Packard Forum Index » General

Quote:

Well, not exactly. It refers to the prototype torsion bar suspension as fitted to a 1952 200, not the conventional suspension that was standard in 1952.

This would be vehicle A-1 as referred to in post #5 of this thread and the document is an engineering design note for the suspension development..

Brian (BDeB), my words have been imprecise, the prototype based on the 200 has been meant. Below a related patent description:

Motor vehicle spring suspension

United States Patent 2607611
Inventors: Allison, William D.
Publication Date: 08/19/1952


[source: U.S. patent office]

Attach file:

---

  (48.92 KB)


  (45.35 KB)


  (33.20 KB)


  (36.31 KB)

full description


[source: U.S. patent office]

Attach file:

---

  (107.26 KB)


  (129.61 KB)


  (132.44 KB)


  (132.34 KB)


  (131.29 KB)


  (129.42 KB)


  (120.64 KB)

Originally filed 1944, wow, Mr. Allison was thankfully persistent! Thanks for the patent post Guscha.

Hello Mark (Cycle Car):

Maybe I started the talk about the pheasant and cracked windshield when I contributed to this thread - page 3, post #22:
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8846&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=20

I obtained some copies of photos from Carl Altz and posted them there. One was a photo of a pheasant stuck in the grille and another was of Carl Altz "supervising" the repair of the cracked windshield where a layer of plexiglass was taping over the broken part.

This may give you a frame of reference.

Best, --Roger--

Hi Roger,

Most of what I can offer is conjecture. Jeff and I discussed those photos in depth last spring. Here are some of my observations, for what they're worth:


I saw what were possibly three or four different cars in the photos and films from that link:

1. What I think was the 25,000-mile car, #5582-3: Writing on the fenders, "1955 Packard Durability Test Car," lack of stainless under the rear fender, a small antenna on the trunk, the pheasant, and dirty. Photos in Kimes book showed the same car with the same writing, plus the results of the run added to the rear doors and fenders, and a few more notes added on the trunk.

2. Another car (?): Studio shots with the driver at the Pagoda - there's no writing on the front fenders. Were these photos of the same car taken before the run?

3. Possibly the same car as 5582-3 (the 25,000 mile car), but all cleaned up for the film, no hood tie-down. Did the filming occur with a different car, possibly at a later date?

4. The car in the southern Car-A-Van tour that had scripted writing on the fenders (a different font than on the 25,000 mile car) and possibly more trim.

Mr. Altz said other cars were being tested on the track during the 25,000-mile run - that's why the 25,000-mile car had 6 headlights. The Packard News, March 1955, (Vol 12, No. 1) said the same thing.

I'm having trouble understanding Dad's notes during this period, in part because of terminology. There's reference to a "durability test," and an "endurance car." I'm pretty sure that he had no involvement with the 25,000-mile run, as he didn't write about it during that 9-day period ending on 10/31/54. On the last day of the run, Sunday 10/31, he watched a Lions game on TV at home (Lions 24, S.F. Rams 21). Prior to that run:

On 10/18/54:
"Torsion bar broke in fatigue test 375,000 strokes at 150o or 130,000 psi max stress. Ordered new bearings." ... " [Call from] Rossman. Bars for A-4 on way out."
On 10/19/54:
"Could not install new bars on A-4 due to failure of endurance car engine. All mechanics busy."
These two sets of notes lead me to believe that the spring failure was on the A-4 car, and not some other chassis, but it's only a guess. Who was Mr. Rossman? Since Dad called the A-4 the "endurance car" elsewhere in the diary, one might assume it also had some engine trouble. But why would a car with a broken torsion bar then develop engine trouble? Either the engine out of the car and on a dynamometer test, or the engine trouble was on another car, possibly the 25,000-mile car? I don't know. This was about two days before the start of the 25,000-mile run, so if the 25,000-mile car had engine trouble, that would explain why all hands were working on it prior to the run.

During the period of the 9-day 25,000-mile run:
10/28/54: "Went to P.G. in A-1 to change bars on 5582-1 - trouble on durability test took all mechanics - called McF + returned to shop." Again, 5582-1 was the A-4 car. Not sure what the trouble was or what he meant by "durability test." It couldn't have been the 25,000-mile run because that car only made pit stops. On the next day, 10/29/54: "Drove A-1 to P.G. Installed special torsion bars on 5582-1 with 6o less windup and #3 front link. Measured ht. + weighed car. Car 1/8" low."

They were also filming TV commercials at the Proving Grounds during the time of the 25,000-mile run, including the one with the Cadillac wrapped in a sheet. The A-4 might have been the Packard used in that ad, with Dad at the wheel (I'm not sure). Dad's role for the filming was "technical advisor." He met with film crew on 10/20, though it wasn't clear if they filmed that day. He witnessed filming on 10/21 and 10/22. 10/22/54: "Observed picture taking for T. V. films."

Was this helpful?

Mark (cycle car),

Thanks for sharing the information.

I am amazed at everything that was going on at Packard during the last of the Detroit years, 54 through 56. The 55 models had so many changes from the previous model. Was it the most changed model brought out by Packard?

Gene, not trying to topic drift your thread.

by Let the ride decide on 2012/8/28 15:08:38

Mark (cycle car),

Thanks for sharing the information.

..."The 55 models had so many changes from the previous model. Was it the most changed model brought out by Packard?"

I'd argue yes. BRAND new engine, suspension, and completely redone sheet metal. NOT to mention a new assembly plant!

I'd argue yes. BRAND new engine, suspension, and completely redone sheet metal. NOT to mention a new assembly plant!

You could make the same case for the 1935 "120"; while the 55 shares quite a few parts with 54 and back, the new "120" shared just about nothing except for a few lock cylinders and maybe lug bolts. And though it didn't have a brand new plant, the existing plant revisions to make it surely were as complex as revamping Conner Ave. The 55's were surely highly modified over 1954, but the 1935 "120" was entirely new from scratch.