you are RIGHT - you have me figured out. My self - esteem is so low I need a step-ladder to get up high enough to kick a duck in the butt....

Regarding John's note about how Packard paid its bills.

Yes, John, I know that. And that probably figured in Packard's decision to abandon making "super-cars" in the late 1930's. We all know Packard would have been out of business if they kept making nothing but "Senior" Packards.

Where I think Packard "missed the boat", is their thinking that we can tell anything about the future from the past. Well, that too, isn't exactly true.

What IS true, is that Damiler Benz, BMW, Toyota, etc., all came out of World War II with production facilities, supply, and personnel problems so severe as to make Packard's post-war issues look like paradise in comparison.

My own personal belief is that Packard SHOULD have followed their lead, and kept their QUALITY up. BMW and Mercedes kept making pre-war cars after the war, but kept their quality up. Again, they even made taxicabs ! But the sight of a Mercedes taxi-cab did not kill Mercedes any more than the sight of a Packard taxi-cab did.

The fact that Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes did so well after the war confirms, in my view, the fact that there was money to be made, LOTS of it, selling expensive super-cars that met buyer's expectations for quality. Packard didnt see that coming. Sic Transit Gloria

Turbo - c'mon, man - be honest..you are just mad at me because I am so incredibly charming, intelligent, all-knowing, sweet-dispositioned, and good looking.....!

Seriously, I think you are being damn silly for taking anything you see in chat-rooms as some kind of personal affont. We are talking about CARS..man..just CARS !

I understand your focus of interest is in the '55 - '56 Packards. I was a teen-ager when they were new. When the warranties ran out and Packard's dealer net-work fell apart, I worked on a few in a garage where I had a summer job. They didnt interest me then, and still dont. If I were a new car buyer in 1955-56, I would have bought a Cadillac or Chrysler 300.

But so what ! I can't imagine taking it personally if you lit into Cadillacs ! Or Chrysler 300's! Or Packard Twelves! This is, or should be, a place where we can exchange info.

With your passion for your particular era Packard, and your apparent technical knowledge about them, I bet if YOU had been running Packard, they'd still be around, outselling everything in whatever price class they chose to compete in.

But we cant change history. I say, let's enjoy our hobby, the good with the bad.

Remember, just because you are parnoid, dosnt mean they really arent out to get you !

For Cliiper 47:

The reason you dont recall a "lurch" in the 2-3 shift on your Hydramatic-equipped '47 Cadillac, is because it probably did not do that.

As noted above, that phenomena occured only after MANY thousands of hard miles, due to badly worn parts. If any of you Packard buffs also, like me, also like Cadillacs of that era, see above for my comments on how to eliminate this thru simple adjustments.

Brian is correct as to my failure to be accurate - I apologize - I should been clearer that the Ultramatic had ONE foward speed, a 3.54 ratio provided by the rear axle.

If I led you guys to think I said NO speed, Brian is right - I was being a bit too "theatrical" by calling it "no-speed". ! (but that's the way people felt about it who drove them when they were new and in service !).

As I noted, the way it worked was, it had only one speed, starting out with that slippery sluggish convertor, then, depending on throttle position, would "lock up" in direct drive.

Brian is INCORRECT in describing the "lurch" problem between the 2 - 3 shift on Hydramatics. That wasn't anything to do with "seals going bad". That was a problem that would arise from the "bands" wearing, easily corrected.

For those of you with Hydramatic-equipped cars, GET A SHOP MANUAL - DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ADJUST THE BANDS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE SHOP MANUAL'S VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS.

The band adjustment to eliminate the "lurch" is pretty simple. But do it wrong, and you WILL break something.

There are two "acorn" style nuts covering the lock nut and adjusting screws, both accessible thru holes in the floor-board covering the transmission. Lift up the rugs and you will see the covers.

Yeah - that Electromatic - what a goofy system that was! And what a joy to drive those big Packards were with the "356" engine and over-drive !

But they would have been even neater with a Hydramatic. With a Hydramatic four-speed, they could have been equipped with a very high final drive ratio, and still had gut-wrenching off-the-line performance.

Again, maybe John can prowl thru his rerference material and find out & tell us more about why Packards didnt have Hydramatics.

Perhaps in John's excellent reference sources there is some note or explaination as to why Packard didnt negotiate with General Motors for use of the Hydramatic ? GM seemed all too willing to sell its transmisisons to automobile companies world-wide. ? ? ? ?

Of course there was no way the obsolete "flat heads" Packards could have kept up with the then modern Cad, Olds, and Linclon over-head valve V-8'sappearing in 1949, even WITH a Hydramatic transmission.

But at least a Hydramatic-equipped Packard wouldnt have been so slow as to have been an industry laughing-stock. Drive a properly maintained a '50 Packard Custom with Ultramatic, and compare it with a '50 Cad. if you want a real shock.

Now - come on - you guys - dont be mad at me. I am not clear what benefit there is to trying to cover up the fact that Packard committed corporate suicide, by a combination of poorly engineered, poorly assembled products?

