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
143 user(s) are online (93 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 143

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: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#21
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
Please, John, be assured I appreciate your passion for Packard !

And also be assured I am not picking on you personally when I poke a little fun at those who read and write books about events and products that were out of service long before they were born, having little or know personal "hands-on" experience as to what they are talking or writing about.

Of course we both know people who own Packards of various types, who are so passionate about them, they talk themselves into all kinds of nonsence. All the desire to WISH something to be fact, wont change fantasy into fact.

Let me give you one example of how far off you are. Packard, Cadillac, Lincoln products of the early and mid twenties were good, quality cars, providing exellant performance, vastly superior to the ordinary cars of their day. They had engine displacements of about 380 cu. in., all "flat-heads' of very simple unsophisticated design.

My '28 Rolls Phantom had almost ONE HUNDRED CUBIC INCHES MORE engine displacement. And it had a much more modern engine - free breathing induction system, over-head valves, and a much higher final drive ratio. Of course you could buy four (actually a bit more) American luxury cars of the 20's, for the price of my Rolls Phantom.

To say that a $3,500. Packard or Lincoln or Cadillac of that era is any match for a $15,000 Rolls Phantom, simply shows your passion has gotten the best of real world facts and real world knowledge.

Be assured the Rolls is SO much faster - will out-drag, out flying mile, AND provide a MUCH smother ride and more enjoyable driving experience than you could get from the much cheaper cars. EVERYTHING about the much more expensive Rolls Phantom is nicer, better, faster, etc., than the American luxury cars, which means that in BOTH cases, the customer got what he paid for !

Now, to be fair, Rolls eventually lost its technical superiority - they werent able to "keep up". The last of the Phantom II's will not keep up with an American car of their era. The Rolls V-12 had poured babbit bearings; so it couldn't possibly handle the kind of extreme speeds the later Packard V-12 or Cadillac V-16 could.

All this points out how your discussion of "fairness" has nothing to do with reality. The real world isnt "fair". So no matter what you "think" is fair, if you actually run across the above vehicles, you are stuck with their REALITY.

Of course there are examples, as you point out, that price alone dosnt necessarily mean you get more bang for your buck. But not what you are talking about.

And please, dont tell me when a "conversation is over". When I see stuff in here that is historically inaccurate, I will try and talk some sense. Trying to compare an early 30's V-8 Cadillac to a much much more expensive Packard (or Cadillac or Lincoln or Pierce Arrow, for that matter), dosnt tell us anything other than your passion has gotten in the way of your thought process.

Lets try and help fellow car buffs with FACTUAL information that can add to their knowledge and appreciation of REAL world automotive history.

Posted on: 2008/9/24 21:21
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#22
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
John - again, you arent listening. Of course a car that cost a THOUSAND DOLLARS more in the early thirties (multiply that by a factor of about 15 to get its equiv. value in today's money) is going to be a superior car (especially if it is a Packard !).

THINK - when you compare cars, be FAIR, REALISTIC, AND RELEVANT - for the ten millionth time - dont go comparing a car from one price range with a competitor's car from a different price range. Do you think you'd get an accurate impression if you compared a '36 Packard 120-B with a '36 Cadillac V-12 or 16?

If you compare a '32 Packard V-12 with a '32 Cadillac of ITS price range, you would find a LOT to like in the Cadillac.

Posted on: 2008/9/23 20:47
 Top 


Re: 1940 110 Compression
#23
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
you probably can not spot a head-gasket leak with a compression test. The amount of air that can make a LOT of noise leaking out of a head-gasket leak is typically too small in volume to make much of a difference.

Unfortunately, Packard's engineers "missed the boat" on cyl. head hold-downs. Too far apart. Not enough of them. All Packards are prone to cyl. gasket failure (well, I dont know about the V-8's - other than tune-ups, never worked on one).

Best way to avoid this, is reasonably frequent re-torquing of cyl. head hold-downs. Follow the head-tightening sequence in the shop manuals.

When EVER you pull a cyl. head, check its face - Packard heads, both alum. and steel, are prone to warping. Any half-way decent machine shop can re-surface the cyl. head.

You are NOT likely to find un-even-ness in a Packard block.

I personally do not believe in gasket paste on cyl. heads. Not convinced it can stop a gasket leak under the pressure of combustion. When I replace a cyl. head, I just spray it with a light engine oil, so that when I tighten the head-bolts, the gasket will "crush and slip" nicely as the cyl. head comes down. Works for me.

Posted on: 2008/9/23 9:18
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#24
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
You are confusing VALVE lay-outs with BORE lay-outs.

The "nail-head" Buick blocks YOU think that I think I was referring to, were of conventional design, in that the cyl. bores were at right angles to the top of the block, like most internal combustion engines. This makes for MUCH easier machinging and and service than having an ANGLE between the BORE and the BLOCK.

Re-boring most production automotive-engines involves a relatively simple "set up" for the boring bore. Bolt it down, start it up, and down goes the cutting tool.

