Packard Firsts???

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Thanks for the explanations, all !

I had never seen the '53 Balboa... as for the vacuum pump, this is starting to jog a memory from one of my shop manuals: was this a vane-type pump driven from the distributor/oil-pump shaft ?

[Guffin]

How does the self cleaning oil filter work??

Jan

[Guest Randy Berger]

Frank, my 57 Roadmaster 75 used same pump. It is an AC/Delco unit. Packard folks like to blame it for loss of oil pressure, but I personally doubt it.

The Buick didn't have a check valve in the vacuum line and when I redid all the vacuum connections it would suck up oil out of the crankcase while idling because the engine had greater vacuum than the pump. Then when I stepped on the gas to accelerate, that oil would be sucked into the intake and blow the prettiest blue smoke out the tail pipe. At a redlight, the guy behind me had to wait for the next green I disconnected the washer jar and that was enough of a vacuum leak to solve the oil problem. I did notice a nice oil slick in the washer jar. Glad I didn't use the washers

[R W Burgess]

Randy, should have hired out to Pittsburg as the town "Bug Surpresser"! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[Mike Cullen]

That would be a good setup on my Zephyr! Just fog 'em! That might keep tailgaiters, mostly younger folks back a bit. I really worry about that here because the tail/brake lights are so small. The teenagers here apparently don't know about hand signals, or that older cars don't have the super bright third brakelight.

[mrpushbutton]

Biggermike--you ought to look into some of these high intensity LED lightbulb replacements some folks are making for old cars. A lot of those stinkin' lincolns had teeny tail lights--these retro fits could give you some visibility and added safety.

[Mike Cullen]

Yeah, they are small, but... *insert humorous comment here*

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"First concept" or "first commercial use"?

Neither the custom-bodied Rolls-Royce nor the Balboa represent use on any commercial scale. I'd say Lincoln-Mercury, reinforced by the old Packard guys, had first volume production.

Hardtops go back to the Classic era if one-off bodies count.

This issue also arises in the very early cars, where an automaker may pioneer an item and use it on both cars he built (mild exaggeration).</div></div> bkazmer,

It sure does get sticky claiming to be first, doesn't it? People are defending the '53 Balboa as the first "reverse rear window" because it rolled up and down--but I can shoot that one down, too. It was supposed to give that impression, but it's pretty well documented (and photographed) that the window couldn't be moved.

So, who gets the credit? First idea, first use in mass production, or what? Hard to tell sometimes. And your point about one-off or two-off cars is well-taken. If you look hard enough, you might find the Hootermobile made in Bavaria in 1908 (total production 3 1/2 cars) really had the first roll-down reverse rear window... even though the car didn't run. So, should they be given credit? Or Lincoln-Mercury? Or Packard? Maybe that was the real Penalty of Leadership Cadillac was talking about (in an ad, BTW, that was "adapted" to promote more than one make!) Everybody comes out of the woodwork trying to prove you weren't the leader after all.

But these fine points are really part of the fun of discussing the origins of automobile inventions, I think--and now someone has seen a '53 Packard Balboa who never had seen one before! The icing on the cake...

Here's a caveat on claiming "firsts" from a very credible source:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Though it is a dangerouse course always to state categorically that someone was first with something--someone else might come along and discover an earlier "first"--it is not irresponsible to note the areas in which the Packard pioneered. 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> I think that's a pretty reasonable way to look at it. The window design of the Packard Balboa was the inspiration to others that was used for "years to come." Even re-surfacing in a milder (fixed) version in much later generations of the Mercury Cougar. It was an interesting design, although I never really cared for it in any of its applications... but so what? Somebody must have liked it.

[55PackardGuy]

Guffin,

Nice to hear from you again. How're things in Sweden?

Regarding the Self-Cleaning Oil Filter--I wish I knew how it worked. It showed up on more than one list, so I think it's legit.

This document has another list that shows the self-cleaning oil filter on pg 18. If you've got some time to do a download this is a good read:

www.packardsinternational.com/pdf/ahalloff.pdf

Perhaps someone can help us out on this question?

