Nice, spunky little car. I leave it to others with experience with these to come up with a paint/upholstery chart. But since you're on the West Coast, sorta, call my old friend Armand Annereau, Armand's Auto Upholstery, Walnut Creek, 1 (925) 934-4373, in business since 1897. Armand's owned many pre and postwar Packards, six, eight, Super Eights, bent eights, and has the lavish upholstery books for most years Packard issued only to their larger dealerships. Tell him a black '47 Super Clipper in Walnut Creek referred you.

Handsome wee barouche, easily as elegant as the funky little postwar Rolls-Royce Silver Dawn/Bentley R-Type on a wheelbase only five inches longer (120"). If only Packard had continued to build such company-saving, reasonably sized cars as yours and the One Twenty BUT instead marketed them as "personal size" or "town use" or "sporting models" instead of with their incredibly lame, clumsy, downhome "junior" ads.

Special Interest Autos, when edited by founder Michael Lamm, then Dave Brownell, was the gold standard.
All the other downhome "classic and collector car" magazines are boys trying to do a man's job, bush league, embarrassing. Michael Lamm and Dave Brownell were and are literate adults who happen to love old automobiles.

Sadly, after Terry Ehrich, Hemmings Motor News publisher and a class act, died of cancer aged only 61, a North Carolina-based publishing conglomerate bought Hemmings, and the cringe-inducing "Hemmings Classic Car" replaced Special Interest Autos.
The new publisher also wasted no time deleting Terry's thoughtful urge for readers to recycle Hemmings and all forest products on each issue's opening page.

Perhaps much of the problem is simply that older, educated fellows who happen to share a love for vintage cars are being replaced by the products of dumbed down schools of the 1970s, so you wind up with magazines written by people who can't write, for readers who can't read.

It's the same at the mainstream roadtest monthlies. Compare the Road & Track of yore, with today's, in which the ONLY worthwhile things are by Dennis Simanaitis and Peter Egan. AutoWeek today has type twice the size it was in the '90s, with the usual happening dude graphics, being written by and for wizened mallbrats. Magazines and movies are edited and directed for
a lower horizon, ADD audience.

Automobile Magazine and Sports Car Market confuse pompous affluenza with literacy.

Esquire used to be a men's magazine. Now it's a "lifestyle" guide for avaricious boys. Even the New York Times Review of Books insists on head shots of authors.

This is more than a case of some of us accruing years.
It's declining literacy, narrowing education. These chickens are coming home to roost.

I'd be curious, for example, to see survey results comparing the percentage of Special Interest Autos readers who also read The New Yorker, vs. those who read "Hemmings Klassic Kar."

Cousin Raymond -- Welcome. Your big Lincoln is a tasteful, restrained barouche. I saw a '36 Lincoln Willoughby sport sedan in the early '80s, someone storing it in a hangar at the airport, as many folk with old cars do.

Marveled at the quality. Packard and Pierce V-12s may've had more oomph, but NO big '30s luxury car had finer craftsmanship than the Lincoln K, which used, as you know, chromeplated brass fittings where a Cadillac or Packard used chromed potmetal. Majestic car, with quality second to none from either side of the Atlantic.

My experience with Nashes comes secondhand, other than driving a friend's '54 Nash-Healey with its stock seven-main-bearing inline ohv six, one of those rare cars that has that solid, carved-from-a-single-billet-of-steel feel.
I'm not a Porsche guy, but a friend's '65 356-C bathtub coupe shared that quality feeling, and is no doubt why Sir William Lyons admitted in later years, letting his hair down tho' while he was still on Jaguar's board,

"We never got Jaguar quality near Porsche's."

Saw a '38 Jensen Model H saloon, which as you also know, is the stock 260-ci Nash twin-ignition, ohv straight 8-powered alternative to the stock 254-ci flathead, splash-oiled Hudson inline 8-propelled Railton. Lovely, and they all came with overdrive, which only a couple '39 Railtons had.

After asking everywhere why the 1935-41 Nash twin-ignition, ohv 260-ci eight wasn't more popular then and today, my auld mechanic's mechanic, a veteran amongst NorCal Hudson, Packard and other circles, being staff sergeant of War II Pacific motor pools, then working in, and running, postwar Hudson, Packard, Pontiac service departments, building Hudson sprint car engines before starting his own storied shop, gave me some insight.

"That Nash eight had nine main bearings, but they were narrow, so they soon lost oil pressure. And the Nash front suspension was okay, but it was weak, should've been beefier. Mine (bought 1946) was in nice shape, only had 30,000 miles on it. It drove nice, smooth, but was no ball of fire. It had low oil pressure. I dropped the pan, looked up at all those main bearings, and sold it for what i paid for it."

