Packard Forum Index » General

September 8, 1947: Packard introduced the Six 2220 and 2240.
The serial number is in the range of G1501 to G4100. Both of those models were produced for taxi use.

The Taxi limousine with a 2280 body mounted on the 2200 chassis which had a wheelbase of 141 inches,as did both body style 2282, a four door sedan, and body 2296 a four door sedan taxi.

John F. Shireman

1949 Packard introduced the ultramatic to the public. In another thread I stated it cost $7 million dollars to develop the ultramatic.

I just got reading that it cost Packard another $11.5 million in start up costs for production of the ultramatic.
That comes to $18.5 million Packard spent on the ultramatic.

To me that is one heck of a lot of money spent or r&d for small company.


John F. Shireman

THE ULTRAMATIC transmission - the "blow" that killed Packard ?

Good question. Many of us who owned Ultramatic-drive equipped Packards believe that this sorry excuse for incometence was almost as important a factor in "killing" Packard, as the sloppy build quality.

It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 1) people wanted automatic transmissions 2) people wanted reliable automatic transmissions 3) people who purchased expensive cars with automatic transmissions expected them to perform well.

The development and execution of the General Motors four speed "Hydramatic" transmission set the standard that continues today - I am not aware of any modern production car that offers less than a four speed automatic transmission. Even small-engined lower-price cars equipped with Hydramatics in the early 1950's would "blow off" Ultramatic-equipped Packards.

Packard was not alone in screwing up its reputation with crummy, unresponsive transmissions. Chrysler Corp. went down that road in the late 1940's, and it almost put the Imperial out of business. (anyone in here actually driven a "Fluid Drive" equipped Chrysler product?).

Of interest on the other issue ( terrible loss of standards in "build quality"), Chrysler copied Packard, and were it not for repeated massive govt. "bail-outs" of tax-payer cash, they would have been out of business decades ago.

The primary desgin failure of the Ultramatic that crippled the already declining performance of Packard cars (compare what a 1941 "356" Packard would do, performance-wise, to a 1951 Packard "327) was accompanied by inadequate execution.

Makes one wonder if there really is a "death gene". Designing a "NO SPEED" transmission? In a luxury make with a reputation for performance? From the same company who once included amongst its slogans " Master Motor Builder"...? and "The Value Of Reputation-Ask The Man Who Owns One...?

But Packard managed to pull it off! For those of you who are wondering what I am talking about, let me explain how the Ultramatic worked, and how it compared with the Hydramatic transmssion that set the standard for reliability and performance.

The Hydramatic, again, had FOUR speeds foward. A super LOW gear to launch the car rapidly - then three more close-ratio speeds to assure instant responsiveness in ANY speed raqnge.

The Hydra-matic multi-speed flexibility permitted very high final drive ratios, for economical and quiet extreme speed crusing. Ford's Lincoln division, several "independants" recognizing the adequacy of the Hydramatic, made it an "option" avail. in their products.

With the Ultramatic, an extremely "high" final drive ratio wasn't possible. The device had NO foward speeds - meaning you start out in "high" or direct drive, with a slippery torque convertor to get the car moving, then it "locks up" in direct. NO "passing gear" above around 50 mph. I remember being beaten in a drag race by a GARBAGE TRUCK ! (Hydramatic-equipped, of course...!).

Yes, you could MANUALLY bring in a reduction gear by moving the steering column shift lever, but people who bought cars for automatic transmission features, were turned off by that. Yes, I designed a "trick" modification so you could start out using that reduction gear, but even that would only bring the performance of an Ultramatic-equipped Packard up to - this is no exaggeration - garbage truck standards (dont try and drag race a city bus unless you put your Ultramatic into "low" range..you will lose!)

I find it fascinating that even with all the effort post-war Packard management expended in trying to destroy the honorable reputation of Packard, when the advertising literature went out for the introduction of the 1955 Packard, and promotional films of the famous "high speed" test-run, Packard still had enough reputation to cause sales to sky-rocket. People WANTED to believe in Packard even as late as the introduction of the 1955 model year products. And they PROVED it with sky-rocketing sales orders.

Perhaps John can fill us in on how stories of the introduction of the "gear start" Ultramatic, and stories about how the '55's were bringing back Packard's legendary performance immage, caused those improved sales. For a few months. Till the cars got into the hands of consumers, and the facts of how awful the quality-control was.

Killing cultures, corporations, even individuals, can be very profitable. We have seen how, if you are "connected", you can profit by destroying entites. Studying carefully how Packard "set the standards" for corporate suicide is, in my view, important to understanding how our industry screwed up our country. I can understand why some people do NOT want the "Packard Death Gene" issue discussed.

