Re: Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Show me how Packards were "better".

Posted by su8overdrive On 2012/7/4 14:41:33

Right y'are, Dr. Cole, about this fine site being a cut above t'other Packard sites, and other club websites in general, tho', as mentioned, www.railton.org is also, like Packard Info, a refreshing anomaly, being awash with erudite, upbeat gentlemen, and like Packard Info, head and shoulders above snobbery, condescension.

Others with long experiece with all the cars you mention have said the L-head, three-main-bearing 346-ci Cadillac was
a fair engine, but often cracked at the valve seats. I follow everything you mention above, except for "....the 1938-42 Cadillac has the Packard beat..."

What am i missing in that line? I agree with you regarding 1938-39, because the 1938 Packard Eight (120) and '39 120 were declasse, less powerful cars than those two year Cadillacs;

because some of the 1938-only Packard 319-ci "Super Eights" had a rare for Packard block casting irregularity and had too much car to lug around, sharing that year's body with the husky 473-ci, 175-180 hp Twelve;

and because the '39 "Super Eight" was just the aging two-piece block/crankcase 319--a late 1920s engine-- dropped into the 120. So Cadillac had the pocket luxury car market to themselves those two years.

But other than Packard's shopworn 1938 bodies facelifted for 1940 through '42, unsure what you're getting at. T h o s e Packards had the 356 we know to be a finer engine, as did, according to Maurice Hendry, in his tome, Cadillac, Standard of the World, the engineers at Clark Street. I personally think the 1940 Cadillac Series 62 in a solid, dark color, without sidemounts, is one of the loveliest cars Cadillac ever built, the final year for that pretty, less intrusive, waterfall grille. Hell's bells, i like it more than that year's 60S, as it seems smoother, better integrated, but then Michael Lamm and Dave Holls, in their lavish A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design, suggest the '41 Clipper took some styling cues from the 1940 1/2 GM C body, which the '40 Cad Series 62 used.

Yet driving a '40 Cadillac? You may as well lock out a '40 Packard's overdrive and disconnect one of the sparkplugs, or at least, retard the timing, because the Cadillac flathead V-8 was still smooth.

As for the 1941-42 Cadillacs having the 1941-42 Packards beat, unless you're talking about from a marketing standpoint, their lower slung, muscular styling and available HydraMatic, i don't know that i follow you.
But as road cars, having the 1941-42 Packard 160/180 beat, what am i missing in your observation?

Certainly the concurrent Packards were, as you say, nut for bolt better cars than Buicks, and i've said as much on various posts here. But, as we know, Buick offered lotta sizzle and glitz for the dollar, which is the car business.

I've heard other multi-marque vets say the same thing about Rolls-Royce longevity, but like you, ALWAYS with the preface, "....But they have to be taken care of."

I wonder if many Rolls-Royces received this ongoing care merely as they were such finely crafted furniture. In other words, there was food for the soul in their well-honed elegance, wood veneer, that English motoring journalist's famed quip about R-R being "....a triumph of craftsmanship over engineering."

In other words, if a '40s Packard, or, in fairness, Cadillac, Buick, Chrysler, Hudson; any car really, had the same ongoing care and maintenance, mightn't they last as long? Maurice Hendry and other engineer/machinist/historians have pointed out that R-R never had as fine a machine shop as Cadillac's Clark Street factory, nor Packard's East Grand Avenue, nor had superior metallurgy, heat treating, etc. to the Detroit products.

BTW, a longtime friend with a '42 160 drophead has 115,000 miles since new, he buying it from the first owner in 1967, the car always maintained, garaged from new. To this day, the only major work the engine's received is a new timing chain. The car purrs, literally.
In fairness, i've heard of a Canadian Buick owner, a late '30s, '40 Century or Roadmaster, who drove in the day some astonishing mileage, perhaps 200,000+, without mishap.
I remember an owner of a '41 Lincoln Zephyr, of all things, driving mainly at speed to and fro Boston and NYC, racking up over 85,000 miles before any serious work required on his low torque "Ford and a half."

So, am wondering if R-R's reputation for longevity might simply be because more owners are inspired to better care for them?

* * *

Now, this should be a separate post, perhaps, but you mention the 902, a Packard i've always respected, and you know that this was Packard's flagship, the planned FWD Twelve only a lower rung Buick contender 'til East Grand realized they needed something to counter Cadillac's V-16.
But i've no experience with the 384-ci Packard eight. I've long wondered which, if you had to choose, was overall the best; Chrysler's 384, Pierce-Arrow's 384, or Packard's 384, all three sharing nine main bearings, the identical bore/stroke. One fellow who owned examples of all three told me decades ago that he thought the Pierce might've had slightly better manifolding, but this was just one man's opine.

And, back to your 1938-42 Cadillac/Packard observation, having owned a thoroughly rebuilt '40 120, i of course read much about Packard's Safe-T-fleX IFS. But i also know my '47 Super Clipper uses the same IFS as Cadillac, likely for the same reason Rolls-Royce/Bentley dropped their nut for bolt copy of Safe-T-fleX in their Silver Cloud/S-Series introduced autumn, 1955: the lowered floorpan left no room for Safe-T-fleX's long torque arms.

I've always wondered. Was Safe-T-fleX really superior to the front suspension in a Cadillac, or were Packard, R-R, and after the war, Lagonda, who used it at the rear, avoiding paying GM royalties? I've asked this question months ago on this splendid forum, but all i got was the usual buff regurgitation. I already know Austin-Healey 3000s and recent Ford pick ups use a version, but that doesn't answer the question. Too often, when we ask a simply question begging per Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am," fellows feel they must weigh in with something in the ballpark.

I've NO interest in postmortems, Monday morning quarterbacking, what might've been. ONLY learning fully what was.

Like you, i like these cars. Knowing the nitty gritty ain't gonna put me off my feed. Just the opposite.
It makes me better appreciate them.

Thank you, Dr. Cole, for any and all insight.