Happy Easter and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
158 user(s) are online (101 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 157

BigKev, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (PackardV12fan)




Re: Packard 120
#11
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
I forgot to add something - RELAX, guys - if John needs to pick on my particular car - that's fine. I have no problem with that IF it helps bring out useful info. for the initiator of any given "thread".

Fact is, as I have noted earlier, I wasn't financially able to take my own advice when I bought my Packard ! Yeah, I paid twenty five bucks for it. But by the end of the year, (and working hard in a construction job), I'd spent well over another hundred bucks on chrome and paint.

So there is plenty of truth on both sides. DAMN..do I ever WISH I had seventy five bucks to play around with - would have bought that MINT MINT MINT '35 Packard Twelve LeBaron town car. A year or so later, I DID have seventy five bucks, and bought that MINT MINT MINT Cad. V-16 discussed elsewhere. Made a TREMENDOUS profit on it a year after that-sold it for FIVE HUNDRED BUCKS!

So you can make money on buying cars, but again, better to start out with a nice one. (oh, by the way, my Cad V-16; it is now back east somewhere, on the "auction circuit" - someone told me it went for close to a quarter million dollars!).

Posted on: 2008/10/3 9:53
 Top 


Re: The Rolls Royce Myth
#12
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
John's books have helped him (and us, thanks to his contributions) learn a lot about classic-era Packards.

He is right about the ADVERTISED power of '38 Packard V-12's and Cadillac V-16's. The Packard V-12 ( 1935 - 1939 motors were the same) was "advertised" at 175 ( 180 with the HC heads ) and the Cad. V-16 was a trace more.

(Well, I take that back - the '35 - '39 Packard V-12 engine block casting had a couple of changes for the oil filler location, but no changes related to power output).

I do not know how many '35 - '39 Packard V-12's & '38 - '40 Cad. V-16's John has driven, nor the condition they were in.

My suspicion is this is another example of John focusing too much on my particular car, which is unfortunate. My "hunch" is many people in this forum do not own or drive "Senior" Packards from the classic era, never will, and for some goofy reason, actually resent those who do.

John - be assured the Packard V-12 was a faster, "guttier" car than the Cad. V-16. Not by a MAJOR amount, but noticeable.

The technical reasons have been discussed elsewhere in detail. To summarize, the '35 - '39 Packard V-12 had a longer stroke than the '38-'40 Cad V-16. Generally speaking, all other things being equal, a longer stroke provides more REAL wheel-twisting power at the lower rpms the "classics" were typically driven at. Adding stroke to get more power is STILL used in the hot-rod hobby. For example, my boat had a "mouse" (Chevrolet GMC) 350 cu. in. motor. I bought a "stroker" kit for my "mouse", now it has just under 400 cu. in. WOW...what a difference - boat just about JUMPS out of the water when I goose it.

If you look at an engineering cross-section of the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16, you will see what has been described as two "flat head" Pontiacs sitting on a common crank-shaft. Just cant "breathe" like the Packard V-12 was designed to do. My Cad. V-16 was a damn good car. Damn good engine. Not MUCH slower than a Packard V-12, but the difference IS noticeable. Incidentally, my recollection is the Cad V-16 was priced to a higher dollar market than the Packard V-12 was. So this is just another example of how Packards were an honest buy for the dollar, typically more than equal to not only competitor's cars in ITS price class, but often equal to or even better in SOME ways to more expensive products.

But "all things arent equal" when comparing a cross section of the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16 with a '35 - '39 Packard V-12. The Packard design is MUCH more technically sophisticated in terms of combustion chamber design, & intake and exhaust gas flow. End result is a more powerful engine.

So - John - dont be overly impressed, either by what you read in some of those fancy books, nor what Detroit would blabber about horsepower.

Let me give you another example about power exaggeration, and why you shouldnt get overly excited about what people CLAIM. Some years ago, I had a friend who had a hot rod tune up shop, with a full dyno. We stuck a then new factory hot-rod (A Plymouth with a Walter Lanz comic character on it) on the dyno. I cant recall what the "advertised" horsepower was - was at least 275, probably more. Just dont remember. But it was around TWICE what Packard advertised for the Packard V-12.

