Packard Forum Index » General

G'day all, I cannot find relevance between Mercedes and BMW in a bomb torn Europe and a "cashed-up" USA motor market. I consider that the belief that the "luxury" market evaporated in around 1939 is very true. Packard had so much more unfair competition post 1945, when the goal posts were shifted severely because of steel shortages and labour problems.
IMHO Packard did the best that they could and never produced a bad car. We only have to look at who owns what in the auto market now, to find a WTF. Mack is owned by Renault? Best regards peter Toet.

PFHartmann -

Once again, you are lying. You said:

Quote:
Fact is, I cited a lurch in the 1-2 upshift - and as a matter of operating condition, NOT "seals going bad".

Meanwhile, anyone who has driven any Ultramatic knows there is more than ONE SPEED within. Yet, some newbies have mistakenly interpreted their inital experience with Gear Start and Twin Ultramatic as a THREE-SPEED.

Though the Ultramatic is only a TWO-SPEED (in addition to the gear reduction of the rear axle), you seem to bury your head in the send when it comes to the benefit of having torque multiplication of a genuine torque converter in the Ultramtic as opposed to the 'slip-n-slide" of a fluid coupling as used in the Hydramtic.

While the four-speed Hydramatic might have been a favorite of some drag racers way back then, could you explain the TWO-SPEED Powerglide continues to be offered, today, in Summit Racing catalog of performance equipment?

Owen -

You wrote:

Quote:
Thank you. I hold posts from a highly experienced Packard owner like you head and shoulders above the likes of PFHartmann.

Packard53 usually does a good job of hemming Pete in with facts. So, normally, I wouldn't respond to Petey's posts, but he is not merely being "inaccurate" here. Anyone can make a mistake, but this guy is purposely mis-stating and misrepresenting the facts and just plain lying.

I've never participated in formal debate, but I can appreciate an issue that is well-argued on facts.

One thing's fer sure, Petey is a couple letters short of "master debater".

Regarding the comments about the lack of smooth shifting with the Dual Range Hydramatic transmission, and that Packard may have avoided using these transmissions in their cars for this reason: I believe that for a period of time in the 50s Rolls Royce equipped their cars with these Hydramatics. They may have given up smoothness for reliability. Just something more to think about.

you are RIGHT - you have me figured out. My self - esteem is so low I need a step-ladder to get up high enough to kick a duck in the butt....

Some of you guys may not be aware that in mid '54, Packard modified the Ultramatic, so that you could get the advantage of the reduction gear start, without manually moving the column shift lever. This was certainly a BIG performance improvement over the "1st series' Ultramatic(1950-mid '54).

Unfortunately, they werent able to make it durable. The horriblly high failure rate of these cars in the hands of consumers is what drove buyers away. In the mean-time, by the mid 1950's Chrysler and Ford had come out with multi-speed automatic transmissions that WERE durable.

I note one of you typing "IMH0 Packard never made a bad car". That is wonderful that you feel so passionate about the later Packards!

The problem is, no matter how much you bestow love on a Packard today, it does NOT seem to have any effect on real world history. Perhaps if you guys went to Detroit, and stood in front of what is left of the Packard production facilities, and yelled at the top of your lungs what a bad guy I am for discussing real-world technical history, that could change things, the lights would come back on, the machinery would start humming, and I could go down to the old Packard dealership and order a new one!

All right..all right..I admit it. I made up those exciting sales figures in late '54 first month or so of '55, and then their stunning decline when the public found out, just to annoy you guys.

Here's the real story. Bout time I started telling the truth.

People were so impressed with the reliability & build quality of the '55 Packards that they bought so many the factory couldn't keep up with production, and went out of business because it was bored taking all those new orders for '56 Packard products.

As a side-note, the fellow who sees no connection between what happened to German auto plants during World War II, & THEIR post-war problems, compared with Packard, is correct.

Packard came out of the war with half its production staff dead, no access to suppliers, had to go around scrap yards and cut up wrecked tanks for metal, but dedicated itself to build ever better quality cars, better performing cars. But Mercedes and BMW, thanks to the Eight Air Force, had nice production facilities, lots of eager, well-fed and well-dressed labor, who were determined to destroy their famous pre-war reputation by building lousy cars.

That is why Mercedes and BMW cars fell apart all over the streets of America causing people to reject them. But even tho they had no orders for more and more cars, they kept making more of those junkers. It got so bad, that President Eisenhower sponsored our Interstate Highway program in 1956. He had to - now we know the reason why we have an Interstate Highway system - we had to bypass all those American highways clogged with those falling-apart Mercedes automobiles.

Proof of why Packard had to close its doors can be seen by comparing a 1950-54 Packard Custom/ 400 Patcian with a 1950 -'54 Cadillac 60 Special. The sluggish, badly built Cadillacs were rejected by the buying public, whereas those wonderful Packards with their incredible performance & superb "build quality" caused the public to demand more and more of them.

But Packard taught the buying public a lesson. Promised them in its advertising for the introduction of the '55 model year, that "PACKARD IS BACK".

Thinking back, there are so many little examples of the superiority of Packards in those last years - I especially love that neato front U-joint Packard put in there, so much better than those crummy "real" U-joints GM had. Packard owners HUNGERED, just couldn't wait for that roughness & vibration you could get out of the "slider" type U joint, which you just couldn't get out of those crummy "real" U joints in the Cadillac.

And the way those crummy Hydramatics LURCHED when acceleratiing. Tore people's heads clean off. "Put your foot in it" in a '50's Cadillac at ANY speed, and you'd be bothered by brutal accelleration. Thank heaven for Packard engineering rapid accelleration out of their cars. That sure helped increase sales !

There's another reason why people rejected GM cars, and ordered so many new Packards. I can tell you personally how proud I was, still sitting there in front of a bunch of people, while the Cadillac I was drag-racing was long gone. Nobody paid attention to that Cadillac! I was SOO proud to have all that attention !

So, there you are "IMHO Packard never built a bad car". Now the truth can be told - It was all those new orders for more of those great '50s Packards that caused Packard to close down.

Has anyone checked with the CHRYSLER clubs to see if they advertise a "kit" to remove those horrible Chrysler three speed automatics from Chrysler Corp. cars, and substitute in its place that wonderful Ultramatic ?

Quote:

Rolls-Royce used the Hydramatic from 52 to 67. Not a bad run for a transmission developed in the 1930's. Not to say the Packard trans was a bad one but RR must have thought that the Hydramatic was a good one and that was a pretty good endorsement. The transmission was used in some US tanks during World War 2 it must have been pretty tough.

Apparently, even people like Peter have some fans, as I received this PM today:

"Eric,

Please give your personal attacks on Peter a rest. I value his comments and generally find them very helpful.

We're just talking about machinery here.

I enjoy this forum and its posts. Your postings are distinctly UN-enjoyable."

Since my posts are so UN-enjoyable, and I personally feel that asking a simple question is not attacking, just wanting to know why, I have decided to take my leave of this thread and wish you all good luck with Peter!

Funny how Pete can keep bashing PMCC and attacking Packard owners and expect to get away with it. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

Frankly, I find HIS posts distinctly UN-enjoyable. They're the same old broken record that keeps getting him banned from the AACA Forums - and other Packard venues past.