Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

I don?t know which was the first car with tubeless tires in Europe, but I remember the fintail Mercedes of the early 60ies was with tubes and the S-class starting 1965 was without. The wheels got the index "H2" for two humps.

In my collection the youngest tube type wheel is a 1973 Mille-Miglia Mercedes after market LM that does have no humps... you must use a tube in it to keep the tire on the rim. The Landrover Defender used tube type wheels as one of the last in the world. You could drive offroad with low pressure without the risk loosing the tire.

Attach file:

---

  (331.54 KB)

I'm guessing the large 5/8 tire stem ( for tubeless) was a transition period, a CARRY OVER, of evolving from tube type to tubeless.

It is always easier and more convenient to put the responsibility on others rather than accept it as yours.
Parts and tire valves for a 70 year old cars are not to be expected to be readily available or in stock at service garages. Try going to your local GM dealer for front end work on your 49 Caddy and finding they have nothing to repair the king pins let alone the knee action shocks.

Missing a car show is not the responsibility of Diamondback or your local tire shop, it's just life. Boy Scout motto :Be Prepared.

Fred Kanter, Owen Dyneto, HH56 and Big Kev, give sound advice. I've posted all this before, repeatedly, and wonder why people don't bother doing a cursory search in the box provided.
Here again: Diamond Back vulcanizes whitewalls on a Yokohama RY215 LT 7.00 x 15 radial. Until the early aughts, Michelin produced an identical spec tire, as did Bridgestone (R230), the latter what I run on my '47 Super Clipper.

It's unfortunate that so few 1941-on Buick, Cad, Chrysler Saratoga/New Yorker, Hudson Commodore 8, Packard owners took advantage of the Michelin and Bridgestone 7.00 x 15 radials which in the win-win-win bargain, being bias-sized, look right in our wheel openings.

Make no mistake, a l l the other radials offered for '40s cars, 215/225/235-15, are SUV tires. These are also "light truck (LT)" tires because such SUVs are built on, essentially, pick up chassis. If you think these look right, you're conning yourself.

I run vastly less than the maximum inflation pressure below, wishing to be easy on my suspension components. Related topic, as it directly impinges on tire capacity: Why is "weight is the enemy" such an alien concept here? Admittedly, I'm a sports car guy who got sidetracked by 1940-47 overdrive Packard 8s & Super-8s on the short/standard wheelbase, and see these barouches as road cars, arguably the best from either side of the Atlantic in those years, luxe as they are. I've shaved over 100 lbs. deadweight from my car, and the driver follows Drs. Neal Barnard/Joel Fuhrman. 42 psi cold works fine for most fellows across the nation running these bias-sized radials on 160/180/Super/Custom Super Clippers, and perhaps an even 40 psi'd be fine.

Below are the specs of the Yokohama tire Diamond Back vulcanizes a whitewall upon, and again, Michelin & my Bridgestone 7.00 x 15 radials are identical specification.

But first, re: whitewalls, again: We like what we like. I ran my '47 senior Clipper with whitewalls (and without skirts) for years. But those of you who are still concerned about clipboard-wielding martinets at some concours -- themselves historically correct & having nothing to do with the originals in 1920s and '30s Europe -- no 1946-47 cars regardless make/model/price were delivered with whitewalls. A very few during the final month or so of the '47 model year might've been, but that's it. It doesn't matter what JimBob told you at the local show and shine, or revisionist history, Fox "News" kinda wishful thinking you read in some downhome old car publication.

So the CCCA/PAC 100-point 1946-47 cars with whitewalls and gloss black engine accessories are -- do not kid yourselves -- strictly a triumph of ego/personal taste over historic accuracy.

Like some of you longtime Packardites, I've "fine-tuned" my car--little that couldn't be done in the day, no butchering whatsoever, easily returned to bone stock --- but like most genuine autoholics, long since graduated from the janitorial tournaments.

Finally, we're dumbfounded by those berating Fred Kanter. Fred and his brother Dan were Lehigh University engineering grads, James Ward Packard's alma mater. Packard's first car, a Model A completed November 6th, 1899, is still on display in its own booth in the Lehigh Univ. lobby. Fred's owned myriad Packards, pre and postwar, junior and senior, over the past half century plus, knows and stocks every part. It's just possible that Fred, and Owen Dyneto, a retired chemist, know what they're talking about.

