I should have started this”Untruthful Vintage Ad” series a long time ago, as we’ve had quite a few. But this one is so egregious that it deserves to be the official first in the series.
Don’t get me wrong: Packard’s side-valve (flathead) straight eights had some great qualities, but their basic design and configuration goes back to the early days of the 20th century, and Packard’s conservatism kept them going for as long as possible. But this ad suggests that their “free-breathing” qualities had something in common with Packard’s marine and airplane engines, and that they were “newly-engineered”. Not.
The Packard 1A-2500 V12 (2,490 CID, 850 hp) was used in a number of PT boats as well as some aircraft. It had overhead cams, and four valves per cylinder, very much unlike the flathead Packard car engines. It was the successor to the extremely successful Liberty V12 engine from the late years of WW1 (1917).
But contrary to Packard’s claims and endlessly hogging the spotlight for the Liberty, it was very much not a Packard design, whose engineering chief Jesse G. Vincent had zero experience with such exotica as OHC hemi-head multi-valve engines.
Here’s what happened: In 1917, the Aircraft Production Board summoned Vincent and Elbert J. Hall, founder and brilliant designer of the numerous OHC hemi-head Hall-Scott airplane, marine and automotive high-output engines, put them together in a suite in the Willard Hotel in Washington, and told not to come out until they had a set of drawings for a high performance airplane engine.
This happened just months after Hall Scott released its new A-8 V12 aircraft engine (above), designed specifically by Hall for combat aircraft, and capable of 450 hp. When Hall was called to Washington to be sequestered with Packard’s Vincent to design the Liberty, Hall put service to the country ahead of his personal and company’s interests, and the A-8 was essentially stillborn.
Why the A-8 was not adopted and why Packard’s Vincent was asked to join in creating a new engine is a contentious question that has never been fully answered, but politics was clearly the most obvious one. Vincent was a well-know figure and good at self-promotion, and of course Packard was at the height of their power and image. Hall was quite different; a brilliant but soft-spoken engineer who felt that his designs and products spoke most eloquently for him.
The resulting Liberty V12 design (rated at 400 hp) had most of the basic design characteristics of the H-S A-8 V12, such as the two-piece aluminum crankcase, individual steel cylinders with a brazed-on water jacket, and of course the overhead cams and “free-breathing” aluminum hemi heads. Most of the changes were for ease of mass production. That’s probably the only relevant input Vincent was able to provide, since Hall had been designing and building OHC hemi engines since 1910, and was known to have more knowledge about their “deep breathing” qualities than just about any other American engine designer.
Since Packard (and others) had the production facilities to build the Liberty in large quantities, H-S was not given any of the production contract. And Packard hogged all of the publicity, for decades to come.
And then there’s the legendary Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin, another example of Packard using someone else’s design to build a superior aircraft engine and using it to suggest there was a bit of the Merlin’s magic in their cars.
This is not to take anything away from the excellent aircraft and marine engine Packard became famous for. But none of the advanced “deep breathing”design principles of these engine ever found the slightest application in Packard’s very stodgy car engines.
What has always maddened me is that, home-grown or not, Packard had access to all this high tech, and obviously had a factory, the necessary equipment, and the workforce to produce it. How many Merlins did the company crank out during WWII?
While it’s blatantly obvious that the Merlin itself was of no value for automobile use, at least some elements of the design must have been scalable, and at worst the principles of the design were. I don’t think there would have been any patent issues in ah, ‘referencing Rolls Royces’ design.
Surely Packard must have made a ton of money during the war, and had the opportunity to use that piggy bank to actually build what they claimed they were building in those advertisements: a mini Mustang motor. That would have been worthy of the Packard name.
Would it had changed their future? Perhaps not, but I wish they’d tried.
Indeed! Oh, for the alternate history where the Chrysler Hemi and the Cadillac 331 were also-ranks compared to Packard’s all-new “Baby Merlin” V12. The supercharged version saw Briggs Cunningham to back-to-back wins at LeMans!
I really can’t believe how that company squandered what their war production did for their reputation and for their bottom line.
