Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

I was reading a review of the Bentley Broooklands coupe in the May 2008 issue of Motor Trend when the following quote caught my eye...

"The ageless 6 3/4 liter V-8 under the hood-it traces its origins to a 1950s Packard design-develops 530 horsepower and an axle-twisting 774 pound-feet of torque at 3250 RPM. It's the most powerful V-8 ever from Crewe."

I've often wondered what happened to the V-8 after 1956. It WAS a state of the art, very modern design at the time!

But this is the first time I've EVER heard that the Bentley v-8 is based upon a Packard design!

Is this true?

News to me. Here's the article online: Bentley Brooklands

Strip all the crap off of it and there might be a Packard V8 under there:

Attach file:

---

  (15.15 KB)

Did a little checking on a RR website after looking it over pretty sure RR V8 and Packard V8 not similar except for having 8 cylinders in a V configuration. THa RR has Alumionum block with wet liners gear driven camshaft oil pump driven from a gear of the front of crank also has studs that hold on the head and main bearing caps. THe site is very complete and takes a lot of time to look over
http://www.rroc.org.au/wiki/index.php?title=Tee-One_Topics

I like Packard as much as anyone, but are Motor Trend writers allowed pot for medicinal purposes?

I think that you will find the RRV8 engine was probably based on the design of the GM V8 engines. Rolls consult GM a lot during the 50's on matters of automotive engineering.

The automatic transmission that RR came out with was nothing more than a GM hydramatic. It is also reported that because the RR V8 wasn't cast iron, that it wasn't as quiet running as the average American V8.

The V12 engines in the current RR are and have been supplied by BMW.

John F. Shireman

Maybe so, Randy!...

The following link seems to settle the question....

http://www.rroc.org.au/wiki/index.php?title=History:RR-V8_Designer

BUT out of curiosity, do any of you know whether ANYONE built a V-8 based upon Packard's design?

I've always been amazed that it was only produced for 2 model years when it was built in a state-of-the-art plant and was supposedly very advanced.

Did anyone take advantage of all that engineering prowess?

Others may dissagree but I've always considered the Packard V8, though large and powerful, to be a very conservative design without any particular innovations beyond what others had already done, so I'd not think there was any "prowess" for others to take advantage of.

There weren't many engines that went on to careers with subsequent manufacturers or in other appliations; the three that come to mind are the Pierce-Arrow 8 & V12 and the Lycoming V12 that went on to very long careers powering fire engines of Seagrave and American LaFrance (?), and though not the same engine, some of the design elements of the Franklin engines that were modified for a small number of Tuckers, and for a very large number of Korean war helicopters.

Surplus Packard V8s were sold for years after Packard ceased by J. C. Whitney; one frequent application was for conversion to marine applications and quite a few of these still exist. And the selling prices back then were CHEAP.

I had read that the R-R V-8 was "inspired" by the Packard V-8 and the small block Chevy, but i think that was some pretty loose Monday morning quaterbacking. I think John Shireman is right, It's probably closer to a GM offering in some ways. I worked on a couple of later 70s R-Rs with that V-8, never any mechanical problems inside, but you would open the hood and look at this big, brawny V-8 that looked very familiar, almost "felt" American, then you looked at the intake manafold where you would expect to see a Rochester Q-jet (one of my personal fave carbs) and instead see two S-U carbs DOH!

Then there was the issue of all of mr. Lucas' work in the car--DOH!

These two cars were one-owner cars (I worked for that owner, who bought them new in '78-'79) and I drove many of them. At the same time he had some Cadillacs that he bought new and kept, all low mile cars, one '76 Eldorado Bicentennial convertible that had only 800 miles since new, he bought new in '76.
I thought the Rolls drove very much like the Cadillac of that same era, the Caddys were as quiet, as smooth,rode as nice and were more reliable.
We had an '85 Silver Spur limo that the Bagwaneesh in Oregon had in his fleet, the only one that wasn't painted like a party van, that car had Bosch electronic F-I and was much, much better for it.

I would be incredulous if the modern Bentley V-8 were based on the 55-56 Packard V-8.

Packard apparently did a great job of upgrading and enhancing the RR Merlin V-12 during WWII.

Although I am also a big fan of the Packard V-8...IMO, there were some significant mistakes made by Packard in designing and producing the 1955-56 V-8. To wit:

1) The oil pump (nuf said).

2) The relatively weak (for a block that massive) main webs Also there was no provision for 4-bolt main caps, an obvious enhancement.

3) The arrangement of the intake/exhaust ports with respect to the pentagonal head bolt pattern. The major offender is the pair of head bolts "gating" or restricting the center siamesed exhaust port width. Pontiac had a similar exhaust port arrangement, but due to their 4-bolt head bolt pattern, the nearest head bolt is between the ports, not gated around them. In a passenger car, this is no big deal, but for high performance, it's a major restriction. Packard should have changed the exhaust port arrangement to fix this.

4) The super long head bolts which perform dual duty: hold the head down as well as the stands for the rocker shafts. This is bad news when you have to remove these bolts in order to service anything related to the rocker arms.

5) The cam thrust plate is a good idea, but the original detailed execution sucks. Hence at least 3 different versions in order to get enough oil to the timing chain while still maintaining oil pressure with that lousy original pump.

Your points are well taken and I don't claim to be an engine guy by any stretch but I still think with all the high drama going on behind the scenes from 53 forward, it's amazing things came off as well as they did. Just look at what they did recognize and fix, then imagine what another year or so and some money would have accomplished.