The Nash 8, as you also know, is a paragon of smoothness.
Others here will sing, on key, the One-Twenty's virtues, i also owned one many years. And the Hudson, its splash oiling notwithstanding, despite being the same size as the Nash ohv, had more oomph.

According to Maurice Hendry--- and will someone please tell me if he's still with us, he lived/lives in Auckland, New Zealand --- R-R engineers once substituted a stock 254-ci Hudson eight for the troublesome 445-ci ohv V-12 in the 1936-39 Phantom III. After R-R's brass drove it around Derby's grounds, raving about its virtues, the engineers opened the hood, showed them the flathead American engine.

Clearly, R-R's beleaguered engineers didn't want to build that monstrosity anymore than Fred Duesenberg wanted to produce the outsized, quickly obsolete Model J. As mentioned, Augie Duesenberg was in 1940 offering a marine version of the Hudson 254-ci eight. I mention this merely as Hudson was as much, or more, competitor to your Nash than Packard's One Twenty.

The Jensen was a higher quality job than the Railton, smoother, and a Model H owner told me back in the '90s that it was faster than his 4.3-liter Alvis, faster than a 3.5-liter R-R Bentley from the mid '30s. But a Railton had more hustle.

Packard's One-Twenty, like the Hudson and most such sized inline engines, used five larger main bearings. The earlier big 384-ci Packard, Pierce, Chrysler straight eights, having more room, had wider bearings which held oil pressure longer in service.

Duesenberg's outsized Model J used only five (large) main bearings likely as Fred Duesenberg was looking for performance over refinement.

My old mechanic also said Nash built relatively few eights, most of their production being the six(es).

Finally, if you know of a sound '37 Nash Lafayette coupe with overdrive for sale on the West Coast, please, please let me know, as an old friend who runs a Packard shop owned one as a young man, liked it, and wouldn't mind another, tho' he'll never, ever part with the '41 One-Twenty club coupe he's owned since 1956.

BTW, reverting to our other thread, "Okay, I'm Calling Your Bluff, Show Me How Packard Was Better" on the General Forum here,

the above underscores that all this junior/senior malarkey is just that.


Fine cars can come in any size, both your Lincoln K berline's, and your Nash Ambassador 8's. Thanks again for sharing these rare marvels with us, since we've long wanted to know about your Nash eight, another "pocket luxury car," as such were known in the day. Most of us here at PackardInfo are catholic in our tastes.

As Peter Packard posted on the aforementioned thread, they all have their merits.

Sportsfans - Once again, Dr. Cole nails it succinctly, every line of his above right as rain. Packard folded without sticking it to the taxpayers, a class act to the end.
Compare with GM suing the US government for War II Allied bombing damage to their German Opel plants;

recently making us taxpayers bail them out, because their out of touch fat cat execs in their Grosse Point monster homes were too busy building dorky SUVs half the size of UPS vans.

Worse, in fact, downright hideous, GM is today just another flag-waving multinational corporation ducking the federal income taxes you and i must shoulder.

Then, these same sorry bozos, flying their corporate jets to the Washington welfare office, whine about "....the unions, (their) high costs-per-unit." BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW, Porsche ALL have higher unit costs, but that doesn't prevent them from joining Japan, Inc. eating Detroit's lunch.

Meanwhile, Germany today owns fully 70% of all Europe's debt, China much of ours.

Tho' Ford didn't join GM and Chrysler at the welfare trough recently, as Dr. Cole describes, FoMoCo's been another welfare queen long enough. I don't care how many macho voice over pickup truck and Mustang TV commercials Ford makes, nor how strenuously Ford, GM wave the flag.

Remember Samuel Johnson's line from centuries ago: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Chrysler's tank testing left Packard's Proving Grounds a shambles. But Packard never complained, just went back to work. Work. Not receiving welfare while waving the flag.
Packard lost some huge government jet engine contracts merely as one of their executives later wound up in office.
Compare with the revolving door nonsense, waste that occurs in Pentagon contracts today, 48.4 % of every one of our tax dollars going into that unaudited black hole.

We'd be better served today by the buck stops here class acts of the Packard Motor Car Company and the late, great Admiral Hyman Rickover.

Dr. Cole's also right about the 110/120. As mentioned,
Packard's SOLE blunder with those fine, reasonably sized cars-----

the precise wheelbases as Rolls-Royce/Bentley's rationalized, postwar fare ---


is not marketing them as crisply as R-R did their Silver Dawn/R-Type.


The hands down clumsiest, most inept thing Packard ever did was market the junior cars as juniors, and that because the GM production men they recruited beginning in 1933 to teach them how to build the fine One Twenty later took over the Company, reverting to all they really knew--- building B-O-P.