Downsizing an aero engine has a lot of challenges and still results in a rather large item. For example the Ford GAA V8 used in Sherman tanks was 3/4 of a cancelled aircraft engine designed to compete with the Allison V1710. Ford didn’t adopt anything from the GAA unitl the Modular V8 in the mid 90s. Similarly GM car engines had no real connection to either Allison or EMD products.
Packard might still have made progress had somebody seen the virtues of overhead valve V8s and designed or bought one. The Daimler 4.5 hemi was advanced, powerful and smooth enough for Daimler’s limos.
Always wondered where the GAA came from. Certainly Henry had nothing to do with it!
slow_joe_crow,
I’ve had multiple Packard straight eight engines, and I have also owned 2 Daimler DE-36 cars, one a limo, the other a landaulet. Both of course had the wonderful Daimler straight eight, and Wilson Pre-Selector gearbox.
I loved the Wilson ‘box on both cars, such a pleasure to use. But the Daimler engines, while smooth, just never had the total lack of vibration that the Packard 9-main bearing engines had. Balancing a nickel on edge on a Packard at idle? No problem. Do it on a Daimler eight, and it will wobble a bit before falling over, every time.
That said, in my opinion the Daimler is still the best straight eight to come out of Britain. There were plenty of Daimler eights that saw hard duty in fire pumpers, running at high RPM for hours on end, pumping water to put out fires.
Apples and pears I am afraid. slow_joe_crow talks about the Daimler V8 hemi 4.5. This was a much underrated engine which was only used in the Daimler Majestic Major and DR450 from the 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Majestic_Major
I think there is an important question lurking in your comment, which is what were the legal terms under which the military contracted with automakers to produce engines and other components designed by others. Some kind of licensing agreement, I’m guessing. And who owned the tooling? It’s possible to reverse engineer a lot, after all the Soviets were busily reverse engineering Fords and Packards at the time, but I have to think that even in the middle of a war, R-R was taking some steps to make sure its technology wasn’t being stolen by some uppity Americans.
Wolseley produced Hispano V8 aircraft engines during WW1 and clone the bevel gear OHC design from it and used it untill 55 when BMC formed and they got downgraded to Austin engines, Packard could have upcycled some of the tech into its engines but no they stayed firmly in the 1920s
I’ve thought the same thing. Especially about Packard surely sitting on a mountain of cash in late 45. But according to the author of the fall of Packard motor car company if Packard would have not built a single thing during WW2 and invested in war bonds they would have had more cash on hand at the end of the war.
Much has been written about the difference between the Packard automobile engines, and the incredibly high tech aero and marine engines they constructed, very precision engines built to exacting specifications.
But there is another difference that has been largely ignored. Longevity.
I drove Packard straight eight vehicles as everyday cars well into the 1980s. I personally had Packards with over 250,000 miles on them, and my friends had such high mileage Packards as well. These were cars built in an age where the average car needed serious engine work around 60,000 to 70,000 miles, and above that they were generally considered worn out.
I had a 1954 Clipper sedan with the 288 engine and stick shift. It had around 150,000 miles when I bought it, along with a pronounced rod slap on cold startup. It kept that sound during the 20,000 miles I put on it, and the Packard guy in W VA who bought it from me drove it another 30,000+ miles with the same rod slap. Last I heard it was still running!
Many, many post war Packard cars stopped running due to a bad valve. Nope, not because the valve hit the piston, but because the stupid owners found it really easy to pull the head to see what was causing the low compression in one cylinder, and they never bothered to put the cylinder head back on the engine. Soon the cylinders were rusted. That’s how a burned exhaust valve stops a Packard!
Now back to the military engines Packard cranked out by the thousands. Unlike the cars, the military engines in WW2 had a life expectancy that was far briefer, as little as 100 hours before overhaul for some aircraft. These engines were often driven hard for hours on end, especially the Packard 2500M marine engines in the PT boats. These huge V12 brutes were driven at constant high rev speeds day after day. They were abused so much that while the PT boats had 2 engines operating together for speed [and the ability to operate on only one while the other was serviced], The US Navy was so worried about engine failure, each PT boat was equipped with a 3rd engine, ready to be moved into position should one of the other engines fail.
