Quote:
Mahoning63 wrote:
Interesting indeed.
Thinking about it, Packard was in a position to expand the V8 line to include an OHV inline 6 for Studebaker, Nash and Hudson had the execs been able to sit down and reason out the cost/benefit equation. 320 V8 / 225 HP translates into a 240 Six of almost 170 HP. That's pretty good stuff. The multi-million dollar estimate to add an OHV V12 might have made better business sense if spent on such a high volume engine.
I have given this a lot of though vis a vis the aborted American Motors plan to merge Packard, Studebaker, Nash and Hudson.
Studebaker was the first independent with their own OHV V8. Suppose the AM merger had gone ahead as early as 1951? George Mason I believe proposed such a move in 1949 and had been thinking about it since the end of the war.
Suppose there was a new program based on the Stude V8? I am thinking of different versions of the V8 for Studebaker, Nash, Hudson and possibly Clipper with a Stude based V12 for the senior Packards, and a six cylinder for Stude Lark, Nash Rambler and Hudson Jet.
Take the original 1951 Stude V8, 232 cu in 120HP. Extrapolate from that and you get a 348 cu in 180HP V12. Compare that to Cadillac and Chrysler V8, 331 cu in and 160 and 180HP respectively.
Now add an OHV six of 174 cu in and 90HP compared to the Stude Champion at 169 and 80hp.
The Studebaker was eventually enlarged to 289 cu in and 250HP, unsupercharged, in 1957. This would have translated into a 433 cu in 375HP V12 and a 217 cu in 187HP six. Of course the engineers could juggle the stroke of the six and get whatever displacement and horsepower they wanted while still using the same pistons, valves, etc in all 3 engines.
Such a move would have given all the independents a modern OHV engine to sell and saved millions in tooling, while rationalising the Studebaker engine investment.
This would also have given them the resources to redesign the engine or even come out with a whole new engine as new developments and the market demanded. There was a move to larger displacement engines by the low priced 3 in 1958 and another move to lighter simpler designs in 1962-65 sparked by the new thin wall casting process. If Studebaker, excuse me American Motors had developed as Mason hoped then there would have been a new generation of engines for Packard and the rest too.
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=67266