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

Posted by su8overdrive On 2012/7/14 2:17:03

Been meaning to ask about several of the considered thoughts on this interesting thread, and doesn't it say oceans for both Packard AND BigKev's stellar site that we can air our laundry free of head in the sand Orwellian Facebook "likes" alone?

Been wondering about Dr. Cole's hands on experience leaving him to proclaim 1938-42 Cadillac V-8s "more robust" than Packards of those years. Maurice Hendry cited a company using both Cadillac V-8s and Packard straight 8s in harsh livery/courier service in the Sahara during the '20s reporting better service with the Cadillacs.

I'm wondering if the reason for Dr. Cole's, and perhaps Hendry's report, is that Packard, being a finer car, gave equal or superior durability ONLY when maintained fully.
We know that Packards, like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti, were "stitched" together using fine-threaded bolts. Cadillacs, like most other automobiles, even other fine ones, used predominately coarse threaded.

I helped a friend replace a clutch in his '41 Cad conv. Two of us, it was an afternoon's job. A full afternoon, but one (1) afternoon. When we put a new clutch/pressure plate in my '47 Super Clipper, it took us two blinking days, what with the senior overdrive alone weighing nearly as much as the Cad's manual transmission;

the Packard's cross member that needs to be removed when replacing the clutch;

Packard's multiplicity of fine-threaded bolts, of overbuilding, over-engineering.

So, we wonder if 1938-42 Cadillacs, and perhaps the '20s models, tho' i know little about them, seem "more robust" and to give better service longer simply as it's easier, less time-consuming, back in the day and since, to service, overhaul, rebuild an 85th percentile car,

than a 98th percentile Packard?

Y'all with me?

Because it's not like 1938-42 Cadillacs had better metallurgy, or huskier build quality. When my '40 One-Twenty's transmission and overdrive were being rebuilt, the
mechanic's mechanic performing the surgery coincidentally had a '41 Buick Roadmaster transmission apart on the adjacent bench. The mainshaft of my "junior" Packard's transmission was HALF AGAIN THICKER IN DIAMETER than the "senior" '41 Buick muscle car's.

And a senior Packard transmission's mainshaft is still thicker.

Most of you know that where a Cadillac or upper echelon GMobile uses a plain bushing, a Packard, junior or senior, uses a needle or roller bearing, and bearings are to an automobile chassis as jewels are to a watch. So a Cadillac could be akin to a high-grade department store watch, a Packard a Rolex.

But a higher range Timex might keep good time longer than a marginally serviced Rolex, if you follow this analogy.

So, i'm intrigued by Dr. Cole's observation, because he's been around the block a few times, knows what he's doing. 1938-42 Cadillacs do have their fans. But i also notice that in a recent Hemmings, there were over two full pages of such Cadillacs for sale, but only half a page of Packards of those years.

Seems like a lotta folks buy old Cadillacs, but are quickly left singing Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is?

Meanwhile, i couldn't agree more with Dr. Cole, in his post #26, this thread, about the Chrysler V-8 from 1951 on being "head and shoulders" above Packard and Cadillac.

I don't discount Dr. Cole's experiences with 1938-42 Cadillacs vs. 1938-42 Packards. Just wondering what's behind them, WHY is this so-- if it's so. Perhaps we might focus on 1940-42 Cadillac V-8 vs. 1940-42 Packards with the 356, since the 1938-39 Packard "Super 8" was just the hoary old 1929 standard eight with a five-inch stroke, two-piece block and crankcase.

?