Packard produced some of the highest quality equipment during WW2, and the company had the awards to prove it. They had to be constructed of the finest materials and degrees of manufacturing, because of the intense abuse they were subject to. Many people have suggested Packard should have adapted their military engines to civilian use after the war, but the basic design of those engines wouldn’t work in civilian roles. That said, the company did use modern design and build techniques in creating a 212hp straight eight motor in 1954, and a damn good V8 engine the next year, that had the company survived, could have been increased to 440 cu. in as they had planned, and even larger sizes in the future.
They also used what they had learned from WW2 production, to create one of the smoothest shifting automatic transmissions in the industry. The original Ultramatic was very reliable when compared to the other automatics of the day. However it was the rushed-into-production 1954 to ’56 Twin Ultramatic transmission that had teething problems, resulting in the poor reputation that exists today. That said, the Twin Ultramatic, when rebuilt to include various changes and updates, can be a very reliable transmission, and provide a far superior “jerk-free” operation compared to the GM 4-speed Hydramatic. Speaking of the early [Park gear in reverse] Hydramatic, experts will tell you the harder it jerks at shifting, the longer the transmission will last!
Thanks for this. It reduced my sadness over the eventual demise of the “Ask the man who owns one” company.
Packard was also building jet engines. They should have gone exclusively into aircraft after the war, since they had already lost their car niche. The first luxurious corporate jet should have been a Packard, not a Lear.
I’m not sure I’d say this ad is untruthful, though it is very misleading. The copy clearly states that the post-war engines were born from Packard’s experience BUILDING tank and aircraft engines. As a guy with both design and manufacturing experience I differentiate very clearly between the two activities. As for being newly-engineered, change a few parts and part numbers, enlarge a port or valve size a few 16ths and presto, “free-breathing” and “newly-engineered”. But yeah, by the time I became aware of Packard as a kid in the sixties, it was long gone and the more I’ve learned since then, it seemed clear that the decline had started before the war.
The Merlin ad at least clearly states they were building “Packard-designed Rolls-Royce engines” for the P-51 Mustang fighters and PT boats.
oops “Packard-built” not “Packard-designed” RR engines.
Oops again. The PT boat engines were totally unrelated to the Merlin. Merlin 1640 cu in. Packard Marine 2500 cu in.
Based on what I have read, Packard did a lot of reworking of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, their version was considerably better than Rolls-Royce; a lot of RAF ground crews and maintenance personnel preferred the Packard Version to the Rolls Royce. Aircraft piston engines were large and slow turning as opposed to automobile engines so I’m not sure how much of the technology was transferrable to automobile engines. I imagine Packard’s conservatism kept them producing the old flathead engines far longer than they should have.
As a dedicated Packard enthusiast who has owned about 300 examples and worked on hundreds of others, I should be upset with this post. But I’m NOT. Paul is correct.
The 2 Packard post-war engine designs are basically identical with pre-war versions. The Super Eight 356 cu. in. engine dates to 1940, and the small eight 282/288/327 cu. in, dates back to 1935, with the Packard six based on the smaller eight.
The 356 was a great engine when it was introduced, but by 1950 it was considered too heavy and not really suitable for the horsepower race, hence it was retired in favor of a new and much lighter 9-main bearing version of the smaller 327/288, now known as the 327 senior engine.
Yes, the 9-main bearing Packard eight was a wonderful engine, smooth as silk, lots of torque, but America wasn’t participating in a “Torque race”, it was in a “Horsepower race”, and the Packard Senior eight was cranked up to 359 cu. in. For 1954, the nine main-bearing eight was punched to 359 cu in and equipped with an alloy cylinder head with more compression, upped to 212 hp, and torque rating of 330 lb-ft at 2200 rpm.
In 1955 Packard introduced an all-new high compression V8 engine of 352 cu. in., but that’s another story.
Would that 212hp be the highest output ever achieved for an automotive straight eight? I’ve thought of Rolls-Royce’s B80 and Daimler’s DE36, but they’re nowhere near this.
Duesenberg J: 265 hp
Duesenberg SJ: 320 hp
Peter,
As far as I know, for a production* engine, it was, and probably still is, the highest HP rating for any straight eight engine. *I have a hard time with low production engines used in cars like the Duesenberg being referred to as production engines.