[Guffin]

Spring is here! My cars has been out in the sun. Yesterday I joined a sunrise car tour. 75 cars gathered early in the morning. Tomorrow I am going to a "old parts market" out at an old farm and on Sunday there is a big car meet in Stockholm.

The list at page 18 has been shortened somewhat. It is easy to state "first" when no year is given.

Jan

[55PackardGuy]

Ah, Spring is here too! I'm heading up to the northwoods very early in the morning Saturday (today, here, it is 12:05 a.m.) I slept until just about an hour age. Getting into maritime sleep schedule--4 hours on watch, 4 hours off. It's fun! I suppose you have the usual "land of the midnight sun" schedule--just stay up all the time until Winter! Your car tours sound exceptionally nice.

Yes, leaving the dates off makes a list of "firsts" a bit meaningless. That's why the items with no verifiable dates have been culled off the "new, improved" Packard "firsts" list.

Did you notice the last item on the list from the linked article? The Philips screw! I wonder if Packard actually patented that? We may begin another short list of Packard pioneering efforts that were not features of the cars--they had several of these too.

If anyone is interested in the article referred to above in the earlier post, it includes many automotive, air and marine records set by Packard, as well as much interesting history. The theme of the article is really a presentation nominating Alvin Macauley to the Automotive Hall of Fame:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Macauley arrived at Packard as General Manager in 1910. Although he retained the office of General Manager, by 1916 Mr. Macauley was elevated to President of the company, succeeding Col. Henry B. Joy. Mr. Macauley would retire as Chairman of the Board in 1948.</div></div>

The presentation starts in a very interesting way, showing the two Time magazine covers featuring Alvin Macauley--in Volume XIV Number 4, and many years later, in Volume 26, Number19. This is automotive history at its best!

The link again is

www.packardsinternational.com/pdf/ahalloff.pdf

I also received the kind permission of Packards International to use portions of their presentation in the "Packard Firsts" thread over on the Packard forum, where you can see the many Records that Packard set over the years on land, in the air, and on the water, as well as the Packard "Firsts" list that they have offered. (Post Number=339179)

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for updating us Guy.</div></div> There's more new stuff on the "Packard Firsts" thread over on the Packard forum, if anyone's interested in reading and/or contributing. We're starting to get into "firsts" that were internal events for Packard, including the first Pan American show car.

[8BALL_olson]

hey rw , where did you put the pet peeve list ? it was funny .

[R W Burgess]

8Ball, see private message.

Wayne

[55PackardGuy]

Hey Wayne,

Check out the last update on the "Packard Firsts" thread over on the Packard forum. I made some final tweaks and "ran it up the flagpole" amongst the Packard afitchianadoos, and while nobody saluted nobody complained either. Maybe it's pretty close to kosher. Suffice it to say, it's quite a bit shorter, but still very impressive.

Others, feel free to chime in with questions, comments, complaints (please no threats).

I'd rather not re-post the list here, because keeping track of feedback on two threads at once got to be more work than I care for (which is not much, I know, but call lazy if you want, just don't call me late for dinner nyuk-nyuk-nyuk).

There's really only one addition since the last posting here (and just about anything that received a peep of a complaint was taken out). The new entry is... and from no less an authority than Wikipedia... The aluminum automatic transmission case in 1956. Anyone got an earlier claim for that?

[R W Burgess]

Sounds good to me Guy. My family could never afford a Packard, so we were never experts with them. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[55PackardGuy]

HA! Who's an expert? Not me, especially if you ask a few of the fellas over on the Packard forum--I might as well be Sergeant Schulz for all they care. I know NOTHING!

As for being able to afford one, my Dad bought the '55 Clipper Custom in the fall of the year, at a big sell-off lot, not from a dealer. I believe he paid about $2000 for it, which was a somewhat pricey car back then, but I believe a new Chevy with all the bells and whistles could've been close to that.

We was poor people, but by golly we had a Packard. (Which didn't really mean anything in 1955, as Cadillac had stolen all the panache in most people's minds.)