Then we ran my Packard V-12 on the dyno. Again, bone stock.

What we found, was that the rear wheel "axle shaft" horsepower of the Plymouth was around 128. The Packard V-12? 126 !

As I noted elsewhere, there is a reason for the Packard legend, the loyalty of its customers, and why we are still loyal to them today. In 1938 Packard sold something like 8 Packard V-12's for every Cad. V-16 sold. ONE of the reasons may well have been when a perspective new car buyer took the two cars out on the road and put their foot into it!

No, John, I dont have access to any books that say which one is faster. But I did own and operate both cars. The Cad V-16 is long gone - heard it just came up on auction back east somewhere for around a quarter million dollars! Wish I could have kept it - swell car - was MINT MINT MINT when I last saw it some FIFTY years ago.

Posted on: 2008/10/3 9:22
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#13
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
Turbo is SO right - getting involved with a project car IS a "can of worms". He "said it all" far better & simplier than I did.

Turbo and the rest of us have given this fellow our best advice on what he is getting into, and if he STILL wants to take a shot at it, more power to him! Many guys HAVE "pulled it off", and after MANY years and LOTS of money, have gotten what they want out of the hobby.

Posted on: 2008/10/3 8:56
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#14
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
John - work on your reading disability. Let's try it again, slow. I dont want a 100 point car. I dont have the money for a 100 point car. If I had the money, I wouldn't spend it on making my car a 100 pointer!.

If I had one, I would only mess it up! The last couple of miles to my ranch are on dirt roads that are little more than cow-tracks (the kinds of roads our pre-war Packards were designed for).

And where in HELL did you get the idea I brag about my car? Again, work on your reading disability. When I am invited to old car shows, mine is usually the "doggiest" one there. Now, my personal prejudice, is that we who drive our Packards have the most fun with them...but that's been discussed before.

Got it now ? How many times do I have to repeat that before you "get" it ?

Except for a high speed rear axle, a paint job that I did myself about thirty years ago (tried to do it like the Packard factory - tore it all apart, upholstery panels off the doors, fenders and hood off, used nitro lacqueer, colors from 1938 Packard paint chips, used a 1930's era type spray gun) some re-chroming and an engine over-haul, IT IS BONE STOCK AND AS DELIVERED. Upholstery, dash, etc, is all orig. (radio and clock work) Makes for a fine 20 footer ! Now that the paint is getting a bit on the "ratty" side, some people think it is an "original"! Makes me feel good about that..(that I "did it right"). Some of these fancy show cars have modern paint finishes..MUCH shinier than possible then with 1930's paint chemistry and paint technology - but, heck, it's a free country.

I dont know this Miller fellow, but from what you tell me (that he actually drives and enjoys a high pointer) THREE CHEERS FOR HIM !

Posted on: 2008/10/2 23:15
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#15
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
you arent listening.

Let's try again. there is NO SUCH THING AS A 'CHEAP PROJECT CAR'.

I strongly advise against anyone of modest means getting involved in trying to bring back from the dead ANY old car, ESPECIALLY something as expensive to fix up as a Packard, ANY Packard.

For the simple and SAD reason, that so many of them dont have the GUTS to see it thru, and we wind up with still another SALVAGEABLE car torn apart and lost to the world forever.

Of course there are exceptions to that, and hopefully, this fellow who is looking to duplicate his grandfather's "120" will 1) find something AND
2) STICK with it thru the hard, frustrating
and obscenely expensive process of getting
it to the point where he can enjoy it.

All I can do, as someone with just a BIT of experience in these matters, is to HOPE he will consider the ideas he has seen in here (ALL of the ideas), and wish him the best of luck !

Posted on: 2008/10/2 23:04
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#16
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
John is correct in SOME of his comments. I have done nothing to my Packard "to put it into show quality".

John points out that there are now "big boys" in the CCCA who are VERY unhappy with those of us who wrote its operating rules, and enjoyed it for so many years as a CAR CLUB.