You didn't see R-R/Bentley doing that idiocy, nor BMW and Mercedes today with their 3-,5-,7-Series and C-, E-, S-Class.

People will gladly buy "personal sized," "sporty," "town" vs. country. But no one wants to purchase anything advertised as downscale, Mickey Mouse, which is exactly what Packard did with their embarrassingly lame junior ads.

Flack Attack, don't recall details, but believe you need to replace the entire pumpkin, not just the ring and pinion.
Ross, good points.
Sportsfans, see my last post, which i just revised, added to. That cleans me out.

Let us know what you come up with; corroborated, vetted information please.

Broken Hill, you've got a slick little Packard. Just remember, Bendix hydraulic drums that were good for the '40s, even '50s, are NO match for today's power four-wheel discs with ABS. The mechanic i mention above hit a 40-lb. jackrabbit in his '53 Hudson Hornet at 80 mph. Imagine a goodsized roo'd do a number on that pretty snout.

Since your tail lights are off and apart, now is the time to install some aluminum foil, shiny side out behind the bulb. I did this in my '47 Super after noting some Cord friends doing it in their funny-looking jalopies. I detest urban light pollution as much as human overpopulation, but anything you can do to enhance our old cars' tail lights is a prudent idea.

I bow to all the above luminaries, including Our Man in Canberry and the Great Oz. My knowledge of the 1937-47 Packard 245-ci six is scant, but it was obviously a husky lil' engine as Packard offered it as well as the 356 in marine guise; when geared down managed to lug 141-inch-wheelbase NYC taxis; and was used into the '50s in White Trucks. The only reason i can figure Packard never offered the 1936-47 282 (One-Twenty) engine in marine form is --- well, i don't know, unless the six was deemed spunky enough.

?

Now, PackardInfo is the last place i'd ever stretch truth,
and i'm one of those who thrive on hard fact, but must share that decades ago, in my rebuilt, balanced '40 120 with the non-overdrive 4.09 axle instead of the usual 4.36,
in overdrive, for a 2.95:1 overall final drive, running 32 psi cold pressure in my Denman 6.50 x 16 bias plies, on level East Bay (California) freeway, much of it at 65mph, with a light foot on the accelerator, pulling little manifold pressure, after carefully topping off my gastank, and doublechecking the figures with my calculator,
i got 22.5 mpg. Yes, really, on all that's holy. And that was with me stupidly using thick Castrol 20W/50 in my rebuilt, healthy engine, thinking back then more is better when it came to viscosity.

I today use Kendall GT1 10W/30 in my rebuilt, balanced '47 356. But back then, i thought the thicker the oil the better. Perhaps the 20W/50 only diminished mileage by a minute fraction. I leave that to y'all.

BTW, a 4,400-lb. '51 Lincoln won its class in the annual Mobilgas Economy Run turning in 25.488 mpg, tho' it ran the 3.31 "plains" rear end AND overdrive, for an overall final drive ratio of 2.39:1.

I was tempted to put a 1950 Custom 8 3.54:1 Ultramatic pumpkin in my '47 Super in place of the factory 4.09, but instead installed a 3.92 out of a non-overdrive '47 Custom.
The above Lincoln stunt makes me kick myself for not doing so, but then i often wonder if in the real world i'd wind up kicking down into direct drive too often with the 3.54.

As is, my '47's overall final drive in OD is now 2.82:1 instead of the factory 2.95. With the Ultramatic rear cog i'd be 2.56:1. I heard a few '41 Chrysler 8s on the standard wheelbase when ordered with Vacamatic, which came with the 3.54 axle, and overdrive, worked out to the same amazingly long-legged 2.56:1.
But the '41 Chrysler Saratoga/New Yorker weighed 350+ lbs. less than a Super Clipper, had, at 4 7/8 inches, a long stroke. The heavier Super Clipper has higher inertia loading. And the '51 Lincoln was a specially optioned car driven by a professional for a national fuel economy contest.

Theoretically, 1941 Lincoln Zephyrs and Continentals could be ordered with both Columbia rear axles AND overdrive, for an all up final drive in Columbia high range in overdrive of 2.19:1. Given those "Ford and a half" V-12s had the least torque per cubic inch of any domestic car of the day, Crosley included, i imagine you'd dread even a suggestion of a headwind.

Non-blown 1936-37 Cords came 2.75:1 in their overdrive fourth gear. Blown '37s came 2.95:1 because superchargers spool up better at higher engine rpm.

The lone '39 Bentley Corniche aero saloon, destroyed on the French docks by a Hun bomb, had 2.87:1 final drive.
The later 1952-55 Bentley R-Type Continental, with, other than its upright grille, a fairly smooth shape, and a curb weight from 3,750-3,850 lbs. depending on equipment, 150 hp/4,200 rpm, then the fastest sedan in the world, a razor-tuned prototype managing 116 mph at Brooklands, the British Indy track, called it a day at 3.08:1 final drive.

