Manual versus Automatic (ULTRAmatic), post-war

Posted by carfixated On 2015/6/10 4:48:26

Hi all.

I got to thinking last night about Packards and transmission options. I'm pondering my first post-war Packard purchase (well, 'dreaming' is more like it), and I guess I have always ONLY considered an automatic. Mostly for it's ease of driving in the city: we have traffic, and there is lots of stant-n-stop moving anywhere you go, even to car shows and the movies. I spent my first 28 years of driving in all sorts of stick shift cars, mostly small British stuff but also old Jeeps, Metros, Corvairs, etc.. And being honest with myself, I find now that comfort of driving is something that factors in to how much I enjoy my old cars, and how often I take them out.

I have driven 3 Packards, and all were automatics: A 52, a 54, and a 56 Executive. Nice driving all, although I admit the strait-8's were fairly... leisurely on acceleration. That is ok. I find that I am focusing more on the 46-54 models anyways mostly to avoid the extra mechanical and electrical complications of the 55-56 models. But I have never driven the 3-speed cars. Yes, I need to try one. That said...

First, I am curious about folks' thoughts on the merits of the manual shift post-war Packards. Good? Bad? Smooth shifting? Do you find yourself shifting all the time, or does the engine allow for less of that? Preference? And why?

Second, I guess I am curious as to why Packard, a luxury brand, made so many manual shift cars post-war? It seems like a low-end option for such a luxury make as Packard. Although I do not shop a lot of Caddys of the same era, I just do not recall seeing as many manual shift Caddys. No?

Thanks.
Mike