Re-boring a Packard Twelve is impossible with most production boring machines. Can't be done. You have to have either a very special Packard-unique boring plate adapter, or (I am told - never actually seen one, much less operated one) a boring bar rig that CAN bore at angles.

Posted on: 2008/9/23 9:09
 Top 


Re: came across this Packard history link, cool pics
#25
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
Yeah - I agree with you guys - that's the problem - younger authors who get loose in so called "authoritative sources", and try and re-invent REAL history to their liking.

Of COURSE Packards sold well after World War Two. Did Packard make a mistake using the "trinkets" that formally identified the "top of the line" Custom, on the smaller-engined car ? I think so. But Packards continued to sell reasonably well up (with some fluntuations) thru '54 production. Sales went thru the roof with the introduction of the '55's, when Packard's advertising campaign that "PACKARD IS BACK" as a super-car attracted both old and new customers.

What those customers of the 55's got for their money, and what they did about it, has been covered elsewhere.

Posted on: 2008/9/23 9:01
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#26
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
As you point out, getting a good "swirl" in the combustion chamber is vital. Obviously, Packard understood this, but knew this WAY before Packard engineers laid out its automotive V-12 introduced in the fall of 1931.

Packard correctly believed that given the fuel/compression ratios of the day, and given the primary uses of its products, there was no advantage to its customers, to the additional cost & complexity of over-head valves or cams for its automotive products.

As noted earlier, Packard was a pioneer in the mass-production of high-performance concepts such as over-head valves, cams, superchargers, and cross-flow heads (see the "Liberty" engine Packard designed during World War one). Its commercial and aviation division products saw these concepts; again, it saw no advantage to its customers to put them to use in its automotive line.

As I suggested earlier, my belief is had Packard felt there was a market for a car in the Duesenburg price range, I suspect you would have seen the above "exotic" engine design features, in a reliable engine that would reflect traditional Packard philosophy - translation - would have blown the doors off the Dusie !

In answer to your question about combustion chambers - as for making the angle between the bores and the top of the block different from 90 degrees, GM tried that in some of its high performance engines many many years later. Sure it works to improve power/effiency, but adds to cost from both a manufacture, production, and maintaince standpoint. I am not aware of any mass-produced automotive engine utilzing that these days.

I note some confusion over "who designed the Packard V-12". Some of the confusion stems from the obvious fact that the so called 'Van Ranst' Packard had front wheel drive, and a much smaller displacement version of the Packard V-12. But that was a drive-line issue; not a power-plant issue. With this qualifcation. Somewhere I read that Packard did NOT design the valve lifter set-up; read somewhere they had to pay royalties to use the system in the Packard V-12.

Simply put, the Packard V-12 does NOT have hydraulic valve lifters, at least not in the conventional sense. They are SOLID lifters with an "off-center cam lash take-up". Big difference.

Posted on: 2008/9/22 22:00
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#27
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
John : Again you arent being fair - you are comparing cars from different price ranges. The Packard V-12 was a more expensive car than the 8 cyl. Cads., with a MUCH larger and technically more sophisticated engine.

Now, as a Packard fan, I would note that I personally think an 8 cyl. Packard from the same price range as the 8 cyl Cad. you rode in would still be a more pleasant driving experience, perhas even a better car !

As a side-note, of course the Cad. V-12's and V-16's thru 1937 were magnificent LOOKING power-plants, well-built, and nice-drivers. The Cad. V-16 of 1938-1940 was in some ways superior to the Packard V-12 - this was a much more modern "short stroke" design, much smoother than the Packard V-12. I would also have to admit that the '38-40 V-16 Cads. had a superior all-steel body. As you may recall, I told you that at one time I owned the "Mae West" Series 90 (1938 Cadillac V-16 Imperial Formal Sedan) when it was still in mint mint mint condition, so a direct side-by-sid comparison was avail. to me.

My own view as a car buff is that we are not and should not think of ourselves in competiion with each other's cars; some of my best friends drive classic-era Cadillacs !

Each of my fellow car buff friend's cars has a special story to tell, and has a special place in our lives.

It dosnt bother me, and it shouldn't bother anyone else, that when I get together with other car buffs that mine or someone else's car has this or that feature that is "bigger, better, or faster". It DOES bother me on the rare occasions when someone gets their nose out of joint because their little fantasy gets challenged by some real-world facts. I dont see how inferring our fellow chatters are "pathalogical liars" benefits old car buffs.

I have been invited to exhibit my Packard Twelve in a VERY prestegious concourse next week-end. Good chance my car will be the "doggiest" there (this is where the guys bring out cars that have been finished like costume jewelery -driven off enclosed trailers right on the grass; many have never touched pavement ! ).

Betcha we will all have a lot of fun, perhaps learn a thing or two we didn't have a chance to learn before, and no-one would care if mine is the rattiest car there (as it may well be ! ).

In my view, we best serve the old car hobby, and the history it represents, by having a sense of sportsmanship and a spirit of mutual assistance. Not clear how a small minority of the guys in here think they help anyone by getting nasty.