Just as Packard was a model for success in its "golden years", the Ultramatic-equipped Packards, in my view, were a model for corporate suicide by American industry in the years that followed.

Peter, I owned both a 1952 Chrysler Windsor with the "Fluidmatic" transmission and also a 1947 Cadillac 75 Limousine with Hydamatic during the 1960's The Hydramatic was a superior transmission and to tell you the truth I have often wondered why Packard didn't buy the rights to use it in the early 40's instead of creating the trouble prone "Rube Goldberg" Electromatic clutch which my '47 Super came equipped with. As you mentioned Lincoln and I believe Hudson as well as Rolls-Royce used Hydramatic transmissions under licence from GM so maybe GM would have sold it to Packard also but maybe not. My brother owned a 1949 Olds 88 in the early 50's and I can recall how he could "smoke" the back tire from a dead start and was I impressed as that was something that my 47 Cadillac could not do! My old 52 Chrysler, with the flathead 6 engine and "M-6" transmission, was very slow off the line as can be imagined but once in high, which was an overdrive gear as I seem to recall, it could cruise quietly at 60 mph. I enjoy my Packard and use the Electromatic clutch in city driving but it would be even more enjoyable with a Hydramatic although I would miss the overdrive on the highway. A friend of my brother owned a 1950 Packard with 288 engine and Ultamatic and I remember that it would seem to wind up slowly on takeoff and then lock-up but it was quite slow also. I don't know whether or not my Chrysler was quicker off the line as we never raced but I imagine it would have been close.

OK, wanna talk slippery? Hydramtic had a mere fluid coupling. THAT'S why it needed four forward gears, with first gear as a mule gear - something you'd expect to find in manual gearbox for a dump truck.

From the get-go, the Ultramatic had a two stage, dual turbine torque converter that offered true torque multiplication (2.4:1 in High range, according to a October, 1950 article in the Texaco Lubrication Magazine). Then, when the Direct Drive clutch engaged, you had NO slippage - something the rest of the industry wouldn't have until nearly three decades later. With the torque of a Packard engine, there wasn't a need for a mule gear in a car like this.

While the Hydramtic has some strong points, it wasn't without it's flaws, either. With a wide open throttle, the vehicle would lurch forward on the 1-2 upshift; hard to believe most Cadillac, let alone a Packard, owners would care for that. Then, as the seals aged, the Hydramatic would not only exhibit engine flare on the 2-3 upshift, but could get tied-up in both of those gears simultaneously, which led to failure of the front band. I've also heard of some problems with reverse gear, but don't have all the details.

Saying the Ultramtic "had NO foward speeds" is a lie - something you'd expect from someone trying to bait people into a fight (rather than presenting facts).

Brian, you make your points very well. I was tempted to jump in earlier when I read it said that the Ultramatic was a "one speed", of course that could only be true if the torque converter had zero multiplication factor, so obviously that statement is incorrect. But I guess I didn't want to get involved in another debacle like the last series between those two eminent folks who seem to so enjoy baiting each other and stirring the pot.

When I was a kid (in the 50s) we called Hydramatic "leap and lurch". It did many things well but a relatively seamless transition between speeds wasn't one of them, 1-2 was a whiplash experience with heavy throttle. I think Packard was looking for SMOOTHNESS more than exhilirating performance, and smoothness they got. I'm a bit suprised no one has brought up the other automatic trans of the day, Dynaflow. Now that was smooth, and seamless, and if performance from the light was your thing, it was, all other things being equal, even poorer than Chrysler's Fluid Drive, Gyromatic, Tip-Toe, etc.

Well two out of five went a different direction at GM. As Owen pointed out Buick had the dynaflow, and Chevy powerglide.

The questioned that could be asked is why two divisions of GM decide not to use the hydramatic.

Lincoln only purchased hydramatics as a stop gap measure until Ford came out with their own automatic transmission, which I believe was around 1952 or 1953. Hudson stopped using hydramatics in 1953 when GM"s transmission plant caught fire. Then Hudson started using the three speed Borg Warner automatic, which Studebaker had been using since they listed automatic transmission as an option in the 50's.

One fact is that Buck and GM tried using Packard for patent infringements with the introduction of the ultramatic.
I might add that Packard fought GM in court over this and the court found in favor of Packard.

John F. Shireman

John, you jumped forward a generation when you mentioned Chevrolet's Turboglide, that came well after their first, Powerglide. Chrysler's first was PowerFlite followed just a few years later by TorqueFlite which proved to be the best of the transmissions of the era.

