Pat & Mal,

I've often conjectured that we might've been better served if we'd got the convicts and they'd sent the Puritans to Australia.

My 55th Series Patrician had a '56 T/U in it when I got it, as well as a Twin Traction differential and was in pretty rough shape, generally. Like many others in this hobby, my financial resources are limited enough that I couldn't afford a complete authentic restoration under any circumstances whatsoever. I have endeavoured to keep the car as Packard and as original as my finances allow whilst keeping it on the road. Like Clipper 47, I too was around in the 1950s and, as a result, probably do not consider these cars (nor the late '30s and '40s ones) quite as, "antique," as some younger hobbyists. I respect the cars but remember some of the problems with them when they were in general, daily use - as well as some of the, "modifications," that were done to them when they were almost new in order to make them more dependable in daily use (like not bothering to put a '55 tranny and rear-end in one when improved '56 ones were available and would fit). I would never put a small block GM engine in a Packard, nor replace its transmission with a non-Packard supplied one but my car sports modern air-conditioning, an alternator (albeit 12V positive-ground), an Edelbrock carburettor, radial tires, the original (completely rebuilt) brake system with an aftermarket top-fill reservoir and a Pertronix electronic ignition module in the distributor (and another in the glove box) - as well as the perfectly Packard and functional 56th series parts that came on it. The generator, generator bracket, Rochester 4CG carburettor and everything else that I've replaced are still in the shed and have been rebuilt for anyone who acquires the car after I've passed away. If they don't like the '56 parts, they'll have to find those on their own. As long as I am alive and can drive - I'm going to use the car. If I can't get in it in the morning and drive it to California from Florida, I don't have much use for it. I love Packards of any era. If I had the money for an authentic, frame-off restoration, I would still have an Edelbrock carb, (I was replacing 4CGs with Hollys and Carters when they came new on cars - again, my preference) alternator and, probably, a modern air-conditioning system (I could neither find the missing parts nor anyone who'd work on the old York system).

As it is, I've spent more money on this car than I would've done had I bought a new one, like it better and drive it (it's the ONLY car that I own). I'm going to use it and certainly do not intend to deprive myself of the experience merely because I cannot afford the expense of a frame-off complete and authentic restoration. That being said, when I die whoever gets it next can do with it what they will and will have everything that I've taken off of it except the A/C (there wasn't much left of it). In the interim there's a Packard in daily use for people to see who've never heard of Packard and the car does what it was supposed to do in the first place; that being getting me, dependably and comfortably wherever it is that I'm going and back again. Packards are the cats pyjamas in my estimation. There's never in my mind been anything to compare with them. That being said, however - I've got no more use for a Packard that I can't use than for a Cheby that I can't use.

Never heard of a frame-weld failure on any of the cars. My 55 Pat's body actually impressed me when I first got the car. Even though all of the window guides were worn out and all of the body rubber on the car was either gone or so brittle that it might as well have been, the doors trunk, etc. all closed with a resounding, "thunk," and tightly. Packard owner's children (and some of the owners themselves) drag-raced the T/U trannys out of some of the cars. The T/L system was exposed to road moisture/dirt and gave problems. All, as you say, first year model teething problems. The main kicker was oiling system, valve train clatter and early failure of main and rod bearings. Although initially well received by the public and Packard's old customers in the oilfields of far west Texas and eastern New Mexico, by about mid 1955 the cars were seen as not being adequate to the 200 miles, and up per day hard service required of them in everyday use in that area at that time. I sort of think that, other than the oiling problem (which Packard could not fix) everything else might have been passed off as, "first year model teething problems." Our local Packard dealer did not survive the 55th Series cars and was gone before the 56th Series came out and (I might add) Packard had been well thought of and prevalent in the oilfields up through about 1950. There were still a lot of 15 or 20 year old Packards in general use there until the early 1960s.

Your car was never one of the swiftest off of the starting line in accepted drag racing practise but, since I've had mine back on the road with the engine tuned, shifting points set correctly, etc. I have noticed that people who have never driven one of these cars without all of the emission controls, electronic wizardry and extemporaneous accessories that are habitually glommed onto modern vehicles seem to be amazed at its acceleration to desired driving speed and the ease with which one can exceed the posted speed limit without realising it. The most frequently asked question that I get from those who have never driven a full-sized 1950s/1960s passenger vehicle before is, "Did all of these cars have this much power?"

To me it seems a bit slow as compared to some of the other cars that I drove at the time, particularly with regard to the T/U transmission. If, however, you're used to driving modern, high performance automobiles the experience may be a bit different to you. A lot probably depends upon whether it has a two barrel or four barrel carb, how it's tuned, etc. Packards were generally designed as comfortable, "cruisers," but, in the standards of their day, they generally had more than adequate and, in some cases rather spectacular, power for the general driving purposes of their day.

