regarding the dyno test where we "ran" a then new Plymouth "factory hot rod" and then my Packard V-12, to see what REAL horsepower they had at the rear wheels.

Sorry - cant answer your question. Too many years ago. The h.p. figures that came off the dyno readings, I do remember. The Plymouth - cant remember. Just that it had SOME kind of cartoon character on it to differentiate it from the "mamma and pappa" cars.

Bottom line - as John notes, keep a raised eyebrow on what you read.

That extensive 1937 FORTUNE MAGAZINE article about Packard and its change of corporate direction ? John is right. Of course I wasnt there. Maybe the reporter from FORTUNE made up all that stuff, faked the photos & all the quotes just to make John mad?

Maybe the new Packard management LOVED the idea of continuing its traditions and reputation for ever higher quality cars. Maybe Packards got better and better until finally, in 1955, the reason people rejected Packard is 'cause they didn't want a good car, so they bought junky sluggish Cadillacs and Chryslers instead, to teach Packard a lesson.

You never know.

But John may know? He may have tried that experiment I suggested to him, as to why there are no more Packards ? Maybe he took his '53 Packard out to run against some guy with a '53 Cadillac, Buick, Olds, or Chrysler, and "went off" against them at a stop-light?

John may know? Maybe he bent down and looked underneath each competing car's front end, and saw how big and rugged and well-braced the '53 Packard's bumper and frame bracing was, and how fragile and delicate those crummy '53 GM cars were..?

Maybe he has gone over rough roads and saw how that high quality well-braced hood on the '50's Packards resisted "shake" and flexing, and how crummy those '53 GM cars were with that silly bracing that reduced the phone of watching "hood flutter".

You never know...!

(anyone want to stop by and help me get one of those 150 LB. wheels off my Packard V-12....time to inspect my brakes...)

(anyone have for sale a LEGIT 'PACKARD DATA BOOK' for my V-12 ? My copy is apparently a phony, at least according to that article from PACKARD COMORANT I discussed above - because it shows the fantastic Packard "fresh air" factory heating system (damn..wish the guy who ordered my car new had ordered that..!) (oh, forget, read somewhere Packard didnt install accessories at the factory)

Seriously, folks, that 1937 FORTUNE MAGAZINE article looked "legit" to me; strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Packard history. I do not recall Packard (whose legal dept. had a "hair trigger" for filing law-suits if they felt the product was being insulted) going after FORTUNE. In fact, they continued to pay LARGE amounts to FORTUNE to advertise the Packard product.

To me, how you build up a company, or even a country, and how you destroy it, is a fascinating study in human behavior. "Out-sourcing", taking cash out that COULD have been used for product development and quality, and using it for executive salaries, fancy financing deals...yes, Packard was a pioneer on its way up, and on its way down.

WIth Rolls Royce, the story was a bit different. Rolls made fantastic cars in the 1920's. They continued to make fantastic 1920's cars in the 1930's. The Phantom III (late 30's was a great car, but the trouble was, technology made it possible to get almost as nice a driving experience in a much less expensive car. The war finished off the Phantom III.

By the late 1940's, Rolls Royce was still making fantastic 1920's cars ! Whereas my 1928 Rolls Phantom was probably the fastest, if not one of the fastest production cars you could buy in that era, by the early 1950's, Rolls was amongst the slowest.

Well, not sure about that - maybe a 1950-54 Packard with Ultra-matic might beat it in "which is the slowest slug" race?

Which leads me back to my own personal belief - we have the Packard legend, and we STILL have people who are fascinated by Packard products, because of their "golden years" determination to give an honest product for an honest dollar. But once you start fooling the public, as Packard's old advertisement about "REPUTATION" warns, you commit corporate suicide.

What an irony - the company that built the aircraft engines the Germans used to try and destroy Rolls Royce...NOW OWNS R.R. AND MAKES ITS PARTS !

John (or anyone else in these forums) should not be critisized for being "touchy" about the subject of "Senior" classic era Packards. Lots of people, from many different eras, and from many different view-points, resented, even HATED the big "Senior" Packards of the classic era.