I don't recall that my 47 Cadillac lurched on the gear change from 1 to 2 but I never pushed it hard either. The Buicks with "Dyna-slush" was not known for fast takeoffs. I had a Powerglide in a 66 Corvette which had a 300HP 327 CID engine but with a 350 cam and other mods. It was a tough transmission and never gave me any problems. The Chrysler Torqueflight was probably the toughest transmission . Our game warden trucks were mostly Dodges in the 60's and 70's and they were just about unbreakable with the torqueflights as were the rear ends and axles. The Ford C6 and the GM TH400 were tough also but a little later than the period that we are talking about.

Brian is correct as to my failure to be accurate - I apologize - I should been clearer that the Ultramatic had ONE foward speed, a 3.54 ratio provided by the rear axle.

If I led you guys to think I said NO speed, Brian is right - I was being a bit too "theatrical" by calling it "no-speed". ! (but that's the way people felt about it who drove them when they were new and in service !).

As I noted, the way it worked was, it had only one speed, starting out with that slippery sluggish convertor, then, depending on throttle position, would "lock up" in direct drive.

Brian is INCORRECT in describing the "lurch" problem between the 2 - 3 shift on Hydramatics. That wasn't anything to do with "seals going bad". That was a problem that would arise from the "bands" wearing, easily corrected.

For those of you with Hydramatic-equipped cars, GET A SHOP MANUAL - DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ADJUST THE BANDS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE SHOP MANUAL'S VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS.

The band adjustment to eliminate the "lurch" is pretty simple. But do it wrong, and you WILL break something.

There are two "acorn" style nuts covering the lock nut and adjusting screws, both accessible thru holes in the floor-board covering the transmission. Lift up the rugs and you will see the covers.

Yeah - that Electromatic - what a goofy system that was! And what a joy to drive those big Packards were with the "356" engine and over-drive !

But they would have been even neater with a Hydramatic. With a Hydramatic four-speed, they could have been equipped with a very high final drive ratio, and still had gut-wrenching off-the-line performance.

Again, maybe John can prowl thru his rerference material and find out & tell us more about why Packards didnt have Hydramatics.

Perhaps in John's excellent reference sources there is some note or explaination as to why Packard didnt negotiate with General Motors for use of the Hydramatic ? GM seemed all too willing to sell its transmisisons to automobile companies world-wide. ? ? ? ?

Of course there was no way the obsolete "flat heads" Packards could have kept up with the then modern Cad, Olds, and Linclon over-head valve V-8'sappearing in 1949, even WITH a Hydramatic transmission.

But at least a Hydramatic-equipped Packard wouldnt have been so slow as to have been an industry laughing-stock. Drive a properly maintained a '50 Packard Custom with Ultramatic, and compare it with a '50 Cad. if you want a real shock.

Now - come on - you guys - dont be mad at me. I am not clear what benefit there is to trying to cover up the fact that Packard committed corporate suicide, by a combination of poorly engineered, poorly assembled products?

I am also not clear why present owners of these later Packard products should in any way feel badly about having honest discussions-there is much to learn about all this.

Fact is, as noted elsewhere, Packard was pretty much out of the auto MANUFACTURING business by the start of World War II, "off-shoring" much of the parts manufacture to others. Harrison Div. of GM radiators. Carbs., generators, starter motors, traditionally purchased from outside suppliers. Same goes for brakes, radios, steering gear, etc.

So there is no reason, with a little "tinkering", why you cant make a nice, serviceable car out of a 50's era Packard. I did! Out of a LOT of them! What you guys apparently can not or will not understand, is that we in here are all CAR BUFFS. We are willing to WORK on our Packards to keep them serviceable.

BEFORE the Interstate system was up and running, I drove my '51 Packard 250 Convertible from the George Washington Bridge in New York City, to the Barham off-ramp on the Hollywood Freeway, in 2 1/2 days, and I SLEPT AT NIGHT ! And that was in summer, with grueling heat. So you can imagine how fast I was going. So, sure, a little tinkering, and you can get good service out of things.

A buyer of a new car, then and now, isn't interested in a "do-it-yourself" kit. The kind of thinking that believes it can push a shoddy product out the door (that needs extensive re-work at the dealer before it can be sold), is what killed Packard, would have killed Chrysler had the tax-payer not bailed them out. Almost killed GM and Ford (have they learned their lesson - my Ford Excursion seems pretty well assembled.... ? ? ? ).