Packard Forum Index » General

For Cliiper 47:

The reason you dont recall a "lurch" in the 2-3 shift on your Hydramatic-equipped '47 Cadillac, is because it probably did not do that.

As noted above, that phenomena occured only after MANY thousands of hard miles, due to badly worn parts. If any of you Packard buffs also, like me, also like Cadillacs of that era, see above for my comments on how to eliminate this thru simple adjustments.

Owen: I realized my mistake and corrected it before reading your post about the early chevy auto tranny. Anoher mistake I made is that the the patent infrigment suit was never settled between GM and Packard

John F. Shireman

Peter, I am going to ask you a sincere and heartfelt question that I just have to know the answer to. Why do you go out of your way and work so hard to make yourself so unlikeable? I just want to know what kind of mentality it is that feels so inadequate as to put down everyone and everything that they come across as a defense mechanism.

Anoher mistake I made is that the the patent infrigment suit was never settled between GM and Packard.

John, from what I read your statement above is not quite correct, though I can't recall the source document. The suit did go to court and after the testimony and demonstrations by Forest McFarland, GM either dropped the suit or lost the case, I don't remember which. A quick visit to a law library would provide the facts. Perhaps you'd be willing to do that for us so we all know how that ended.

Here is an interesting statement from page 18 of the book The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company.

Despite Packard's reputation for building luxury automobiles, 80 percent of Packard's cars were sold in the upper ranges of the medium price bracket. Macauley's profits were greater on the eight's, but the production of the six cylinder models paid the bills in 1928.

John F. Shireman

Owen: I will have an answer on Thursday for you.

John F. Shireman

Owen: In the book The fall of the Packard Motor Car Company this is what I came up with.

In 1953 a lower court found in favor of Packard concerning the patent infrimanet case brought by GM. However in the same book I refer you to page 55 second paragraph which stated that the case wound its way through the courts until Packard went out of business. I am sure that you have the book I am refering to.

John F. Shireman

Turbo - c'mon, man - be honest..you are just mad at me because I am so incredibly charming, intelligent, all-knowing, sweet-dispositioned, and good looking.....!

Seriously, I think you are being damn silly for taking anything you see in chat-rooms as some kind of personal affont. We are talking about CARS..man..just CARS !

I understand your focus of interest is in the '55 - '56 Packards. I was a teen-ager when they were new. When the warranties ran out and Packard's dealer net-work fell apart, I worked on a few in a garage where I had a summer job. They didnt interest me then, and still dont. If I were a new car buyer in 1955-56, I would have bought a Cadillac or Chrysler 300.

But so what ! I can't imagine taking it personally if you lit into Cadillacs ! Or Chrysler 300's! Or Packard Twelves! This is, or should be, a place where we can exchange info.

With your passion for your particular era Packard, and your apparent technical knowledge about them, I bet if YOU had been running Packard, they'd still be around, outselling everything in whatever price class they chose to compete in.

But we cant change history. I say, let's enjoy our hobby, the good with the bad.

Remember, just because you are parnoid, dosnt mean they really arent out to get you !

Regarding John's note about how Packard paid its bills.

Yes, John, I know that. And that probably figured in Packard's decision to abandon making "super-cars" in the late 1930's. We all know Packard would have been out of business if they kept making nothing but "Senior" Packards.

Where I think Packard "missed the boat", is their thinking that we can tell anything about the future from the past. Well, that too, isn't exactly true.

What IS true, is that Damiler Benz, BMW, Toyota, etc., all came out of World War II with production facilities, supply, and personnel problems so severe as to make Packard's post-war issues look like paradise in comparison.

My own personal belief is that Packard SHOULD have followed their lead, and kept their QUALITY up. BMW and Mercedes kept making pre-war cars after the war, but kept their quality up. Again, they even made taxicabs ! But the sight of a Mercedes taxi-cab did not kill Mercedes any more than the sight of a Packard taxi-cab did.

The fact that Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes did so well after the war confirms, in my view, the fact that there was money to be made, LOTS of it, selling expensive super-cars that met buyer's expectations for quality. Packard didnt see that coming. Sic Transit Gloria

Peter, I'm not mad, just amused at your attempts to appear superior to the other members of this forum. If you could only see yourself through other member's eyes you'd be appalled with what you see.

So, I posit my question again, what makes a person who has such a low self esteem lash out at anything and everyone that they come in contact with? Inquiring minds want to know.