I am also not clear why present owners of these later Packard products should in any way feel badly about having honest discussions-there is much to learn about all this.

Fact is, as noted elsewhere, Packard was pretty much out of the auto MANUFACTURING business by the start of World War II, "off-shoring" much of the parts manufacture to others. Harrison Div. of GM radiators. Carbs., generators, starter motors, traditionally purchased from outside suppliers. Same goes for brakes, radios, steering gear, etc.

So there is no reason, with a little "tinkering", why you cant make a nice, serviceable car out of a 50's era Packard. I did! Out of a LOT of them! What you guys apparently can not or will not understand, is that we in here are all CAR BUFFS. We are willing to WORK on our Packards to keep them serviceable.

BEFORE the Interstate system was up and running, I drove my '51 Packard 250 Convertible from the George Washington Bridge in New York City, to the Barham off-ramp on the Hollywood Freeway, in 2 1/2 days, and I SLEPT AT NIGHT ! And that was in summer, with grueling heat. So you can imagine how fast I was going. So, sure, a little tinkering, and you can get good service out of things.

A buyer of a new car, then and now, isn't interested in a "do-it-yourself" kit. The kind of thinking that believes it can push a shoddy product out the door (that needs extensive re-work at the dealer before it can be sold), is what killed Packard, would have killed Chrysler had the tax-payer not bailed them out. Almost killed GM and Ford (have they learned their lesson - my Ford Excursion seems pretty well assembled.... ? ? ? ).

THE ULTRAMATIC transmission - the "blow" that killed Packard ?

Good question. Many of us who owned Ultramatic-drive equipped Packards believe that this sorry excuse for incometence was almost as important a factor in "killing" Packard, as the sloppy build quality.

It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 1) people wanted automatic transmissions 2) people wanted reliable automatic transmissions 3) people who purchased expensive cars with automatic transmissions expected them to perform well.

The development and execution of the General Motors four speed "Hydramatic" transmission set the standard that continues today - I am not aware of any modern production car that offers less than a four speed automatic transmission. Even small-engined lower-price cars equipped with Hydramatics in the early 1950's would "blow off" Ultramatic-equipped Packards.

Packard was not alone in screwing up its reputation with crummy, unresponsive transmissions. Chrysler Corp. went down that road in the late 1940's, and it almost put the Imperial out of business. (anyone in here actually driven a "Fluid Drive" equipped Chrysler product?).

Of interest on the other issue ( terrible loss of standards in "build quality"), Chrysler copied Packard, and were it not for repeated massive govt. "bail-outs" of tax-payer cash, they would have been out of business decades ago.

The primary desgin failure of the Ultramatic that crippled the already declining performance of Packard cars (compare what a 1941 "356" Packard would do, performance-wise, to a 1951 Packard "327) was accompanied by inadequate execution.

Makes one wonder if there really is a "death gene". Designing a "NO SPEED" transmission? In a luxury make with a reputation for performance? From the same company who once included amongst its slogans " Master Motor Builder"...? and "The Value Of Reputation-Ask The Man Who Owns One...?

But Packard managed to pull it off! For those of you who are wondering what I am talking about, let me explain how the Ultramatic worked, and how it compared with the Hydramatic transmssion that set the standard for reliability and performance.

The Hydramatic, again, had FOUR speeds foward. A super LOW gear to launch the car rapidly - then three more close-ratio speeds to assure instant responsiveness in ANY speed raqnge.

The Hydra-matic multi-speed flexibility permitted very high final drive ratios, for economical and quiet extreme speed crusing. Ford's Lincoln division, several "independants" recognizing the adequacy of the Hydramatic, made it an "option" avail. in their products.

With the Ultramatic, an extremely "high" final drive ratio wasn't possible. The device had NO foward speeds - meaning you start out in "high" or direct drive, with a slippery torque convertor to get the car moving, then it "locks up" in direct. NO "passing gear" above around 50 mph. I remember being beaten in a drag race by a GARBAGE TRUCK ! (Hydramatic-equipped, of course...!).

Yes, you could MANUALLY bring in a reduction gear by moving the steering column shift lever, but people who bought cars for automatic transmission features, were turned off by that. Yes, I designed a "trick" modification so you could start out using that reduction gear, but even that would only bring the performance of an Ultramatic-equipped Packard up to - this is no exaggeration - garbage truck standards (dont try and drag race a city bus unless you put your Ultramatic into "low" range..you will lose!)

I find it fascinating that even with all the effort post-war Packard management expended in trying to destroy the honorable reputation of Packard, when the advertising literature went out for the introduction of the 1955 Packard, and promotional films of the famous "high speed" test-run, Packard still had enough reputation to cause sales to sky-rocket. People WANTED to believe in Packard even as late as the introduction of the 1955 model year products. And they PROVED it with sky-rocketing sales orders.

Perhaps John can fill us in on how stories of the introduction of the "gear start" Ultramatic, and stories about how the '55's were bringing back Packard's legendary performance immage, caused those improved sales. For a few months. Till the cars got into the hands of consumers, and the facts of how awful the quality-control was.

