The LX470 front suspension has torsion bars, but is the setup that was common on 4X4 pickup trucks - the torsion bars are not interlinked to each other or to the rear suspension, and are not part of the self-leveling system.

Yes, followed closely by that cool necktie

It's a GAZ chaïka. It doesn't have many things in common with a Packard. Exept from the front end. Oh and there wasn't many interstate in Soviet-Union in the 50's. Maybe you want to look it up.

Have heard reports that the 1950's Packards tended to be rattle traps as exhaust systems wore against the chasis despite promotional films insisting on how well thought out the rubber chasis mounts were positioned. The auto transmissions were full of bugs. I would think fat Packards were relatively trouble free driving on the interstates and highways but it is doubtful Packard ever reached the young executive they'd hoped to sell to, instead they were repeating themselves to an old, tired customer base in decline and packing in their Packard for the rest home. It was switching deck chairs on the Titanic. Shoot in foot technology killed Packard, with of without the V8. If they'd bought the rocket V8 from Olds along with the Cadillac hydromatic transmission and sold more high end luxury options, including "free airconditioning," and engineered a cruise control, they may have gotten further without blowing big bucks on crafting a doomed V8 along with a problematic one off transmission that was nearly impossible to service. They were digging a hole, not selling a customer.

@@z978ady I realize that GM sold Hydra-Matics to competitors, but I would doubt very much that they would sell superior engines to them. They did sell Chevrolet sixes and 283 V8s to Studebaker in the mid-60s, but Studebaker was a dying concern by that time. The Olds V8 was an advanced design for its day, and was instantly a hit with buyers. I just don't see GM selling them to Packard. GM was much more concerned with fighting off the Ford blitz of 1953, and incidentally killing off the independent makers as a result.

I wonder what - or who - is connected to that pointer?

As you saw when they loaded the trunk is this system sensitive to back and forwards leaning Therefore will this system create serious nose dive on breaking and lift on acceleration, and as breakes and engines got more powerful this problem got more pronounced.

I wrote almost the same things. I read the comments and many Americans don't have a clue theses car existed. I even read a comment that state "Khrushchev's Packard"

Because it really didn't work very well by modern standards.

You realize he's showing you a 2.5 ton car, right?

@@kwb377 he can't possibly mean me! my 1999 Toyota Land Cruiser is only 2.6 tons....way different than those 2.5 ton suckers!

@@kwb377 You missed the point: what was stressed was NOT the 2,5 tons but the SUV part The Packard was elegant, SUV's compete among themselves in arrogant looks

This was movie made for dealers.

He did mention "some European cars" - having owned a French car, all I can say is....

Was just going to say exactly this..Sorry Packard, Citroen did it first and ..cheaper.

According to Bill Allison, at the Packard meet at Zimmerman's Automobile-o-rama in 1969 "It would have a manufacturers cost of $600 today" He went on to explain a situation, where a famous manufacturer saved a dime per door latch, to show the importance of saving pennies per car. BTW, What a quality person he was. Bill even hand scetched a diagram for me, on a paper bag I was carrying, to show why the car doesn't "dip" during braking.

@@williamlegall2988 wow interesting, so nobody did it after because it was expensive to manufacture? Because that idea for a suspension was very innovative

@@ManiaMusicChannel All cars use the basic idea of interconnection with a torsion bar, just usually only side to side and not front to back - to control roll in corners. There's a few manufacturers who still use the principle of front-back interconnection, but they use hydraulics or pneumatics to do it.

Mercedes used hydro-pneumatic system licensed from Citroen for estate( wagons) and some S class cars. Today it’s called Airmatic.

The purpose of suspension is twofold: to reduce as much as possible the shock transmitted into the car by impact with road imperfections, and to provide deflection so that the wheels remain firmly on the ground. The limiting factor is always how much roll and pitch is allowed by a given system. An all independent coil system does not work. Nobody manufactures one - the body roll that you criticize american cars for is much worse with a completely independent coil spring system, unless the springs have been made so stiff that they fail to fulfill either of the two purposes. This is why all cars with coil springs have their suspension horizontally interconnected with - of all things - torsion bars, be that separate units or on cheaper cars a twist beam design. The Packard simply takes the principle of an anti-roll bar, turns it 90 degrees, and uses it as an anti-pitch bar. The electric motor exists only to tension the system in response to changing front-rear weight distribution. This is simply a system that shows a superior understanding of suspension than you possess. The exact principle of front-rear interconnection to control pitch and allow for softer ride is understood by everyone - Rolls Royce, Citroen, even Mercedes - just not you.

@@kyle8952 : You got it right when you said the Packard system is an anti-pitch system, with an electric motor to respond to load distribution. That's what this video explained. But it has the disadvantages this video shows too. You have no idea beyond that. I have not citicised American cars for their soft ride. I merely stated the fact that American cars generally have a soft ride. This is a deliberate choice of American manufacturers since the 1930's. Go read Alfred Sloan's book, on how he built GM into the largest car maker - he states that the soft ride, and compromised handling was a deliberate choice, and briefly explains why. Many upmarket cars such as Lexus (made by Toyota) are sold with softer suspension for USA, because that's what Americans want. Not because Toyota doesn't know how to design suspension, which is stiffer in their cars for other markets. Lots and lots of cars were and are made with all-independent coil suspension. Go read the service manual for a heckflosse (fintail) Mercedes car - it's exactly as I described - progressive coils all round, all independent, buffered front sub-chassis exactly as I described. These are early 60's cars and very successful. I owned one. My current car is a 15 year old GM Commodore (Australian-made equivalent of Chevrolet) - it too has progressive coils all round, all independent, no front/back coupling of any kind. It's handing and stability are nearly as good as that 1964 Mercedes. Ride is softer. It has no front-back interconnection and doesn't need it, as pitching is minimal due to a fairly long wheelbase. Front-back interconnection was necessary on the first mass-produced car to have it - the Citroen 2CV, because of a combination of soft ride and a very short wheelbase, which would normally give excessive pitching. Given the design objectives, it works quite well. The most common car here with front-back interconnection was the BMC Mini - also a short wheelbase car. But it was not very good - you just felt all the bumps twice as much. It had a very hard suspension - apparently a designer choice. What doesn't work so well is linear coils all round (ie not progressive) and I know of no car with such suspension. 1950's to 1970's American cars had progressive coils front, and leaf springs (which are inherently progressive) on the back - this too works very well, but not as well as the Hechflosse Mercedes system. I had over the years owned several Ford Falcons with this coil front/leaf back system. They all had a quirk - if you were cornering at moderate speed and the rear inside wheel hit a small bump, the car rear-end would jump sideways slightly. Apart from that handling and ride was much the same as any similar car.

@@kyle8952 : I did not criticise American cars generally for their soft ride - as it was a design choice to suit the market. But I did rubbish Packard for going overboard on an extremely soft ride. You see that extreme softness very clearly when the three chaps get in the back. On most large cars, such a load would drop the back by 50 mm at most. Going for such an extremely soft ride meant that dynamic pitching would be bad even on this large wheelbase car, so they had to fix it by front-back interconnection, and fix the static pitching problem with that by adding an electric motor and secondary torsion bars. Looks like it worked ok ride/handling wise, but it was not an elegant solution. One does not normally drive on bad pitch-inducing test tracks. Nobody had speed bumps back then.