Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Keith brought up an interesting aspect on rear sway bars.

RWD cars that had coil spring rear suspension with a solid rear axle used control arms to locate the axle housing. However, lower control arms that pivoted at BOTH ends, allowed for some independent vertical movement of the rear wheels. As such, the ends of a fairly simple stabilizer bar could be bolted between those arms to provide some torsional resistance.

In contrast, the rear axle housing in a Packard with T-L is located by rear support ("trailing") arms which designed to ONLY pivot at the front. The rear of each trailing arm is secured to the axle housing with a U-bolt, much like a leaf spring setup, but without a centering bolt.

Yet, there were later cars with solid rear axle and leaf-spring suspensions that were offered from the factory with a rear sway bar - like Camaro, Firebird, Nova and other GM X-body cars. While '77 and later Caprice, Impala and other GM B-Body wagons used a rear leaf springs (rather than rear coils as on coupe and sedans versions), I don't believe they were ever offer with a rear sway bar.

Some FWD cars of more recent years with IRS have rear stabilizer bars that remind me of the shape that the Camaro used. I can't recall what - if anything - the PT Cruiser had for a rear sway bar, in-conjunction with the rear Watts link set-up.

However, it isn't just a matter of hanging a rear sway bar - that's important. Decades ago, I upgraded my '78 Malibu daily-driver with a rear sway bar from same year Monte Carlo. The Malibu did handle better - except in corners, where it felt like the front end was plowing into the turn and the back end was rising up. A little page turning in the parts books revealed that the Monte also had a larger diamter front sway bar. Another trip to the bone-yard solve that problem.

I'm neither racer, rodder, nor engineer, but coming up with a proper rear sway bar for the T-L Packard could be a rather costly experiment.

I'll stick my neck out and report that the T/L suspension REALLY showed it's chops on gravel roads, where the car would go into a nice, controllable 4-wheel drift BEFORE the body started to lean. It felt really controlled because you were basically sitting level.

The only reports of V8 Packard racing performance that I have found came directly from Jack Harlin, who emphasized that the T/L was virtually impossible to "set up" for circle track driving because they could not dial in the suspension to put a set amount of weight on each wheel (the "weight" increased fore or aft when either hit a bump). I do not believe Jack had experience with a T/L on dirt (he was driving NASCAR, after all). He did race a '55 Panama with spring suspension, and had some success. Also, I believe, he raced Reinhardt-bodied Packard stock cars.

Jack's description of how the Packard T/L the he entered in a NASCAR race down south was inspected (with a jaundiced Dixie eye), and eventually cleared for the race, then black-flagged after the race started is priceless. I have posted it elsewhere on the forum. You can probably find it by searching Jack Harlin (his other Packard posts can be found on the AACA Packard forum, but alas, he did not live long enough to post on PackardInfo, which he would have loved).

Don't let anyone tell you that a Packard T/L never ran in a NASCAR race!

I can not add anything other than I enjoy the ride, and I am glad that Packard put it on the V8's. Just like the V8 and twin ultamatic, the TL had a short run.

Just be careful when working on them, isn't that right Hank?

T/L was standard on Deluxe Clippers, too. Conventional suspension was a no-cost option.

Thanks, PackardV8.

Simple and direct partial solution. Makes perfect sense since I'm not road racing in the Packard much. Any suggestions as to brand, model#? Your advice has saved me a ton of money and trouble several times in the past.

55PackardGuy - you're observation of the T/Ls performance on dirt/gravel roads parallels my own impressions but, even on paved (rough) roads when it does tend to lean in corners it seems, to me anyway, that it's a little quicker to recover control than most of the cars (mentioned in my last post) of the day that I drove. I only ever lost the Packard in a corner a couple of times and never had both rear driving wheels come off the ground at the same time as seemed (again, to me) to be more prevalent in some of the GM cars of the day with stock suspensions.

I can see the difficulties in setting the T/L up for circle track driving but, for general purpose, everyday use, it always seemed to come closer to the safety mark for general use by the public than any of the American standard suspensions of its time period that I ever drove.

According to my recordds my 56 Executive has FRONT: Gabriel G63359 which equals a G60017. (not sure why my records show and "equal" number. THAT IS A 1997 part #. They were $43/pair in 1997.

I'll have to look at my other record book for the rears.

NOTE: i do not remember if the Gabriels are double action or not. All i know is that the car holds curves very well with no body roll.

Might cross that gabriel into another brand if desired and/or current vehicle production application. IIRC they are Chevy truck shocks ca 1971 - 1990's.

One of the discount aut chains have a cross application feature. It's either Autozone.com or advanceautoparts.com or O'reilly website. That's the only 3 LOCAL's i buy from for local parts.

Take my (from 1997) Gabirel G60017 number and cross it to other part numbers as well AS VEHICLE APPICAtION and go from there for more current info and details.

In the meanwhile i'll have to look for the rear part numbers in my other record book or on the shocks themselves.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a couple of Keith's statements:

Quote:

Simple stabilizer/anti-roll bars have been and continue to be OEM on tens of millions of solid rear axle cars and trucks; beginning with the '53 Studebaker sedans, up through the current production Ford, Dodge and GM pickup trucks. Dirt simple to install and very effective.


Quote: All modern hydraulic and gas/hydraulic tube shocks have double-action with resistance in both directions. Since some OEM shocks have on the order of 30% down and 70% up valving, I'll ask Keith if he may be indirectly referring to 50/50 shock valving, which has equal dampening in each direction of travel.

jack vines

As for compression and extension (overall length) of shocks are there any FACTORY specification or documentation indicating those lengths????

Also note that the manual indicates 1" dia piston shcks f&R.

IIRC the gabreils i posted above are 1-1/8. I sure would not go any smaller than the 1".

michaelk wrote:

Quote:
The "build status" of Torsion-Level equipment for 1955-56 is not quite so clear-cut. However, we got to the bottom of it over the course o some past discusssions in these forums, some time ago - thanks to some Packard Trade Letters. That information is neatly summarized in the RPO charts that I composed for 55th and 56th Series for thise site.

In the beginning, for the 55th Series, Torsion-Level was standard ONLY on the Caribbean, and optional on the Four Hundred, Patrician and Clipper Custom models, but not available at all on Clipper Deluxe and Super models. However, Torsion-Level was later made available as optional equipment for the Clipper Super Line - effective June 1, 1955 (per Trade Letter 55-1001, Dealer 1, Supplement 5.)

Initially, for 56th Series, Torsion-Level was again standard on Caribbean models, but listed as optional on ALL others. Torsion Level Ride (TLS) later became standard on ALL models - effective May 1, 1956 (per Trade Letter 56-1001, Dealer 1, Supplement 3). Yet, that letter also advises that T-L had been previously optional, but with 100% installation on all models EXCEPT Clipper Deluxe and Clipper Super.

BH, seems that somewhere I've seen the expression that the T/L system was a "mandatory" option on the Seniors. Have you run across that phraseology, or similar?