Feel free to post your thoughts over on the Packard forum on the "Packard Firsts" thread (minus ???marks)--that goes for anybody else with a hankerin' to take issue with those uppity luxury car "experts."

[mlander]

Re-edited September 21-2006

It seems very peculiar that no mentioned that M. Houdaille (HOO-DYE) invented the double action HYDRALIC shock in about 1908 and then that no one put it on a car until about 1925 or so. Just what kinds of shocks were used on the Packard?

Weren?t they built by Delco/Lovejoy a division of General Motors? Also wasn't the Woderbar built by Delco?

M. Houdaille of France invented the Double Action Hydraulic shock in 1908 but the patents must have ran out in 1925 and in 1928 Ford put copies on the Model A on all four wheels. But it seems to be that the Houdaille didn?t get thermo control until 1939 on Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. Whereas GABRIEL made Rotary shocks about 1930 with thermostatic control. The control on the steering wheel seems a childish unnecessary unimportant appendage.

Stutz got Gabriel rotary HYDRALIC shocks I think about 1930 and were used in the 1930 Indy race. Tubular oleo direct action shocks were invented long before Houdaille but their use on cars was a long time off. The big problem with Hydraulic shocks seems to be the lack of proper self energizing seals, hydraulic oils and compounds for the seal made of compounds that could withstand the oils that Hydraulic shocks needed.

Gabriel Double Action Shocks were used on the Oakland Race Car # 38 in the 1930 Indy race. But nailing just when HYDRALIC shocks were used on an automobile is tough as the CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT is very short in this case. Some shocks may have been used on trains before their use on cars, does anyone know.

M.L. Anderson

Edit: Just how genuine is the claim of Packard about having the auto advance ignition system? The Delco system hadn?t even been invented. Therefore it almost had to be on a magneto? Many of these things listed here are really trivial things, such as the Wonder Bar radio.

M.L. Anderson

[mlander]

Packard first on the vacumm windshield wiper. I would like to believe that all the people who are somewhat following the Posts on Packard First should like that one. The electric wiper was invented in 1917 as stated below.

Now the question must be stated that if Packard is so clever, smart and progressive then why didn't they put electric wipers on their cars in 1918?

Another female automotive pioneer picked up where Anderson left off. Charlotte Bridgewood patented the first automatic windshield wiper in 1917. Her Electric Storm Windshield Cleaner was powered by the car's engine and relied on a series of rubber rollers, rather than blades.

[55PackardGuy]

mlander,

Can I persuade you to post these comments over on the Packard Forum in the "Packard Firsts" thread there? You'll also find the updated list of "trivia" that Packard engineered there, and also a few so-called Packard "enthusiasts" who seem to be as bent on negating or minimizing Packard engineering achievements as you are. Strange, but true...

[mlander]

ember

Reged: 11/19/03

Posts: 1256

Loc: Minnesota Re: Packard Firsts??? [Re: mlander]

#410382 - 09/22/06 10:33 PM

mlander,

Can I persuade you to post these comments over on the Packard Forum in the "Packard Firsts" thread there? You'll also find the updated list of "trivia" that Packard engineered there, and also a few so-called Packard "enthusiasts" who seem to be as bent on negating or minimizing Packard engineering achievements as you are. Strange, but true

Since this ?invitation? to post this over here in addition to the other place @ AACA here it is!

#9. First Hydraulic Shocks on an American car weren?t they Delco/Lovejoys? The only other way they could be first on a Packard is if they were Houdaille (Hoo-Dye). I think that if they were Delco?s it is necessary to add a notation just as was done on the Wonderbar radio.

Also on the first automatic spark advance it should be necessary to add that they didn?t make there own magneto, did they? Or just what kind of ignition system did they make/use. I?ll almost bet it was a magneto! None of the other ignition systems lasted as long as a snowball in a blast furnace! When the Delco system came out it blew away the other system almost overnight.