There is a lot to be learned, and a lot of fun to be shared. And the more we try to be ACCURATE with what we learn and share, the better we serve each other.

Posted on: 2008/9/21 22:37
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#28
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
hi Kev:

Glad you are not doubting that I "replaced a few Packard axles". Can't prove it.

Havn't had a post-war Packard for over 40 years - receipts are long gone. NEVER EVER had to replace a axle on a GMC or Chrysler Corp. product. Never heard of a pre-war Packard doing that (my recollection is that the "guts" of Packards thru 1949 production were essentially pre-war in execution, if not in the actual parts themselves) (lord knows the axles in our '47 Super Clipper SHOULD have broken, given all the drag racing I did in that thing...!)

Now, to be fair, Chrysler also used that cheapo mickey mouse "ball & trunion" sorry excuse for a U joint that gave us such fits with the Ultramatic-equipped cars, so let's give a "Bronx Cheer" for that too....!

Could be I am a trouble maker - making up / imagined the whole thing about Packard sales exploding with enthusiastic new & "repeat" customers in late '54 and early '55,... then came sales volume disaster when the horrid build quality and tech. defects became knowledge....hmm..maybe I made all that up just to irritate you guys.

In fact, perhaps it is MY fault that Packard isn't in business. All right..I confess..it was me at 1580 East Grand Ave. who said "braces, hell, we WANT those hoods to flutter & shimmy...."

Did you know that I stood in front of every Packard agency in every city all over the United States, in the mid 1950's, and chased away all those lines of people (standing in line to buy new Packards). Shame on me.

Where did you get the idea I wanted to "come in first" ? Is preserving our Packards, helping others with ACCURATE technical info., and trying to accurately understand and portray industrial history a "race" or contest ?

Hmmm...perhaps you are right. Maybe I shouldn't correct some of the inaccuracies that show up from time to time...Some people ARE getting rich off of de-industrializing our country by off-shoring our industry, and "dumbing down" our education and language. Perhaps I should have more respect for their feelings ?

A closing thought. We are going to Wal Mart to buy some house-hold gadgets. Store is full of famous-name brands like G.E., Westinghouse, RCA, Whirlpool, etc. Anywone want to guess what management decisions were made so that those names are simply "tacked on" to products "off-shored"...? Hmm...guess I made up the idea that Packard management decided it would be fun to close down the plant, and glue the name "Packard" on some Studebakers. Now THERE's an idea to breed more customer excitement and loyalsty...!

I submit, we should study carefully the pioneering of the Packard Motor Car Company, on its way up...and on its way DOWN. There is a LOT to contemplate there....!

Posted on: 2008/9/21 14:00
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#29
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
regarding MERLINS

Sorry - Merlin aircraft engines, and the details, are way beyond my pay grade. I am in the situation John so often finds himself - really dont know what I am talking about in terms of personal hands-on knowledge in this area; can only repeat what I have read.

I dont know anything about your discussion on rod bearings. Differs from what I read. My understanding is that the copper-lead precision "insert" type bearing was developed jointly by Federal Mogul and Packard, and tested on the Packard High Speed test track. Wasnt there.

They came up with the idea of the silver-lead substitute, not because of strength issues, but because of chemical reaction issues, solved later by the development of additives to motor oil. There were some erosion problems with the copper-lead insert with dirty engine oil that were solved with the silver type. In fact, Packard Stores even offered, for a short time, for automotive use, silver-lead insert bearings. Again, once engine oil evolution with new additives solved this problem, that ended the need for the silver-type insert. I dont recall seeing them offered in the Packard parts books out when I was a kid working in garages in the 50's.

Again, "I wasnt there", in the 1930's and, again, like John, can only go by what I read.

To my knowledge, there are no silver-lead inserts offered for general use today - my understanding is the copper-lead bearing is still the "standard" for extreme duty service.

With much shorter strokes, the extreme strength of the copper-lead type bearing isn't necessary in ordinary service. I know some heavy duty diesel engines use them, not sure about lighter duty truck and industrial applications.

As for developing a way to produce reliable mass-produced over-head valve, over-head cam "cross flow" type motors, suggest you review the evolution of the Packard Liberty during World War I. I gave up storing back-issues of the various publications from which I get my information (on subjects like this, where I DONT know what I am talking about from personal experiece), so I cant provide you with specific reference sources.

Perhaps someone in here who DOES know what they are talking about ( as to the technical details of Packard aircraft engine evolution), can fill us in. I read somewhere that some parts will interchange between the English and American "Merlins". Somewhere I read the English motor had to be completely re-engineered to eliminate failure-prone areas, and set up up for American tooling.

As for super-chargers, Packard had developed them during World War One. Seen photos. Wasnt there either.

Posted on: 2008/9/21 11:54
 Top 


Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"
#30
Quite a regular
Quite a regular

PackardV12fan
damn..poor peasant...!

Oh well..heck with em if they wont get out of the way...

Posted on: 2008/9/21 11:30
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 »



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