Kev is right - Testor's RED is right on !

But for touching up a metallic paint job. Bad news. It is almost impossible to do it. Even if you have the very same paint left over from the original job.

A REALLY good paint shop using REALLY good technique SOMETIMES can do an entire panel re-shoot that is good enough to get by. But that's beyond my pay grade..and I was taught how to do paint by a genuine master who once worked at Murphy/Pasadena !

This is why I personally dont want metallic paints on any of my vehicles. Sooner or later you are going to scratch something, and want to touch it up. With solid colors, especially if you use the authentic old-style nitrocellulose lacquer, you can do this.

I strongly recommend whenever you paint a car, save some from the job in a can with a VERY good seal.

This is another reason, when you are doing a older car, to use the authentic nitro-celluslose lacquer. Sure the modern two-part or "three-part" paints are VASTLY superior in terms of both durability, shine, and color retention. But once you mix em with the hardener, that's it - use them up or lose your spray gun !

But most of us dont leave our Packards out for extended periods in severe weather and baking sun. So we dont need the durability - with our kind of use, a "authentic" paint job with "authentic" materials is going to last longer than we are...! And those super high gloss finishes you see on show-cars. That is NOT the way they looked when new. I like to see older cars painted to look like they REALLY did.

Brian - I have seen your posts - am convinced you are a good wrench turner - I bet your V-8 Packards are good performers, giving good reliable service.

I bet if YOU had been running Packard in the 50's, again, had YOU been running the place, I BET I could order a brand new Packard TODAY - I do NOT hold you personally responsible that Packard products of the mid 1950's were failures in the market-place.

I did not run around chasing away eager buyers of Packard products from those lines that formed outside Packard show-rooms..and I dont think you did either !

Try and get it thru your head that ways to build up a company, a culture, a nation, and ways to destroy it, are IMPORTANT lessons that should be studied - they do NOT reflect on any one individual. So stop taking ANY of this personally !

Kev is absolutely right.

For example, if I commented on the rumors about GM (suffering from declining sales as a result of poor quality products loosing market share, looking to combine with Chrysler - another company that took a good name and worked hard, thru declining build quality and reliability......well..someone might get upset thinking I was making fun of Packard's pioneering corporate policies of the early 1950's.

We can't have people starting to ask questions as to how you destroy a company, a culture, or an entire nation. If we did that, people might want to stop our present slide into disaster. Some people make money off of disasters. They have a right to their profits.

Kip and BH are right, respectively on their comments. In 1956, Cadillac stopped producing the Hydrmatic, and came out with the so called "Jet-A-Way" Hydramatic, and DID have problems with it, which, of course, were fixed. And, as BH notes, quality in all American cars started down-hill, copying Packard's determination to destroy customer confidence.

None of this changes the fact that I am unable to locate any GM or or Chrysler car club that is interested in removing the transmissions that came with THEIR cars, and using the ULTRAMATIC......!

RE : QUESTION - WHAT KIND OF MOTOR/TRANSMISSION COMBO TO PUT INTO THIS GUY'S MODERN HOT ROD...?

hmmm...I take it all back - on second thought, if this fellow with the modern "hot rod" car, on which is mounted the sheet-metal of an old Packard...REALLY wants performance...

As '47 suggests, he should get a 6 cyl Packard. BUT dump the stock 3 speed (often with overdrive) that it came with.

With a little machine-work, I dont see why he couldn't come up with a "kit" to adopt that marvelous ULTRAMATIC transmssion!

Wouldn't THAT be a splendid combinatiion for reliable neck-snapping performance... ?

In another "thread" John pointed out he'd read in a GM service manual, that Hydramatic transmissions need servicing. Excellent info. Good reason not to use one of those crummy GM "350"/4 speed Hydramatic variants.

May explain why so many people with Hydra-matic cars are building "adapter" kits, to change out those crummy poor-performing, unreliable Hydramtics, so that they can install that marvelous customer-pleasing Packard ULTRAMATIC transmission.

my recommendation would be any late model "mouse" (GM family of 350 cu in small blocks). I would buy the whole thing directly out of a still-assembled car - engine, tranny, and accessories ready to "plug in".

