Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Gerd -

Quote:

Thanks for the image of the 2CV chassis and link to additional, detailed pics. My own online search had only provided a functional schematic of a hydro-pneumatic suspension, which gave the impression that there was a unit at each wheel.

As such, I graciously acquiesce on that point. However, I still prefer Packard's T-L.

Meanwhile, there's a bit better schematic view of the T-L system available, here:




...from a contribution to our Photo Archive. I'm not so sure this was an advertisement, as labeled and categorized, but a marketing piece that was provided to dealers, like sales brochures.

The March 1958 Motor Trend had a short article on some "follow on" torsion bar suspensions designed by William D. Allison:

http://www.1956packardpanther.com/Panther/torsionalSystem1958.html

This includes a DeDion style swing axle that could have been in the 1957 Packard (click to enlarge):

Allison was an advanced thinker for sure.

What caught my eye as "odd' are the inboard drum brakes. Not surprising since production discs were still a few years down the road, but still odd.

Guscha, you are most kind. This thread has become informative as well as chuckling at the distortions. I am grateful to all contributors. I'm still learning.

As to the Citroen hydro-pheumatic suspension, this was not found on the 2CV, but on the larger Citroens. While in Germany in the early 80's I had a large Citroen which had a pneumatic cylinder on each wheel filled with compressed nitrogen. This provided the "spring". The hydraulic pump was connected to these cylinders and leveled the car fore and aft as well as side to side. It also controlled the body height through a lever in the drivers compartment. It was the best riding car I ever drove, though my 56 Patrician ran a close second,

and those other wonderful Citroen features:

No, my 2CV doesn't have a broken tie rod, it just looks that way at wheel lock

"wring the goose's neck" shifter on the 2CV

"twist the beer can" control on Cx

"DS" was a clever name, as the phoenetic in French is dee-esse = goddess

CX was for its aerodynamics - the drag coefficient is normally Cx

Quote:

Gerd,

Not sure what you mean by "additional advantage...", but two advantages are:

1) When one front wheel encounters an "up" bump at some speed, the twisting force on the main bar is almost instantaneously transmitted to the rear suspension on the same side. This causes the rear wheel to be pushed down (opposite reaction to the twist), but since it is already on the ground, the physical reaction is to lift the body some. The same is true on encountering a pot hole ("down" bump).

In the front bump case, the entire chassis lifts over the bump rather than just the front rising and the rear not reacting much as it would in a conventionally sprung car, IRS or not. When the rear wheel encounters the same bump, the same thing happens. If there is enough speed, then the chassis "magic carpets" over the bump rather than pitching up and down like a boat going over a wave on the ocean.

2) Because the front and rear suspension are connected to the single bar, the spring rate seen at the wheel is half what it would be if two half-length torsion bars were used fixed at the middle. This results in a softer ride, but still retains (for the period), superior road handling, particularly over rough roads.

Craig

Quote:

I have a different positive experience with attractive women of all ages, including young ones. Some have even ridden in my 55 Pat. I'll leave it at that.

Of course, then there are the retired age women who see my Pat at a car show and peer (def for Gerd: to look narrowly or searchingly, as in the effort to discern clearly) at the headliner. When asked what they are looking at, they reply: "heel marks." There have been multiple encounters of this type. I will not admit to any marks of any kind on my Pat's headliner.

Craig

I am tempted to inquire how they liked the ride, but others may misconstrue my query and attribute it to prurient interest.
As far as footprints on the headliner, I had to explain to my mother that it was just the guys at the garage goofing around. Mom was pretty sharp and I doubt she believed my explanation. Besides the prints were considerably smaller than any of those of my friends at the garage.
I enjoyed many rides in that 52 Mayfair, long, long ago.

Gerd,

On edit: I misunderstood your diagram. It does represent the chassis, but only grossly.

There is a series of pictures somewhere (I cannot find them right now) that shows a 1955 Packard going over a series of bumps. It illustrates my point exactly. I'll try to find them, or maybe somebody else has them.

Craig