When I bought my '55 Patrician someone had already installed a '56 (Aluminium Case) Twin Ultramatic and Twin Traction rear end under it. So far both are working great (or were when I started my rust removal and repaint project about a year ago).

I checked it out in low gear in the parking lot of the tire store when I bought my last set of tires. Laid two perfectly matching strips of rubber for about 250 feet.

The store manager (who didn't believe it had Twin Traction) was impressed.

That's one of the most accurate descriptions of modern, "educational," programmes that I've ever encountered, Packard
V8, and you're right about the younger folks. They seem interested and, perhaps, someday in future when they've actually learned what manufacturing in this country was like until WWII they'll begin to appreciate what we once did in this country until the advent of, "social engineering."

I, too, remember the Amoco "clear" premium but must point out that, well into the mid 1960s in west Texas, Chevron and other retail service stations regularly sold "White Gas" for use in Coleman lanterns and stoves. To the best of my recollection I never heard of "Coleman Fuel" until the mid-1970s. We just went to the corner service station and bought a gallon of "White Gas."

Thanks, PackardV8.

Simple and direct partial solution. Makes perfect sense since I'm not road racing in the Packard much. Any suggestions as to brand, model#? Your advice has saved me a ton of money and trouble several times in the past.

55PackardGuy - you're observation of the T/Ls performance on dirt/gravel roads parallels my own impressions but, even on paved (rough) roads when it does tend to lean in corners it seems, to me anyway, that it's a little quicker to recover control than most of the cars (mentioned in my last post) of the day that I drove. I only ever lost the Packard in a corner a couple of times and never had both rear driving wheels come off the ground at the same time as seemed (again, to me) to be more prevalent in some of the GM cars of the day with stock suspensions.

I can see the difficulties in setting the T/L up for circle track driving but, for general purpose, everyday use, it always seemed to come closer to the safety mark for general use by the public than any of the American standard suspensions of its time period that I ever drove.

BH wrote: "When it comes to lean or roll. Keep in mind that these cars have only one true stabilizer bar, and that is up front - a carry-over form the previous coil-type suspension. A Watts link was only added to the rear end to positively locate the rear axle - side to side. (In more recent years, other cars like the PT Cruiser also use a Watts link.) As such, handling might benefit from a rear stabilizer similar to what GM bolted up to the lower control arms for rear coil suspensions on its RWD cars back in the '70s, but you would likely need a larger diameter front bar, as well. I'm not sure that's worth the expense for my purposes, but it would have been an interesting factory sport/performance option - along the lines of the F41 suspension package that GM offered, years ago, on their passenger cars."

I am (as has been implied in other posts on this forum) no expert but my experiences, both in "the day" and more recently driving my 55 Pat daily in all uses tend to confirm this. During cornering these cars will lean, much as all cars built during this time period would but, during high speed cornering, one seemed to have much better control and much better recovery control if you temporarily lost it with the T-L than without it - particularly on uneven road surfaces - simply because it would put the affected wheel(s) back on the road faster than other suspensions of the day. Compared, say, to my 55 Buick, my mother's 57 Star Chief, grandmother's 55 Monterrey and a couple of Olds and Caddys that I drove regularly, I always preferred the Packard for "simulated emergency manoeuvres" for this reason. May have been just my perception or prejudice but it seemed that way to me, then, and my experiences since having re-acquired this 55 Pat and having driven it four four or five years, now, seem to confirm this impression. The rear-end rise on hard acceleration is something that all who drive these cars have experienced and come to expect and I quite agree with your observations on the rear Watts link. Have been playing with the idea of adapting some sort of rear stabilizer, myself.

Interesting figures regarding the buying power of the U.S. dollar from 1800 through 2009 starting with the dollar amount required to purchase $1 worth of goods/services
measured in 1800 dollars.

1800 = $1.00

1913 = $0.58 (The year in which the Federal Reserve Bank and imaginary money were created)

1933 = $1.00 (The year that the U.S. went off the gold standard)

2009 = $16.98

These figures came from www.westegg.com . Other sites, citing the complications of comparing information before and after The Federal Reserve Bank only provide figures from 1913 but, disregarding obfuscations involved in, "cooking the books," (as it were) simple mathematics would seem to tell the whole story.

Jack,

The Jacobs unit in the Packard was purchased from Summit Racing in 2006 for $135.95 plus $7.95 shipping. It is their FC1000 unit and was their base, lowest price, no-frills (without rev-limiter, etc) unit at the time it was purchased. I later purchased their C-4, 60,000 volt coil for $60.00 plus shipping. As for availability and costs, today, I have not investigated this as have not needed one but the Internet is my usual source for all non-Packard specific equipment for the car. I simply compare product and price. I have depended upon Sandy Chirco at Tucson Packard for the majority of the Packard-only parts that I've been unable to reference in the Hollander Exchange Manuals and purchase locally at parts stores since I acquired the car.

I left the stock coil in its stock position so that switching back to points, should the Jacobs unit fail (it hasn't) would be easier.

The other unit that is in the Lincoln was from a private seller and is/was advertised and sold as a specific application for the stock (non-high performance) Ford 302/5.0 and has a rev-limiter and its own coil of the same shape and mounting holes as the original.