For a background on how universal the hatred was, of the "Senior" classic-era Packards, see if you can find a copy of a FORTUNE MAGAZINE issue - think it was around middle of 1937. Extensive multi-page article with great photos, summarizing the change of direction Packard took when it decided to abandon the "super car" market, and concentrate on ordinary "middle class" cars like the "120". The article covers both the technical aspects of Packard manufacturing techniques, the economics, and the policies of the PMCC. Wish I'd kept a copy. Maybe John or someone else in here has one and can add it to Kev's library?

As a side note, that decision to add a low-medium price line saved Packard, but that's a whole different story.

What I am getting at, is that in that article, one of the new high-ranking members of the then new Packard management, upon being taken thru the various plants at Packard, and seeing how much different the construction, engineering, and quality of the Senior Packards were at the entirely separate "Senior Division" plant, was quoted as saying

"THAT GODDAMN SENIOR STUFF"

and then went on to issue orders that "gutted" that facility, so that Packard would never again have the facilities to produce a "super car" line, ( thus abandoning the very profitable high priced line to Cadillac).

Most people agree that Packard might still be with us had it kept BOTH its middle class line, AND its Super Car line, AND kept up its famous quality (Note that Damiler-Benz came out of World War Two with much worse a situation than Packard - also sold a lot of taxi-cabs, but kept its quality up. Damiler-Benz's famous Mercedes line of cars made a FORTUNE selling VERY expensive super-luxury cars. Still does. But that also, is another story.

Point is, dont pick on John and some of these guys for resenting Packard products from the glory years, and the people who keep them out before the public.

Actually, the more he focuses on picking on me and my Packard V-12, the more excuse I have to discuss the REAL technical issues that made Packard such a legend! And the later changes in corporate policy that led to its downfall.

Lots to learn here - so by all means let's encourage John to communicate in any way he deems fit. I can handle it. And I have learned a lot from John's excellent reference sources.

John :

Please conduct an experiment for me, and let me know how it works out. Open the hood of a mid 20's Packard, Cadillac, Linclon, Pierce Arrow, etc., then open the hood of a mid 1920's Rolls Royce Phantom. Now place all these fancy articles written by these fancy experts, on the engine blocks. Then start the cars up, and run them around.

Let me know how these articles you read, affect the actual real-world tech. specs and capabilities of these respective cars.....

Now, folks - to be fair, John's apparently massive source of reference material isn't all a bunch of smart-mouthed kids trying to re-make history to suit their fantasies. John discovered a couple of things I did not know.

First, he proved my memory and experiences WRONG WRONG WRONG about what I THOUGHT I knew.... about when Packard introduced "real factory-installed" air conditioning.

I'd always thought, based on the cars I personally worked on, that it had been introduced in late 1940 for the '41 model year. I'd even seen it on some "junior" '41 Packards. I found it hard to believe, and, again, was proven wrong by John - it was actually introduced in late '39 for the '40 model year.

Here's another example of John proving what I THOUGHT I knew about Packard and its corporate philosphy WRONG WRONG WRONG!...........John and some guy named "Neal" proved me wrong about this "in-line twelve" deal.

Based on what I THOUGHT I knew about Packard management in the "glory years", I thought it would have been impossible for responsible engineers to recommend to responsible management they waste engineering staff time and effort on anything as goofy as an in-line twelve cylinder motor.

Lo and behold, these guys came up with photos that LOOK "legit", along with what appear to be "legit" Packard offocial documents, confirming they actually built one !

What would possess anyone with even a rudimentry engineering education, and even a sliver of a sense of corporate responsibilty, to waste valuable company staff time building anything so goofy, still puzzles me, but there it is - apparently Packard actually did it and John and Neal found proof!

So - dont "poo poo" John's sources. We can all learn something from time to time. Who knows...John may be able to prove to me that I am wrong again - maybe the weight of all that intellect, and book-learning, when draped over a certain 1920's Rolls Royce Phantom, will shrink its engine size down to that of a '28 Packard 443 (or Cad. or Lincoln of that era), and/or change the advanced over-head valve engine Rolls had that the others did not, perhaps even cause a change in the final drive gear ratios to slow the Rolls down.

Incidentally, yesterday, in an impromptu drag race (we both denied we were actually racing ...!) a fellow in a well-mainted '38 Rolls Phantom Three ( the Rolls V-12 that bears some resemblance to the famour "Merlin" engines of Roll's aircraft division) was able to pull ahead of me (traffic conditions in the prestegious Dana Point area prohibited us from getting much over 50, so I never found out if I could "take" him eventually) my '38 Packard V-12 got beat. Not badly, but just enough to humilate me and give the Phantom Three driver something to smirk about.

