You learn something new every day around here!

Any more pics, AL?

This guess about the reason for the holes through the plate and the jamb literally popped into my head as I was going to sleep (serious Packard brain fever):

Maybe they just are locator holes for lining up the plate at the same height and perfectly level every time before spot-welding. On assembly, temporary dowels could have held the plate in place while it was being zapped.

Maybe not, too.

Quote:

Oh, come on Eric, tell us what you REALLY think.

Well, it's past the end of summer and maybe time to bump this thread up. What you got there, as near as I can figure, is a car put together with either an Executive or Senior front clip and definitely a '55 Caribbean hood. One giveaway is the "scallops" at the sides of the hood which were changed to little creases in '56, The hood scoops are '55 and the '55 lacked the medallion in the center. The grill is definitely either Senior or Executive, and the grillwork in the bumper slot says it's a 56.

This is the Packard I would've liked to have built: Caribbean dual carb 374, Clipper/Executive with "slipper" taillights, lighter weight with the same HP as the Carib. I would probably insist on a transmission swap to an automatic that could take all that HP.

Somebody had a good idea and didn't finish it. Or finished it and drove it like a banshee for a while and moved on. Wouldn't be surprised if it had some hard use.

Synchronizing dual carbs can be a bitch, and I've found that one problem is one or the other will start to leak (overflow). I don't know if it's float adjustment or a fuel pressure difference. I'm thinking of putting a fuel pressure regulator on my dual carb V8 boat to try to combat the rear carb leakage.

Sounds more and more like John's right about keeping that fire extinguisher close. You probably know that, but it's interesting how easy it is to leave the extinguisher sitting on the OTHER side of the car from where you're standing. Having two helps. Probably best is to have another fellow on "standby" holding the extinguisher ready. Halon extinguishers will avoid arduous cleaning of any areas that (hope not but possibly) ignite.

I'm really, really glad you're doing this car and maybe fulfilling someone else's dream (including mine). Best of luck. And I agree totally that getting a car up on decent tires so you can roll it around, and getting it running a bit--at least enough to know it DOES run, puts a lot of incentive into patiently doing all the little things. I convinced a friend of mine to do this on a '47 Dodge we worked on, and am pretty sure it wouldn't have ever gotten out on the road had we taken any other course.

John, with all due respect to you and your mentor and how you learned, some alternative methods also seem to work, and heck it's Al's baby. GO AL!

BUT, before any joyriding, be sure to drop the pan and pull the heads. This is all "free" unless you find something bad. Clean the pan of accumulated crud, look for suspicious metal, check bearing clearance.

P.S. I'd like to see Executive or Senior trim on the sides. I don't like the skinny-to-fat transition on the Clipper two-tone.

To tell you the truth, I think the '55 Clippers had it all over the '56s, except maybe taillights. But of course I'm prejudiced.

Sharp eyes, everybody, and a good thing to know for those who show for points. Packard was really spot-weld-happy. At least in the V8 years. I remember pulling a fender off a parts car--not only do they have a generous number of welds, but also quite a few bolts. For those unconvinced of the sturdiness and well-built designs of these post-war Packards, just try to take one apart some time!

And I heard mention somewhere, from someone, something harsh about lack of hood bracing and hood "flutter" in Packards.

I drove 2 of the '55s over "washboard" dirt roads many times with nary a flutter in either vehicle. Just a nice trailing throttle four-wheel drift through the turns--with virtually no lean or pitch. You might say, "I was there."

The hoods were made of a heavy enough gauge steel and were fit precisely enough to eliminate the need for bracing to prevent flutter. Now some postwar Packards may be different, I only testify for the V8s.

I just thought that should be set straight.

I add this in good humor with an emphasis on fair debate. And heck, it's partially on topic.

But I still can't understand why the empty holes in the door jamb plates and in the door jambs.

It looks like it's spot-welded on each end, but still has through-holes that line up with holes in the jamb, but they're empty. Were they made for additional screws as extra belt-and-suspenders security? Or is this maybe a repro plate in the photo. The door jamb does look freshly painted and generally worked over.

I know this doesn't answer the original question, but if someone were to make repros of these, I wonder if it would be wise to pre-drill them in all cases? Anybody who has a known original for comparison would be able to check it out. maybe they changed from year to year.

It does look really nice for an ID tag. Beveled edge and all... much classier than the new printed or front-stamped ones.

Jack, I believe you speak well for the '56 352, but I would say the '55 352 vs the 348 already shows the Packard to be remarkably close in performance, given it had not yet had the '56 improvements. The fact that the '55 352 gives up a point on compression makes the outcome of the spec comparisons that much more impressive. Chevy gets a "head start" so to speak in CR and winds up in a dead heat on almost all other fronts.