I do not fault those who have hundreds of thousands of dollars to burn, turn automobiles into costume jewelry, so they can park them on some lawn at an expensive hotel, and sit there and smile at each other. Free country.

Those of us who actually like our big Packards for what they are, even if we had the money to turn them into costume jewelry, dont.

Once you restore a car to 100 point standards, you can forget about driving it - five miles on a public highway would effectively ruin it from further competition.

I dont know where John got the idea I paid fifty bucks for my Packard Twelve, or where he got the idea I was, or could ever be invited to Pebble Beach! They are VERY "exclusive" at Pebble Beach. I hear they "nick" the public over a hundred bucks just to walk in the gate !

My kind of car - meaning the kind that actually gets enjoyed as a car.. taking them out and driving the heck out of them, are not be welcome at Pebble Beach. So, wrong again, John.

If I HAD fifty bucks in 1955, I could have purchased a much nicer, more "classic", more valuable Packard Twelve. But I didnt have fifty bucks.

Just as a side-note, seventy five bucks would have gotten me a MINT MINT MINT '35 V-12 LeBaron Town Car - much more elegant "classic" lines then the less desireable semi streamlined lines of my '38. But again, I only had twenty five bucks, so I did the best I could. So, wrong again, John.

I do participate in any car shows I can get into, which means "quite a few" - some ALMOST as neato and snobby as Pebble Beach. Again, Pebble Beach is for what John correctly calls the "big boys". Right about that one, John.

Still quite a few of us from the early days of the CCCA, and we have a lot of fun. We are the types that enjoy the big Packards for what they are, not because they have any "snob value" - wasnt too long ago we were laughed at by the general public for saving these things.

Sharing tech. info. to keep our cars on the road. Helping each other find parts. It is a great hobby.

Do I wish I had the money to dump half a million into my own V-12 ? Of course. Would I if I did. HECK NO !

I actually LIKE my Packard V-12 for the same reason that Packard V-12's out-sold Cadillac V-16's by at least ten to one, depending on the year, more likely 25 to one if you averaged it out ( I really dont know ). Big Packards are great cars. Heck, ANY Packard is a great car. Free country-I happen to like em VERY big and VERY fast !

Interesting thing happened at a VERY prestegious car show I was invited to a couple of years ago. My '28 Rolls Phantom roadster - oh..guess you'd call it a "10 footer" - great from 10 feet away ( my Packard V-12 is a 20 footer...!). Guy pulls up on the grass alongside me in a beautiful '29 Rolls Phantom. Restored to death ! Drooled over it. Told the guy how impressed I was with the detail of his restoration (it looked and smelled brand new). He said "thanks, but it isnt mine...I just work for the guy who owns it".

Judging time. Owner of that Rolls is standing proudly around while his flunkies open the hood, etc. ( I dont have my cars judged - waste of their time - I know my car's limitations !). Then he is asked by the judges to get in and start it. He looks puzzled, explains his befuddlement to the judges - he has NO IDEA how to start the thing ! He'd never RIDDEN in it under its own power, much less DRIVEN it.

So, John, you are partially correct. I have not "restored" my Packard V-12 to compete for judging. But I have won trophies. Well, to be accurate, trophies I have won were for "longest distance under own power". But I did win and they were trophies! Wrong again, John.

Again, we best help our fellow Packard owners by giving ACCURATE info., when we KNOW what we are talking about. Sometimes it dosnt work - look how upset some guys got when I explained to them that if a Packard V-12 is getting only 7 mpg, something is wrong...VERY wrong, to the point where they arent getting out of their Packard experience what they should.

Posted on: 2008/10/2 18:56
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#17
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
nope..you are wrong...NOT ENOUGH SAID !

You werent listening. Your religious beliefs will NOT pay bills. Restoring cars is HORRIBLY expensive.

Just re-chroming alone could cost well over TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. What about replacing abused engine, transmission, drive line parts ? What about replacing missing body and interior parts ? Getting dash instruments working ?

