Packard Forum Index » General

'37 seniors are nice because they got the Saft-t-fleX IFS introduced in the '35 120, a fine suspension copied nut for bolt after the war in R-R/Bentley, and as rear suspension, in the W.O. Bentley-designed postwar Lagonda. The later big Healey (100-6, 3000) had a version of it, as did recent Ford F-series pickup.

Stick to your guns, buy only what really sings to you. I've seen some '37 Su8s in nice, solid shape for reasonable sums lately, one or two right here on PI. Robert Cumberford, writing in a glowing profile of a '37 Packard Twelve club sedan in Automobile magazine a dozen years ago, suggested, as did Maurice Hendry and other knowledgeable souls long before, that the '30s Packard Twelve was overall the finest luxury car of that decade from either side of the Atlantic, bar none.

My aforementioned Delahaye/Bugatti friend once owned an Hispano-Suiza J12, one of only 120 built, a supercar that made a Duesenberg look like the overrated, overhyped, overpriced, twin cam glitzmobile it was. Quintuple the price of the lovelier, 95mph (4.06 std. cog) 1931-33 Chrysler Imperial.... Really?
Yet even the lavishly engineered V-12 Hisso suffered from too tall a first gear, a juddering clutch.

The upshot is that such would never have happened in a Packard, East Grand always getting it right across the board and the o n l y quality glitch i ever heard of in prewar Packards, the occasionally recalcitrant Handishift in 1940-42 old body-style models notwithstanding, was some of the 1938 319-ci Super Eight blocks having a casting irregularity, the concise truth of which i still have yet to hear.

But a Twelve is, to me, more of a silky fire truck than automobile, 1,300 lbs. engine/clutch, but then i'm just a sports car guy who got sidetracked by the more reasonably sized '40s Packards, and so also appreciate the solid, thoroughly engineered juniors.

Since from the advent of the ohv V-8s over 60 years ago
through today's slick, efficient marvels, few cars have, for me, a vestige of prewar charm, i'm the wrong person to ask what engine shoulda been used in any Packard "Parisian," tho' i think Facel Vega got it right since Chrysler had the day's best drivetrain.

Having a few too many at the press conference unveiling
of their new V-8 in the Silver Cloud II/Bentley S-II, autumn, 1959, its chief engineer blurted out, "It's bloody near as good as the Chrysler."

I'm also the wrong person to query about the proper placement of rear door hinges, believing two doors enough for any but livery car. I make exceptions for a very few barouches, like a coupla Railton saloons and my '47 Super,
merely as i like its lines better than the two-door club sedan, which looks better on paper from front 3/4 view, a mite humpy from the rear, one place GM's '40s "sedanettes," and the '52 R-Type, '56 S-Type Bentley Continentals got it right.
That, and elegance is a subset of an understated road car for me, not the main event, but then '60s Continentals are monstrous if clean limbed tuna boats to me.

Can't quarrel with Tim Cole's recent post that he prefers the junior Clippers, which, trimmed with restraint, low key, have plenty of presence, warm up faster, are less of a handful to drive than my gas hog Super locomotive.

Again, IMHO, if you "need" an engine larger than 390 ci,
you should be building trucks, vans, busses, not automobiles.

G'luck. Faith and begorrah, why not find a Facel Vega Excellence with needs and retrim it as the Packard you saw as a lad? Tail lights, interior, etc.

Lotta insight from the gents above and here in general to guide you regardless what you wind up with.

Hi

During the brief consideration of the Facel Excellence-based Packard, it was to use leftover Packard V8's and Ultramatics that were built for service requirements. Apparently the supply was more than ample, since the projected sales numbers for Packard 'Excellences' was to be very small.

