start from a dead stop in high gear using a small motorcycle engine, if you "gear" it low enough !Somewhere there is an article about the fury Packard dealers had over the "high speed" equipped Packards - the customers complained they actually had to shift gears ! The "high speed" "pumpkins" were pulled out of the cars, and the standard MUCH lower gear-sets (typically 4:41 and 4:69 - even higher numerically (lower gear ratio) rear end gears were available.Yes - I agree with the "post" about an adjustable front seat - the Formal Sedan body styles did not have that feature up thru the end of production of the "real" Seniors, when the plant was re-built in late '39. Quite annoying not to have an adjustable front seat.Oh yes - I would like to have a time machine, and stick coco-nut in it, send him back to the Packard factory, heavily armed and sober, so he could take over the place. Betcha I wouldn't be making fun of the 50's Packards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Speedster Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes - I agree with the "post" about an adjustable front seat - the Formal Sedan body styles did not have that feature up thru the end of production of the "real" Seniors, when the plant was re-built in late '39. Quite annoying not to have an adjustable front seat. </div></div> But they had Great Storage areas under those seats, didn't they? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />Good place to keep the 'ol White-Lightnin jugs. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> They knew what was important back then. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipper47 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I honestly can't think of one thing that would improve the 1947 Super Clipper with what was available at the time. This was one car that Packard got right! beautiful styling, superb interior , comfortable and roomy, excellent road manners, a silent reliable 9 main bearing engine with overdrive. What more could anyone ask for in 1947? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 a Hydramatic...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Albert Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 A Six speed automatic... or a GM 350 type bell housing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K8096 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 For 1955: an oil pump that didn't fail & a better transmission.For 1937 Packard Twelve: cast iron heads like the earlier years had instead of aluminum heads which corrode & are impossible to get off. Another thing I would have changed on the Twleve is the manifolding. I would not have the exhaust manifold "under" the intake. I know back then they were trying to heat up the air/gas mixture to get the cars to run right with the low octane gas of the times, but if the manifolding were such that the exhaust & intake were not so close together people might not have the vapor lock problems with them today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kevin AZ Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Three cheers for Packard and what they did accomplish! (many, many firsts as I recall from prior posts and from reading the Kimes book etc.) Without them I wonder what in the HE double tooth-pick Craig would be rebuilding for me up in Las Vegas? (Please tell me not a ....!)But since the questions was asked, how about door configurations for hardtops like those on extra cab pickups; so as to make it easier for us baby-boomers to get in and out? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkazmer Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 A clutch or tensioner in the pre-war air conditioners' compressor drive to allow them to be turned on and off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 there is a simple solution to the problem you pointed out on alum. cyl. heads. When you assemble them, coat the head-gaskets with a heavy gear oil (90-140W) and each stud should be coated with a marine wheel bearing grease.Then, re-torque the heads when cold, several times for the next few thousand miles.With the oil on the gaskets, they will "crush/slip" down to a snug fit without a DROP of goopy sealer, and with the grease on the studs 1) the studs will not "weld" to the cyl. head material, AND 2) with grease on the threds of the studs, you won't get thread "friction drag"; instead, you will be able to "torque down" to the exact correct torque value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipper47 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a Hydramatic...! </div></div>Peter, I thought of the Hydramatic on the Clipper as it would have been a better choice than the Electro-matic for sure but since I prefer a manual trans anyway I am not disappointed with Packard for not offering an automatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 For Clipper:Of COURSE we both prefer manual transmissions. That is because we are a couple of car nuts!THINK...again..WHO was buying expensive Packards in those years. People who wanted what THAT era's definition of luxury was. The availability of Hydramatic was a tremendous selling point, so great that within a couple of years, the market for manual transmissions was so low Cad. stopped offering it, and the Hydramatic became standard.The failure of Packard to be true to its REPUTATION and have a competitive product says everything about why Packard failed a few short years later. Of COURSE you and I think the 356 cu. in. engined Packards were slick. Why, a couple of years later, they combined a SMALLER less powerful motor with that sluggish Ultramatic, dramatically REDUCING performance from what your '47 could do, (when the rest of the luxury industry was hell bent to IMPROVE performance, is unexplainable unless they had a "death wish").So - what is the point in noting what you and I prefer - if it were 1947, and you and I were looking for a new car, we'd both be making tracks for the Packard agency. But, the rich old duffers who HAD supported Packard, were going in increasing numbers to Cadillac. And that is all I have to say about that...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipper47 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok here is a topic to spark a little discussion:If you could have changed one thing about how Packard was designed, put together, or something that they should have done to your car, what would it be? Let leave out any company politcal aspects of it. </div></div>Message for Safe-T-Flex.Thanks for your thoughts about the buying preferences of the car buying public in 1947 but that wasn't the question was it? I would still not change one thing about my car except in afterthought it would be nice to be able to control the heat/defrost level from inside the car if I were ever to use it in the winter. For a luxury car to have no heat control except by use of the valve on the cylinder head in 1947 seems a archaic for the period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigKev Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Could you use a quick open ball valve to replace the existing valve, and a something like a choke knob that has a sleeved cable on it. You could mount the knob under the dash or in the glove box, and the route the cable to the ball value. Not original but would give you quick on/off control. I am sure someone has already thought of something similar or offered a kit for doing this. I'm just flying blind here.Just trying to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipper47 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Kev, Never bothered to worry about it since I just use the car in the summer but thanks for the suggestion. It seems odd that Packard of all companies would not have a knob or lever to adjust heat. As I recall my dads old 48 Ford had a in dash control but could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Speedster Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Hey, didn't you know that if you drive a Vintage car, you're Not supposed to have all those Nansy-Pansy Easy-Living items. You're supposed to endure those hardships and take them in stride. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Stiff upper-lip and all that Rot. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeTFlex Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 For Clipper - re: your comment about the lack of a hot water control valve.Just to under-score my point about Packard "dropping the ball", my '41 Cadillac had full thermostatic cabin heat control. Set it to the temp you want, and forget it. And, 1941 may NOT have been Cad.'s first year for that. Things like that come to the attention of the new car buyer.(but I'd still be right behind you (if not way ahead of you )..on my way to a Packard dealer if it were 1947 ! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipper47 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Hey, didn't you know that if you drive a Vintage car, you're Not supposed to have all those Nansy-Pansy Easy-Living items. You're supposed to endure those hardships and take them in stride. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Stiff upper-lip and all that Rot. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>Rahthere! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now