Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

I'm re-reading the Ward book re Packard's fall.

Was horrible quality REALLY that much of an issue? Or was it all the teething troubles that come with new engineering, building everything at the Conner Ave. plant, etc?

Were most of the '55 issues solved by the time the '56's came out, or was it simply too late for Packard because of all its other issues?

Seems to me that over the last 50+ years the '55-'56 Packards have held up well. As I've stated in other posts, I think the re-design of the '51 body shell looks good even today. And for a brand-new V8/revamped Ultramatic, my perception is that they could have had MUCH larger issues, and did not.

Or are the remaining Packards the ones that DIDN'T suffer from awful build quality?

Was horrible quality REALLY that much of an issue? Or was it all the teething troubles that come with new engineering, building everything at the Conner Ave. plant, etc?

I've always believe the poor (I wouldn't call it horrible) quality came about because of the Conner move, less than complete testing of some of the new technologies, etc. I think most would agree that the 1956 cars are much better in all respects.

you should see the welding on the frame of my 55, my dad is a class A welder and he laughed at it. whoever did my welding that day was in a really big hurry or just didn't care. my dad used to weld train couplings and he said that that welding would have never passed at trinity industries. it really is poor quality, must have been a monday or a friday. LOL!

for the most part, though, i think they hold up and have held up well for a 50+ year old car.

I would think you had a couple factors in play:

1) Move to Conner.
2) Changes to the updated body style and engine
3) Packard now having to make their own bodies again.

IMHO that was a perfect storm. Anytime a car company comes out with a new, or highly updated model their are aways teething issues that usually don't get fully addressed until the 2nd years production. But all the above three factors at the same time must have been a nightmare.

I was under the impression that the frames were shipped in from the supplier firm of A. O. Smith in Milwaukee. I wonder why Packard didn't refuse the material on inspection? Were they really building so many cars that they couldn't afford to set aside a load of frames? Or was Conner so tight on space that they had no area to quarantine the material? Or was the process at Connor so out of control that no material inspection took place until it was too late?

Maybe it was a blend of all three!

Were they really building so many cars that they couldn't afford to set aside a load of frames? Or was Conner so tight on space that they had no area to quarantine the material? Or was the process at Connor so out of control that no material inspection took place until it was too late?

Maybe it was a blend of all three!

The 4th reason could be that although the welds did not have a great appearance, they were structurally adequate. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone speak of frame weld failure.

One of the places I find interesting to examine, though not of any structural significance, is on the inner trunk lid frame of the Caribbean convertibles. The trunk lid on the convertibles is unique to that model and with so few being built, hand labor must have been more cost-effective than a stamping die for so few cars. The inner lid reinforcement was cut, hammered, shaped, and then welded and some look like high school shop class work, others are actually quite nicely done. From the dozen or so I've examined, it appears that the later the car, the poorer the workmanship. No suprise I suppose, considering the conditions in the 2nd quarter of 1956.

Never heard of a frame-weld failure on any of the cars. My 55 Pat's body actually impressed me when I first got the car. Even though all of the window guides were worn out and all of the body rubber on the car was either gone or so brittle that it might as well have been, the doors trunk, etc. all closed with a resounding, "thunk," and tightly. Packard owner's children (and some of the owners themselves) drag-raced the T/U trannys out of some of the cars. The T/L system was exposed to road moisture/dirt and gave problems. All, as you say, first year model teething problems. The main kicker was oiling system, valve train clatter and early failure of main and rod bearings. Although initially well received by the public and Packard's old customers in the oilfields of far west Texas and eastern New Mexico, by about mid 1955 the cars were seen as not being adequate to the 200 miles, and up per day hard service required of them in everyday use in that area at that time. I sort of think that, other than the oiling problem (which Packard could not fix) everything else might have been passed off as, "first year model teething problems." Our local Packard dealer did not survive the 55th Series cars and was gone before the 56th Series came out and (I might add) Packard had been well thought of and prevalent in the oilfields up through about 1950. There were still a lot of 15 or 20 year old Packards in general use there until the early 1960s.

The extra plates welded on the frame of my Caribbean are very poorly done, but I'm sure they are adequate. The welds on friend Chris Carib look very professional. Maybe Smith trained some novice welders on Packard fraames. Everyone says Smith made the frames, but I remember reading that a company starting with the letter "L" as being the supplier - don't remember where I read it.

Brian--Packard stored frames outside, such were the conditions there. See below:

Attach file:

---

  (89.03 KB)


  (59.96 KB)

Thanks for those pictures, Mr. PB. What is the source of those photos?