Center-opening door Lincolns: the original design iteration was developed as a next-generation Thunderbird on 113" wb for 1961, this would been during 1957-58. Concurrently, the giant unibodied '58 Lincolns and Continentals were bombing in the market and the ever-calculating Robert McNamara was itching to rid Ford Motor Company of any makes that didn't produce profits....would have gladly scuttled Lincoln. Fortunately, viewing the various concept clay mock-ups, McNamara liked the slab-sided Thunderbird design, suggested they add ten inches to the wheelbase and make it a Lincoln. In doing so, rear seat ingress and egress was still restricted and uncomfortable with forward-hinged rears doors so rear-hinged units quickly solved that problem, plus benefitting from the following cultural shift. Although rear-hinged rear doors had been old hat just a few years prior, the '51 Lincolns and Mercurys, '52 Studebakers and '54 Chrysler long-wheelbase models the last hold-outs, once they appeared on and various GM Motorama show cars including the pillar-less '53 Cadillac Orleans, '55 & '56 Eldorado Broughams and Town Car, they became regarded as very stylishly elegant......perfect for a new type of compact luxury Lincoln Continental.

As far function, the reason they perform so well is the unibody structure is extremely heavily built relative to the size of the car: 5000 lb for a 123" wb, 212" overall compared to a '61 Cadillac 62 sedan at 4660 lb, 129.5 wb, 222" overall. Regardless of whether it was a sedan or convertible, those Lincolns have a bank-vault solidity that's amazing for it's time. And they needed that 430 cid V8 to move all that weight, always at 10 mpg regardless of how they're driven (I had a '63 convertible for a while). They're not prefect in every way, but they're a darn nice rig with a wonderfully satisfying design. But also know that I'm biased for them, having fallen instantly in love with the design as an eight year old boy in November 1960 days prior to their introduction when we happened upon the new '61 models 'hidden' out back of Arkport Motors Lincoln-Edsel-Mercury. Never been so smitten with a car since.

Steve

I still can't help but think that a Packardized Facel Vega Excellence with the big Packard V-8, Ultramatic, and those suicide doors would have been, in the final analysis, a stylish and elegant service department nightmare. Why not throw in the torsion-bar suspension as well? Might as well go for broke, emphasis on "broke". Further, Elwood Engel's Ford Thunderbird proposal that was upgraded to become the 1961 Lincoln Continental would have made the Facel-Packard (as nice as it looked) appear hopelessly dated by comparison. Facing the new Lincoln in the public eye, Cadillac shed its fins year by year as quickly as possible while Chrysler turned to (guess who?) Elwood Engel to make their 1964 Imperial a handsome car in the Lincoln mold. By comparison, the Facel Vega Excellence, even shorn of its wrap-around windshield and tail fins in the last few cars, was plainly a product of the late 50's. No way it could ever compete. At the end of the day, walking away . . . Running, maybe . . . From this project was the correct decision for all concerned. More's the pity for those of us who would have loved to see the car made anyway. Reality has a way of focusing your attention wonderfully.

I agree that the 1937 Packard Twelve, while a wonderful machine, is a bit Brobdignagian in execution. I'll stick with my dreamt-of Super 8. Don't be quite so quick to disparage the Duesenberg Model J, though. I have been blessed with the opportunity to drive two of these cars at different times in my life, and they are very, very impressive indeed. Bear in mind that ALL Duesenberg Model J's are really 1929's, and were bodied later over the years. In the context of 1929 automobiles, it's performance envelope was astonishing. They drive like a 1970's pickup truck with a big-block V-8 - which sounds bad until you are reminded once again that this was a car designed and built in the late 1920's. No, they are NOTHING like a Packard, be it in 1929 or 1937. There is nothing at all refined about a Duesenberg . . . But they are truly worth the ridiculous prices collectors pay for them. Again, just my opinion.

The last "big" classic I drove was a 1923 Ahrens-Fox Model P-S-4 fire engine with a Fox-built straight six of well over 1000 cubic inches driving a 1300-gallon per minute front-mounted piston pump. It was like riding on the outside of a World War 1 fighter plane. Fun, though.

My aim was not to "disparage" the Duesenberg as much as to provide perspective, even as i've posted a few times to debunk Rolls-Royce, thinking it unfortunate so many Packardites are still, at this late date, cowed by such myth and hyperbole, tho' my effort likely a fool's errand.