John is entirely right about the V-4,6,8 engine but he's about ten years off. These did not manifest until around '84.

I owned a '74 Eldorado, though not a convertible. As I recall, it had a 500 cu. in. V8. My wife (of the time) had a habit of running over curbs, etc. with it and, yes, the CV joints were expensive and, being driven as it was, it was almost impossible to keep the front end aligned and I bought a lot of tires. The only problems that I had with the car (not caused by the way it was driven) were (1) the speed control went out early on (diaphragm, if I recall) and (2)the padded top retained water causing early rusting/discolouration problems on the rear upper quarter panels (convertibles wouldn't be subject to this). The doors are incredibly long and heavy. The car did not drive badly, in spite of being very front-end heavy but, if you ever get a rear tire out of balance or out of round - or rotate a slightly bent (from running over a kerb!?!?) wheel to the rear, you'll know it immediately.

Great looking bunch of Packards. As to a preference for coupes (or not), there is NOTHING, to me, that screams PACKARD any louder than the big Packard 12 coupes of this era.

None of the teething problems for the 55th and 56th Series were anything more serious than other manufacturers dealt with in new models except, perhaps, the oiling problem but then one could look at the early big-block 396 and find similar faults, fairly quickly dealt with. Packard hadn't the money/time left to deal with them.

It is regrettable that PMCC saw fit to sit on their laurels in the years directly following the war and spend their vast cash reserves on endeavours other than R&D and quality control while concentrating upon competing with down-market models of their competitors. Had they done just a few things differently they might have survived up to a point at which a favourable merger/acquisition with a more suitable partner would've been possible. I think that Christopher was so focused on the conditions prevailing in 1935 when he initiated the junior cars that he failed to accurately assess the immediate postwar market. I don't believe that the junior cars killed Packard, per se, but rather that they failed to promote their excellent up-market product. Pre-war, they sold the junior cars on the reputation of the senior ones, even though there were far fewer of them built and actually sold. Post-war, they hardly mentioned the Supers and Customs while concentrating all of their marketing efforts on the lower priced cars. Too, by the time management began to see the light, the product was too outdated and they didn't have the money (buys time) to turn it around.

As far as the 55th and 56th Series styling was concerned, a great many long-time Packard customers saw them as gaudy and over decorated.

I do agree however that, had they had the money to buy the time to offset the bad rep that the constant publication of their problems had generated and managed to stay in business long enough for the positive aspects of the engineering of the cars to become well-known and some of the minor glitches to be forgotten, they'd be regarded today in a much more favourable light. There was no more wrong with them than with most first production efforts at new technology. I suspect that, had they gotten the V8 off the drawing board and into testing soon enough to discover that it needed the oiling system tweaked, a real oil pump, adjustable rocker arms and strengthened crankshaft support, the engine would still be in use, in some form, today.

JW wrote: "I find it interesting that senators and congressman from the southern states are taking an especially hard line on government assistance to the domestic Big 3 auto makers. Could it be that if these companies fail or are diminished their states would benefit because of the transplants operating in their states? Just a thought."

Could be. That would be in keeping with their job description. Or, they could just not be able to envision any long-term benefits in using taxpayers' money to bail out businesses that, for whatever reasons, cannot build products that the public will buy.

I am inclined to agree with HH56. I MIGHT buy a new truck if I could find one to use for a truck; you know, throw a cord of firewood or two or three greasy engine blocks in the back and not have to worry about ruining the upholstery when I got into the cab - but I digress because they don't make those kinds of trucks anymore. Just as they don't make full-sized cars any more. The last, I guess, were the Crown Vics, Marquis and Towncars, although they really weren't full-sized. People just thought they were because, evidently, everyone who remembers full-sized cars has either died or doesn't count in the modern scheme of things. I suppose that if one were really determined to buy a new, full-sized car he'd have to go with a Roller, Bentley or a Maybach. A trifle pricey for me, don't you know (where are Nash and Hudson when you really need them)?

That's one reason that I'm driving the Packard. You can fit six people in it, comfortably, and go anywhere that you need to go and it would take three and a half (of my) normal trips to the grocery store to fill up the boot. It suits my needs better than anything that I could buy today and, being as it's paid for and I can afford to buy parts for it, it's cheaper than the alternative, pretty damned dependable now that I've got most of the mechanics, electrics and hydraulics sorted out and I LIKE IT. It looks like a car and you have to be conscious to drive it and maintain it - a trait that I find to be noticeably lacking on about 75% of the highways and byways around the country, today.

It's peculiar how tastes differ. To me curb feelers, though admittedly serving a useful purpose, do not detract nearly as much from the ascetics of pleasing automotive design as do exterior sun-visors - which also serve a useful purpose. Everyone has an opinion.