Big Kev - you are right - I apologize - it was me who figured out a way to sneak into Pierre's post and make up that sentence about what a "classic" car mechanic said.

Shame on me. While I am apologizing, I want to again apolgize for standing in front of all those Packard show-rooms after, oh, say, about May of 1955 and chasing off all those people who were in line to buy new Packards.

Did I tell you how sorry I am for sneaking into the Purchasing Depts. of GM., NASH, HUDSON, and forced them to give up their plans to buy Ultramatic transmissions, instead of using that crummy Hydramatic. Yeah, I know..I know..I also stopped Chrysler from dropping their Torqeflight trannys instead of using the Ultramatic, like they were planning to do.

I am SUCH a bad guy. Did you know I worked in Packard in the late 1940's, and tricked them into down-sizing the performance of the top-of-the-line Packards, by getting Packard to stop production on the famous "356' engines, dropping it for that "327"...made them take out the braces on the hood and roof panels..?

SHAME on me !

now that's interesting - Turbo. wants me silenced because I noted some ways of "winning" ?

C'mon...Turbo - you honestly going to tell me you dont think it is a great idea for General Motors to get on board with Chrysler ? Do you have a historical precedent for poo-pooing this wonderful new brilliant idea ?

Packard did not offer trunk lights prior to the 40's. So you can rule that out.

Packard bought clocks for its cars prior to the 1940's, that DID NOT RE WIND. They did not RE WIND because they had no mechanism to RE WIND. The reason they had no mechaniscm to RE WIND, is because they didnt need it. They were "capacitive discharge" type, that got a teenie weenie "jolt" with each movement of the escape wheel, so you guys with the post-war Packards, who are familiar with the magnet-powered over-center re-wind arm, would not know about this.

Bottom line - the only useful comment in here is the guy who wants to put a VERY small light bulb in series with the battery cables. THAT will tell you if there is a "drain", however small. Even the smallest "drain" load will cause a VERY tiny light bulb's filment to show a "load".

the above post...? What's with that "GROAN"..? The mechanic said he is a CLASSIC car mechanic. What's with you guys. Dont you know the rules ? You are SUPPOSED to call EVERYTHING a "classic", and once you do that, you are not ALLOWED to question the use of the word. Shame on you

I think you are being disruptive for even SUGGESTING that we make fun of a guy who tosses the word "classic" around. Get with the program !

POINT NO. (1)
i cant die. would have no place to go. heaven wont take me (they wouldnt like a guy like me going after all the 'good' girls "up there"....

Hell wont let me in - devil does have some pride; wouldnt want a guy like me in there giving the place a bad name...

POINT NO. (2) - HISTORY IS BUNK. FORGET REAL HISTORY. IT IS ANNOYING - YOU YOUNG GUYS KNOW WHAT YOU WANT..MAKE UP A BETTER ONE.
So I think I will just stay here and watch our entire culture and country get richer and more international respect........how do I know this..?

Hmmm...for example, wanna see a great new idea for "success" for a failing car company...?

Take General Motors for example...now...I WONDER where they got their latest ideas....like...reduce their introduction of new products, de-emphasize performance compared to the competition.. after years of a declining reputation for sloppy build quality....?

Ah...that's it...combine with Chrysler...!

Nothing like "linking up" with another failing company that also has un-imaginative products with poor quality control, to improve your chances?

C'mon guys...give me a break - why would you accuse me of making fun of Packard's self destruction in the 1950's, or suggesting that General Motors is following the Packard "model" to failure...?

Be fair! I was thinking of Pierce Arrow combining with Studebaker in the early 1930's......

What....you say I am suggesting there is a pattern there ? Naw...forget about history. You young people know better-you dont want to hear it. Much more satisfying to MAKE UP a new history so we "feel better".

(now..where did I put that advertisement for that idea for a kit that one of you young guys is bound to come up with sooner or later.....what a great idea... to put Packard Ultramatic transmissions into '50s Hydramaitc and Torqeflight equipped cars to improve their reliability and performance..)

These forums are often a fantastic source of great info. I might otherwise never have found on my own.

One example is one of you guys (thanks, whoever you are!) noted in here about the Univ. of Michigan/Detroit Public Library Packard photo collections are now avail. to us with just the "click" of our mices....! (meese ?)

But here's the problem. A very human condition is wanting to sound authoritive. My prejudice is the younger generations are even less restrained, less reluctant to stick their noses where they havnt been educated, than we older people, to whom accuracy and integrity have some value...? ? ?

While browsing thru the fantastic collection of photos, I came upon one (IMAGE ITEM EB01e824) which shows a bunch of new ZIS 110's. SOMEONE felt the urge to tell us how much he knows about these "Russian Packards". Repeats the nonsence that "PACKARD SENIOR DIES SOLD TO USSR BY U.S. GOVERNMENT URGING..."

At my age, I should no longer be surprised that the human condition includes, way too often, a burning desire to say something, ANYTHING, to sound important.

Those of you with at least the intelligence of a sand flea recognizes this "Russian Packard" crap as absolute nonsence.

Of course Packard HAD NO DIES TO SELL. Chassis/frames were purchased from the major frame supplier A.O. Smith. Zimac/"pot metal" fittings, door hardware, latches, etc., brakes, bearings, carbuerators, ignition systems, radiators, and starting in the late 1930, the entire body of the car, all purchased from UNRELATED OUTSIDE SUPPLIERS.