Of course the Model J was impressive. That was 10th grade dropout, former car salesman, stock market marauder E. L. Cord's sole wish, and why it was given a fanciful 265 hp rating, solely to trump the perhaps also inflated claim of a very limited production Mercedes SSK as "most powerful car in the world." Human nature likes to imagine a single "best," in any field, to vaunt the perceived Olympian, the gee whiz in us all.

The Duesenberg J was ridiculously priced and for such sum should've been able to fly and triple as submarine.
For perspective, look at the specs of the 1926-27 nine-main, twin ohc Delage 1.5-liter Grand Prix engine, which has 62 roller and needle bearings.
Such a car scaled up would be impressive. That there were even in the Depression look at me Hollywood types and scions of industrial wealth willing to make such a statement doesn't discount Richard Hough's and others assessment that "other than ball-bearinged king pins and extreme quality throughout, there was nothing remarkable about the Model J's chassis."

Packard had ball-bearing king pins, but then so much of Packard's quality was unseen.

Much was made over the well finished, enameled components in the Model J's engine bay. Forgetting an era Rolls-Royce, either Phantom or Small HP, an Isotta-Fraschini, or next year's ('30) Cadillac V-16, look at a mint original or authentically restored higher end Massey-Ferguson tractor from those years. Few color photos survive, but such upper echelon farm equipment was the J's cosmetic equal, ferociously courting what money remained in those grim years.

Fred Duesenberg had wanted to build something closer in size to his earlier Model A or X. Think of the ohc 1929 Stutz or '31 Stutz DV32 (twin cam, four valves per cylinder)eights, every bit as sophisticated as the Model J, and for a fraction the price. But E. L. Cord owned the Duesenberg brother's company and name, and so Fred Duesenberg had his marching orders.

Of course any huge, glitzy car with a rorty exhaust will be impressive, as with the ancient fire truck you describe.
But if you're talking about refined automobile, another matter.

The Model J could've had a huskier front u-joint, better transmission, something Packard always got right. The long timing chains stretched at high rpm upsetting valve timing.

It's still a helluva a car. But for such a ludicrous price, it should've been. Maurice Hendry and others ascribe 105 mph as the real world top speed for most Model Js in road trim, 3.8, 4.0, 4.1 and 4.3:1 rear axles, the middle two being most common. This was 10mph faster than
a 1931-33 Chrysler Imperial, arguably better looking, also with, like Duesenberg and Stutz, hydraulic brakes, and like the Delage, Packard, Pierce-Arrow, nine main bearings.

That the Model J sought to get by with only five main bearings underscores the car was all about mass, flash, dash, not smoothness or even durability. The long crankshaft demanded a mercury-filled vibration dampener, something Packard never needed.

Wish i could recall his name, but there's a longtime Packard man, among others, who cleanly illustrated not just the competiveness on a quality basis---if not outright top speed-- even the superiority, of certain Packard speed models from the same era.

So what did the Model J owner get beyond the chimeral benefits of public perception for over quintuple the price of a Chrysler Imperial? 10 additional mph. Twin overhead cams. And gearboxes that flashed warning/refill lights for
battery water, motor oil, and the periodic chassis lube, the latter Packard and many others having, tho' the driver having to make the heroic effort of pulling a wee handle on the dash daily.

Another old friend (been fooling with old cars all my life, reading the usual books when i was a boy) owned a pair of Duesenbergs, tho' not concurrently, a convertible sedan and a Murphy Custom Beverly sedan both on the lwb. Yes, impressive, like the fire truck you mention. But that much more so than a lovelier, lower Chrysler Imperial?

But i'm bigger on cars than hero worshipping. As for the staggering amounts Model Js bring at auction, consider the ridiculous sums people willingly part with for '57 Chevies and matching numbers '60s bucket mill muscle cars.
Inflated money's hardly a concise barometer of intrinsic worth.

You want an era barouche to be impressed with, try the 1931 Marmon 16, which put out an honest 190-200 hp, each of which did two laps at the nearby Indy brickyard at 105 mph before delivery. My Delahaye, Bugatti, Hisso-owning late friend had one of these, said his wife could park it with ease.
A 1983 poll of SAE members included the Marmon 16, not the Duesenberg, among the 30 greatest automotive engines of all time.

