Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Quote:


Packard should have offered you a job at the Proving Grounds!

Quote:

Quite right, Owen, it's just that the way you put it was a little confusing to me:

Quote:

Maybe everybody got it, but the phrase that it's "quite noticeable though not objectionable" sounded as though you were referring to "squat" rather than "lift" could have been confusing to some. I don't see a down-side to the lifting behavior.

I do believe the comment about the torque arms making the difference is accurate, however the fact that others used them doesn't detract from the T/L's performance as an all-around suspension system.

bozono,

Your "stoplight games" are a hoot to read! I never tried that, although back in my day "power braking" (holding the car back with the brakes and gunning it enough to spin the rear tires in place) was a happy way to ruin a trans and diff both at once, (not to mention the rear brakes.) I didn't go for that particular mania, though. My dad would've said: "You rim-racked it with that malarky, you fix it."

The Packard T/L brought a whole new dimension to these shenanigans and having junior drive the family sedan may have had a lot to do with the reputation that the Twin Ultra was fragile. Your testimonial about the survival of Packards under such conditions, and your real-world experience with performance comparisons of Cadillac and Chrysler cars of that same era say a lot about how advanced and solid the Packards really were. Especially considering that a young man is NOT forgiving to cars that have inferior performance characteristics--especially when his boy racer street cred is on the line!

Do you have any pics form "back in the day" when you were prowling the streets with your Packards?

My remarks were not meant to disparage the wonderful T/L ride and handling - only to try to explain why I think the chassis rises when accelerating rather than squatting.

Sorry if you took my comment that way, Randy. I didn't intend to disparage your observation at all! I think the torque arms are responsible for the lift on acceleration, and were a good idea that other manufacturers that used them. Thanks for pointing it out.

I only wish i had more packard pics. the first car i ever remember was my fathers 42 clipper fastback. i was entranced with the cloisonne hubs. then came my grandmother's 38 4 dr convert v-12. she traded it for a chevy in 47!!!!!!! svie got a pic of that one that i can download. my father and uncles all had heart attacks over that one. My maternal GF only drove Packards as did his father.so there was a 47 custom,and a 47 custom limo that i did get to see once, as my great GF died in 47, 48 convert 51 200, 52 200 53 cavalier and 55 clipper custom, also another that i rode in was my aunts 42 110 convert, my dads 56 executive my 51 convert bought for 100 bucks in 61 and more.
The 55 and 56 are my favorites of all. Ive been a Packard kook since a little kid Im sure there is a diagnosis for this condition.

There's no cure for this condition...only way to keep it at bay is to keep buying more!

LOL if only i could!!!

Check out the youtube packard proving grounds films Shows a 56 clipper in action. What we have to remember is that Packard was way ahead of the US competition. Chrysler products were so softly sprung that they looked like they'd roll over in a hard turn. dive and squat were endemic in the industry.

As for cost per car i remember reading a million years ago that the cost per car for Packard was 125.00. They did a pretty good job of working it into existing suspension.

In 56 they standardized it across the line with only the Clipper deluxe offering it as an option so in lean times it didnt seem to be too much of a cost hardship

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.

QUote:
"Have been playing with the idea of adapting some sort of rear stabilizer, myself."

Try a set of DOUBLE action shock absorbers. i.e. shocks that offer resisence in BOTH directions, compression and extension.

The stabilizer bar as used on most INDEPENDENT fron suspensions works because the front suspension is INDEPENDENT. A solid rear axle does not lend itself to any relatively simple type of stabilizer as is found on INDEPENDENT suspension.

INDEPENDENT suspension:

When the wheel on the outside of a curve tucks up into the fender it raises the stabilizer bar on BOTH sides thus reducing (not eleminating) the amount of drop on the wheel in the INside of the curve. Effectively the stabilizer attempts to cancel any spring pressure on the INside turn wheel.

Because the front is independent this works. To apply the same forces to a SOLID axle such as the rear would require some kind of frame mounted rather complex geometry and links.

Just try the DOUBLE action shocks. Accomplishes the same thing in a lesser efective way.