C'mon...THINK. I will BET you, given how many TENS of thousands of Packard 120 series cars were made, at least ONE of them, EXACTLY like what you want, can be found in decent shape for a FRACTION of what it would cost to bring back to life some hulk that its prior owners didnt care about.

Wouldn't you really rather have a somewhat tired but serviceable car you could drive and enjoy, that would be like the one your family had, then have to haul home something that someone else ruined ?

Posted on: 2008/10/2 11:26
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#18
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
strongly recommend you sit down with yourself and discuss with yourself PRECISELY WHAT you want an old Packard (or any old car, for that matter) for.

Here's the problem. Buying what someone else abused into an unserviceable condition, and then trying to "restore" it, typically costs MANY MANY times what the identical car would cost, in serviceable condition. Find out what it costs these days for a passable upholstery job. Find out what it costs these days to re-chrome. Can you do your own body and paint work ? If so, find out what a gallon of paint costs ! You own or have access to a well-equipped shop?

Driving around in old cars is fun. Driving around in old cars to car shows, where you can meet other old car nuts, is double fun (just got back from the NEWPORT CONCOURSE D' ELGANCE - now that was REALLY fun) (sorry, that was a "super-snob" event on the private golf course of the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point, where the hotel rooms START at $600 a night, so no "junior" series Packards need apply...!).

Think about this - you could probably buy a nice SENIOR Packard in serviceable condition, for MUCH less than you would put into trying to bring a dead "junior" Packard back to life.

Now - don't get me wrong - I was BORN (seriously !) in a '38 Packard "120". I will match a Packard - ANY price-range Packard, against ANY car in that particular price class.

So, if you just happen to like Packard 120 series cars, by all means, GO FOR IT ! But please, save yourself a lot of heartache and wasted time, by making whatever financial sacrifice it takes, to get a good one you can USE.

Posted on: 2008/10/2 9:47
 Top 


Re: Packard 120
#19
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
As John pointed out, the Senior Divis (what some of us call "REAL" Packards) continued to utilze "composite" body construction thru the end of Packard V-12 production in the summer of '39.

John coined the term "chicken coop construction", which pretty well covers it. Wood frames, with sheet metal nailed over it, and a top that actually had chicken wire to support fabric roofs.

Until technology gave us the ability to reliably stamp out large sheets of curved sheet-metal, it was about the only way to make vehicle bodies. The superiority of an all-steel body is well-demonstrated in mid 1930's General Motors & Chrysler Corp. "promo" films that were shown at auto shows clear into the 1950's. If you think there is ANYTHING good to say about so called "composite" construction, you dont want to know about these films

What it shows, is what happens when you roll cars over at speed.

The "turret top" of the "modern" (again, these films were prepared in the mid 1930's to advertise the then "new" method of all-steel construction) both the General Motors and Chrysler cars survived nicely. They even showed the Chrysler being driven away after a total "flip" end for end.

By contrast, they showed what happens when a composite body car rolls over at speed. They simply disintegrate.

Parking my 1938 Cadillac V-16 and '38 Packard Twelve side by side, no question why I made the choice, since I could only keep one car, kept the Packard V-12. Sure, when you close the door on a Packard Twelve, it "SOUNDS" neater than the '38 Cad. V-16. And sure, the Packard V-12, with its significantly larger more powerful engine than the Cad V-16, and its vastly more sophisticated suspension, is MUCH more fun to rough up. But dont kid yourselves - going to an all steel construction brought us MUCH safer, more durable cars.

Posted on: 2008/10/1 11:36
 Top 


Re: The Rolls Royce Myth
#20
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
Johnne Johnnie Johnnie - all this book-reading you do - you make my head spin with all the fantstic things YOU know about classic era Rolls Royce and Packard cars that I did not...leaving me totally confused and wondering...wondering, for example...just WHY is it you insist on having the "last word" on these esoteric "comparison" issues.

Say...did you ever try that experiment I suggested - in which you pile some of those fancy coffee-table books on a REAL Packard and Rolls Royce, and see if those books would change the real-world technical differences of the vehicles? Please, please let me know..the excitement, the anticipation....!

