Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by 55PackardGuy On 2012/4/4 23:19:41
Quote:

Ross wrote:
Ah yes, what were they thinking?

They were thinking that big engine set very far forward as it would be in the sedan bodies would be unworkable.


Ah yes, where were they going to put that extra 10 or 15 pounds?

Quote:
Re: Packard V8 Engine Size

jack vines

...the Packard V8 is tall and wide, but not as heavy as many make it out to be. Studebaker and the early Mopar hemis were the worst offender in terms of pounds-per-cubic-inch. The 374" Packard V8 weighs 705# ready to run, or 1.88#/cu.in. The Studebaker 289" weighs 695#, or 2.4#/cu.in. If one really wants to get porky, the Stude 224" and the Dodge 241" weigh 3.1#/cu.in

thnx, jack vines

Posted on: 2008/6/18


Ah yes, the worst offenders.


Quote:

Ross wrote:The Packardbakers were of course based on the 56 President Classic. If you are on the east coast sometime I'll take you around the backroads in mine. Bring a change of trousers.


Ah yes, I think you can keep your trousers on about the Packard V8 being an unsuitable replacement for the blown Studebaker 289 in '57 and '58. Considering the dismally small run of '57 and '58 Packard Hawks, for instance, there were probably enough Packard V8s just lying around to fit the entire production run... and make these cars just a tiny bit closer to real Packards.

Ah, yes.

This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=98330