Please give me a page number for the ?discovery? as I have both books on Packard by Robert J. Neal

Ivan_Saxton

Member

Reged: 04/27/06

Posts: 30 Re: Packard "Firsts" [Re: Packard53]

#408672 - 09/16/06 08:09 AM

ohn you probably need to discuss Charles Greuter with Wayne Saunders of the Stutz Club, who authored the sidebar page on him in the Stutz book. People can only assume that he was responsible for the DV 32. If you go to the Stutz site, to a topic pertaining to changes in the OHC Eight engines, you will see why it is pretty certain that Lockhart was still around at the genesis of these. I have cast iron evidence of this here. Among my Twin six parts is most of a 1917 3rd series engine, of which someone stole the crankcase and sump. The pistons are cast iron. Motor for Jan 1921 lists cast iron pistons then too. I don't intend to check the piston material in my good engine till I start to restore it.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Mercer 6 cars</span> I am quite familiar with these, because my father used and dealt in war surplus. He and a partner owned around 200 Stuart, Lee, and Grant tanks at one stage. All the best, et cetera, Ivan

Houdaille (Hoo-dye) shocks were invented by this Frenchman in 1908. According to the best information I have they were double action and as I have no information on just who used them first on an actual car either in the U.S.A. or in Europe it would seem incredible that there is a discrepancy of some 19 years before hydraulic shocks were used on any car.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles01/article828.shtml

Additional information that may or may not be interesting about Houdaille below.

http://www.tocmp.com/manuals/Ford/Haudaille/index.html

http://www.aaca.org/publications/rummagebox/2005/winter/winter05c.htm

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcsuz/tl_shock.html

http://www.pierce-arrow.com/PDF%20files/...0Population.htm

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1940076

In 1925, Ralph Peo of the Houdaille Company in Buffalo, New York, U.S.A. invented a solution to the seal problem. Instead of improving the seal, he redesigned the damper to use a rotating piston rod and vane assembly, thus replacing long travel, sliding seal motion with a short 60-120 degree rotary travel. The Houdaille rotary damper was actuated by crank arms attached to the moving components of the suspension. The short rotary travel of the seal allowed for roughly 16,000 km of road travel before seal replacement was necessary. Within a short period, most automobiles were using the Houdaille rotary damper. Figure 8 is one of the original patent sheets depicting Peo?s 1925 invention.

Hydraulic shock absorbers -- M. Houdaille of France gets credit for designing the first workable hydraulic shock absorber in 1908. Hydraulic shocks dam spring oscillations by forcing fluid through small passages. In the popular tubular shock, a piston with small orifices is attached to the chassis and a cylindrical oil reservoir is attached to the suspension or axle. As the suspension moves up and down, the piston is forced through the oil, resisting the action of the spring.

One-way valves allow different orifices to be used to control suspension jounce and rebound. This is called a double-acting shock.

The Houdaille Corporation (U.S.A.) dates back to 1919 when a U.S. company was formed to manufacture a shock absorber invented by Maurice Houdaille, a French engineer. Just when Houdaille of Canada, Oshawa, Ontario was in force and if they manufactured Shocks I haven?t been able to find a reliable source. However I believe it was in 1929.

Marion L. Anderson

[Ivan Saxton]

The last post above has edited out some of what I put on this in the Packard section, without which it does not fully make sense. Cunningham used Houdaille shock absorbers in 1921 and possibly earlier. MOTOR for Jan 1921 still shows Mercer using friction Hartfords, but the 6 cyl Mercers in 1923 used Houdaille. Slightly later, Lancia patented hydraulic dampers that were an integral part of the pillar type independant front suspension in 1923. This same basic system was used right through till the last of the Aurelias in the 1950's.

I am attaching the relevant section starting page 287, volume III, Automobile Engineering from American Technical Society, 1924. This describes what was probably the first invention of automatic spark advance, several years before Packard independantly achieved the same thing. The importance of history is not so much dates, but the reason things happen. It is, or should be, to get things straight. It is not to promote or diminish. The other aspect that is probably inadvertantly edited out of what I contributed elsewhere, is that I questioned whether Charles Greuter may possibly have been the person responsible for the car described in Automobile Engineering, because he is reported as building a car about the same time that could match. Someone geographically closer might be able to access references which could determine who the designer in fact was.

"ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 287

Modern Electric Starting System Anticipated Sixteen Years.

Although it has only come into general use within the last few years, the possibilities of the electric starter on the automobile were foreseen at an early day. Those to whom it has appeared as a novel development of very recent adoption will doubtless be surprised to learn that a car embodying many of the features of present-day electrical systems was built in 1896. Indeed, the following description of it might well apply to the present U.S.L. system, which employs the flywheel type of dynamotor. The machine in question was a Diehl specially wound Gramme-ring type designed to operate at 12 volts. The armature, which weighed 111 pounds, served as the flywheel of a two-cylinder horizontal opposed 6- by 7-inch motor. The system was described as follows:

"The flywheel is constructed as a dynamo, which by rotary motion charges a storage battery carried in the vehicle. At the time of starting the carriage, the motorman turns a switch which discharges the storage battery through the dynamo, converting it for it few seconds into a motor, which, being upon the main crankshaft, gives rotation and does away with the necessity of starting the flywheel by hand. After the motor gives the crankshaft a few turns, the cylinders take up their work and the battery is disconnected from the dynamo, which then acts as a flywheel.

"The flywheel dynamo furnishes the current for the induction coil of the sparking mechanism as well as for the electric lamps at night, thus doing away with the necessity of going to a charging station. Attached to the crankshaft is a device for changing the point of ignition of the spark in the combustion chamber, perfectly controlling the point of ignition, acting as a `lead' and allowing the

motors to be operated at a variable speed, according to the work done."

From this it will be seen that as early as the spring of 1896, the

present complete electrical equipment of the automobile, including

ignition with automatic spark advance, electric lighting and starting,

was fully worked out and applied to an actual machine. It was

not until sixteen years later that what had been anticipated at such

an early day in the history of the automobile became accepted practice in all the essential points mentioned. In addition, the machine in question was provided with a magnetic clutch which automatically connected and disconnected the engine every time the gear-shifting lever was moved, thus anticipating the present-day electromagnetically operated gearbox."

Ivan Saxton

[R W Burgess]

Hey Guy, which posts do you want me to duplicate in the Packard Forum?

Wayne

[mlander]

Ivan, it doesn?t really make any difference whether or not the Mercer used Houdaille or used something else the point is that Packard did not have hydraulic shocks first and the person who claimed that they did was greatly in error and besides that Houdaille patented them in 1908. Just who used the Hydraulic shock first is immaterial as it is Houdaille that deserves the credit and not the car maker.

In the case of the Packard claim that the automatic advance system was used first before has little merit as it was a dead end system for cars at least. The system that took over as did the Delco system deserves the credit and all the previous ones were impractical or just not appropriate in view of other more needed advances. Did the men who made the Delco know about the previous systems and adapt them to their needs or were those systems just so far out in left field that no one knew about them and what might have been their impractical application.

As an aside just who invented the vacuum advance system? Same goes for the centrifugal advance.

Remember it is very difficult to make a practical automatic advance and retard system for a magneto.

Yours, M. L. Anderson

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Guy, which posts do you want me to duplicate in the Packard Forum?

Wayne</div></div> Well, things seem to be backing up into the General forum from over at Packard, now, so I don't know. Do whatever you think is best! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My hope (and yours, too, I think since you started the Packard Firsts??? thread over here on AACA General!) is to get input from more AACA members, but I'd like to direct the discussion over to the Packard forum so the latest update of the list is being used as a reference.

The whole thing comes down to getting as many (informed) voices heard as possible, yet keeping the list upkeep simple.

It might be easier for you to compare and contrast the postings from both threads, and add what hasn't been yet been posted over on the Packard Firsts (no question-marks) thread.

Does your Administrator pass make this any easier than having others decide what they'd like to move and "copy/paste" them over there as new posts?

