Hi, Eric,

The same thought had occurred to me. It would require enlarging the center hole, drilling six new bolt holes, which are not symmetric pattern, turning down the exterior diameter and shrinking on the ring gear. The sucker weighs 43#, which would give one hell of a launch.

I'll check to determine if the dimension from the crankshaft flange face to the clutch face is close enough to the Packard V8 dimension to match up.

thnx, jack vines.

Greetings, V8rs,

I was sold a flywheel which, "guaranteed, it came off a Studebaker or a Packard V8, cause that's all Dad had." It doesn't seem to fit either. Would appreciate some help identifying this flywheel:

15.5" diameter
184 teeth
2.5" center hole
4.5" bolt circle
2.125" c/c
43# weight
drilled for two different clutch covers


thnx, jack vines

Hi, Eric,

I would have thought 327" valves would be more common and less expensive than V8 valves. Let me know off list how much you want for the V8 valves. PackardV8@comcast.net

jack vines

SAE gross horsepower was a bare engine on a dyno - no accessories, no air cleaner, no exhaust, corrected to standard temperature and barometric pressure.

The fifteen horsepower difference was an advertising ploy to sell the higher priced car.

thnx, jack vines

I haven't found any interchanges from the IH family. The 392" IH does have the same 4.125" bore size as the 374" Packard, but the compression height and pin diameter is different,

thnx, jack vines

While the heads may be, in fact, Packard 352" heads, I can't tell you how many times I have driven distances, cash in hand, because a seller was sure he had Packard V8 parts. All too often, the parts were from '56-58 Packards which were really Studebaker V8s. (This doesn't include the times the engines were an International V8 or a '57 Plymouth V8, which I wouldn't haul home if they were free.)

I occasionally build Studebaker V8s also. If the parts were decent, it was a good bargaining chip to give the impression I was sad the seller was deficient in knowledge and thus had wasted my time. Then, sometimes I would come home with Studebaker engines and/or parts at a bargain price.

BTW, the Studebaker V8 has 4.5" bore spacing. It is thus slightly shorter and slightly lower than the Packard V8, but overall, almost as large.

thnx, jack vines

Greetings, Mr. Pushbutton,

You are the acknowledged expert on the pushbutton Ultramatic, but I cannot agree with your Packard V8 block info. The 320", 352" and 374" blocks are each completely different blocks, with different casting numbers. A 320" can potentially have serious problems if bored to 352".

I have sonic-tested many Packard V8 blocks and found cylinder walls as thin as .200" in some spots. Boring a 3-13/16" 320" to the 4" 352" bore requires taking out a minimum of .093" of this, leaving only .107". The engine will start, run and maybe last, but there are dangers of overheating, cylinder wall flex and even failures, should there be any corrosion weakening the cylinder walls from inside the water jacket. The 352" blocks are still very common and no reason to take a risk on boring a 320".

The August 1955 Hot Rod Magazine article by Racer Brown goes into great detail on this and recommends a maximum overbore of 1/8" (.125")on any Packard V8.

Yes, back in the bad old days, some racers bored the 352" a full .250" oversize, but that was before we knew any better. Current experience shows the better ring seal and power output from strong cylinder walls is preferable to the few more cubic inches gained from an overbore which would weaken the cylinder walls.

Finally, the 320" crank has much smaller counterweights and cannot be successfully used with the heavier 352" pistons. Get a late 1956 352" and start from there. It is a much better engine, anyway, with many improved oiling system parts and valve train parts.

thnx, jack vines

At the risk of getting even further off-topic here, the legend is Packard knew they were history and were using up whatever parts were on hand instead of ordering more. Didn't we hear the '56 Executive supposedly came about because they had more senior series front sheet metal than Clipper.

thnx, jack vines

I'd say Studebaker and Packard dealers would install anything a buyer wanted. There were several '56 Golden Hawks and at least one Clipper raced with the 374" Caribbean engines. No one has ever produced documentation I've seen that the factory shipped any Clippers, or anything other than Caribbeans with the 2-4bbl engines.

The late Steve Williams had a Caribbean with a standard-shift transmission which he knew to have been installed by the SF Packard dealer. By the time it is sold twice, the next time it'll probably be listed as "one-of-a-kind-special-ordered-custom-from-the-factory."

thnx, jack vines

Greetings, Eric,

FWIW, I'd pay $2k for a set of alumium heads in a minute, after I'd seen several sets run for five years or so. The aluminum SBC and SBF heads we take for granted today were nothing but problems when they first were produced. It took many years of pattern refinement, CNC programming and just plain development work to make them the success they are today.

Lionel Stone has had aluminum heads for the Studebaker V8 for sale for $2200 for several years. They have been through at least three iterations to correct problems and are still not taking the much larger Studebaker market by storm.

Looking at it another way, the list of wants starts with a modern camshaft, roller rockers, aluminum intake, front balance damper, pistons and the rest. After we have proven the suspect Packard main bearing webs can take some serious horsepower, then let's talk aluminum heads.

thnx, jack vines