Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Almost all the postwar SC & TB on site if you want quick reference.

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/article/view.article.php?55

Is there a part--separate from the bellhousing(--that completes the upper flywheel housing that's cast as part of the back of the block? Packard says that this would give more support to the transmission and thus help decrease "deflection" at the engine output. The lower part of the flywheel housing must be a bolt on of some type. Sorry, it's been a long time since I've seen a Packard engine and trans on a shop bench.

Thanks.

The bottom half of "cast piece" comes off but is mounted to top Cast piece-- same thickness and shape to make a complete circle. The manual bellhousing is exactly like the Ultra as far as the bolt pattern and almost same depth so everything bolts up.

Attach file:

---

  (6.75 KB)


  (44.45 KB)


  (4.86 KB)

Much appreciated HH56!

I thought about it a little more and edited the post you answered--while you were answering it, I suppose!

I re-edited it so it makes more sense in the thread.

That was exactly the question I was hoping to have answered, and now we have pics and everything!

I don't know if we're so off-topic that we can't get back to the T/L and spring suspension comparison, but I'm as to blame for that as anyone else.

The thing about the comparison is, while there have been lots of demonstrations of the Packard Torsion Level suspension vs other makes of cars--including those great films showing "air" suspensions blowing up etc...

But I think comparing Packard vs its own conventional suspension is worth looking into.

The company gained a lot of positive attention and no doubt sales with this feature--but other than showing the industry a "better way," did they ever really come out on the deal? I can't believe that $150 for the option (or the markup as a required option) was really enough to offset development costs unless Packard continued manufacturing for several more years.

Some say Packard was too cautious with its initial offerings of TL, but I really don't think they were... it seemed to be pretty aggressively put on the market, You couldn't even buy a senior without it except maybe on special order.

There is a short film Packard made called "The Safe Road Ahead" which compares TL and earlier conventional Packards to some degree. Might answer some of your question.

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/PACKARD-Mid-1950 ... oryZ6762QQihZ004QQitemZ140305746232

Thanks for the link, HH56.

There were a few choices listed on that e-bay site. "The Safe Road Ahead" looks like it would be the one with Packard vs Packard T/L I'll search Utube, and maybe find it there. If I do, I'll post a link.

Thanks again for the info!

Anybody like to wager a guess on how much T/L development cost vs what Packard made on it in 2 years? Was it a "loss leader" that drained too much money or the reason Packard had a 1956 model year at all.

Nothing against the T/L. It is an historic milestone as well as a remarkable piece of automotive technology, and one reason that V8 Packards are as sought after and so many have survived, IMO.

Think those 4 titles all in the one tape.

Don't think TL drained that much money--it had been an ongoing project since 51 or thereabouts but don't think any really huge tooling costs. Think there were a lot more drains such as 55 body build quality, ultra issues, V8 issues, all resulting in lost confidence and huge warranty expenses.

Many believe the Connor plant was the albatross. Believe it was in the AQ book that it mentioned the loss Packard sustained one year (55, I think) was almost the exact amount they spent on Connor to get it going. Without spending that money, think things would have been a lot different.

Here's the link.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pos9Seqqfm4

It shows comparison between a '56 and an earlier sprung Packard. '51-2-3 not sure. No mention is given of ride quality differences, just shows them going over the same bumps at the Proving Grounds. Of course, Packard wouldn't disparage their old suspension or point out differences that weren't favorable to the new one, so some unknowns remain in that category. They just say that the sprung car had a suspenion they "thought was 'tops' just a few years ago."

Maybe some with experience in 51-54 cars and 55-56 T/L equipped would be best qualified to point out differences, advantages and disadvantages between the two.

This is not "The Safe Road Ahead" unless it's just a portion of it.

Its a snippet of it. The whole thing is a lot with the same 4 characters sitting around discussing the new Packard and some of the features, then going on a test drive. Think it is supposed to be a salesman & his boss and others customers.

All in all, except for being about Packard not a very politically correct or edge of chair movie. If it were shown today, the women would probably picket and call it sexist and the men would wonder what kind of doofus the guy is.

Quote:

Agreed and agreed. The Connor plant acquisition was a disastrous move. The plant was touted as more "modern" because it was on one level. Well, look at all the space they gave up. Not only was it an expense to acquire it in '55, it also was one reason that build quality suffered, due at least in part to the cramped conditions. Workers and production managers reportedly referred to as a "crackerbox."

All else being equal, I would give Packard at least 4 more years of production without the Connor purchase. It wouldn't necessarily have "saved" the company long-term IMO because I believe there were too many other forces working against them.

Not suggesting turning this into a "why Packard failed and how it could have been prevented" discussion, but more of how they may have been affected by introducing the T/L. It seems to usually be presented as a "win-win" situation. But I think the purchasers really came out ahead. Being in development since '51 means it was a cash drain, even considering that Engineer William D. Allison was "loaned" to Packard from Hudson, and continued on the Hudson payroll for 6 months while he worked with a competitor!*

It seems a lot of car people just got excited about being associated with the new design and wanted to insure opportunities to license it for their own cars. Also, vendors who thought it would be a hit and make good press and sales for them included Hupp Corporation (still around then!) for the leveler and Maremont for the torsion bars. Thus Packard could cut some nice deals that probably lowered initial costs for T/L.*

I guess more important to my way of thinking than "what finished off Packard" is "what finished off the T/L suspension?" Other than Big Detroit being so conservative and resistant to new ideas, no matter how good and cost-effective they were. (and look where that's gotten them)

I'd like to see comparisons of some of the new "sophisticated" electronically controlled suspensions versus an updated T/L, without electronic controls. It was a "smart" suspension that used mechanical principles for its "brains." An impressive achievement.

*Thanks to"Packard, a History of the Motor Car and the Company, Beverly Rae Kimes, Ed., Automobile Quarterly 1978, pp 592-593.