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember it is very difficult to make a practical automatic advance and retard system for a magneto.</div></div> Maybe that's why the company that did it first <span style="font-style: italic">in a production car</span> deserves some credit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As an aside just who invented the vacuum advance system? Same goes for the centrifugal advance.</div></div> Glad you asked: "The [1902 Packard] Model G engine ... was described in <span style="font-style: italic">The Horseless Age</span> as 'a horizontal, opposed double cylinder of 24 horse power ... Each cylinder of the engine has a separate carburetor, and the timing of the spark is done by a centrifugal governor, which revolves with the cam shaft and shifts the two ignition cams.'" -Packard, A History of the Motor Car and the Company, page 60.

The original Packard automatic spark advance was a centrifugal system.

mlander,

When you start re-defining terms to suit, you can negate just about any engineering innovation as something that "has little merit as it was a dead end system for cars" or that another, favored manufacturer "deserves the credit" because "all the previous ones were impractical or just not appropriate in view of other more needed advances."

OK, so using your logic I'll say Delco doesn't deserve ANY credit for their spark advance system because "it's just not appropriate in view of the needed advances" of electronic ignition. You can call almost anything "a dead end system" using your logic.

BTW, if you want to malign a group of automotive engineers, I'd suggest you pick a safer target than Packard, which was widely recognized throughout its history as an industry leader--by their competitors as well as the engineering community at large.

[Ivan Saxton]

What I find interesting in this sort of discussion in the gradual clarification through the contribution of people's references and personal experiences. I would maintain that it is relevant to mention the makes of cars that featured any particular invention earlier than Packard claims.

I was not aware of the origins of Houdaille. I have never seen them on pre- WW1 French cars out here. One of my friends, Stuart Middlehurst, a number of different Hispano Suizas, including a French-built Alphonso. Stuart's cars are now well dispersed, and there are 8 Hispanos restored or being restored from what he had, including two V8 aero-engined hotrods. (One of these Jay Leno now owns and drives, and I have a photo of the 5litre Barcelona chassis frame loaded on the tow vehicle

on the 1965 trip when we collected it. The car on the trailer was the first of the four Mercers I have.) I used to go round to help Stuart with his restorations when I came home for weekends from University. I honestly cannot remember what shock absorbers his original 37.2 had, though I worked on it, and one year when he was in Europe he parked it in my garage with instructions to use it. I had the money to have bought it about that time, but, brakes aside, I found it disappointing in feel and performance compared to my 1918 L-head Mercer. The only really big high-class early French

car that I knew of in Australia was a 6 cylinder Gobron-Brillie (12 pistons and about 10litres), but that was sold overseas before I saw it. The rotary vane Houdailles definintely date from well before the 1925 quoted. Mercer definitely used them in 1923, and I don't have earlier reference toCunningham using them than MoToR for Jan 1921.

Probably most of the early cars before the high voltage magneto used low voltage or trembler coil type with mechanical contact timer. (When Harrahs had a big Thomas and a 66hp Pierce arrow in Australia in 1970 for the FIVA Rally, I remember when I met Bud Catlett again in Canberra he had run the Pierce the first two days on the trembler coils because the magneto timing was out. He appeared to be having trouble with re-timing the magneto, so I offered to help work out how it should be from first principles. He let me do it, and of course it was spot on when he started it on the trembers and switched over to magneto. I actually think he was "trying me out," because he got me to examine a couple of cars they were offered later on.

There were magnetos with automatic advance. The problem was the centrifugal advance mechanism made the magneto longer. I have two pre 1914 Eisemans like this. You can tell by looking at the right chassis rail of a four cylinder Napier whether it originally had a manual advance Bosch or an automatic advance Eiseman, because they had to cut away a bit of the top flange to make enough room to fit it. This one change brought a change in Type number of the car! The first magnetos I ever had practical experience with had centrifugal automatic advance. The Wright Whirlwind engines had twin magnetos, either Bendix, or Bosch, which we preferred. I did a top end rebuild of one of these R975's when I was a teenager, including fitting the Bosch mags from a blown engine, and fitted it into a tank that was later sold. That same engine is still in a "tractor-pull" "tractor". I still have new engines in their boxes, built to aircraft standards; and they are supreme items of mecanical sculpture.

