Re: Did Chevy consider Packard V8 BB Design?

Posted by 55PackardGuy On 2008/10/4 1:15:22

Thanks for noting this, Jack, as I think a lot of folks might not know that the last great from-the-ground-up GM V8 big block was by Buick.

Yes, the good ol' thin-wall casting Buick. They had some horsepower to weight ratio! Probably one of the best ever non turbocharged. And the Stage II heads were some of the best breathing ever.

One good reason why Chevy put those fat b*stard 454's in cars: They were needed for Chevy trucks and what kind of economic sense would it make for Chevy to create a big "car" V8 from scratch.

A lot of people are very much into the last generation Buick V8s, even to the point where a new block casting has been designedt. Lots of talk on another forum about Buick's performance engines.

Also, it's pretty amazing how, except for all-out racing purposes, these "light" V8s could withstand street racing punishment and haul around a big Deuce and a Quarter full of people-- probably dragging a trailer--and not even seem to work hard. They had TORQUE.

Maybe it didn't make great revs but a lotta guys surprise a lotta people at the track with bone stock 430's and 455's. One testament to their strength is how many are still around. What a shame they didn't put them in the last generation rear wheel drive Rivieras, and settled instead for an Olds 307. Sad. I suppose it was emissions or "economy" pressures. But one not-too-well known secret is that the Buick big blocks with 4 barrel could easily get you up to 20 mpg cruising. Think of how efficient these engines really were, MUCH more than econo 4-cylinders that were getting 30 or so mpg in much lighter and more aerodynamic bodies.

But since this thread is on Packard V8s, I'm wondering how efficiently they operated. My dad was of the opinion that they were an impressive engine because they seemed to continually get more efficient the faster the car was driven, because at almost any speed (dad drove between 55 and 90 on the highway) they got right around 13 mpg in spite of the greater wind resistance. This was observed over a lot of miles in three different cars equipped with 352 cid engines. Two were 4-door Clipper Customs and one was a 400. The heavier 400 had milled heads, so even thought it was heavier, it might have gotten similar mileage because of the extra compression.

Anyway some thoughts to ponder. Anyone here think the Packard V8 could have been well-served by higher compression ratios? The 400 had much peppier acceleration with a hefty .125 shave. "Snap your neck off" as they say.