Re: Straight Eight Compression Distance

Posted by Peter Packard On 2007/12/23 2:19:36

G'day Eric, I appreciate your efforts to progress the potential of the Packard engine , but I am somewhat puzzled that you have settled on the 288 or the 327 engine. If you value the fact that longer rod gives greater torque then the 359 is the winner , however it is not that simple. Let me demonstrate:

1948: 288 engine, 7.00, 130 hp at 3600 rpm
226 lbs at 2000 rpm ( yes I know ft/lbs)
1948: 327 engine, 7.1, 150 hp at 3600
226 at 2000
1953 288 " , 7.7, 150 at 4,000
260 at 2200
327 " , 8.0, 160 at 3600
295 at 2000
1954 288 " , 7.7, 150 at 4,000
260 at 2,100
327 " , 8.0, 185 at 4,000
295 at 2,200
359 " , 8.7, 212 at 4,000
330 at 2,200
In fact Packard was pushing it's engines further than the rest of the industry. Packard also supercharged the 359 to 275 hp in 1954. But if you look at the 1955 V8 figures, the side valves were a performance thing of the past. I wish you luck with your endeavours as I have always been very keen to keep the Packard Standard flying. I would suggest that you start with a 185 hp, 5 main Mayfair 4 bbl Packard, blue-print it, add a big hairdryer( turbo), get it to run 5,500 rpm and you will get your 500hp. ( if you can get some sodium filled valves for it) Best regards Peter Toet P.s. I have dug up the pics of the 49 Packard Sedan "flintstone Flyer" that held the NHRA Association Nationals in 1962 and 63. I shall post them when I can scan them. best regards Peter Toet