I'm not taking issue with anything else you said, but I think you overstate the case a bit for the postwar build quality. I'd say, having owned both, that the postwar Custom 8 of the 22nd/23rd series had build quality just as good as the prewar 180. Now they weren't the same car by any means, but the attention to detail in the assembly was pretty damn impeccable.

FWIW, remember, this engine has perfect oil pressure, as described in the initial post. How then does it have an oil pump problem allowing the lifters to clatter enough to require a flat bed ride home? Lifters click and clack. They don't make the "sharp metallic rap" like a big ball pein hammer hitting iron. Spun rod bearings are not common on Packard V8s. Could be a rod, but the main bearings usually fail way before the rods.

Don't guess. Do the diagnostics. Pull the rocker covers. Pull one plug wire at a time. Let us know what you find.

thnx, jack vines

John:

First and foremost, please PLEASE be assured I value your contributions from your apparently excellent and vast research sources. But, as usual, you let your enthusiasm get the best of you. You keep forgetting that there is a little teeny weenie itty bitty difference between us. I owned, drove, worked on and became familiar, in a 'hands on' basis, with most of the big engined classics. And, of course Packards of just about all descriptions, when I worked in a garage in the 1950's, and you didnt.

That dosnt make me any smarter than you - I just thru no clever-ness of my own, happen to have born into a time and era where I got more REAL info. on SOME of this stuff than you do.

Let me get you straightened out.

First of all, Packard's famous reputation for quality DID NOT CONTINUE as you claim "even thru the 50's and to the end". Wrong wrong wrong.

By late '54, their ever more horrid post-war build quality had become an industry bad joke. All the fancy claims and advertising in the world, that came to help sell the '55's, couldn't stop customers from rejecting Packard products when it turned out they were being shoved out of the factory doors as "do it yourself" kits. THAT is what killed Packard, plain and simple. All you have to do is look at the sales figures, to see how much the car buying public WISHED that Packard's claims were true. The '55's sold like hot-cakes for the first few months. Then, the "down-side" of that famous Packard advertisement about the "duties of reputation" caught up with them, and that was the end. Sales went thru the floor, and you couldn't give them away.

The Germans came out of the 2nd World War with labor, production, supply, and plant facilities issues that made Packard's problems look like kid stuff. And they, too, put out a lot of lower priced cars, even taxi cabs. But unlike Packard, they were DETERMINED to keep up their quality image, so buying THEIR products after the war didnt leave a bad taste in the consumer's mouth - insead, a desire to buy more.

Bottom line - what killed Packard was its management, setting a model for the kind of business practice that is now killing American industry.

Very simply - "screw the consumer - get the product out the door as cheaply as possible, and use whatever money you get in from the sales, to inflate management salaries".

Did you ever follow my suggestion and take a good look underneath the front-end of a '53 Cad., Buick Roadmaster, or Olds 98, and compare its strength and quality, with your '53 Packard ?

Did you ever try and "go off" at a stop-light with that '53 Packard, against one of the above ? THAT is what killed Packard, and all the fancy attempts at complex issues wont disguse that simple fact that Packard went out of its way to go down-hill.

A '52 Cadillac is a better, faster, nicer driving, more comfortable car that a '42 Cadillac. A '52 Packard "400/Patrician" is a slower, poorer quality, nastier driving hood fluttering piece of junk compared to a '42 Packard "180". THAT was only part of the problem, but when you combine an inferior performing product with bad built quality, you go out of business. It is that simple.

Going back to the thirites - you are totally wrong about the ACD Company. You ever actually owned an Aburn, Cord, or Duesenburg ? Much less worked on or even driven them ?

True, the Duesenburgs had good build-quality. But the others. Yuch. I know that Packard sold ten of its V-12's for every Cad. V-16, but I dont know how many HUNDREDS of Packard V-12's were sold (probably closer to THOUSANDS) for every Marmon V-16 or Duesenburg.

The front-wheel drive Cords had TERRIBLE reliability issues, scaring off the public. The Aburn build quality was not the best.

I dont know where you got your info. about Marmon complete car weights. I do know that most of the Marmon V-16's I have seen had ALUMINUM bodies, which resulted in a significantly lighter car, body design for body design, than, for example, my own '38 Packard V-12 Formal Sedan.

