|
Re: Demolition at the PMCC Plant – Down to 2 Buildings
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
QUOTE: Quote:
According to Mr. Pushbutton, there is one more Packard building left at the old plant site. That was the circa 1950 car shipping office and factory delivery building at Mt. Elliott and Medbury. That building appears empty, but it is secure and it looks like it has recently received some paint and other maintenance. The building mentioned here is not "according to Mr. Pushbutton" but is according to me. I have been watching that building since 1950 when it was first erected– and keeping photos and tabs on it. My dad and I owned commercial property just a few blocks away on Mt. Elliott and we drove past this building almost daily for decades. I also have photos of it that I took back to the 1960s. Anyone who really knows the building will tell you that the front of the architecture has been drastically modified from the way it originally was. During the 1970s this place was so run-down and forgotten, it became a store front Baptist church. What is now a parking lot across the street from it was originally the site of "The Packard Bar"... and later "The NEW Packard Bar"... where some of the best hamburgers in Detroit were once made. I still have photos I took in the 1970s. This building has not "received paint." Unless you want to count the graffiti sprayed all over the bricks and stonework out front. The City of Detroit DID rip out the original sidewalk, some curb and the original truck barriers– which were STILL there until a coupe of years ago. I think the city HAD to do that because of a federal grant and a law. There is also a concrete pad now around the rear of the building... but that came when the city did the sidewalks. As for "The Packard Motel"... Another place I have known and monitored since it was first built. I already posted here on Packard Information (look it up) photos of when the motel was completely remodeled and partially restored in recent times. AND I discussed the "drug free" signage and the reason why. This has already been posted here. You will note that the motel parking lot is now surrounded by a tall iron bar fence. All for a reason. This is not to protect patrons, but it is there to keep occupants of this drug rehab and half-way house IN. The Packard Motel is no longer a "hot bunk" motel. These "Packard Plant tours"...OMG. People are very badly mistaken about what is left of the Packard Plant and what is not. And how the property has transitioned. Today while people refer to Capuchin Monks and a food facility... this place and the lot in front of it was originally where NEW Packards were stored before being shipped out either by truck or train. The first business to take it over was a "Food Fair" supermarket... followed by "Farmer Jack" supermarket. The monks came wayyyyyy later. The engine plant building is still there and much of the design center and Packard Employment office (on Concord Avenue) is still there. The Packard foundries and other facilities across Harper Avenue are long, long gone along with Harper Avenue at this point. But people today don't even know this stuff was ever there! All replaced (along with whacked-off parts of the engine plant and Styling Center) taken out by Edsel Ford Expressway (I-94). Much of Packard Styling center and Packard Employment Office (know where that was?) still remain!! Does anyone know these facts? The area looks "better now"... seriously? With the "Packard Motel" looking like (and probably being) a prison? With an adjacent city block surrounded by a yellow "prison" stockade fence and ominous-looking gate with vehicles coming and going and armed guards (for nobody knows)? Fixing up houses? Where? Better than what? Look on the ground two blocks away and there are STILL hypodermic needles in the bushes. While it may seem better to look at the plant leveled, eradicated and no more clearly evident reminders of barbaric neglect and crime, look at what has been lost. You don't miss your water until your well runs dry. But for those who never had a well... how can they possibly miss the water?
Posted on: 5/23 12:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering a 1956 400
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Ahhhhh. DITTO, mon frere. Thanking God is a very good idea. But you are in no position to talk about anyone having "issues"– especially being a long-experienced transmission repair man who can't repair his own transmission! Makes perfect sense, huh? Now THAT's something to brag about! Good job. Nobody cares what you think, except people who think like you. Trouble is, people who think like you specialize in things they can't do ... like using reason. Don't tell me– you're one of those folks who like following 18-wheelers 5 feet back at 70+ MPH? Important safety tip: don't drink that reddish, purple-ly stuff in the cans...
