Re: What if Packard developed an overhead cam short stroke straight eight?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2014/3/3 17:39:28

I'm thinking soon after WW2. Could this have been the unique powerplant to accelerate them ahead? If not ahead, perhaps set them off as unique alternative or at least prevented their deceleration. Would have been helpful especially in the 1951-54 models. One important selling point would have been fuel economy, which Nance would come to learn became a negative with Packard customers in these years owing to their Eight.

What would have been the disadvantages? NVH, and if they couldn't bring it down to levels at or near their existing Eight, would have needed to abandon the idea.

Would this have minimized the need for new tooling? Yes and this would have been a major reason for considering the design. If they could run it down their existing Eight line might have saved millions, maybe $15M or more, which would have made all the difference in 1954. Perhaps a modern V8 and manufacturing plant could have been postponed to coincide with the new, low 1957s, but OHCs might have been required for the new motor to keep Packard from falling short of its own recent standard for efficiency and high tech specs.

I see design accentuating longer hoods to celebrate the difference..... Yes, though as Steve said, the two were becoming dissociated.

Think a six liter type 57 engine..... Yes, 366 CID sounds like a good size. The challenge would have been to keep up with the ever enlarging V8s, which would grow to well over 400 CID, a potential problem for a straight 8 setup. Duesy was what, 420 or so but the biggest Packard and Pierce eights never grew beyond 385 or so. Pierce tried to keep pace with Packard and others in the Twenties by throwing technology (dual valves) at its Six rather than cylinders. Didn't quite work so well though the products had shortcomings having nothing to do with the engine.

Not thinking an ardun head of sorts; a new engine.... Yes, however the more tooling they could have carried over, the better.

[i]I'm thinking 300 hp in 1950.....naturally aspirated....[/i] So long as the number stayed ahead of Cadillac and the engine delivered better fuel economy and good torque, the actual HP needn't have been the max possible for the size. It's all about trade-offs and Packard would have needed to error on the side of smoothness and quietness.

It's interesting to ponder the possiblility in light of what's going on today with 6 cylinder engines. Almost everyone has switched to V6s, the lone holdouts being Volvo, Jaguar and BMW. And yet, BMW remains a dominant player. Maybe one lesson is, whatever you do, do it well and you just might do well.