Hi

I never met Ed Cummingham either, but greatly enjoyed the anecdotes he related of his Packard years. They brought to life the day-to-day joys and woes we could only imagine. That he shared them with Packard and CCCA members was generous and reveals what a true gentleman he was. His great sense of humor came through in all his writing. The tale of developing color names, including Parthenon White still never fails to make me laugh.

So, farewell Mr. Cummingham, you done good!

Steve

Hi Su8overdrive

"Father" 58L8134 here! Thanks for the torque specification additions you've researched, I'll add them to my list for reference. Thanks also for your realistic, well-reasoned assessment of how Packard's position deteriorated with settling management complacency.

Your statement ".....just being "better than" Buick, or sorta/maybe/almost as good as Cadillac, Chrysler wasn't what the car formerly known as the American Rolls-Royce was all about." is as succinct a statement of their decline as I've ever read, wished I'd written it myself!

I, too, can stand the brickbats should they be hurled my way, since they're just hard-won personal opinions after much study. Opposing viewpoints always considered as long as they're thoroughly reasoned and presented in a civil manner.

When the scales of idealism for a marque fall away, surprisingly, one's preference and respect for it actually deepens.

Steve

Hi

Simply, within the Curtiss-Wright Joint Management agreement, the Utica engine plant was one of the spoils among others that C-W extracted for the $35M in '57 operating capital that S-P received to keep them going. S-P was in dire financial condition all the way from early '56 right through the forth quarter of '58 when the Lark began to sell. They couldn't afford to even bring the Packard engine tooling to South Bend for production or much of anything else for that matter. To say the corporation survived by the skin of their teeth would be to make understatement.

Possibly a Detroit Packard engine might have helped sales though most buyers recognized the '57 Clippers as part and parcel Studebakers, engine notwithstanding, something they had previously dismissed as unacceptable as when considering a new car. The price premium over the Studebaker President was hard to justify. They also had the badge-engineered Hudson "Hash" as an example of what would become of their resale value in the used car market.

At the time, the news magazine business pages reported S-P's financial troubles on a weekly basis. No one wanted to be stuck with an orphan when the company went out of business as all rumors seem to indicate. That avoidance of such cars made the rumors a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Steve

Hi Peter

Here's the table I was able to gather from my sources. If anyone has other Classic Era torque specifications, please feel free to add them. They're a good standard to consider when pondering how Classics compared with their contemporaries.

Pre-War Torque, 1940-41 Statistics
1953 Chilton Flat Rate Manual, Engine Specification Section

Packard Twelve...............473 ci.....366 lb/ft @ 1400 rpm
Cadillac Sixteen..............431 ci.....324 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm
Lincoln K V-12................414 ci.....312 lb/ft @ 1200 rpm

Packard 8 160/180..........356 ci.....292 lb/ft @ 1800 rpm
Cadillac V-8....................346 ci.....283 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm
Chrysler 8......................323 ci.....260 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
LaSalle 50, 52, V-8.........322 ci......---- lb/ft @ ------ rpm
Buick 8..........................320 ci.....280 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm

Lincoln H V-12................292 ci......235 lb/ft @ 1800 rpm

Packard 8 120................282 ci.....225 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm

Nash Ambassador 8........261 ci.....200 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
Oldsmobile 90 8..............257 ci.....200 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Hudson 8.......................254 ci.....198 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
Studebaker President 8...250 ci.....195 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Buick 40, 50 8................248 ci.....210 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Pontiac 28, 29, 8............248 ci.....175 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm

Note the relatively moderate rpms at which these engine developed maximum torque. And those rpms fall right into the meat of the highway speed driving range, which made those cars with high torque at lower rpms so satisfying to drive.

Steve

Sorry I couldn't find the LaSalle torque statistics in my sources. Anyone have them?
.