Now to be fair, my own car's "off-the-line" accelleration has been crippled by my, years ago, "re-gearing"..reducing my numerical final drive ratio from 4:41 down to 3:23.

Not sure what this particular Phanton III's final drive ratio was - car was apparently "bone stock" - Rolls had a slick four speed closer ratio transmission, that obviously gave him more flexibility in the lower speed ranges. ? ? ? ?

Also keep in mind you could have probably bought three Packard V-12's for what that Phantom Three cost when they were new. Again, had Packard decided to compete in the rarified air of the Rolls Phantom Three price range...well......

The real point of all this, is to show that in the real world, with actual products, the more money you spend, the more likely you are to get a better product. That is why, again, I see little to be learned from comparing cars of entirely different price ranges.

When John has described to us direct "hands-on" comparisons from his own experience, between a '32 Packard V-12 and a '32 Cadillac in ITS price range, then I will be a bit more impressed about his discussing qualitative differences.

can you imagine how pathetic it would be to try and keep up with a '40-'49 Packard "356" engined car ( Packard 160, 180; Packard Super Clipper/Custom, etc...if all you had was a Rolls Royce of the same vintage.....(probably be even more pathetic than trying to keep up with a mid-to-late 20's Rolls Royce Phantom if all you had was a Packard, Lincoln, Cadillac, Pierce, etc. of that era...!

bottom line - you know what drag racers and "girls of the night" agree on - "AINT NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CUBIC INCHES.."

I'll drink to that

(i am not drunke..dreeple only phink I are..... )

John's comment about body quality, and some of the other "posts" bring up a number of interesting points about comparing Packard products with Rolls Royce products.

As I noted earlier, Rolls start to fall behind in the early 30's, and never recovered. While the 1920's Phantom I was a performance leader, they didn't adopt rapid increaes in technology, that our American manufacturers put to good use.

So while a 1920's era Rolls will out accelerate, out speed, and out handle the much less expensive American luxury car of that era, by the 30's, we got ahead of them.

I never cease to be amazed at the lousy body quality on some of the classic-era Rolls products. Mine had a Brewster body - made here in the United States. Was pretty good.

John once referred to my Packard V-12's body as a "rolling chicken coop". Is he ever right ! By the late 1930's, GM, Ford, and Chrysler had gone to all-steel construction. Packard, Lincoln, what was left of Pierce Arrow production, and Rolls Royce still had those backward "composite" bodies, which, as John said in his "chicken coop" comment, were inferior in every respsect to a well-engineered all steel body. Yes, I will match a production Packard V-12 body with a Rolls any day ( again, Rolls didn't build bodies - but if ANY of the English body-builders built a body as well as Packard did, I havn't seen it).

Fact is, by the late 1930's, advances in technology made the big "super cars" out-moded dinasours. Take a '38 Buick Century, for example. Yeah, it had babbit rod bearings. But it had a nice, light, super-strong all steel body, and a good over-head valve engine, in terms of effiency. You cant tell me its driving experience was significantly less than my Packard v-12 of the same year.

The introduction of ever higher octane fuels, giving us ever more effiency from smaller engines, and the rubber engine mount, smoothing out the impulses of smaller engines, making the multi-cylinder engines unnecessary, were a mark of progress.

As others in here have noted, by the late 1940's, the Rolls was still a great 1920's car, but we were building products vastly superior for the driving mission of that era.

As far as John's comment about the Phantom III (the late 30's Rolls V-12, I disagree. It was a damn good car, offering handling and performance at least as good as a Packard V-12 (that is, until you ran too fast too long and burned out the rod bearings...!). SOME of the bodies were damn good - others, little more than nicelu upholstered junk.

Naw, John - you are wrong - they were high quality and very reliable. Lack of frequent oil changes is what caused ther hyd. valve problems - they were just ahead of the advances in oil technology.

John - I cant remember the tech. details about Pierces - been probably fifty years since I worked on one.

But that is the essential differences between us. I think you are a great guy for having enough interest in old cars to devote as much effort (and probably money) to getting a bunch of books about them.

That illustrates the difference between us - I am old enough to have owned, driven, & worked on big luxury cars from the 1930's when many of them were still in service as used cars, and you havn't had that opportunity.