But to achieve this came at a cost. The aluminum heads had corrosion issues with the steel head studs, and mechanics not familiar with what happens when you put steel against aluminum, would often not apply a special anti-corrosion compound to steel threaded spark plugs. This often resulted in stripped threads in the heads.
Plus, these cars required hi-test gasoline, and seemed to run best on Amoco hi-test. The use of the higher octane fuels resulted in more heat generation, and these cars had a nasty habit of overheating. When that happened, they tended to develop head cracks around the spark plug holes
Fortunately Packard used one head gasket for all it’s engines [except for the short-lived 1948-9 Packard six cars for export or Taxicab use] from 1948 to 1954. This meant the earlier 327 [or even the 288] cylinder head would fit.
There is a guy in Michigan who has been drag racing a 23rd series eight sedan for many years, it’s called the “Flintstone Flyer”, and has a very impressive win ratio. Here’s a photo of it in motion . . .
A few years ago, of all things, Packard diesel swaps somehow caught on. Who could’a guessed?
I saw 4B, a 6B, and a Power Stroke destined for one.
…and speaking of free breathing, I just had a flashback of a 460 repower.
Jim,
I suspect the Packard Diesel swap idea maybe a local thing, I’ve never heard of one. And considering how expensive good running Cummings and Power Stroke Diesels are to buy, A total rebuild of a Post-war 288 or 327 Packard eight is far less money, and the parts are easy to find, even one-stop shopping at an 800 number!
That said, there is certainly plenty of room under the hood for most small truck I-6 diesels, and the suspension should be able to handle them as well. The Ultramatic was large enough to require a good size trans hump, so that shouldn’t be a problem either. The rear axles are over-engineered, and rarely have any problems, at the most the pinion seals will seep a bit. Axle shafts should be able to handle the torque as well.
Nothing new, Packard and Diesel are almost a natural.
I s’pose the closer one gets to East Grand Blvd, the more popular it seems. lol
…
Keep in mind that part of the reason for this not making much of their wartime experience was due to Packard being in an administrative tailspin, having no idea what they wanted to do postwar, and having no idea how to do whatever it was they wanted to do.
Start with a President who’s determined to take a car that, a decade earlier competed if not blew away Cadillac and Lincoln, is trying to compete in the luxury field by bringing out a Buick. All because of volume. And then, in a car hungry society, falls back on the lower-priced Clipper rather than pre-war 180’s.
Packard has, historically, become the poster child in how to kill a brand’s image and value. So the odds of them modernizing their engines and getting a jump on GM is dreaming, at best.
I suspect that the flatheads were not only kept in production because that was the cheaper option vs a new engine but also a straight 8 flat head engine has a lot less parts than a dual overhead cam V8 engine.
There is a parallel on the more popular priced end of the scale. Hudson. Hudson developed the step down design which was superior to most of what Detroit was producing. Their straight six was more than competitive, don’t forget, Cadillac’s ’49 OHV V8 produced only 160 hp. initially. Packard’s eight and Hudson’s six out powered Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s engines for first few years. As Bill noted above Packard was boasting of 212 hp, but the V8’s had so much more potential.
Both auto makers did not have the resources to replace their existing model’s bodies as quickly as GM and had to settle for some updating and light re-skinning. The Packard and Hudson, always managed to look a bit too out of date. Though something like the the 1950 Cadillac was not considered a beauty queen once it was a few years old.
In the ’50s and ’60s the auto business became just like the fashion industry, whether you made clothing out of cashmere or polyester, it had to be new and in style every year.
This is a fascinating topic. I tried to look for a quick review of the history of false advertising regulation/enforcement, but the topic does not appear in digest form (that can be found in just a few minutes, anyway). I suspect that even though the FTC goes back to the Wilson Administration, their involvement in advertising claims didn’t really ramp up until the 1960s. And with so many more egregious/consequential misrepresentations in advertising from that era, I’ll presume that Packard’s management didn’t sweat the details on this.
Yes, I guess Packard said what it had to say to make it look like they were selling a modern vehicle.
I have issues of some consumer magazines for the late thirties which do contain references to the FTC ordering companies to desist from making unsupported claims. The most egregious examples involved patent medicines, but there was an instance of Seiberling being forced to stop claiming that its tires would never wear smooth! Sheesh, I thought this was America.