Ok, "Diamond Back's" 7.00 x 15 radial specs:

Yokohama RY215 D
SIZE 7R15LT
UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade)
MAX.LOAD 2,040 lbs.
Max. Inflation Pressure 65 psi
Tread Depth 13/32"
Tire Weight 32 lbs.
Rim Width Range 5-6.5"
Meas. Rim Width 5.5"
Sect. Width 7.7"
Tread Width 4.9"
Overall Diam. 29.4"
Revs. Per Mile 706
Country of
Origin Japan


ps. Those of you taking umbrage at the company of manufacture, I hear tell Japan's our ally now. Despite the Anglo-sounding name, Bridgestone, a Japanese company, is now owned by a Canadian consortium. Packard did not produce tires, batteries, motor oil, grease, or for that matter, carburetors, starters, generators, radiators, A.O. Smith their frames, from 1941-on Briggs their bodies, even as Pressed Steel of Cowley near Oxford whacked out Crewe's 1946-on. So any of y'all who are, in Kurt Vonnegut's, Norman Mailer's, Gore Vidal's (all three War II combat vets and fathers of the modern war novel) wonderful dismissive term, "flag patriots,"
might want to turn off your computers, TVs, perhaps stay out of the kitchen.

pps. Instead of this ludicrous "what Packard should've done" Monday morning quarterbacking, and by those too young to appreciate the tenor of the times, for the sixth or so time, I ask again if anyone might post SAE or other period tech articles comparing, contrasting the following:

The concurrent identical bore/stroke, nine-mained Chrysler Imperial, Packard, Pierce-Arrow 384-ci inline eights. Conjecture i've got: P-A enjoyed Studebaker's engineers as well, might've had the best castings, manifolding, been slightly more robust (we're hair-splitting here, got it?). Consider the similar Studebaker President nine-mained eight that ruled the Indy "junk formula" years. But i don't know, you don't know, which is why i'm asking for anyone to post SAE, etc. tech papers.

The four-mained Packard 473-ci V-12 with the concurrent seven-mained Pierce-Arrow 462-ci V-12. We know -- the final generation P-A's overdrive excepted -- Packard had the more modern chassis. Am strictly interested in which of these fine engines independent engineers gave the nod to. From what i've heard from a gent long experienced with both, Pierce was more rugged. But I shouldn't utter that, because i do not want conjecture or opinion, just vetted comparison, period engineering reviews.

Saf-t-fleX vs. GM-type ifs. Again, we all know about the others cribbing Saf-t-fleX, and R-R/Bentley dropping it in autumn, 1955 in their Silver Cloud/S-series for the same reason (unless cost also factored) Packard dropped it from their 1941-47 Clipper; the lowered floor pan left no room for Saf-t-fleX's long torque arms.

The Cadillac three-mained 346-ci flathead V-8, Buick 320-cid ohv straight eight, and Packard 356-ci nine-mained inline eight. Extra credit if you can unearth anything comnparing/contrasting the Rolls-Royce B80 nine-mained 346-ci F-head straight eight with the preceding engines.

I get it. We all like Packards, or some of them. But is it not possible to enjoy our cars all the more without the rose-tinted glasses? For example, Maurice Hendry, an automotive historian, himself an engineer, wrote that the Cadillac V-8 of the '20s gave better service in harsh Saharan livery service than the concurrent Packard Single Eight.

I like my warmed over '42 One-Sixty Clipper, but strong as its Briggs body is, it is not as finely done as an upper echelon GMoble's Fisher. And a friend's '42 160 drophead has three horns, but my '47 senior but two. Sounds like cost-cutting to me.

Before any of you fire off vitriol, let's consider nuance, shades. No one's saying, in that cited above, that such and such a Packard was a "bad car," or bad engine, or suspension. Far from it. Encouraging myth, legend, hyperbole will not make our cars worth more. We're looking for vetted engineering comparisons. Please, don't try to impress us with your ability to Google.

Fred Kanter might explain the difference 'twixt a two-position toggle switch, and a rheostat.

And let's at the very least bother to proofread what we post, consult a dictionary or Spellcheck. Going by some of these posts, hard to believe Packard advertised in the New Yorker and Literary Digest.