Am sure to take some heat even here at Packard Central
for refusing to buy into the Duesenberg golly gee whiz, but
there you have it and this cleans me out.

Meanwhile, i've asked before but would love to hear any vetted technical insight, firsthand knowledge, SAE papers on the relative merits of the 384-ci Chrysler Imperial, Packard and Pierce-Arrow nine main straight eights, all sharing the identical bore/stroke.

Wow - if your aim was not to disparage the Duesenberg you certainly took a pretty good shot at it. You are of course entitled to your own opinion. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Duesenberg. I would take one in a minute (if I could afford it, which I cannot) and enjoy it for what it is. I fear that Duesenberg aficianados wouldn't care for me either, as I would drive the HELL out of that beast. After all, ships are safest in port, but that's not what ships are for. Anyway, it's all good. We can't all like the same things.

I hear frequent similar arguments about how another of my all-time favorite cars, the Lamborghini Miura, was "not so great". Sure, there were faster, more comfortable cars available . . . but they weren't Miuras. Again, to each their own.

Packards were all about refinement, and in my opinion they did that better than anyone. It's such a shame that they don't exist today . . . but I suppose in today's culture they wouldn't be successful anyway. That was then, and this is now. So anyway, what motor are we going to drop into that Facel-Packard?

I'm reminded once again why I like this site so much...I learn new history every time I visit!... ...

The reasoning behind a Facel Vega-based Packard makes some sense - I'd never HEARD of it until right now.

Without a Packard V-8 drive train, and torsion-bar suspension,though, why bother to label the beast as a Packard?

I'm happy to see the Marmon V-16 mentioned in the above posts. It's always been underrated in comparison to the other classic automobiles of the era, in my opinion.

Quote:

Yes, I quite agree. As nice as it may have looked, the Facel Vega-based car wouldn't really be a Packard . . . any more than the scheme to use the 1956 Lincoln as a basis for a "new" Packard would have been. Sure, it looked great . . . but was it a Packard? No.

Hi

The stopgap program to utilize the '56 Lincoln body shell would still have been more Packard than Lincoln. The idea was to shortcut the major expense of complete body shell tooling while still seeking a less quantity of financing for chassis and exterior panels and trim, all in a desperate attempt to get a new 1957 Packard on the market on time. It was to be an all-Packard engineered and manufactured chassis and power train, essentially what was being developed for the completely new 1957 series. It was to be 130" wb versus the '56 Lincoln's 126", the 4" additional inches to be added to the hood length. All exterior and quarter panels and trim were to be Packard unique as well, bumpers, dashboard and interiors. Only the greenhouse might have been recognizable as to it's source, though some appliqu?s may have disguised that too.

So, it was really only the Lincoln body shell they were seeking. It could be thought of analogous to the Fisher C-body shells which were shared by Roadmasters and 62/DeVilles. True, doing so with a company outside Ford Motor Company would have been unusual though not unprecedented, as some Murray, Briggs and Hayes production bodies found their place on various chassis of pre-war independent companies.

Steve

Yes, I'm familiar with the story . . . And you're correct, it would have had much more Packard content than the proposed Facel Vega - Packard would have . . . However, it would still be a shadow of what a Packard designed and built in-house would have been. That's not to say it would have been a bad car, the '56 Lincoln was a handsome car in its own right and with some deft Packard touches it may have been a real looker. But still, at the end of the day, would the public (and automotive press) have bought it as a 'real" Packard? It would be hard not to view such a car as a stopgap at best, or an admission of defeat at worst.

Either a '56 Lincoln-based Packard or a a Facel Vega Excellence-based Packard may have succeeded in the short term, preserving a grand old name for a few more years . . . And providing future collectors with a small number of stylish and distinctive automobiles. I don't believe either one had any chance of long-term success, or of preserving the Packard name for more than a few short seasons. Would it have been worth it?

All I know is, if they had built either one of them, I would want one today!

I finally got a hold of my computer whiz kid. So here are the pictures of the Facel-Vega Packard that was at Hershey back in 1991. At least I think it was built out of one.

Attach file:

---

  (44.93 KB)


  (50.33 KB)