Regarding the Liberty engine, Maurice Hendry’s Cadillac history mentions that Cadillac’s chief engineer, Ben Anibal, was also involved in the design, IIRC. No doubt Paul’s right about Hall being the main contributor, though.
I don’t know that Packard was out and out lying. The engines were re-engineered versions of their pre war designs. Flatheads could be modified to produce more power, with improved cams, carbs, and porting, but they were nothing like an OHV engine. Hot rodders were modifying both Ford fours and V8’s for increased power. It was a bid for reflected glory, Cadillac boasted that their V8 engines and Hydramatic transmissions powered out army’s tanks in WWII, and there was a flathead V8 under the hood of every Cadillac. Packard never claimed that the flat head straight eight under the hood of their car was the same engine that powered the Mustang aircraft.
“Out of this world…Into your heart”
GAG me! I hadn’t realized the feminization of the (car) culture started so early.
That seemed really weird to me too. Packard and “loveable” just don’t seem
a logical paring.
Packard also the first company ever to use heart emojis in their advertising:
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a1704666/does-1948-packard-ad-represent-first-use-heart-symbol-advertising-copy
Thanks for that link. As someone who began collecting “Everything Packard” when I was in my early teens, I have amassed what I thought was every north American ad published by the company, plus even ones in foreign countries. This is the first time I’ve seen this ad. I find it interesting there is no page number to indicate it was published in a magazine. In 1948, all the major magazines PMCC would have taken out ads in, had page numbers. While it’s possible the page number was removed from the photo, most reputable writers wouldn’t do that.
In 1948 Packard stuck to the big popular magazines like Saturday Evening Post and Collier’s. My first thought was this is probably a proposal that wasn’t actually published in a magazine. We shall see.
I have some additional friends who are considered “walking encyclopedias” when it comes to Packard cars, and I’m shooting them a copy to see if they’ve seen it before. I will follow up here with my findings.
Part of me hopes it isn’t a published ad, because if it is, then I have to go find a copy, or my Packard advertising book isn’t complete. The other part says hey! It’s a new ad!
Here’s someone selling one on Etsy:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1122456487/vintage-1948-packard-eights-print-ad
Doesn’t say what publication it was from, and also doesn’t have a page number. I was at first thinking the one shown at Autoweek was cropped above or below the page number.
Anyway, I don’t find “out of this world… into your heart” to be particularly ‘feminized’ in any way – guys have hearts too! And of course, the famous company slogan assumed all Packard owners were men. (although to be fair, it seems to me that “men” was often used to mean “people” back in the day, particularly in instances where a majority of the group being referred to were indeed male).
Well my Packard “experts” let me know the ad was actually published, but no one seems to know in what publication. It’s one of the rarest post-war
Packard ads.
I’m thinking Packard’s advertising agency suggested trying another publication, perhaps as a test of the publication, hence they ran an ad that was not used in the typical mainstream publications Packard used.
Bill, try the Saturday Evening Post, December 6, 1947, page 153.
Eric, Thank you! I will pass this on to the Packard cognoscenti.
What next?
Surgeon General’s Warning:
Words such as: Turbo, Jet, Rocket, Thrust, Thunder, Propelled, Aero, etc.
Should be considered strictly as colorful figurative language. Attempting flight by motorcar could be hazardous to your health.
The British comedian (?) Russell Howard had a ” story ” recently on his website about how RED BULL was forced to pay a £13 MILLION settlement in a case of false advertising. Someone brought suit against RED BULL for their claim that “…it gives you wings..,”.
I don’t think they include that phrase in their advertising anymore, at least I don’t remember seeing it lately.
Wow. Somehow I’d have thought this kind of flummery was beneath Packard.
Still, they could have made changes to their intake and exhaust manifolding, and perhaps ported and relieved the blocks, as a result of lessons learnt from building engines for the military. But from what Bill says above, they didn’t. Guess they thought their engines were good enough already.