Posted on: 2/22 15:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering a 1956 400
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am always hesitant to say anything on these online forums where everyone believes (and sometimes rightly so) that they are the expert in whatever the subject happens to be. But I also know that these "forums" are havens for endless arguments– which I detest. I don't participate in endless online arguments. Most of these are almost always cherry-picked and tailored to meet whatever point an arguer wants to "prove." Congratulations for owning a transmission shop. Alllllllll the more reason why you ought to be rebuilding your Ultramatic instead of talking about yanking it. I have rebuilt mine and I don't own a transmission shop! Nobody said or even implied that you work for an auction company. However it IS auction companies and the internet that have minimized the Ultramatic down to simply being called a "2-speed." Tossed in a box with the rest. AND– like you– ignoring the lock-up torque converter altogether. A feature "2-speeds" normally did NOT have and something that took the transmission beyond simply having two forward driving ratios. A feature still being copied in one way or another in recent years! Yes.... let's IGNORE all of this. Right? A person has a navel... So? Let's ignore the rest and just call everybody who has a navel, "NAVEL"... or NOSE. So let's be fair. Ignoring something just because it doesn't fit an argument does not make that feature unimportant or disappear. Please. This is the kind of logic that has people on today's interstates following 18-wheeler trailers at five feet back while traveling 70+MPH– then being all shocked when they end up decapitated under the safety bar. Or darting in-between huge trucks in little roller-skate cars on the interstate, then getting mooshed into Spam in a can. Geez. Now howwww did that happen???? I will state that I am a retired senior technical writer and automotive engineer. I'm a member of SAE (inactive). I worked a career for over 40 years with both foreign and domestic major OEMs. AND... I have actually designed things that went to production. Things that are still out there in the world functioning. So I am not totally naive on all things automotive. Furthermore, I am old enough to remember when Ultramatics were new and when nobody really cared about what a luxury car did 0-to-60 in speed or whether the transmission chirped the tires. I will also state that I have owned bunches of Packards over the years– particularly 1955 and my favorite, 1956. I have also owned (or driven as company cars and test evaluation cars) hundreds of vehicles. By the way, one of the most impressive luxury sedans I ever drove was the first Infiniti Q-45... wow– impressive even for today's standards. • While the argument here completely ignores the genius and function of the Ultramatic lock-up torque converter and the fact that it does indeed alter the RPM and other factors... let's look at the fact that multiple ratios beyond two forward were around in the 1950s. Let's even pretend that I don't know this (except that I DO). Then I will relate some personal facts about wondrous stuff like this. My family bought two brand-new 1955 Pontiacs (three if you count the Safari that we traded back because it was too small). Both of the Pontiacs were equipped with 4-speed (WOWOWOW! Should be twice as good as Ultramatic– right?) Dual-Range Hydra-matic transmissions. These cars were purchased from Grates Pontiac dealership on Gratiot Avenue in Detroit, Michigan. I STILL have some of the original paperwork from our purchase. A friend also bought a brand-new 1955 Cadillac Eldorado... also equipped with a similar 4-speed Hydra-matic. I rode in these cars regularly, but don't recall either having startling off-the-line performance. And why should they? That's TODAY'S mentality, not 1950s. No matter... The first Pontiac transmission lasted ALMOST a year and crapped out... after being troublesome all along. The second magnificent Hydra-Matic lasted only a few months more. It was followed back to the shop by the Cadillac... which blew out the entire transmission. Unlike the bad 'ol "2-speed" Ultramatic– NEITHER of the Pontiacs even had a "PARK" position and would roll away unless you set the "parking brake" (which had a handle with a nasty habit of coming off in your hands!). Sorry. • If you don't know who Jim Hall was or about his record-setting Chaparrals, or his invention of ground effects... welllllll tsk, tsk, tsk. Sad. But the argument proposed was that 2-speeds are no good for performance. Not how much a vehicle weighed. Of course Chevy DID introduce the 3-speed Turboglide. Ohhhh THAT was a masterpiece huh? Three-speeds WHEN it was working. A lot of car guys today don't even know they made these things– and justifiably so. Of course if we want to pooh-pooh the Powerglide and what it could haul around weight-wise– okay. LETS do this. I even have another example of a car my family bought new: a 1963 Chevy Impala 9-passenger station wagon WITH roof rack and lots of accessories. Of course with a 2-speed Powerglide transmission. FURTHERMORE, I can even connect this car and transmission (in more ways than one) with none other than Packard. After a few years of hauling the family to all manners of trips and festivities, I inherited this automobile. Then I used it in the early 1970s to tow-bar a 1956 Caribbean convertible all the way from Florida to California. With all this using that 2-speed Powerglide transmission and a small-block V8! Ohhh... imagine that 2-speed hauling all that weight... in summer temps over the century mark... up and down mountains... across deserts.... while hauling a Packard Caribbean convertible. OMG! What did you say about "very lame"????? I eventually sold the Impala to a surfer in SoCal who was still driving it years later. By the way. The Powerglide was NEVER out of the car and was still functioning when I sold it. I could not say the same for my 1963 Ford XL convertible with 3-speed "CruiseOMatic." Nor could I say the same thing for my 1964 Oldsmobile Starfire convertible with 3-speed Hyda-Matic "Slim-Jim" (loved the car but not the troublesome trans). Nor my 1966 Cadillac Eldorado convertible. I could go on, but I won't. • Regarding how many people have yanked Ultramatics for wonky fandango contraptions? Too many. Every few years somebody comes up with another brilliant doogie instead of repairing the Ultramatic. I'm an old guy and and I've been looking at and owning Packards for several decades. Here are just a few of the thingies I've personally seen (or owned) over the years (and this is just off the top of my head): 1.) NUMEROUS GM Hyda-matic conversions (once bought a Caribbean with a ball-knob shift lever in a slot CUT IN THE FLOOR. Yes, it kinda-sorta worked– former owner was very proud of this abomination). 2.) NUMEROUS Mopar Torqueflite conversions (some so awful the transmission was mounted at a 45-degree angle!!!). Anything is better than repairing the original– huh? Hotcha! 3.) Several Ford CruiseOMatic conversions 4.) A few Borg-Warner conversions 5.) At least one B&M conversion 6.) Numerous "stick & over" conversions (at least these were/are Packard.). This will be my last response on this matter since endless arguments are the stock & trade of internet forums. This is not my purpose here. Virgil Cole was NOT "just another cowboy"... and Ultramatic was NOT just another "2-speed automatic"... Photo taken in early 1970s at an interstate highway rest stop during coast-to-coast towing of my 1956 Caribbean. What some today might call a 'barn find" (it had been sitting with 30,000 miles in a carport since 1963). Chevy Impala is loaded down with Packard parts and performed flawlessly. Hood is open here for a cooling and inspection break. 2-Speed Powerglide had no trouble hauling the "2-speed" Ultramatic! 
Posted on: 2/21 10:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering a 1956 400
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am almost certain this is Scottish Heather Four Hundred was once in my personal collection years ago– minus the added black stripe at the bottom and the wally-world universal eBay front seat cover. Had it for many years. It was a good-running car, but seemed to have a lot of blow-by for such low miles. I was second owner at the time. This was in the 1970s.