I could not lay hands on the only Delco distributer I have for the 1913 Cadillac when I went to look last night (should have two). There is a disticct bulge in the cast iron body, so I am certain that it has centrifugal advance.

As to vacuum advance, I have no personal experience as the cars when this came in are far too modern, and I didn't like them as much. (I do have modern Lancias, though). The earliest references I have in a big National Tune-up Manual is 1932 for Ford (Mallory), and Chev in 1933 with Delco-Remy. Chrysler didn't use it till 1936, and Cadillac and Packard apparently were not really convinced about it. (My book only goes to 1938). The interesting thing about the Ford Mallory one is that it used a piston rater than a diaphragm. I have no idea what the Europeans did across the pond from you.

Ivan Saxton

[55PackardGuy]

Ivan,

Thanks for the informative post. Personal experience counts for a lot, even though it doesn't always get into books, many a hands-on enthusiast can report: "I saw it." Also, people who worked in dealerships often post about experiences that can't always be verified elsewhere, even in factory literature, and I bet they've often got the correct information.

I think that most U.S. manufacturers (and probably others in the world) claimed to be "first" with an item when they actually offered it on their regular production runs before the competition did. The major manufacturers probably were pretty well aware of what their competitors were doing, and touted what they were doing different or what was "new" on their cars and not offered elsewhere to the general public.

This, I think, is the main source of lists of "firsts" attributed to any particular marque. Often, especially in early years, this meant "first in the U.S." for companies in this country, although they didn't always make that distinction. Also in early years, they might have qualified it as "first among major manufacturers" because they often couldn't know what somebody else had just made in a one-off or limited production run of cars.

So, it's not always black and white, and as you say, it leads to "interesting discussion and gradual clarification," <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the reasons I started the "Packard Firsts" thread. Unfortunately, it sometimes results in "vehement arguments and stubborn oneupmanship" amongst some individuals.

One thing that might help, and I really tried to do this early on in the discussion of "Packard Firsts," is to set some reasonable criteria for making the claim of "first." Qualifiers such as:

"First application in a production vehicle"

"First offered as standard equipment"

"First in U.S."

"First patent"

"First among major manufacturers"

Etc. etc.

This is probably best done by qualifying individual items on the list as they fit certain criteria. The main thing is that they identify the manufacturer as forward-looking and innovative in their industry, being first to market with many practical advancements, some of which become "industry standard" in short order.

Without some kind of qualifying criteria, discussion of a list such as this can turn into a search for minutiae and an interminable back-and-forth about what, exactly, the item is. For instance: What is a rumble seat? became one such argument. What is a station wagon (for Pete's sake) became another. What constitutes a full torsion bar suspension--this last finally had to be described as a "fully interconnected 4-wheel torsion bar suspension" to qualify to meet the standards of the "review board" of the Packard Firsts list.

But, it's good to clarify terms and discuss the significance and true precedence of a technological advance. Even though the topic of "who did it first" lends itself to controversy, it should still be possible to discuss these things as items of interest and an opportunity for all to learn something about automobiles.

Thanks for your input. Hope to continue this discussion over on the Packard forum.

If you like, I can ask Mr. Burgess to post your last response over there. I think it would contribute a lot to a thoughtful interchange.

[mlander]

8. Hypoid Ring gear and pinion wheelsl (1925).

Not challenged.

In view of the fact that Gleason was at this time the worlds foremost

manufacturer of Gear grinding/cutting machinery does this stand up to a thorough and complete examination of ?First? after all it doesn?t even state that they may have been the first to use Gleason equipment to make Hypoid ring gears and pinion wheels. I would like to know just what Gleason has to say about this. But then again they may not want to annoy any of their present customers although Packard is obviously not one of them.

The Packard ?First? should state also that they used Gleason equipment and knowledge to make these ring gears/pinion wheels and if Packard did not use Gleason equipment just what did they use? One of these statements of firsts originally even included the statement that Packard made the machinery, didn't it???

Firsts should include the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, shouldn't it?

Yours, M.L. Anderson

[Ivan Saxton]

Guy, you are welcome to transfer what I write or have written as you deem useful or appropriate.

