Re: 1951 Packard getting 22 mpg??

Posted by su8overdrive On 2018/2/19 23:18:17

Dr. Dyneto's right again (above). Not hard to believe at all, esp. since it was probably the underrated, tough, short-stroke (3 1/2 x 3 3/4) 288 ci engine.
I got 22.5 mpg from a '40 One-Twenty (282 ci eight, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 b x s) highway driving inc. some at 65 mph in the early 1980s. Only deviance from stock mechanicals in cars leaving the factory with overdrive was 4.09:1 rear axle in place of 4.36 (2.95:1 overall in OD). Denman bias ply tires, 32 psi cold, drove with light foot, let the car build speed on mild downgrades of the mainly level highways, slow a trace on upgrades, never falling below 55mph. Drive with "a light touch."

You have to "feel" your car, keep your foot out of the carburetor, not pull too much manifold pressure.

Absolutely nothing remarkable about the 22mph you cite.
A '51 Lincoln won that year's Mobilgas Economy Run class and Sweepstakes awards with a 66.484 ton mpg and 25.488 mpg. A 331-ci L-head V-8 introduced for '48 Ford F7 and F8 trucks running through standard shift with 3.31 rear end and 2.39:1 overdrive ratio.

1940-50 Packards with the 356-ci nine-mained straight eight are definitely "sisters under the skin (as a Packard ad boasted)" of the gas hog PT boats which often had to be towed back to base after sorties by destroyers.

My '47 Super Clipper has the slightly taller non-overdrive 3.92:1 rear axle (in place of factory 4.09) and overdrive (2.82 overall ratio in OD), plenty of tire pressure, whether the previous Denmans or present bias-sized Bridgestone R230 LT radials,
and mileage never beats the low teens. Anyone with a 356 who tells you better needs to learn how to use a calculator.

But with the 282, 288 engines, long enough legs, 32 psi cold bias ply, 40 or better radials, and a knowing driver with a sensitive foot on the gas pedal, these cars can easily eclipse 20mpg.

Packard Twelves never got better than single digit mpg. Never.

Gearing and tire pressure are paramount. Most old cars are geared like trucks, unfortunately, rare exception was 1936-37 Cord 810/812, their good Lycoming V-8 same b/s as Packard's 1948-54 288, 2.75:1 in fourth gear, blown '37s 2.95 because superchargers like rpm.

Remember: Weight is the enemy in any road car, which is how some of us see our Packards, coming from a sports car background, having no interest in the crapola most domestic old car owners want; air conditioning, gew gaws, add ons. Bentley discouraged even radio in their 1952-55 R-Type Continentals. Too bad Packard didn't produce something rivaling these, instead of the Olds Fiesta-, Buick Skylark-, Cadillac Eldorado-aping Caribbean; an essentially stock conv. with 200 lbs. additional "sporty" dreck, but by then the Company's cars were second-tier to their more lucrative, less hassle jet engine contracts, they increasingly following GM's leads, phoning in the cars with weary advertising copy, lame PR to a vanishing clientele, all independents doomed in the brave new postwar market, tho' a '51 200 nothingmobile owned long ago had good ergonomics and that stout 288. Idled so softly I had to tell people to step back from the door before driving away. The upholstery was like something out of an ordnance vehicle, the build quality and interior of an Oldsmobile better, all in all.

Bill Lear said, "I'd sell my grandmother to get rid of another pound from a Lear Jet."

Packards are good road cars and the more rationally engined models can get decent gas mileage, if, like the car you cite, the trunk isn't full of junk nor the backseat with chubby bubbies; a third of Americans clinically morbidly obese.

I'm slim, vegan per Drs. Neal Barnard/Dean Ornish/Caldwell Esselstyn/Joel Fuhrman, and jettisoned over 100 lbs. from my '47 SC, some of this from switching to a vastly better Optima Red Top battery.
Try the above yourself. All of it. Prevention's the key in both our and our cars' health and performance.
Less is more.