Posted on: 2/19 13:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Considering a 1956 400
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It is so very unfortunate that youngsters hired by auction companies in recent years have taken to repeatedly calling an Ultramatic a "2-speed" and leaving it at that. This is very misleading. A Chevy Powerglide is a 2-speed. There were Ford and Mopar automatics that were 2-speeds. A Packard Ultramatic was not/is not merely a "2-speed." This is especially true for 1956– which was one of the most advanced, futuristic automatic transmissions in the car industry at the time. The 1956 Ultramatic had a huge lock-up torque converter– which took it a step away and above merely being a "2-speed." IF you could have a tachometer on a 1956 Packard and a serviceable Ultramatic, properly maintained... you will notice something. When the transmission goes into lock-up mode, the engine RPM will drop slightly. The slop/slippage of an automatic trans torque converter is by-passed and power is direct from the engine to the rear wheels. Garden variety 2-speed automatics could never accomplish such a feat. All of which is why Ford and others– even Asian car makers eventually copied features of the Ultramatic. Fact. The lock-up converter saves gas, lessens wear on the engine, increases power to the driving wheels... and almost could be considered an overdrive. The 1950s were a very vastly different mindset from 2025. Packards were never meant to be Toyotas, Hondas or hot-rods. That was a different time back when fast & furious driving for a luxury car was unheard of. The 1956 Packard was a boulevard cruiser. As such, it was never intended for jack-rabbit starts, or record-setting 0-to-60 speed triumphs. It was intended to be smooth and powerful, but not to rub out donuts or drive enduros. Today in a speed conscious, multiple-gear-driven world of 200 MPH top speeds and 0-to-60 minimum times, no. The Ultramatic is not going to be a competitor. But it was never intended to operate in such conditions and requirements. The Packard Twin-Ultramatic all-aluminum transmission for 1956 was a very advanced and highly technical component. Properly maintained and properly understood, this transmission ought to perform all of its original functions as designed. Packard was very much on top of automatic transmissions and had already designed at least two automatic transaxles which would have appeared in production in the late 1950s had the company continued making cars. One of these transaxles was originally intended to appear in the Packard Predictor concept car, but there was no money to do so at the time. Packard's automatic transaxle was migrated over to Pontiac (via J.Z. DeLorean) and eventually saw production on the early Pontiac Tempest. Oh... and as for the performance of an automatic 2-speed... if one just HAS to go there... go back and check what kind of transmissions Jim Hall's amazing Chaparral race cars used! Eh? Ultramatics continue to get un-deserved bad raps– almost always from those who do not understand them. Worse, the number of folks yanking Ultramatics to adapt some kind of fandango wonky contraption transmission after all these years continues to amaze...
Posted on: 2/19 13:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Packard Bikes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hello. Sorry for the delayed response. New Old Stock (NOS) bicycle headbadges were not all flat. In fact, most were curved when made. Pressed that way. Yes, some were sent out flat, but typically being made of brass or aluminum, even the flat headbadges were easily pressed into shape by hand around the frame headtube. Some dealers also used wooden dowells to shape a curve into a headbadge. As for diameters of bicycle headtubes, these diameters varied so little that this was simply not a big issue for the industry or for dealers. Thanks for the very kind words. Vintage bicycle headbadges are a fascinating aspect of bicycle collecting. Some are magnificent artwork in their own right. Here are just a few of our vintage bicycle headbadges collected over many years. We have hundreds more. The horseshoe-shaped "ROLLFAST" headbadge is from a "Hopalong Cassidy" character bicycle, done in cooperation with golden era TV cowboy star, William "Hoppy" Boyd. No PACKARD bicycle headbadges here (we've already shown you lots of those) but a few car names here. See if you can pick them out: Pontiac Chieftain... Peerless... Cadillac...more. "Murray" was related to the old Murray Auto Body Company that yes... once made some bodies and components for Packard Motor Car Company. And yes, "Iver Johnson" is the same company that also made famous guns and motorcycles...  
Posted on: 2/9 12:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Packard Bikes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Welll? The Facebook Packard bicycle disappeared. Who got it?
Posted on: 2/3 20:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Reproduction Patent Plate
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You might want to contact Jerry at Nostalgic Reflections in Veradale, Washington. They have a web site. They have done tons of repopped items like this for several decades. Not cheap, but very good!
Posted on: 1/31 11:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 54 and 55 carb
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Nope. Unless old age has taken over, as I recall a Clipper "correct carb" would have been a Carter. Senior Packards came with Rochesters, not Carters. Another of the many differences between Packard and Clipper...which seem to have been forgotten.
Posted on: 1/29 12:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Packard Darrin?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hello... That certainly looks like a Darrin with a "Darrin dip" door and other features. However, the car parked behind it is certainly not a Cadillac. No way. It appears to be a 1940 Oldsmobile.
Posted on: 1/19 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
