Re: 1938 Packard Eight Deluxe

Posted by Jim Raymond On 2012/7/8 18:02:16

West,
I'm in the AACA. I assume you're the club's editor.

The 1939 Ambassador Eight weighed 3,800 lbs. and had 115 horsepower, for a power-to-weight ratio of 33.04 pounds per horsepower. The 1941 Ambassador Six weighed 3,300 and had 105 horsepower for a power-to-weight ratio of 31.43. The '41 had a better power-to-weight ratio. So the '41 Ambassador Six probably would seem to have better performance. (An additional consideration for the difference in the two cars you drove might be the state of tune.)

The main reason for the change in power to weight ratio was the adoption of independent front suspension in 1940. When Nash made that switch, all of their cars lost about 150 pounds each. The horsepower ratings on the OHV Sixes and Eights didn't change from 1939-41. If by "performance" you also mean the ride and handling, of course the ifs would affect that.

As to a comparison of the 1938 Ambassador Eight and the standard '38 Packard Eight (the 1192). Here are some facts.

1) The Packard was lighter by 140 pounds and that was probably due to the independent front suspension; the Nash was a solid front axle. The Packard had 5 more horsepower so it would have a better power-to-weight ratio. The Packard, though, had 22 more cubic inches so it would likely have used more gas.

2) With ifs and adding 2 inches more wheelbase (127 v. 125) I'm sure the Packard had a better ride. I noted in the Packard salesman's data book that these had rubber spring shackle bushings; the Nash's were steel. I would think that would also have contributed to a better ride.

3) The interior on the Nash was probably fancier. The front compartment had carpet whereas the Packard had a rubber floor mat. In the rear, the Nash had an ash tray AND lighter in each outboard arm rest and a center fold down arm rest. Rather than just one overhead light in the rear the Nash had one on each side by the c-pillar. The assist strap was on a sliding rail, rather than being screwed in place. It was these luxury features that I was looking for in the Packard Salesman's data book.

4) The Nash was overhead valve and had twin-ignition. The latter feature consisted of two spark plugs per cylinder. The plugs each fire at the same time and each set of plugs has its own coil and condenser. Thus, one set of plugs can fail (i.e.-the coil, condensor, or points) and the engine will run just fine. I actually had this happen when one of the coils went out; I was able to make it home just fine on one set of plugs.

5) The engine has nine main bearings whereas the Packard has five. And they're not nine bearings but smaller. Rather, they're just as large as in an engine with only five. Thus, the Packard has 56.6 square inches of main bearing surface whereas the Nash has 83.2. Which is 5.0 cubic inches per square inch of main bearing surface for the Packard and 3.13 for the Nash. The Nash would have less pressure on the bearings than the Packard.

6) The Nash intake and exhaust manifolds were cast internally in the cylinder head. Thus, there were no such manifolds to crack or warp and no related gaskets to leak. As well, it was unnecessary to have a heat riser on the Nash because the intake and exhaust passages were right next to each other in the cylinder head. Nash claimed a faster warmup as a result and a more even temperature for the intake passages.

7) The Nash engine had fully-cooled cylinders, full-length water jackets, and the pistons had invar struts. The Packard did not have these features. (Both had aluminum pistons.)

8) With overhead valves it was easier to adjust them than on a flathead. I don't know if the Packard valves required adjusting. The Nash lifters were solid and the Packard's were hydraulic. The latter may have eliminated some noise, and the need for adjusting.

9) The Nash had a roomier body. Attached are the dimensions from the 1938 Nash X-ray book of comparisons.

10) In 1938 Nash introduced its revolutionary "Conditioned Air for Winter Driving". The consisted of placing the heater core right up underneath the cowl vent intake under the dash. The resulted in a much larger volume of air coming through the heater core, which did a much better job of heating the interior, in particular the rear seat passengers. This also brought in a lot of fresh air, which helped to reduce greatly the fogging of the windows. This larger volume of air also created pressure inside the car, such that people could smoke and with the windows rolled up and the smoke would be pushed out. The system also had an air filter in it which allowed the windows to be closed (but with the cowl vent open) on a dusty road. That way, the interior didn't get filled with air yet there was fresh air coming in the car. Finally, it also included a water separator. This design of heater was so revolutionary that within a few years all cars had adopted this basic style.


But I can imagine from a sales standpoint the Packard would have made a strong impression. A test drive of the Packard would have revealed a quicker car and a more comfortable ride. To my eye, the Packard is more attractive. On a test drive the Nash would probably only have left an impression in the winter when the superior heater and quicker warm up would have been evident. The Nash's advantages were largely related to reliability, longevity, and ease of maintenance, all features which would not be readily apparent with a test drive. Though the fancier interior may have caught someone's eye. The Nash would also have gotten slightly better gas mileage and cost less.