Never mind the fact that Russia is on the EUROPEAN continent, using METRIC measurements.

Never mind the fact that dies are hardened steel - kind of hard to bend em into changed shapes....!

But, what the heck - even in our own forum someone decided they wanted to say that "1938 PACKARD SUPER EIGHT AND TWELVE SHARED THE SAME CHASSIS...."

The issue of the ZIS is, of course, well-described elsewhere in this forum, by some apparently knowledgeable guys.

What I am trying to point out here, is, as we speed away from the period that Packard existed, with more and more generations of smart-mouths wanting to say something...ANYTHING to sound important.....I STRONGLY recommend you dont "drop your guard"...be suspicous of ANY "self styled expert" who 1) wasnt actually "there"...and 2) probaby wouldn't know which end of a screw-driver he or she sat on....!

Now...back to those mini-dresses...

I am shocked and offended at the posts in this "thread". Those '55 Packards were MAGNFICENT monuments to what Packard could do if it really put its heart into what it was trying to do.

In fact..they are such "monuments" to determination, look how they influenced the sale of the '56 Packards. Even greater "monuments" to what Packard was trying to do to itself. Show a little admiration and respect..folks...

If you people KNEW what you were talking about, you'd know that GM and FORD and CHRYSLER were SO taken back and impressed by those sales figures of those high quality post 1950 Packards, that by 1957 they "threw in the towel" and gave up, and started car clubs for their own brands...making "conversion kits" so you could install that brilliant Packard ULTRAMATIC transmission in GM, FORD, and CHRYSLER cars... (to improve reliability and performance...of course....!)

that sounds like a personal attack. I dont mind. But I think you owe us an explantion with some specifics.

Let's see if you have a legit. technical dispute we can resolve by discussing it? Who knows - might be interesting and help fellow Packard owners learn something.

I am totally lost by these comments that people would "love" or "hate" different types or eras of Packard products. These are CARS, guys - manufactured PRODUCTS !

They and the company that created them make interesting study. I have YET to drive ANY Packard of ANY year that I didn't like for what it was. The neat little Packard Clipper 6 we had as a "loaner" while the local Packard agency did the brakes on our Super Clipper was a delight to drive. "Hate" it because it was a "dog" compared to the breath-taking accelleration of that "356"...? Geez...guys. Should I "hate" my V-12 because a SJ Dusie can out-run it ? Or because it isnt as comfortable in summer than a '40 with factory air conditioning?

To "love" or "hate" any particular Packard car ....? Because it was different than any other Packard car?

What's with that ? Sounds to me like someone needs to get hold of some copies of PLAYBOY magazine, and see what IS really important.......!

I just dont "get it".

best way for you folks to understand this question is look at a Packard Parts Book.

The only REAL "Senior" in 1939 was the Twelve. In 1939, as we all know, Packard stuffed the 1924 design "baby eight" or "Standard Eight" into what was essentially a 120, and CALLED it a "Super Eight". And then trimmed it with some left-over "Senior Division" fittings.

A look at a Packard Parts Book will confirm NO parts (well, that isnt ENTIRELY true - door handles, dome lights, and I believe dome light switches will interchange) NO PARTS of the '39 Twelves will fit anything else in Packard's 1939 product line up.

It is VERY important for some people who are jealous of the Twelves, to want to say that there were similarities .

This WAS true in prior year production, when the Twelves shared the same exterior sheet metal with the other "Senior" products.

In response to your question, in 1939, again. NOTHING interchanges, as only the Twelve was the remaining "REAL" Senior Packard. If we are going to be HONEST, "Senior" Packard production ended in the summer of 1939, when the entire factory was converted over to the production of the much lighter "120" style cars. The separate production facilities for the "REAL "Senior Divison" were merged into the production of lower priced Packard products.

If you look up in this forum's product identification charts for, for 1938, for example, you will see that the 1938 Super Eight and Twelve are described as "shared the same chassis".

Of course anyone actually familiar with the technology of the REAL Packard V-12 and the REAL Packard Standard Eight (the 1937-'39 "Super" eights were in fact STANDARD EIGHTS) knows the much larger and more powerful engine, the "REAL" Super Eight was discontinued for 1937 production.

In 1939 (as well as '37-38), your Packard Parts book will show NO parts of the so called "Super Eight" running gear will interchange with the "big" Packards. Not so much as a BOLT in the suspension, wheels, bearings, frame, etc, will interchange between the two product lines. Brake drums, wheels, axles, bearings, suspension parts - all bigger and heavier on the 12's to reflect the greater weight and power.

Now - to put this all in perspective, let's remember that dramatic improvements in technology - rubber engine mounts, higher octane fuels giving us the ability to have higher compression motors, all made the big "Senior" cars obsolete. I would be the first to admit a "356" Packard (1940-42 "160/180 series) Super & Custom Clippers, up thru '49) are all around a very nice driving experience, and will "blow the doors" off anything in their price range. They sold well, so much better than the old "Senior Divison" cars did, for the simple and obvious reason they were "better" in that they were "up-to-date".

And let's also remember that Packard's entering the low-middle class price line with DAMN good cars for the money, kept the doors open.

So let's remember the bottom line - Sad to say the sales figures on BOTH the 1939 "Super Eight" and its bigger cousin the V-12, show us these products were not capable of supporting the Packard Motor Car Company.