As for Duesenburg power, modern dyno tests show it was VASTLY over-rated, and the Packard V-12 UNDER-rated.

All other things being equal, torque is almost a direct linear function of compression. Both had about the same compression. Because the Packard V-12 was "cammed" and set up to deliver max. power in the lower rpm ranges where most of its buyers would operate it, of course the MUCH more expensive Duesenburg motor was better suited to extreme speed operation, at least as far as valve and combustion chamber design goes.

I doubt if any present Duesenburg owner is going to go racing me these days, with those things worth nearly a million bucks, and fewer and fewer people capable of maintaining them properly. But it dosnt matter - the cars were not competitive. WAY different markets and price class. And dont try and tell me the manufacturer didnt WANT to sell cars. C'mon..man.

Incidentally, most closed Duesenburgs had VERY heavy HIGHEST quality bodies, which meant they had to be crippled with absurdly "low" final drive ratios to give decent performance.

Yes, I was beaten badly in a "flying mile" race by a late J Dusie, but a very high geared rear end. I never did a "flying mile" with a stock-geared closed Duesenburg - my suspicion is I had "no takers" because they knew they couldn't beat a high geared Packard V-12.

Where did you get the idea that ANY Packard V-12 from the 1930's would weigh only 4,950 lbs ? The lighest 2 door coupe, if I recall correctly, weighed in at around 5,400 lbs. Perhaps you got your reading sources confused ? My recollection is that we weighed my friend's Marmon V-16 couple that I raced, and it came in at around 4,600 lbs.

took the front drums off last night. has bearings from JAPAN! LOL! must have been replaced as they look really new and shiny with non burnt grease. the brake cylinders are nice and clean too with new rubber on both sides. the brake pads are really nice and thick too. not much rust at all inside the drum and brake area on the front. i might have gotten lucky and the previous owner did the brakes for me all ready LOL!

i will post more pics soon.

any ideas on how to take the fuel line off the frame without taking off the front suspension and linkage. it goes under the driver's side upper suspension arm and with all those bends it will not come out that way.

later guys,

Hank

My Trico catalogs are all pre-war, but make a call to

Ficken Wiper Service
132 Calvert Ave
West Babylon, NY 11704
631-587-3332.

This business is built on the remains of a former Trico service center and provides superb parts and service. My own personal preference would be to resist converting to electric; besides the authenticity issue, they offer little if any advantage over a properly maintained vacuum system except perhaps in climbing Mt. McKinley in a monsoon.

I'll have to search around for the other photos from Switzerland, but as long as fire engines got your interest, are you familiar with the small run of fire engines made by General on the Packard Twelve chassis? This picture was previously posted on this site but I'll put it up again, it was taken at the Packard Centennial in 1999. The second photo is of a 6=40 built for Brooklyn, NY fire department.

And although not Packard related, I've found this photo of a Stutz-powered early fire engine interesting as well. Hope you enjoy.

Attach file:

---

  (122.46 KB)


  (53.49 KB)


  (80.14 KB)

A picture is, as they say, worth a thousand words so perhaps the attached section of a PMCCo engineering drawing will help you visualize the combustion chamber/valve layout of the Packard Twelve of 1932-39. These blueprints are dated 1936 but other than the changes for 1935 in displacement and from babbit to insert bearings, the engine remained pretty much the same through its entire production run.

There are usually many reasons behind decisions. Some of the reasons for the introduction of the first V12 were prestige, a smoother and better powerplant, but certainly one consideration was that it was cheaper to manufacture than the prior "Dominant Eight" or "48". Likewise at the end of the early V12, the Single Eight was introduced, again in part because it was as smooth and powerful but also because it was cheaper to manufacture than the Twin Six. But the Twelve of 1932 became what it was primarily because of competitive pressures from the Cadillac V16/V12 pair.

Attach file:

---

  (256.36 KB)

One more code:
OB - Oil Bath Air Cleaner (per the '56 code list provided by Brian)

1.Is there any known history of the engines???
2. how many miles are on the engines?

You really need to do some of the checks mentioned in this thread before you buy anything. I am leaning towards checking the bearings, let us know what you find.