Here's a truly frustrating technical problem so let's see what hypotheses our skilled mechanics can come up with to explain it. I think you can assume that at least one observation or test must be faulty, otherwise there'd be no problem. The car in question is a very low mileage 1954 Cavalier, 327 engine with 4/bbl of course. Prior history includes a valve job, and the cylinder head was resurfaced so the compression ratio is a bit higher than stock. The problem did not arise with this work, but several years and miles later and not connected to any known maintenance or repairs.

The problem manifests itself as throwing coolant out of the overflow. At worst at Interstate speeds, it can be as much as a quart every 15-20 miles. Yes, the head gasket has been replaced (several times). Yes, it does it with several cylinder heads, all of which have been tanked, magnafluxed, checked for straightness and surface ground if required. Yes, the head was properly torqued and retorqued each time it was removed. Yes, the studs have been checked and are not stretching. Yes, it does it with or without a thermostat present. Yes, the radiator has been removed, boiled, checked, and has a gravity flow rate at least equal to the original specification. It has done this with a variety of radiator caps and the neck seat and cap gaskets seem perfect. Compression values are normal enough and quite even, though #1 cylinder is the highest. No, the water pump has not been rebuilt but is silent and does not leak. Never any evidence of coolant in the crankcase.

Now the latest information: Putting each cylinder on TDC on compression and pressurizing the combustion chamber shows no leakdown except for #1 cylinder, which has been examined scrupulously under magnification and with intense light by at least half-dozen mechanics and there is absolutely no evidence of a crack. Although the leakdown was with the piston at TDC, we have also examined the cylinder walls and again, no evidence of a crack. And remember, the several heads were checked and are OK.

Now here's the last teaser: when pressurizing #1 cylinder while at TDC on compression, the coolant level rises in the radiator (cap off) and ultimately reaches the overflow, but no air bubbles are actually seen (perhaps didn't wait long enough). BUT maintaining the pressure on the cylinder and spraying oil on the head studs and nuts, bubbling of air escaping at random studs at the threaded end as far back as #6 cylinder was observed.

Certainly one of the least-common body styles, would be nice to see it saved but if you're thinking of doing it and then flipping the car for a profit, forget it. Saving this one will be a labor of love. Hope you do it! If I can use the word without criticism, this is a "lesser" series Packard; that body style on the top-of-the-line Custom 8 is truly uncommon, I've only seen perhaps a half-dozen in 45 years.

I suspect the round hole in the rear above the bumper is some later adulteration for who knows what reason. However, that location is approximately where dealers occasionally mounted a valve stem with an inner hose to the spare which allowed inflating the spare w/o opening the trunk. But I can't say I've ever seen one on the Clipper/bathtub cars with the spare mounted against the seat back; more commonly seen (and still not often) on the 51-56 body shell.

How about a photo of the patent (VN) plate on the cowl, and if possible the Briggs # on a tag near the heater box?

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.

1948 would have generally only been 8 cyl straight eight motors. There were small numbers of 6 cyl cars made for export and for taxi cab use.

Quote:

Yes, Dr. Charles Kettering's 1949 design outline; oversquare bore/stroke, shaft rockers, wedge combustion chambers, siamesed center exhaust ports, separate intake manifold/valley cover and water manifold/water pump, five main bearings, long connecting rods, near-horizontal intake flange, long exhaust ports, was followed by Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Studebaker and Packard, but not by all of the first-generation 1949-55 V8s. From 1951-58, Chrysler did not choose the wedge combustion chamber or the siamesed exhaust ports; a hemi chamber, opposed valves, dual rocker shafts, alternating intake and exhaust ports were much more efficient and thus had a performance edge for the next ten years.

No, By 1955 the second generation of GM engines changed dramatically, choosing ball/stud rocker arms, using the intake manifold as the valley cover and the water manifold as the water pump housing, much shorter exhaust ports, shorter connecting rods, thus made for a very different engine internally and externally.

Maybe, but the current generation of OHC V8s and the GM pushrod V8s only retain the oversquare influence and five main bearings. Nothing else remains from Kettering's 1949 design.

thnx, jack vines

Hi
I am thinking about buying a 48 Packard.

Did they only have 8 cylinder engines in 48?

If you look at this picture, you can see a hole on the right side , just above the bumper.

Can anyone tell me what it was fore?

It looks original.

The Oldsmobile "Rocket" V-8 of 1949-on was the second of General Motors' new, "Modern" high compression V-8 engines, where the bore was larger than the stroke, a first in the (mass produced) auto industry. The honors for the first goes to the Cadillac 331 cu. in. V-8. The Oldsmobile is more celebrated because of the lower price of the host car and the racing records racked up by the Rocket powered Olds cars.

Every modern V-8 is a varation on the Cadillac V-8.

Speaking of Speedsters, I have a factory photo of 734 two/four-passenger coupe (rumble seat). I'd post it, but it's in my dad's file 500 miles south of here. This is a car that was not advertised, nor is it known to exist.

I'll bet you're right.
I remember when I first laid my eyes on Nethercutt's Style 447 speedster coupe-victoria at Warren in 1999. I was sorely disappointed in the choice of color, and the use of white sidewall tires.

Olds built a 301 cid V8 sometime very early 50's. A relatively small overall engine if i remeber rite. But Chev had no V8 until 55.

In the 52-53 time frame of Corvette DEVELOPEMENT a few of the engineers argued for the Olds V8 in the 53 Corvette but Ed Cole (General Mngr of Chev at the time) wouldn't allow it. So the 53-54's got a HOT version of the chev. 235 6 cyl.

I suppose the best answer given so far for the original question as this thread is titled is the answer from Owen.

OR, at best, if Chevy was considering Packard V8's then most likely it was the TRUCK group and not the car or corvette group.