Re: Driving comparisons between the Packard Six and 120.

Posted by su8overdrive On 2012/7/7 3:11:16

I bow to all the above luminaries, including Our Man in Canberry and the Great Oz. My knowledge of the 1937-47 Packard 245-ci six is scant, but it was obviously a husky lil' engine as Packard offered it as well as the 356 in marine guise; when geared down managed to lug 141-inch-wheelbase NYC taxis; and was used into the '50s in White Trucks. The only reason i can figure Packard never offered the 1936-47 282 (One-Twenty) engine in marine form is --- well, i don't know, unless the six was deemed spunky enough.

?

Now, PackardInfo is the last place i'd ever stretch truth,
and i'm one of those who thrive on hard fact, but must share that decades ago, in my rebuilt, balanced '40 120 with the non-overdrive 4.09 axle instead of the usual 4.36,
in overdrive, for a 2.95:1 overall final drive, running 32 psi cold pressure in my Denman 6.50 x 16 bias plies, on level East Bay (California) freeway, much of it at 65mph, with a light foot on the accelerator, pulling little manifold pressure, after carefully topping off my gastank, and doublechecking the figures with my calculator,
i got 22.5 mpg. Yes, really, on all that's holy. And that was with me stupidly using thick Castrol 20W/50 in my rebuilt, healthy engine, thinking back then more is better when it came to viscosity.

I today use Kendall GT1 10W/30 in my rebuilt, balanced '47 356. But back then, i thought the thicker the oil the better. Perhaps the 20W/50 only diminished mileage by a minute fraction. I leave that to y'all.

BTW, a 4,400-lb. '51 Lincoln won its class in the annual Mobilgas Economy Run turning in 25.488 mpg, tho' it ran the 3.31 "plains" rear end AND overdrive, for an overall final drive ratio of 2.39:1.

I was tempted to put a 1950 Custom 8 3.54:1 Ultramatic pumpkin in my '47 Super in place of the factory 4.09, but instead installed a 3.92 out of a non-overdrive '47 Custom.
The above Lincoln stunt makes me kick myself for not doing so, but then i often wonder if in the real world i'd wind up kicking down into direct drive too often with the 3.54.

As is, my '47's overall final drive in OD is now 2.82:1 instead of the factory 2.95. With the Ultramatic rear cog i'd be 2.56:1. I heard a few '41 Chrysler 8s on the standard wheelbase when ordered with Vacamatic, which came with the 3.54 axle, and overdrive, worked out to the same amazingly long-legged 2.56:1.
But the '41 Chrysler Saratoga/New Yorker weighed 350+ lbs. less than a Super Clipper, had, at 4 7/8 inches, a long stroke. The heavier Super Clipper has higher inertia loading. And the '51 Lincoln was a specially optioned car driven by a professional for a national fuel economy contest.

Theoretically, 1941 Lincoln Zephyrs and Continentals could be ordered with both Columbia rear axles AND overdrive, for an all up final drive in Columbia high range in overdrive of 2.19:1. Given those "Ford and a half" V-12s had the least torque per cubic inch of any domestic car of the day, Crosley included, i imagine you'd dread even a suggestion of a headwind.

Non-blown 1936-37 Cords came 2.75:1 in their overdrive fourth gear. Blown '37s came 2.95:1 because superchargers spool up better at higher engine rpm.

The lone '39 Bentley Corniche aero saloon, destroyed on the French docks by a Hun bomb, had 2.87:1 final drive.
The later 1952-55 Bentley R-Type Continental, with, other than its upright grille, a fairly smooth shape, and a curb weight from 3,750-3,850 lbs. depending on equipment, 150 hp/4,200 rpm, then the fastest sedan in the world, a razor-tuned prototype managing 116 mph at Brooklands, the British Indy track, called it a day at 3.08:1 final drive.