That dosnt make me any smarter than you. I just happened to have been born into a time when I got a chance to get hands on experience, that you dont have.

In other web-sites you have suggested I did not have a sixteen cyl. Cadillac, or a Rolls Phantom. Not clear why you get hostile. This is supposed to be for fun and education. It is a free country. We all benefit from your contributions from your apparently vast store of book-learning.

The problem is, as time evolves, and more and more young smart alecs decide to write books, well-meaning guys like you can read something that you couldnt possibly know is just plain nuts, and then go off on tangents that are inaccurate.

Fact is ALL Pierce V-12 versions were good engines in great cars. Fact is, Pierce was NEVER able to generate the kind of consumer loyalty that Packard did.

Of COURSE Packards in ANY price class werent all THAT much superior to any other car in a relevant price class, but they were GOOD. DAMN good buys for the money. No question SOME features, as I pointed out, such as the over-drive, made Pierce, in some respects, "better" than a Packard. But you really ought to drive some of these cars you like to talk about, to get a more accurate perspective.

Again, please accept my SINCERE thanks for your many contributions from your book-learning. I have learned things from you and your sources I would never have learned on my own.

BUT DONT TRY AND TELL ME A PIERCE V-12 WAS BETTER THAN A PACKARD V-12 !

Slow cranking with a 6 volt system ? Baloney. Be ASSURED a properly maintained 6 volt Packard did NOT crank slow. You have to really work at it to maintain a Packard 6 volt to the point it will crank slow. I suggest 1) wrong - too small battery cables 2) crummy battery 3) lots of un-maintained cables and grounds.

Some years ago, at a car show, someone saw me starting up my Packard V-12 (bone stock except for its high speed rear axle ratio) and was puzzled that it started so fast, even tho it was a hot day, and I had come off a fast freeway drive.

I SHOULD have told him that is the way Packards were SUPPOSED to crank over, but instead,I decided to have a bit of fun. I explained that modern 6 volts is too fast for the old 6 volt system - the "juice" just goes thru the wires too fast. So you need to get a 4 volt battery to get the old style slow electricity.....

Yup..you guessed it...a couple of years later...the "gossip mill" amongst these damn fool self-styled experts worked....overheard a couple of these clowns marveling at how fast my bone stock V-12 fires up....and they knowingly explained to each other about that "four volt battery" I must have had in there........

TO THE FELLOW WHO IS GETTING LESS THAN 6 MPG ON A PACKARDV-12

Strongly recommend you do NOT drive it - dont even try and START it, till you get competent technical help from someone familiar with Packard V-12's.

There is something VERY wrong with your car. Obviously, I cant diagonois it from a computer screen's posts.

In the late 1930's, at a General Motors test track (all the mfgs. would buy other make cars just to test them out, so as to keep an eye out on the competition) they were able to gat a Packard Twelve in decent shape down to around 7.5 mpg, but only by selecting one with the optional 4.69 rear axle ratio, AND by driving it at over 80 mpg.

In normal city-suburban driving at under 60 mpg, you should see around 10 mpg. Anything signficantly less, FIX IT. Driving ANY car that consumes way more fuel than it is supposed to, will RUIN it in short order.

The Pierce Arrow V-12 had a SLIGHT advantage over the Packard Twelve in that it was a SLIGHTLY smaller stroke and slightly bigger bore. Otherwise, John simply dosnt know what he is talking about. The Packard V-12 was a superior design in both concept and execution.

Yes, it is true that Seagrave purchased the tooling and rights to the Pierce V-12, and continued to utilize that in fire apparatus for many years . However, unlike the Packard design, the Pierce suffered from inadequate cooling (to be fair, Pierce was in Buffalo, New York, and thus its engineers probably, in that far north and very cold area, didn't think all that much about hotter climates. So, as a result, Seagrave had to completely re-ingineer the basic Pierce concept.

In one way, Pierce Arrow cars of the 1930's were "superior" to the Packards of the same price range (both manufacturers had high priced large EIGHT cyl. cars in the high price range, and even HIGHER priced V-12's of approximately the same engine displacement). The big advantage to Pierce goes to the fact they had a multi-speed (read OVER-DRIVE) transmission. Of course Packards, in any given price range, were properly geared for most driver's needs. But "bone stock" "out of the box", soley because Pierce had a over-drive, it was much faster than a Packard of its own price range.