The other reason I chose the '55 is, I don't have these figures for '56, do you?

These are the figures that the 352 and the 348 4bbl "premiered" with although the Chevy came out 3 years later.

Craig,

If you're willing to do the simulations using the heftier specs for the '56 352, that would be great.

All I had for apples-to-apples printed specs were the '55 352 engineering paper and the "Carnut" figures for the '58 Chevy.

Jack makes a good point that the engine that Chevy probably would have started with was the '56 352.

The only other sort of viable comparison would be 374 vs 409. I'd be curious to see how they stack up. Dual quad vs six-pack.

I think at least part of the original question is already answered. If Chevy had wanted to pay for the Packard big block design and tooling in 1958 instead of putting together their own rather odd and ultimately abandoned "W" design, they would've probably done well. Of course, one reason for abandoning such an idea, in any corporate setting, is the engineering stigma of "not invented here" and also the bad press that was bound to circulate--"Chevy buys Packard Big Block V8 design, admits it's better than anything they could come up with. Packard still goes broke."

I'm pretty well convinced that the lower compression '55 Packard 352 shows it already would have been a more than worthy substitute for the '58 Chevy 348 4bbl.

Jack and Craig,

Some of these specs are beyond me, but they mean a lot to some technical folks who can appreciate them.

I'm back in the dark ages of HP and Torque. I have the published figures for the Packard 352, and wonder if the same categories are easily obtained for the 348 W ? I think that engine would be most comparable to the 352 Packard, and most likely to be the "platform" on which Chevy might have decided to base an engine. So I vote for 352 vs 348 comparison using the same spec categories as Packard offered.

I understand those spec categories (and VE somewhat) but this is the one that gets me:

What the heck is Maximum B.M.P.E., lbs/sq in 152.1@ 2600 rpm??

I will also continue to look around for 348 W Chevy specs.

(Mere hours later...)

Well, that didn't take long. It's not as exhaustive as the Packard list, but it's a start.

1958 Chevy 348 with 4 bbl
Bore & Stroke 4.125 x 3.25
Compression Ratio 9.50:1
HP 250 @ 4400
Torque 355 @ 2800
Firing Order 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2
Weight* 655
*According to "Super Cars" December 1978
(All other specs from "Carnut" web site)

Since they're back on a previous page, here for your convenience are the Packard 352 figures:

Bore 4"
Stroke 3.5"
Stroke-to-Bore Ratio .875
Displacement 352 ci
Compression ratio 8.5:1
Designation of Cylinders:
Left F-R 1-3-5-7
Right F-R 2-4-6-8
Firing Order 18436572
Maximum Gross Brake HP 260 @4600 rpm
Maximum Gross Torque 355 ft/lbs @2400-2800 rpm
Maximum B.M.P.E., lbs/sq in 152.1@ 2600 rpm
Piston Travel 1480 ft/mi
Engine weight 698 lbs

According to this, even though the Packard gives up a full point on compression ratios, it bests the Chevy by about 10 HP at 200 higher rpm and has identical torque in a range starting 400 rpm lower than the Chevy and, according to the specs, staying in that range up to the same rpm where the Chevy peaks

It does all this while weighing 43 lbs more than the Chevy (although weights can be measured under so many different configurations, it's pretty hard to tell.

Maybe Chevy decided they wanted something that would behave very much like the Packard!

Now here's a question. Chevy started touting later editions of this engine as the "Turbofire", which I thought they meant to indicate was something new in the firing order--but all the BBs had the same firing order. The SBC, too.

Pretty neat! Home away from home. I wonder how many of the population are Minnesota retirees?

OK, so I'll try to get the ball rolling here with Packard data.

This data from original Packard engineering sources was printed in the Summer 1991 edition of "Packards International." The issue is entirely devoted to V8 Packards and is loaded with goodies. Sure hope to get that posted here some day if it isn't already. Any ideas how to go about that, Big Kev?

The specs are for the 352 ci engine only.

Bore 4"
Stroke 3.5"
Stroke-to-Bore Ratio .875
Displacement 352 ci
Compression ratio 8.5:1
Designation of Cylinders:
Left F-R 1-3-5-7
Right F-R 2-4-6-8
Firing Order 18436572
Maximum Gross Brake HP* 260 @4600 rpm
Maximum Gross Torque* 355 ft/lbs @2400-2800 rpm
Maximum B.M.P.E., lbs/sq in 152.1@ 2600 rpm
Piston Travel 1480 ft/mi
Engine weight 698 lbs

*corrected to SAE standard conditions of 29.92 in. Hg. atmospheric presure and 60? F dry air.