Killing cultures, corporations, even individuals, can be very profitable. We have seen how, if you are "connected", you can profit by destroying entites. Studying carefully how Packard "set the standards" for corporate suicide is, in my view, important to understanding how our industry screwed up our country. I can understand why some people do NOT want the "Packard Death Gene" issue discussed.

Just as Packard was a model for success in its "golden years", the Ultramatic-equipped Packards, in my view, were a model for corporate suicide by American industry in the years that followed.

not sure WHAT that thing is. The up-draft "detroit" type carb. would suggest this thing is from the late 20's.

Is that a turbo-charger I see that the exhaust feeds into ? Packard supposedly did some experiments with super-chargers in the 1920's, (Packard and General Electric pioneered super-charger develop. for aviation use during the 1st World War, but I dont think GE was interested in continuing this into automotive applicatons afterwards) but not aware of any turbo-charger experiments.

The back of the crank-case does not look like any prototype/experimental engines I have seen from PMCC. Packard typically had a provision for a bell-housing attachment moulded into crank-case designs.

Water pump design dosnt look like Packard concepts to me.

Also puzzling - not aware that Packard was convinced in the era this engine is apparently from, that the additional expense, manufacturing and servicing problems of over-head valves was any real advantage to the consumer, given the octane issues of that day.

? ? ? ?

wont work, John - see, unlike you, I have actually LOOKED underneath the front end of a '53 Packard, then compared its cheapo shoddy bumper and grill bracing with a Cadillac, Olds 98, or Buick of the same years.

wont work, John, see...unlike you, I KNOW how flimsy the '53 Packard hood is, compared to a GM car of the same year.

wont work, John, see..I have owned probably one or two more post-war Packards than you, probably more '53 Patricians than you. And I also owned a couple of '53 Cadillacs. Know EXACTLY what they can do.

John - suggest you help us all out by sharing your very rich literature collection with us - you apparently have aquired some very interesting stuff that helps us all learn more. Sure, some of it is utter malarky, but that's life. Very easy to separate the malarky from the facts - I can do that for you, since you obviously dont know the real world details. But that isnt your fault. And I cant take credit for the good luck to have "been there".

John - get real. No matter how many people you talk to, wont change the ever more lousy build quality of Packards towards the end. The worse they got, the worse sales fell.

John, I dont know about the figures you submitted - been some time since I saw actual Packard figures, some of which were absolute nonsence.

The Ultramatic was a total failure and disaster. Fragile, unreliable, NO SPEED transmission which turned average-performing post war Packards into utter DOGS. Whatever they spent on it was a waste. They SHOULD have negotiated with GM to buy Hydramatics. A Hydramatic was a FOUR speed tranny that provided a nice super low for fast "off-the-line" starts, so that a car could have a nice high gear ratio for comfortable crusing. Unfortunately, Packard chose to make the bell housings so damn wierd, it would be just about impossible to adopt a hydrmatic.

I dont know about the figures you claim Packard spent to do the exterior sheet metal on the '41 Clippers, to convert the outside shape to "bath-tubs", selling that design clear thru the 1950 model year. Same body - just some exterior "skin" changes. Oh yes, and the fresh-air heating system introduced in '48. That wasnt bad.

John - here's an idea. Go out to that '53 Patrician of yours, and yell at it REAL loud " I KNOW A GUY WHO WORKED ON PACKARDS". Let me know if it helps reenforce that fragile front end, or improves its pick-up ?

(for those who are wondering what this is all about, sad but true that Packard went from just about the FASTEST cars in any price range it chose to compete in, to the SLOWEST - somewhere I have an old road test showing about the only post-war car slower than a '53 Packard with Ultramatic...was a 1949 Chevrolet with PowerGlide !).

Most Custom Clippers I have seen were factory-equipped with over-drive, meaning they'd cruise nicely between 75-85 mph and "top out" at WELL over 100 mph.

Trouble is, as nice as our Packards are to drive on long trips at extreme speeds, the risk of damage and vandalism is something I am no longer willing to accept.

Think about this - how often will you want to take that georgeous car out on LONG trips, where you will be parking in UNsecured places?

Think about this - how many really fun events will you skip because they are too far, or the weather might turn sour, or you are worried about stones flying up from poorly maintained roads, trucks etc.

I paid about seven grand for my three axle trailer (three axles go thru tires a bit faster than two axles, but give a much smoother ride). With the three axle trailer, I can now range far and wide to let the public see Packard Power. Just came back from the coast and a truly magnificent car event I would NOT have come to, had I faced driving my own Packard on So. Calif freeways.

Think about it. A box trailer with a spring loaded tail-gate would be FREE after a few years of enjoyment of events you'd otherwise probably skip.

a Packard event in Lake Havasu ? Sounds interesting - where can I find out about it. Must have missed the info., as I am both a Packards International and Packard Club member.. Might show up with my Twelve

? ? ? ?