Hi Paul

Priced at $2,100 to $2,300, had these appeared in showrooms, customers thinking of a new 60 Special would have had very good reason to consider Packard as well.

These prove the inherent design potential of the Junior series as basis for a new type of Packards. Proportions make all the difference, subtle changes pay huge dividends!

Keep 'em coming!

Steve

Hi

Interesting thread! I have nothing useful to add regarding the frames, but the 2011 CCCA Handbook list 62 L-29 Cords. The preponderance listed are convertible styles, one might conclude that was what comprised the majority of production. The eight survivors mentioned may refer to the custom-bodied cars, of which 43 were built.

The illustrations of the '32 Twin Six chassis look to be just that, artist rendering. Those fellows created rendering based on whatever the engineers brought to them, frequently development prototype versions, given the long lead times needed to have documentation in place when the production cars were ready. Pre-war literature abounds with inaccuracies just for the reason.....all the more interesting as well!

Steve

Hi

By the postwar days, a 5-6 year old Clipper would be the type of car that would see taxi duty for it's last use. Just conjecture, but it was probably a '42 Clipper Six: nice, spacious interior; rugged, durable, ecomonical six cylinder engine.....with the [I]plus[/I] of a Packard!

The rarity in the image is the 1941 Lincoln staring us in the face. That's no ordinary Zephyr (ovoid rear window), note the taller stature and the rectangular rear window, its the 138" wb Lincoln Custom, either the Model 31, 7-passenger sedan, 355 built, or the Model 32, 7-passenger limousine, 295 built.

Interesting the taxi would be a Packard and the chauffeured car a Lincoln!

Quite the wonderful video!

Steve

Hi

The subject of when Packard turned to the monoblock technology for Senior engines relative to industry practice needs consideration and discussion. The following are comments first by myself, then by Owen (Dave):

".....What does strike me as odd about the '36-'39 engines (referring to the 320 ci) is that Packard didn't replace them with a monoblock unit as soon as the 120 was safely in production."

"An interesting subject to ponder, I'd be interested in hearing speculation about why they did hold onto the old design. Of course the 120 wasn't their first successful monoblock design, the 1932 Twin Six (Twelve) was a monoblock as well, and an incredibly advanced casting for the time."

This last point, one which I had forgotten (thanks Dave), points up their early capability with technology. As a 1930-'32 framework, GM was fielding the monoblock V-8 Oakland/Pontiac, various monoblock straight eights were issuing from mid-priced makes, the Ford V-8 shortly to arrive. Beginning with 1936, Cadillac and LaSalle V-8's would be monoblock. The old, barrel crankcase, separate cylinder block method was outdated, more costly to manufacture, needlessly so.

So, the question is: why did Packard, already employing monoblock technology to the Twelve and 120 eight, wait until 1940 to introduce a monoblock Senior straight eight engine?

Steve

(We can address their holding with babbitt bearings long after insert bearings were proven as ancillary, too)

Hi Dave

You're right, it was unwise to jump to my conclusion without considering the possible shortage of service engine and parts for a one-year-only, low-production unit. It was unfair of me to indict the '39 320 ci engine as a less that robust based on what has been written on here. If the '39 service engine were unavailable, they had little choice but to substitute current production units. It's safe to assume 1938 and prior service engines wont swap without major modifications.

If the 320 engine design had deficits, as you point out, Packard would and did correct most of them by that point. What does strike me as odd about the '36-'39 engines is that Packard didn't replace them with a monoblock unit as soon as the 120 was safely in production. That experience was teaching them what was possible to build at lower unit costs. A '36 356 would have been a fine advancement.

That's what I like about this forum: we can proffer our opinions with civility, and agree or if not, do so without rancor....rather rare on many collector car boards.

Steve

PS I still do hold my position that in order to return the car to the road most expeditiously in consideration of all restraints and purposes, the 327 ci replacement is the best route available.

"...Actually, I think you have "hit the nail on the head". That is the decision I've come to on this. Packard, based on this literature, has already "sanctioned" this type of engine replacement as being within a legitimate action taken by Packard dealers. So, why should we look at it any differently, or maybe I'm just trying to convince myself. Either way, the result is the same."

Hi Gene

I endorse your decision to make this engine swap, both on the practical usage you intend to make and on the realistic conclusion that restoration of the 320 ci is beyond your mechanical and financial capability.
Frankly, Packard service letters detailing this swap where a tacit admission this heavily-modified version to fit in the Junior chassis wasn't one of their more robust powerplants. At the time those cars were still used cars from which their owners expected continued service. The fact the engine proved not as durable and troublefree as their usual reputation caused more potential customer loss, unless a suitable replacement could be supplied.

The only compelling reason to stay with the original engine is if the car is a convertible coupe or convertible sedan to maintain it's resale value. Any of the sedans or coupe are not so rare that a conversion should be an issue. When the car is restored and you're enjoying it, continue to gather the necessary parts etc. for the 320, restoring those that you are able without huge investment.
Then, when a purist takes you to task for the swap, inform him that you have the 320 awaiting and ready for restoration and that if he wants to foot the bill, you'll be glad to swap the restored 320 back into the car. Nothing like a fellow having to put his money where his mouth is to bring him to reality!

Steve

BTW: I've considered a postwar 288/327 swap into a '20's Six with a missing engine.

Hi

This 1930 733 7 passenger Touring Car is in the Richard Lotter Auction, July 30th. It has the rarely seen 3-door hoodsides option.

Looks like an interesting, worthwhile restoration project.

Steve

Attach file:

---

  (17.77 KB)

Hi

Large, fast luxury cars were popular with rumrunners during Prohibition. Remember, the light, fast Ford V-8 would only become available on the cusp of it's repeal. Lincoln were the preferred make.

As an auto historian, I would be interested to see the photos of the Ford Plant riots, if they aren't too graphic and inappropriate for this Forum. Perhaps submit them to Big Kev for approval before posting. Thanks.

Steve

Hello

Although there is no change in my patrician facade, I assure you, after viewing these marvelous photographs, inside my heart is breaking for having missed this meet!

All 'patrician' pretense aside, these are great pictures, thanks so much for posting them. And yes, the above sentiment does describe my feeling right now!

Steve

PS Good Heavens! That '31 845 Waterhouse convertible victoria just about made me fall out of my chair!!!

Hi

Man, Oh Man, Do I wish I had attended!!!

Thanks for posting the great pictures, enjoyed them immensely, but my heart is aching for having missed it!

Steve