Posted on: 2/24 16:47:01

Hi

Interesting discuss of the comparative merits of '40's engines. While HCC benchmarked with the horsepower ratings, in that era of lower compression engines operating on lower octane fuels, torque was perhaps as valid a standard for comparison. To wit:

Pre-War Torque, 1940-41 Statistics
1953 Chilton Flat Rate Manual, Engine Specification Section

Packard Twelve...............473 ci.....366 lb/ft @ 1400 rpm
Cadillac Sixteen..............431 ci.....324 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm
Lincoln K V-12................414 ci.....312 lb/ft @ 1200 rpm

Packard 8 160/180..........356 ci.....292 lb/ft @ 1800 rpm
Cadillac V-8....................346 ci.....283 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm
Chrysler 8......................323 ci.....260 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
LaSalle 50, 52, V-8.........322 ci......---- lb/ft @ ------ rpm
Buick 8..........................320 ci.....280 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm

Lincoln H V-12................292 ci......235 lb/ft @ 1800 rpm

Packard 8 120................282 ci.....225 lb/ft @ 1700 rpm

Nash Ambassador 8........261 ci.....200 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
Oldsmobile 90 8..............257 ci.....200 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Hudson 8.......................254 ci.....198 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm
Studebaker President 8...250 ci.....195 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Buick 40, 50 8................248 ci.....210 lb/ft @ 2000 rpm
Pontiac 28, 29, 8............248 ci.....175 lb/ft @ 1600 rpm

Note the relatively moderate rpms at which these engine developed maximum torque. And those rpms fall right into the meat of the highway speed driving range, which made those cars with high torque at lower rpms so satisfying to drive.

Steve

Sorry I couldn't find the LaSalle torque statistics in my sources. Anyone have them?

Hi Adressler

Welcome! Welcome! Welcome to the world of quality cars! I'm delighted to read about your acquisition of a '56 Clipper hardtop, especially since you are 20 years old! You're the future of the collector car hobby! We 'mature' enthusists are begining to realize were won't be around forever, therefore need to encourge the next conservators of our prized cars and memorabilia to carry on after we can no longer.

Glad you started a project blog for us to follow along on your progress. You'll find a wealth of generous help and accurate advice here and on the PAC Forum websites, so ask away anything and everything you think of and need to.

When you can, please become a member of the Packard Automobile Classics (PAC) and it's Keystone Region. Both are fine sources of information, advice, parts and, best of all, encouragement and community with other Packard folks. The club is welcoming and quite active, especially so east of the Mississippi.

Don't overlook the Packards International (PI) club either, they're a fine group, as our webmaster demonstrates, as enthusiastic and helpful as any group of enthusiasts you could meet. Both groups seek to preserve and perpetuate all that Packard was and is.

So, welcome again, looking forward to watching your Clipper project progress!

Steve

Hi Acolds

Bravo for taking this important step to ensure the brakes are always functioning. This is a major issue with me, having experienced the sudden loss of brakes on an old car, fortunately not catastrophically.

Would you be willing to write up a detailed, step-by-step description of your process and parts and make it available additionally on the Packard Club and the Studebaker Drivers Club Forum Technical sections?

This would be a tremendous service for the ongoing safety of all Studebakers and South Bend Packard owners and their cars. Many would gladly retrofit their cars if they had information and guidance by someone who has successfully done so.

Thanks for sharing this important safety change information.

Steve

Hi Ramon

Ground! Good, heavy, grounds! Good, clean, tight bare metal-to metal grounds! Frequently when your problem arises in an old car, turns out the ground cable has been replaced with a new one of inadequate gauge to do the job.

It's the inexpensive fix to try first before you move onto more costly ones. I've seen it take care of the problem multiple times. Hope this is the cure!

Steve

Hi

Save a few thousand, have a Clipper you can enjoy right now and have a hardtop to boot:

http://omaha.craigslist.org/cto/2632495245.html

Steve

Hi

Found this on the SDC Forum, not as distilled as jaxed was, seems to use Google to do the job:

http://www.allofcraigs.com/2009/08/search-all-of-craigslist.html?cof=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=active&q=packard&cx=partner-pub-9413604915893153:o8xsd8d7h7s&as_oq=inurl:ctd%20cto&sa=Search&as_q=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_qdr=a&as_epq=&as_eq=#1742

Enjoy!

Steve