Re: Packard Seniors 1940-56

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/5/8 17:23:30

Good point, Jim. I recall reading that Cadillac's engine was carryover from 1953 to 1954 yet the HP jumped from 210 to 235, done deliberately so Cadillac could have something to crow about for 1954. To the extent that perception was reality back then, the manufacturers' published numbers were important.

As Steve has suggested, a V8 in 1953 would have been much better than continuing any of the Eights and an opportune time given that year's styling refresh. That Packard had considered such an intro date then nixed it is unfortunate. I can sort of see why the company might have been squeamish given the major cash outlay it made to develop Ultramatic but then again, there would have been four years between them. Back to the chicken/egg... Packard needed profits to invest in such technologies but couldn't generate them because it didn't have such technologies on the road.

At a minimum I think Packard should have kept it's 356 in service from 1951-54 and lightened it with an aluminum head. The fact that Packard dropped its 356 for 1951 only to have to create a one-year only 359 with 9 main bearings and an aluminum head for 1954 speaks to its planning shortsightedness. The only four years that Packard was deficient to Cadillac in horsepower between 1940-56 was from 1951-54. The 356 would have cut that deficit by at least two years and possibly three unless Cadillac had chosen to publish 235 HP in 1953, which they might well have done to beat Packard.

Next up, body design... an area that presented Packard with ample opportunity to earn cash and make it a two horse race with Cadillac.