Re: 1940 Packard 180 petronix

Posted by su8overdrive On 2022/5/10 19:02:18

It's heartbreaking what happened to Packard, drunk with profits after War II, one of two automakers in that situation, GM suing the US govt. for Allied bombing damage to their German Opel plants.

First, Packard spends as much as an entirely new body ---wholly unnecessary given that Rolls-Royce/Bentley could do no better than crib the Clipper razor-edged with the dubious achievement of curved, one-piece windshield in Autumn, 1955 -- to clob 200 lbs. of bloat on the Clipper for what Consumer Reports well summed, "....Rasberry jello molds."

At the same time as this waste, Packard spends money on two new versions of the '35 120 engine while Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Chrysler, even Studebaker are about to unveil or working on new ohv V-8s.

Then, Packard dumps torrents more producing, essentially, a Dynaflow with lock up torque convertor.

Next, they produce for 1951-on their iteration of the shoebox Ford, Packard's stylists ordered by the ex-GMers running the show to use a Chevy-based '49 Olds' roof and cowl heights as their guide, the "high pockets" result because steel cheaper than glass lamented by John Reinhart and others.

This underscores that after the war, Packard increasingly "phoning in" the cars, more so every year, since their lucrative jet/govt. work far more lucrative and less hassle, until Ike's defense sec Cast Iron Charlie Wilson steered that work to his GM pals.

Because the Packard of yore, the Packard that through 1936 cornered 42% of all fine car (above $2,000 FOB) biz, the Packard of the '34 LeBaron 1106 sport coupe, itself akin to Mercedes'34 500K Autobahn Courier, would've matched or eclipsed Bentley's 1952 Continental, not aped dreck like the Olds Fiesta, Buick Skylark, Cadillac Eldorado with the Caribbean, a stock convertible laden with another 200 lbs. of "sporty" cues.

We get it. Some people will always salute everything with a Packard (or Cadillac, Roll-Royce, Ford, Borgward, etc.) badge. I owned a '51 Packard, a strong running example. Good ergonomics, but a concurrent Olds or my old mechanic's Hudson Hornet had better body quality, much as i might've liked a Mayfair coupe with stick and overdrive.

My '40 120 was a terrific car, Consumer Reports' Best Buy in its class as such were every year 1938-47. But its sales success simply because Packard cheapened the '40s over '39 and considerably cut prices, underscoring Dutch Darrin's "Packard was so afraid of GM they couldn't see straight."

Anyone who thinks a '50s Packard a better car than a concurrent Chrysler New Yorker is imbibing too much klubbie kool aid, "one marque-itis," as Special Interest Autos' editor Dave Brownell, himself a Packard fan, well summed it.

When we rave and repeat buff book paeans to everything with a given label, we lose credibility. The Packard Twin Six was a step down, to many, from the big Six of 1912-15. The Packard Twelve 1932-39 was originally intended as a front-wheel-drive upper echelon Buick beater, n o t to replace the 384-ci Custom Eight as topline.

Packard had a terrific blend of thorough engineering, build quality, smoothness, and thanks to German born Werner Gubitz, an understated, chiseled style through the '30s; crisper, more worldly, more sophisticated than Cad, Lincoln KB and K, Pierce, anyone; the reason Packard the whelming choice of the world's embassies into the '40s.

But if we're to split hairs, engine to engine, i'd take a Pierce 384 eight over Packard's 384, and a Pierce V-12 over Packard's, the latter akin to the Auburn Lycoming V-12, itself a terrific engine, American LaFrance boring it half an inch to 527 ci through 1970, the same valve layout as Packard, at 391 ci, a little larger than Packard's initial FWD V-12's 376 cubic inches. The seven-main-bearinged Pierce V-12 was designed from the outset for a vast luxe barouche, leaving Seagraves nothing to do beyond a quarter inch bore to 530-ci, and twin ignition, mandatory in emergency equipment.

The Pierce 8 & 12 had a P-A patent, the hydraulic valve lifter, while Packard's Twelve licensed GM's fiendishly complicated valve silencers.

Maurice Hendry thought the Pierce 8 sufficient, more sense than the 12. Some think the Packard 8 plenty enough over the Twelve.

People also forget that from the early teens on, until the GM cost engineers recruited in 1933/34 for the 120 project, Packard was guided by ex-Burroughs cash register and Hudson men, and sold throughout the 1920s, their heyday, five or six Sixes to every Eight, not dropping the six until LaSalle's smart new 303-ci V-8 forced them to.

From then on, Packard because a GM follower, not leader, 1929 their most profitable year ever, as Tim Cole reminds us.

I like my '47 Super Clipper, but a junior the same year a smarter automobile. Our bodies not quite as nice as Fisher's, on par with postwar R-R/Bentley's Pressed Steel, akin to an English Briggs, supplying much of the Sceptered Isle auto industry. My car's a Buick Roadmaster according to Packard, albeit all Packards, junior and senior, had the best chassis in the industry on either side of the Atlantic or Channel through the '40s.

But Buick got in trouble for upstaging Cadillac in '41, and R-R was annually disassembling a new Limited in the years before the war to glean the latest Detroit production tips.

The point of this rantaganza, in no small part because overpopulation prevents many of us from enjoying our Packards, somehow "political" and off limits, is that we've today people owning Packards who shouldn't own them, witness two-toned 1935-40 models, circus wagon colors at that, all this cowboy crapola like front disc brake conversions, Pertronix ignition, edging even serious devotees of the real thing to retro rodism simply as it's increasingly difficult to find competent mechanics.