Buick allegedly coaxed a '41 Century with that year's plug-fouling, gas-sucking Compound Carburetion, cold air duct, and factory split manifold, with the rare, no-cost "economy" 3.6:1 rear axle in place of the usual 3.9 in Century/Roadmaster, to 110 mph at the GM Proving Ground, but there was no AAA or second-party sanction.

Final gearing, at least for absolute speed, can't be too tall to enable horsepower at the rear tires to overcome wind resistance.
As mentioned elsewhere, i've jettisoned over 130 lbs. from my '47 Super, but still wonder if, 49-degree windshield rake or not, i'd still be kicking down often on freeway hills with a 3.54 and OD, and, if i'd manage as high a top speed.

One of y'all wanna try, have at it. Let me know how it goes. Current 7-Series and S-Class BMW and Mercedes sedans have final drives as high as 2.2:1 or so, but their uber sophisticated engines also put out 200 MORE lb. ft. torque than our 356's 292 @ 2,000 rpm.

The '48 Tucker was barely two inches lower than a 1942-47 160/Super Clipper, but 200 lbs. heavier. Tucker, thinking his car'd debut for 1947, advertised 166 hp, one more than Packard, for the same reason ex-car salesman/stock market marauder E. L. Cord advertised the Duesenberg arbitrary number, to best the claim of an extremely-limited production Mercedes SSK for most powerful car in the world.

The air-cooled Franklin light helicopter 331-ci opposed six, curiously water jacketed in the car, had an aero rating of 150 hp, but 372 ft. lbs. torque at 2,200 rpm. Aero recips are slow-turning, yet it takes real power to fly.
Tucker still didn't want to go taller than his cars' stock, then reworked, 1936-37 unblown Cord transmission's 2.75:1.
BTW, no one believes these crude Corvair Monzas on steroids with a tail-wagging-the-dog 65% rear weight bias would really do 120 mph.

Preston Tucker admitted to his press agent son-in-law that the '47 Cadillac Series 62 they were driving to the Washington SEC hearings was "....a better car" than his namesake.

Now i'm even further afield, but am trying to put final gearing in cars of the era in perspective, because postwar highways were rapidly improving long before the Interstates,
and with a population under 40% of today's nearly a third of a billion, you could really hustle in the wide open spaces.

A Hudson/Packard mechanic told me that after War II in the California ag valley, he occasionally put non-overdrive
rear cogs in overdrive Hudson 8s. He didn't recall doing so at the Packard garage, but remember, heavier cars, higher inertia loading. Hudson's splash-oiled, flathead 254-ci eight produced its peak 128 hp at 4,200 rpm, much higher than any other domestic car of the time. As mentioned earlier, in 1940, Augie Duesenberg was offering a marine version of the Hudson 254 eight and no one's yet told me why Packard never offered a marine version of the 282 One-Twenty mill, which were still used into the 1970s in Texas to run irrigation pumps 24/7, their governors set at peak torque.

Now, i've been told by, as it happens, a longtime Packard man, that a free-running engine actually gets better mileage.
Some discussion in the CCCA quarterly or bulletin a few years ago suggested that an engine turning low rpm can actually be working, burning as much or more gas as the same engine at a slightly higher rpm.

So, i'd welcome any insight from you gents. I veer on this tangent only as our compatriot in Broken Hill is wondering how to gear his jaunty six.

Finally, an old friend had a '40 Packard 110 coupe in high school in the early '50s. He gave it a split manifold, dual Smithies, and with overdrive, regular trounced the usual hot Fords and Mercuries.

But i've never had interest in 0-60, dragging, all that cowboy crap. I'm only interested in relaxed cruising.

BTW, it bears repeating: Looking on the first page of this thread at the picture of Peter's sleek white '40 Richards six saloon (the Australian Packard 110), which used the Studebaker President body from the cowl back, including the Stude's more raked windshield, makes you wonder why o why o why couldn't East Grand have done the same with the domestic '40s instead of that tugboat wheelhouse they used.

Pardon the ramble.