Concerning what the Mr Gleason who was involved in the forties, (according to what Morris Burrows told me), you might not like to know exactly whatever he said. In 1980, Morris invited me to participate in the Glidden Tour in his 1914 Mercer 35 O ruabout, with he and Libby. I learned that during the War, Morris had worked in the Fellowes Gear Shaper factory in Springfield, Vermont, as his patriotic duty. He said that Mr Fellowes and Mr Gleason were great friends, despite the fact that Mr Fellowes was a very proper, church-going New England gentleman, who never liked to hear, and certainly never used bad language. By contrast he said, much of what Mr Gleason said was quite contrasting and perhaps censorable! Yet they got along together fine.

Aside from hypoid crownwheel pinion, it would be interesting to know who used spiral bevel first in rear axles. The AQ Packard book seems to indicate that these were claimed to be an exclusive Packard feature in 1913. I tried to look up Gleason history, but it seems to have little internet presence. However, Kate Gleason's trip to europe resulted in sale of much of their equipment there.

I have an unuseable spiral bevel crownwheel from my 1911 Lancia Delta. The curious thing about this is the mistake. It was made so the spiral tended to pull the pinion closer int mesh, instead of pushing the gears apart. The combination radial and thrust ball races used were a problem at best which almost certainly caused the demise of many of these cars. The reverse spiral would not have helped. People who have tried to roll-start loaded trucks in reverse have lifted teeth off their crownwheel! It is getting a bit away from Packard, but Kate Gleason must have been about the first career woman in engineering. There were career women back a while before that. My mother's great grandmother went to the Crimea War as one of the pioneer nurses, leaving her two young children behind in England in the 1850's! (She was a friend of Florence Nightingale). I am sorry the last four lines are not relevant, but they are interesting perhaps to some.

Ivan Saxton

[55PackardGuy]

Well mlander, I think your friends at Delco should probably credit somebody else for their accomplishments too. Nothing is created in a vacuum, except maybe... well, no, I won't say that. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[55PackardGuy]

... and the Gleason name lives on! Interesting that it was a female engineer who was so instrumental in what was a man's field (engineering) in a man's industry-- automobiles.

The historical discussion of various engineering topics is what helps make a "firsts" list something more than an exercise in boosterism or an endless rehashing of minutiae. And the list itself sort of represents "living history" as legitimate new information is brought to light.

In spite of all the previous hoopla about who cut what gears for whom, Packard's reason for touting the "hypoid" differential was not just about quieter gears, but almost more important, it was about decreased center of gravity facilitated by the lower driveshaft, allowing designers to decrease body height without interfering with the driveshaft. It was all about <span style="font-style: italic">sound practical application of an engineering feature</span> that directly benefited the motoring public. That's what Packard engineers often accomplished, and why they were respected in the industry-- even if it seems they "don't get no respect" from some quarters now!

By the way, what exactly would I not want to hear that Mr. Gleason said? And how exactly was Mr. Gleason related to Kate Gleason, if at all?

[Guest]

55Packardguy: Lets go to number 8 on the Packard First list. From the research that I have been able to do on Packard the introduction of the aluminum crankcase was in May of 1915 with the introduction of the Twin Six. Which is suppose to be an automtoive industry first. If you can find an earlier date when Packard used an alumimum crankcase on their engines please let me know.

In December 1908 Marmon annouced that they were coming out with a new car the modle 32. This car was introduced to the public sometime in 1909. The modle 32 was powered by a 4 cylinder engine which is water cooled. The engine was tandem cylinder block with integral heads, the blocks were mounted on an ALUMINUM CRANKCASE. The model 32 Marmon was in production until 1914.

The source of this information ANTIQUE AUTOMOBILE JULY-AUGUST edition 1978 volume 42 number 4. Article appears on pages 32 through page 42. Article written by George P Hanley. If the information that I have posted is in error pleae let me know, and give your source of information that would show that I am in error.

Maybe this should be removed from the list as it takes away from the history of Marmon and what they accomplished. Leaving this on the list only leads to giving a false inflated impression of Pakcard.

John F. Shireman