From my understanding, a lot of the issues with flatheads versus OHV engines is intertwined with the prewar (lack of) availability of high-octane gas and the preference of customers for very flexible engines so as to minimize shifting. Before WWII, gas was of variable quality and high-compression engines were not warranted for use in a road-going car, where high torque and tractability were at a premium (partly because of the lack of suitable automatic transmissions, folks wanted to minimize shifting as much as possible). For example the 32-valve DOHC Dusenberg straight-8 only had a compression ratio of 5.7:1, was still highly undersquare (3.75″ x 4.75″) and only made 265 hp out of 420 cubic inches. In comparison the Packard V-12 was at 475 cubic inches, made 180 Hp, but at a lower 3200 RPM, and the various Packard 8’s made from 120 to 160 hp, also at lower RPM’s and with displacements ranging from 320 to 384 cu. in. The Packard owner traded slightly less real-world performance in exchange for greater tractability and much simpler, easier to maintain, and more reliable valvetrain. As the 1930’s progressed more and more manufacturers moved to flathead designs as the theoretical benefits of OHV/OHC/DOHC engines were not easily achievable given the quality of gasoline at the time, the quality of metallurgy (which affected things like the reliability of valve springs at high RPM), and the preferences of customers. Even Cadillac went to flathead designs from an earlier OHV design, in their later V-12’s and V-16’s.
Though It’s correct that the 1A-2500 aircraft engine owed a lot to E.J. Hall and the Liberty Engines, Packard continued to develop them. Packard’s 1A/2A/3A-2500 engines were used in WWII PT-boats in 1M/2M/3M/4M versions and the final versions included an intercooled centrifugal supercharger.
https://uscrashboats.org/cpage.php?pt=15
After the war, a number of things happened – Packard had definite leadership issues which have been duly noted, and as they dilly-dallied in the immediate postwar, the world in some sense passed them by. Though they had made some profits during the war, they by no means had a large piggy bank to play with, so their resources were limited. They realized they needed 2 things to be competitive in the postwar era – an automatic transmission and an OHV engine that could work with high compression. They hoped they could bring out the automatic first, and the V-8 second, but customers barely noticed the existence of the Ultramatic but REALLY noticed the lack of a V-8. Finally, with the widespread adoption of automatics, the traditional advantages of a Packard straight-8 – smoothness and tractability, were suddenly not highly valued – who needs tractability when you can just smash on the gas pedal and let the torque converter sort it out.
In retrospect the money they spent on the automatic should have been put into the engine first, and a relationship built with Borg-Warner to perhaps buy a version of their 3-speed “DG” series as Studebaker had done. Packard was betting that smoothness and tractability would still be valued postwar, and the market changed rapidly on them.
I had written a long post but it seemed to disappear, so i’m trying again.
Though the Packard 1A/2A/3A-2500 and the 1M/2M/3M/4M-2500 marine versions were derivatives of the Liberty engine, Packard did do a lot of development work over the years, including intercooled centrifugal superchargers and even a supercharged diesel version that was installed in minesweeper boats.
Packard’s engines pre-war made a lot of sense for road-going cars. Because of the crude transmissions in use, people favored highly tractable engines that could basically be started from rest in top gear, while keeping shifting to a minimum. Because of the state of metallurgy and bearing technologies, high rpm engines were really a racing-only item, and because of the variable quality of gasoline, high compression was out of the question for a practical road-going machine. All of these things pointed to the undersquare flathead straight-8 as the most practical engine for smooth, reliable, tractable operation with adequate power – exactly the engine design Packard pursued through multiple generations in the 1930’s and 40’s. Compare say the mid-thirties 384 cu-in flathead Packard straight-8 with 150 Hp available at around 3000 RPM (or the 475 cu-in flathead V-12 with 175-180 Hp at around 3000 RPM) with the 32-valve DOHC 420 cu-in Dusenberg (also quite undersquare) with 200 Hp available at 4200 RPM, but much more expensive as well as a considerably more maintenance-intensive. Cadillac, for example, went from an overhead-valve to a flathead configuration on their late V-16.