There are a number of firms that advertise "plug in" computer harnesses so you have a relatively easy hook-up to just about any wiring system. With modern electronically-controlled multi-speed transmissions, you can enjoy a fairly low rear axle ratio, and still have a nice "over-drive type" over-all final drive ratio.

Dont listen to the "Packard Purists". Their discussions are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to what you've got. You have what sounds like an interesting 'hot-rod custom" (on which someone has fastened the exterior sheet metal parts of an old Packard. Nothing wrong with that. Dont be embarssed bout it.

Clipper 47 - I dont understand why you would advise this guy to put a "110" Packard motor & tranny into a modern car ? This guy dosnt have a pre-war Packard. What he has, is some sheet metal from an old Packard mounted on a modern car.

May I suggest you go out and drive a Packard "110" - a REAL one, meaning, a STOCK one? Before you go recommending that level of performance ( or lack of it ) to someone accustomed to high performance levels? ( like, for example, the fantastic performance you & other "big" Packard owners enjoy when driving your Super / Custom/"160/80" series Clipper, with its fantastic "356" motor ?

Yes, from the fire-wall BACK, the early-mid 40's Packards are the same car (with much more luxurious interior fittings for the "big" Packards.

The problem in trying to compare them, is that both the 6 cyl. Packards AND the big "356" Packards have something on the floor called a GAS PEDAL. Those who have pressed that thing on BOTH, know EXACTLY what I am referring to !

for V-8

Yes, I have to agree with you - abusive labor practices of SOME unions most certainly were and remain a factor in SOME situations involving production costs.

But let's be fair, and remember the old slogan "for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite REaction". (oh oh...brought up those damn laws of physics again - next I will be accused of relying on those bunch of lies found in the ASTM and SAE "standards".....)

The abusive policies towards workers caused labor to push back hard. My dad's favorite story about abuse was the attitude towards him and his brothers when they asked for a full 20 mins to eat their lunch and warm up (from the 10 mins they were allowed)...all they wanted was 20 mins. WITHOUT PAY, and of course they were turned down. That is ONE of the reasons that caused the growth of the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers).

There is plenty of blame to go around for the fact that virtually all of the famous AMERICAN brands we used to rely on for quality goods that helped build our middle class, have "sold out", licensed their names to Chinese mfgs., and effectively de-capitalized the United States.

My suggestion is that we adopt the principle of "wishing DOES make it so", and stop critisizing how Packard pioneered failure. Who wants to hear a "broken record". I mean...someone might start LISTENING.

HH56 - I now am SURE you should be silenced and kicked off this forum. How DARE you say "wishing dosnt make it so".

That is a direct affront to the splendid thinking of the "American" auto industry

(now why would you get the idea I was being sarcastic & making fun of the determination of Packard to kill the company in those last tragic years.....and set a horrible example the "American" auto industry was only too eager to follow!)

Of COURSE "wishing can make it so". Just look how the "American" auto industry reacted to Honda and Toyota's introduction of what was nothing more than the old AMERICAN concept of good quality. The "American" auto industry decided, instead of beating them at what was OUR "game", tried to get higher import tarrifs to prevent quality cars from coming into our country...!

Boy, the "American" auto industry sure taught Honda and Toyota a lesson!

(now...where can I find that "kit" from the Chrysler Club to change out that silly three speed Chrysler Corp. transmission for that marvelous confidence-building ULTRAMATIC.....)

I really resent Owen's and H-56's comments. I think they should be thrown off this forum. We do NOT need to hear their attacks on our charming "American" auto industry. If they keep up their "broken record" of critisizing our "American" auto industry, someone might listen-we cant have that.

Just because the "American" auto industry worked so hard to get a reputation for shoddily-built poor performing products, and "out-shopped" more and more of their components, is no reason to make fun of them.....

Those sneaky Toyota and Honda people - dont buy their products. They are cheating. They have the NERVE to "source" their cars here in the United States, build them with American labor, and meet traditional American quality standards. Shame on them ! (looked at the "Monroney sticker" on the new Toyota Sienna 98% UNITED STATES sourced and built!)

And now look - you cant fool me - I bet the reason Toyota and Honda cars are still selling fairly well, and "American" cars are not, is because sneaky Toyota conspirators are out chasing away the lines of car buyers desperate to buy those Fords, Chrysler, and GM products...