Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Jack Nordstrom in Texas is doing the conversion for the 56 Packard engine used on Golden Hawk. I don't know how much more would be involved in fitting into the Packard since it obviously would not just drop in having different rear mounts. I believe the throttle linkage is also different.

You can check it out and get his contact info by going to the Hawk site. Once there, click on options, then in the technical information column is the TH400 conversion.

1956goldenhawk.com/

Try here:1956goldenhawk.com/tran400.htm

And here:mikestransmissions.com/Classics/UltraOD.html

Mikes may not be good anymore. I gave that link a few months ago and someone checked only to be told the principals had apparently had a difference of opinion and the guy that did the conversion was no longer there or was not doing them.

If someone does find an option, might be nice if they'd post a ballpark figure to reference.

My personal opintion is to keep the Ultramatic. Unless you're going to race the car, which is HIGHLY unlikely, (unless you're nuts like me!) the Ultramatic will suffice rather well. If you ARE thinking about racing a Packard, I'd recommend using a manual trans, they're so much stronger for the purpose. Anyone needing help on manual conversions for either straight eights or V8's let me know, I've done 'em both.

the seller accepted my offer, and im going to pick up the car tommarow!

i heard once that the ultramatics had reliability issues. the source i heard it from belived that it was due to the fluid foaming up, or something along those lines. is there any truth to this? im not really worried because of the mileage of the car (kinda high) which tells me that it must have gone fine for quite awhile. it would be cool to have a standard tranny, but im a purist.

it may sound dumb, but does the 'twin' portion refer to a two speed transmission?

Quote:

Mike,

Congratulations on your purchase of the Pat, and it's nice to see a car with real mileage on it.



PS - Don't forget to add it to the Owner Registry

80,000 miles on the clock. real mileage! i should get some pics tommarow, but it may be awhile before there up.

Properly driven and maintained, Ultramatics were fairly reliable.

I think the biggest issue was the higher horsepower engine along with some early teething problems with the redesign of the original Ultra into the Twin Ultra. The original unit being designed around a lower horsepower and torque engine caused the issues with reliability with bigger engines--especially when drivers tried to take advantage of a big V8. They are also different enough that the average mechanic, familiar with other brands might not be aware of all the subtle things that needed maintenance and adjustment. Unfortunately the Packard mechanic wasn't around very long either. At any rate, they were and are not a drag strip transmission.

The original Ultra was a 2 speed transmission with direct drive converter lockout. In normal driving, there is no actual shift -- it started & stayed in high, and at approx 20 mph the torque converter locked out. Low range was just that -- low with converter lockout. Acceleration was very leisurely because thats what the average Packard driver would want, so drivers wanting more acceleration would manually shift from low to high which cause much grief to clutches and bands not designed for such fast action.

In late 54, Packard automated the change so it went low to high to direct drive and also left the option for the high range only original type operation. They named it Gear start Ultra, and in 55 changed name to Twin Ultra. There were continual changes throughout its short life but by 56 most of early problems including the oil belching had been addressed and lots of them have gone many miles.

So to make a long story short, Twin means you can select it to start in high range as original, or you can select it to go low to high to direct.

Mikec wrote: "i heard once that the ultramatics had reliability issues. the source i heard it from belived that it was due to the fluid foaming up, or something along those lines. is there any truth to this?"

Packard attempted to beef up the Ultramatics for the added torque of the new V8s. It appears that they fell somewhat short of the mark. I've always suspected that the Packard engineers were taken completely by surprise by folks' growing tendency in the early fifties to subject large, luxury passenger cars to the stresses of drag racing. There are varying opinions on the Twin Ultramatics as to reliability. My own experience is that, under normal driving conditions and when cared for properly, they're satisfactory and just about as good as anything that was available at the time. You ain't gonna win any drag races with one and, if you try, you're gonna fry it. You can't tow really heavy loads with one for any length of time. Back in the day, under certain weather and useage conditions, one would occasionally overheat and puke all the fluid out the dipstick tube onto the road. Your car has a stock transmission oil cooler from the factory. Some of us who drive our cars a lot have added another in front of the radiator behind the grill. Like several other features on your car, the Twin Ultamatic developed a bad rep because it was far different from anything that the big three built (Packard was the only independent that developed their own automatic transmission) and a very lot of transmission mechanics just didn't want to learn something different.

The, "Twin," designation refers to the two driving ranges. One operates, from start to direct-drive lockup off the torque converter. The other gives you a two gear planetary start off and then locks, via the same direct drive clutch, into direct drive. I have always liked the T/Us and the older Ultramatics as well. I like the engine braking that one gets from them. That's just me.

Sorry about that, HH56. I wrote my answers in Notepad, the server evidently kicked me off, and by the time I posted my reply and got back to the page, you'd already answered his questions. Don't suppose it's productive to cover same ground twice!