Though Packard was profitable during WWII, they by no means raked it in, and there were significant expenses involved in going back into automobile production. Postwar, Packard made a lot of mistakes as has been well-documented. The biggest mistake Packard made (besides styling, which is another matter entirely) is thinking the emphasis on smoothness above all else would continue (who did they think they were, Michael McDonald?) into the 1950’s, hence they spent what little capital they had on developing the Ultramatic, an automatic designed for smoothness above practically all other considerations, instead of jumpstarting the development of a modern high-compression engine that could take advantage of the improvements in metallurgy and the availability of high-octane gas around the country. As it is, customers barely noticed the availability of the Ultramatic (1950 sales, when it was first widely available, were a dismal 42,000) but they REALLY noticed the dowdy body and the prewar engine design. Who needs smooth and tractable when the torque-converter will take care of everything for you?
RPF, for some reason, your original post disappeared into the spam folder. I recovered it and it’s now posted above again.
Eric, I had a couple disappear as well, the second version would be the best to publish, if it can be found.
Whoops, as soon as the above was published, the post in question appeared. Thanks!
No problem! If it happens again, try to leave another comment stating that one of your comments ended up in spam, and an editor will fish it out.
Interesting comment regarding sales of the Ultramatic. How many manuals were sold in that year? And how many in the years after? The Ultramatic is always a problematic item in my fantasy purchases of a Packard. (Only two speeds, really?) Although I do like the lock-up feature. Instead I fantasize about a 3-speed with overdrive, althoughＩworry about the clutch since I am only used to very tractable Japanese 5 speeds. Realize that this is a very hypothetical discussion…
It should be noted that, in the early 1950’s era the Packard 327 straight-8 was competitive with the high-end Cadillac, Lincoln, and Chrysler engines, but as the decade wore on it fell further behind. It had all kinds of tricks to make it faster, 4-barrel carbs, canted valvetrain, but there was only so much that could be done.
1949: Packard 356 L8 – 160 hp (1953 327 – 180 hp, 1954 359, 212 hp)
1949: Cadillac 331 ohv V-8 – 160 hp (1953 331 – 210 hp, 1954 331 – 230 hp)
1950: Chrsyler 323 L8 – 135 hp
1951 Chrysler 331 ohv V-8 – 180 hp (1955 331 – 250 hp, 1955 354 – 280 hp)
1952 Lincoln 336 L8 – 154 hp
1952 Lincoln 317 ohv V-8 – 160 hp (1954 331 – 205 hp)
I don’t know about the cars, but the Cadillac V8 was a considerably lighter engine than the Packard straight 8.
From the 1951-54 Service Manual, the Packard 327+Ultramatic weighed about 1000 pounds, with the 327 weighing about 725# and the Ultramatic ~275#. From stuff posted in the Cadillac La-Salle club, the 331 Ohv V-8 weighed in at 700#, so a 25 # advantage. I haven’t been able to find definitive data on the Hydramatic, but some sources suggest on the order of 230#, so a 45# advantage. Put them together and one has something like a 70# advantage over Packard, not probably not8iceable in a 4000# car.
I would just LOVE to drive a 212 hp straight eight Packard. With the undersquare design, it must have been a very nice driving experience and a very unique one, too.
Learning much here .
Too bad Packard squandered away their good name .
-Nate
If you are fortunate to own one the these Packards, I suggest that you keep the gas tank whistle in working order. Lots of fun at the filling station. When I was a little kid, I thought all cars had them. At the time, my father had one and my grandfather, two uncles and my godfather had contemporary Chevrolets – all with that feature.
Thanks, I’ll remember this when I head to the dealer to pick up my new 48 Packard. SMFH
The Hall Scott A8 is a 60 degree V12. The Liberty was a 45 degree V12, with common big ends. This caused uneven firing impulses which lead to torsional vibration which caused failures. The 1500-2500 Packard aircraft and marine engines were all 60 degree V12s. PT boats had three engines and three propellers.
In the alternate history department, a wonderful place to pass the time, the independent car companies would have merged in 1945, and produced OHV common bore spacing inline 4, 6, V8 and V12 engines. I figure 104mm. By the late 1950’s, when all is well in Packard, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Jeep and International Harvester land (who did I leave out?) a big block would be called for with a bore spacing of about 122mm.
Life is great in alternative history!