You mention you know about the "average weight of a 1929 Packard Standard Eight". You do ? What model do YOU own?

You are aware that:

1) a 1929 Packard Standard Eight could be had with any number of VERY different bodies of VERY different weights?

2) You are aware that a 1929 Packard Standard Eight was Packard's "low price leader" - still very expensive, still way out of reach of the average person, but hardly in the rarified price class or PERFORMANCE LEVELS of the super-cars ?

Are you seriously trying to compare a 320 cu. inch motor with its primitive "flat head" design and miserably poor "breathing", in a car costing about two thousand dollars, with a Rolls Royce Phantom of that year that cost five or more times that amount ? When you would multiple the dollar values by a factor of around FIFTEEN to get their present value in today's dollars?

If you want to impress us, tell us when you last drove a Hisso J-2 ? Now THERE's a car that will blow the doors off most anything I can think of.

You are so right that final drive ratios are a major factor controlling both "off-the line" and "flat out" speed. And you are PARTIALLY right about SOME of the gear ratio figures you provided.

Perhaps you have in that vast library of yours, a "spec. sheet" showing the ACTUAL ratios offered by Packard in the classic era? Perhaps you could tell us about the WIDE selection of gear ratios in the "option" list, reflecting the manufacturer's awareness of the WIDE range of body weights, and WIDELY different driving conditions people would buy cars for?

I have never seen any "CARS OF TODAY" magazine, so I have no idea of the level of technical competence (if any) the writers had. As you note, Rolls Royce ALSO had a variety of gear ratios, to reflect the WIDE selection of body weights and the WIDELY ranging driving conditions the owners specified when ordering their cars. You did not tell us, in reciting what you read in this "CARS OF TODAY" magazine, what the "specs" were on the particular car tested, body type, etc.

Point is, of COURSE you can "prove" to us from your books, that under some conditions, a lighter weight cheaper car can be "faster" under some conditions, and given other factors as to gear ratios, then a heavy bodied "super" car. I can even prove to you that apples are different than oranges ! ( Dont have any fancy coffee table books to prove it, tho...)

May I again suggest that you take a deep breath, stop burying your nose in all these books, and get out and enjoy your own pre-war Rolls Royce & Packard automobiles, and compare THEM with other SIMILIARLY EQUIPPED AND PRICED cars? That would be more interesting from a real-world historical perspective.

Oh, by the way, what reference source did you use to determine a Rolls Phantom in the 20's had "about a 20 hp. advantage"? I personally have never seen actual published technical data from Rolls in that era, of the actual power of its motors. Can you "post" that in here? I would love to see it. (Even if there was such a thing, the Brits used a different measuring standard then we Americans did).

Again, remain puzzled as to why you'd compare a Packard Standard Eight - ANY Packard, for that matter, with a Rolls Royce? The cheapest Rolls Phantom, as far as I am aware, once equipped with a body, sold for MANY times what the most expensive Packard sold for. Apples and oranges.

Was a Packard a "better buy" then a Rolls Royce ? NOW we are talking! Well, once we get into the mid-1930's - damn right it was! But that's a whole different subject in economics. As you once pointed out, given how a "rush" of new technology improved the smaller cheaper cars, hard to argue that a '38 Packard "120" offers THAT much less pleasant transportation then a Packard Twelve ( Or Rolls Royce Phantom III for that matter !)

Now, getting back to the 1920's era Rolls Phantom -vs- Packard comparison you were trying to make. Be ASSURED a 460 cu. in. Rolls Royce Phantom motor, with its much more modern and free breating induction, overhead valves, and less restrictive exhaust, will produce more raw power then a much smaller flat-head such as the American luxury cars of the 1920's. How much more, I dont know (but you can sure feel it when you go "pedal to the metal"...!

Again, let us know YOUR background in owning, working on, driving the "super cars" of the classic era ( meaning pre World War II) so we can more accurately judge your real world knowledge.

Posted on: 2008/9/30 11:14
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »



false-false
Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved