Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

My grandfather always told us to drive a car as if you are paying for it and it wi;ll cost you less in the long run. Abuse has to be payed for some day and to see who pays look in the mirror or else in my case father how looked down on car abuse

Though I've only ever owned V8 Packards that were equipped with Torsion-Level Ride, I had recent occasion to ride in a '54 Patrician and must admit that it had about the best ride I ever experienced in any car with a conventional coil/leaf suspension. Yet, I often wonder if that level of quality may have been due, in some part, to the sheer weight of that vehicle.

While nothing could be simpler and more cost-effective than leaf springs for wheeled vehicles, which do double-duty in cushioning ride and positively locating an axle (both fore-to-aft and side-to-side), Packard needed something to set it apart from the competition in the mid-1950s - besides a face-lifted body and new V8 engine. Just look at the production figures between '54 and '55.

T-L really isn't any more complicated than any other attempt to improve passenger car suspensions, but was applied to ALL wheels - not just a single axle. In and of itself, a torsion bar is really nothing more than coil spring that isn't coiled; so, except for the use of improved metals, the front-only torsion bars of Chrysler's Torsion-Aire suspension really offered nothing new. Front-only torsion bars make much more sense in solving the problem posed by implementing FWD with GM's Tornado/Riviera/Eldorado - a solution that was eventually applied to 4WD and AWD light-duty trucks. Yet, IMHO, none of those vehicles deliver even half the ride quality of the T-L system. It's the interconnected nature of Packard's implementation that makes it worthwhile, and it works - unlike GM's air-bag suspension that left most people flat.

WRT durability, water intrusion proved to be a bit of a problem for the electricals of the T-L leveling system, but that was pretty much resolved with the 56th Series. Yet, any underbody electrical connection can suffer from exposure to road wash tainted with salt, calcium chloride, etc. Unfortunately, it was another 25 years before weatherproof connectors and terminals came into use.

However, fewer moving parts doesn't necessarily translate into lower cost to the vehicle owner. When it comes to leveling systems, ALC/ELC rear suspensions are little more than automated air shocks with an on-board air compressor, but the OE service parts are ridiculously expensive and equally prone to corrosion. Then, get an estimate to replace even one strut on a luxury car with electronic ride control, and you'll quickly develop an appreciation for the comparative simplicity of the T-L Suspension.

WRT comments on RR crossings, one need only view the historic footage of Packard's The Safe Road Ahead promotional film and Motor City Packards' An Interview with William Allison... DVD. If your T-L car doesn't behave like those shown in the films, then there is simply something wrong with your car - like failed or incorrect shocks or lube fittings that haven't been properly serviced since the Packard dealer network faded away.

As for the suspension not being designed with the interstate highway in mind, except for a blown front pump seal in the Twin Ultramatic, I felt right at home driving my first '56 Patrician up through the mountains of WV on I-79. Historic footage of these cars at the Proving Grounds will show that these cars were ready for all sorts of roads - not just dirt, gravel, and concrete, but even railroad ties! However, I was a bit surprised, from frontal camera angles in some of the old commercials, at just how much the front-end appeared to float about on the concrete oval, but I experienced such sensation in my real world travels with my own cars.

While I have experienced some dive on braking in my first '56 Patrician, I've done nothing with the brakes on that car, other than replacing an incorrect internal vacuum hose in the BTV and adjusting the brake shoes, but will confide that the front brakes are grabbing (wheel cylinders may be sticking). On the other hand, my other Pat, with all new plumbing, seals, and linings exhibits nothing of the sort. However, I can't offer any evidence WRT to anti-squat properties.

When it comes to lean or roll. Keep in mind that these cars have only one true stabilizer bar, and that is up front - a carry-over from the previous coil-type suspension. A Watts link was only added to the rear end to positively locate the rear axle - side to side. (In more recent years, other cars like the PT Cruiser also use a Watts link.) As such, handling might benefit from a rear stabilizer similar to what GM bolted up to the lower control arms for rear coil suspensions on its RWD cars back in the '70s, but you would likely need a larger diameter front bar, as well. I'm not sure that's worth the expense for my purposes, but it would have been an interesting factory sport/performance option - along the lines of the F41 suspension package that GM offered, years ago, on their passenger cars.

Still, I think the T-L system might benefit, overall, from installation of modern gas-charged shocks, which I plan to do own each of my own cars.

Bottom Line: I wouldn't be nearly as interested in the V8 Packards if it weren't for T-L.

Brian: your post is one of the best evaluations of the T-L that I've read in recent years. I agree completely with your analysis.

Quote:

I agree, except that the styling and V-8 are apparently more important to me personally than to you.

Craig

I can comment on the "anti-squat" at the rear, when accelerating from a dead stop, at least as it occurs on my 56 Carib. Upon gentle acceleration on level roads it's either not noticeable or barely perceptible, but on a quick startup, especially when stopped on a grade in the nose-up position, it's quite noticeable though not ojbjectionable. It's just that its 180 deg opposite of what you'd expect that makes one take notice of it.

Owen -

WRT to rear squat, you wrote:

Quote:
I witnessed exactly that from some long-ago, remote video footage of Carib Hardtop as I drove it in the same setting/situation. However, I dismissed that lone incident due to the relatively extreme nature. Further "evaluation" will be needed on my part before I can render a final judgement.

Quote:

If you're noticing that the "squat" is 180 degrees opposite of what you'd expect, then I believe you're noticing the rear rise instead of "squat," as I believe is the purpose of "anti-squat."

The best shocks to use with the T/L has been on my mind since I've been dreaming about how to set up the suspension on "my" Packard. It may be worth another thread to talk about that, but what the heck, I'd like to hear more right here:

What kind of shocks have Folks used on their Packard T/L, and what have you found to work best?

I have used quick acceleration to demonstrate that the rear of the car rises rather than squats. I believe that is more probably caused by the rear torque arms and the way the rear axle hangs on those arms. My friend's 50 Olds would do the same thing. It had coils on the rear, but had the same style torque arms swinging down from the frame to hold the rear axle. When the rear axle started to accelerate quickly, it would drive the chassis up - just like the V8 Packards.

If you're noticing that the "squat" is 180 degrees opposite of what you'd expect, then I believe you're noticing the rear rise instead of "squat," as I believe is the purpose of "anti-squat."

Correct. On hard acceleration the rear lifts, and that's 180 degrees opposite of what one used to conventional suspection would expect. I guess we're saying the same thing?

i was lucky enough to have driven the TL models when new, both 55 and 56. the 55 clipper custom came with TL and was a great handling car. I was able to drive other makes in the family also, cads, fords, olds and chryslers. The clipper was a little floatier, but cornered better well, minimal nosedive on braking but would rise in the back under hard acceleration. Today this happens on shaft drive motorcycles. My dads 56 was a faster more powerful packard and would really jump from a dead start. the back end would noticeably lift. The great game at a stoplight was to hit the brake and accelerator at the same time. the back would rise full limit. The driver behind would then try to point this out to others in his car. Id hold it, then when they weren't looking except for the driver let it drop by releasing the brakes. I had my own patrician 56 that i drove for years. I loved pushing it. I lived in philly and the bad streets were eaten up by the packard. On the highway they could all cruise nicely at todays highway speeds. 70mph was not a problem for any of them. the levelizer never ever gave any trouble and the push buttons were equally reliable, regardless of snow, water, ice or cold. The trannys were also reliable and gave no trouble even with my teenage lead foot.
the chryslers were nice but painfully slow. the cadillacs were dogs. 56 they came out with fluid hydramatic. softer shifts and loads of problems on 56 and 57. from a dead stop theyk seemed quick but dont try to downshift above 15 mph. 52 plymouths could run away from them.

I loved the packards and still do. i currently have a 54 convert. i love it but in another life i will have a 56 caribbean. it was the best of everything

My grandad's warning was, "Spare the whip, it's a hired horse"