Jeep including Willys and Kaiser. Sorry for the exclusions…
Realistic Packard Fan and the others make good points. But we’re Monday morning quarterbacking from the vantage of the 21st century. Packard owned the luxe field through 1936 or so because ex-Hudson, ex-cash register men well milked their tooling, producing luxe with higher profit margins than anyone else, despite having the same sized facility also designed by Albert Kahn as Pierce-Arrow.
After GM, Packard was the most widely held auto stock in the world. The Company’s DNA was refinement and smoothness, hence producing, essentially, a Dynaflow with a lock up torque convertor (Ultramatic) instead of the above scenarios.
R-R Crewe, Glasgow and Ford of England (Manchester) produced 112,945 Merlins during the war, against Packard’s 55,523, Improvements from either side of the Atlantic were quickly incorporated in both the next series, lifelong Merlin rebuilders reporting the sole difference the Brit versions finer external finish. Packard had nothing to do with the Merlin beyond enlisting a platoon of draftsmen at taxpayer expense to redraw the engine for US methods.
Packard’s legal counsel, Henry E. Bodman, rewrote the Merlin contract so it became the basis of govt. contracts for years to come, enabling Packard to emerge one of only two automakers profitable from the war. (GM sued the US govt. for Allied bombing damage to their German Opel plants.) Packard’s most profitable year (not highest production) was back in 1929. Aside from a blend a refinement, engineering, smoothness, their ’30s senior cars had an understated, chiseled look Cad, Lincoln and the others couldn’t match. 42% of all fine car (above $2,000) business in 1935-36 was Packard, but since this was an infinitesimal sliver of the total car market, moot.
The GM B-O-P production men brought in to cost the ’35 120 — even Chevrolet’s sales mgr. Bill Packer came aboard to teach Packard dealers how to sell to the middle-class on credit– were increasingly running the show, so you can’t blame Packard for bringing out the funky little six in 1937. Remember, too, that junior/senior cars were nothing new at Packard since late 1905, and during their 1920s heyday sold five sixes for each eight, but never before for under a grand.
So Packard was able to launch a company-saving junior car for 1935. Pierce could not afford to follow through on their proposed 25,000 juniors for ’38, even at their higher price point of $1,200.
Packard’s second lease on life was their war work. They increasingly phoned in their cars after the war, addicted to more profitable, less hassle govt. jet engine work, spending as much clobbing 200 lbs. of hideous weight on their svelte Clipper in ’48 as a completely new body would’ve cost, revising their ’35 120 engine into that year’s 288, 327 while Cad, Olds, Chrysler, even Studebaker working on or about to unveil ohv V-8s.
Then blew more money on Ultramatic, despite Consumer Reports rating it best of the new automatics, even as CR each year 1938-47 gave the 120 or its Clipper variant their Best Buy rating in its price class. For 1951-on Packard’s iteration of the ’49 shoe box Ford sharing the same it-crawled-from-the-sea grille as the rest of the US auto industry, Packard’s designers ordered to use the cowl and roof heights of the Chevy-based ’49 Olds 88 as their guide, then to save money, John Reinhart’s beltline raised because sheet steel cheaper than glass.
Once the leader, slightly above and to the side of Detroit, Packard could now only ape dreck like the Olds Fiesta, Buick Skylark, Cadillac Eldorado with their Caribbean, a stock conv. laden with 200 lbs. of “sporty” cues. The Packard of yore might’ve matched, anticipated the 1952 Bentley Continental.
Crewe (R-R/Bentley) learnt to purvey after the war down-market, rationalized cars with bodies by Pressed Steel, Cowley near Oxford, the Sceptered Isle’s equivalent of Briggs, Pressed Steel supplying half the English motor industry, but remembered how to market upscale, even as Packard’s ads became increasingly shrill, aero engines R-R’s focus since 1935, about the time Packard, LaSalle (gussied Olds 8), Lincoln (“Ford-and-a-half” Zephyr) launched their juniors, all Packards ’39-on but 446 leftover Twelves junior based.
Packard wasn’t the only company addicted to fat defense contracts, so the Russian bear inflated, the red scare, HUAC gave us the stalemate of Korea, loss in Vietnam, to make Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, General Electric, Northrop Grumman happy; eventually saddling us taxpayers with the $1.5 trillion F-35 contractors’ feeding frenzy.