No special tools or equipment was needed to install either unit although (as posted by me on this forum at the time) I did have to install a simple (+) to (-) signal converter relay between the distributor and the Jacobs unit on the Packard in order to provide the Jacobs unit the negative signal that it requires to operate. Other than that the wiring harness and fuses that came with the unit installed exactly as the simple instructions that came with them indicated and, as someone else pointed out, the units come with more than adequate wiring to mount nearly anywhere. Mine is mounted under the right front fender on the Packard.

So far as the Pertronix unit installed before the Jacobs system is concerned, it was the basic 12V+ unit that I ordered and also installed with simple tools exactly as the instructions that came with it indicated. I'm sorry that I can't give you a price on it but that's been at least six years ago and I just don't know but it was purchased via the Internet as well and, I believe, directly from Pertronix.

First, Jack and PackardV8, I bought the Jacobs unit presently in the 55 Pat online from Summit Racing about four years ago. If I recall correctly the price, including Jacobs coil, was around $200 however, when I saw the privately placed ad for the one installed in the Lincoln online I checked Summits online catalogue to compare current pricing. At that time they no longer listed the Jacobs units but had replaced them with a Summit-branded unit.

Cortcomp wrote: "EDIT: After reading this, i saw it came off as kind of annoyed or angry. Definitely not the case, and it's all opinion. Not looking to insult anyone.

Just saying that when it comes to spending money or recommendations, we should stick to what we can measure, not what "seems" or "feels" better to us, as that can be misleading."

In the same spirit and without rancour or ill-feeling I'd like to point out that the engine in my 55 Pat was rebuilt professionally incorporating all of the top-end oiling modification recommendations from this forum and both Packard clubs then available. After timing, tuning and setting the transmission shift-points myself, again using tech-tips from this forum, it was placed in daily use which included daily trips all over the Orlando metro area and being used for three years to inspect property insurance claims all over the state of Florida and parts of Georgia and Alabama at real highway speeds (NOT 65 mph). It started with its original electrical, ignition and fuel-delivery systems intact and gradually acquired Edelbrock carburettor, alternator, a modern air-conditioning system, radial tires and, first, the Pertronix and then the Jacobs multi-spark ignition systems.

I spent, from about the age of six or so, the first twenty years of my life around, under and in motor vehicles built between 1935 and 1965 driving, occasionally racing, building, rebuilding, maintaining and servicing them with whatever was at hand and modifying them as required and necessary. Most of this was done in someone's garage, driveway or sometimes on my back in the dirt in an alleyway. That having been established, each modification done to the Packard improved its performance, ease of use, dependability or serviceability in some way - else I wouldn't have done them or would have undone them if they hadn't worked out. I have way more time than money. Some things were done according to my personal preferences (I was throwing away 4CG carburettors and replacing them with AFBs or Hollys when they still came new on vehicles) but even those were done with an eye to the next caretaker of my car after I'm done with it being able to return it to original configuration if desired (the Rochester, and everything else that has come off the car, is in the shed, fully rebuilt, in its box).

I have intentionally and carefully avoided arguing with experts for nearly all of my life. Many of them are so well educated and know so much more than those of us who actually have to use their services and products in the sometimes limited circumstances of our normal, everyday lives that they are sometimes hard, if not impossible, to communicate with.

As with everyone else, I do what my experience and my circumstances dictate and report the results as I see them. I reiterate: Cold starts are faster, the car can be started and driven out of the driveway with little to no warm-up and fuel mileage improved from an overall average, with information compiled over a twelvemonth period, from 13 mpg to 15 mpg but I don't have an electronic diagnostic analyser or a dyno - and wouldn't have time to use them if I had.

That's all I can tell you with certainty. I love this forum and appreciate any and all information, whether technical, anecdotal or professional, posted here.

I will admit that I bought both the Jacobs unit installed in the 55 Pat and the one in my 89 Town Car off the 'net at significantly reduced prices or probably wouldn't have considered them initially. That having been said however, after having used both the Pertronix and Jacobs units in the Packard and knowing what I know now, I'd probably spring for a multi-spark set-up. Anecdotally, I have experienced better cold start, smoother cold engine performance during warm-up and slightly better fuel economy with the multi-spark than I did with the Pertronix unit installed and the engine just seems to perform better, generally.

I'm admittedly a little cheap and it's a personal call but, in my experience now, I'd spend the extra money --- if I couldn't find a deal somewhere.

"Put in a MSD-5 instead. It uses stock points, etc and will convert back to stock with merely a jumper wire (supplied). The beauty of the MSD is that it reduces the current through the points to practically zero while providing multiple spark on each firing. I've had one on my 55 Pat for about 10 years and never had a problem.

Craig"

Ditto except mine is a Jacobs multi-spark unit using the points for breakers and it's only been about four years since I started using it. Points should last almost forever in this application and (in my experience) you get a sharper ignition signal than with the sort of wavy Hall Effect (Interrupted magnetic field) signal generated by the Pertronix unit. I also noticed a (perhaps anecdotal) slight fuel efficiency increase over all ranges of driving and conversion back to original configuration, should you need to do so, is as Craig describes.