Buick allegedly coaxed a '41 Century with that year's plug-fouling, gas-sucking Compound Carburetion, cold air duct, and factory split manifold, with the rare, no-cost "economy" 3.6:1 rear axle in place of the usual 3.9 in Century/Roadmaster, to 110 mph at the GM Proving Ground, but there was no AAA or second-party sanction.

Final gearing, at least for absolute speed, can't be too tall to enable horsepower at the rear tires to overcome wind resistance.
As mentioned elsewhere, i've jettisoned over 130 lbs. from my '47 Super, but still wonder if, 49-degree windshield rake or not, i'd still be kicking down often on freeway hills with a 3.54 and OD, and, if i'd manage as high a top speed.

One of y'all wanna try, have at it. Let me know how it goes. Current 7-Series and S-Class BMW and Mercedes sedans have final drives as high as 2.2:1 or so, but their uber sophisticated engines also put out 200 MORE lb. ft. torque than our 356's 292 @ 2,000 rpm.

The '48 Tucker was barely two inches lower than a 1942-47 160/Super Clipper, but 200 lbs. heavier. Tucker, thinking his car'd debut for 1947, advertised 166 hp, one more than Packard, for the same reason ex-car salesman/stock market marauder E. L. Cord advertised the Duesenberg arbitrary number, to best the claim of an extremely-limited production Mercedes SSK for most powerful car in the world.

The air-cooled Franklin light helicopter 331-ci opposed six, curiously water jacketed in the car, had an aero rating of 150 hp, but 372 ft. lbs. torque at 2,200 rpm. Aero recips are slow-turning, yet it takes real power to fly.
Tucker still didn't want to go taller than his cars' stock, then reworked, 1936-37 unblown Cord transmission's 2.75:1.
BTW, no one believes these crude Corvair Monzas on steroids with a tail-wagging-the-dog 65% rear weight bias would really do 120 mph.

Preston Tucker admitted to his press agent son-in-law that the '47 Cadillac Series 62 they were driving to the Washington SEC hearings was "....a better car" than his namesake.

Now i'm even further afield, but am trying to put final gearing in cars of the era in perspective, because postwar highways were rapidly improving long before the Interstates,
and with a population under 40% of today's nearly a third of a billion, you could really hustle in the wide open spaces.

A Hudson/Packard mechanic told me that after War II in the California ag valley, he occasionally put non-overdrive
rear cogs in overdrive Hudson 8s. He didn't recall doing so at the Packard garage, but remember, heavier cars, higher inertia loading. Hudson's splash-oiled, flathead 254-ci eight produced its peak 128 hp at 4,200 rpm, much higher than any other domestic car of the time. As mentioned earlier, in 1940, Augie Duesenberg was offering a marine version of the Hudson 254 eight and no one's yet told me why Packard never offered a marine version of the 282 One-Twenty mill, which were still used into the 1970s in Texas to run irrigation pumps 24/7, their governors set at peak torque.

Now, i've been told by, as it happens, a longtime Packard man, that a free-running engine actually gets better mileage.
Some discussion in the CCCA quarterly or bulletin a few years ago suggested that an engine turning low rpm can actually be working, burning as much or more gas as the same engine at a slightly higher rpm.

So, i'd welcome any insight from you gents. I veer on this tangent only as our compatriot in Broken Hill is wondering how to gear his jaunty six.

Finally, an old friend had a '40 Packard 110 coupe in high school in the early '50s. He gave it a split manifold, dual Smithies, and with overdrive, regular trounced the usual hot Fords and Mercuries.

But i've never had interest in 0-60, dragging, all that cowboy crap. I'm only interested in relaxed cruising.

BTW, it bears repeating: Looking on the first page of this thread at the picture of Peter's sleek white '40 Richards six saloon (the Australian Packard 110), which used the Studebaker President body from the cowl back, including the Stude's more raked windshield, makes you wonder why o why o why couldn't East Grand have done the same with the domestic '40s instead of that tugboat wheelhouse they used.

Pardon the ramble.

This is the best site extant. Just when you think you've seen, heard it all, even on a relative of your own car, someone posts something here at PackardInfo that's new
to you.
So 'tis with this black, Packard-emblemed cover of the 1941-47 Clippers' spare tire.

Thank you, not that i'm gonna run out and buy one. Meanwhile, have always wondered, anyone have a hunchimate, guess-o-rama, the percentage of 1941-47 Clippers delivered sans trim rings?

Were any, many, seniors so delivered? My '47 Super had them, but as they had a few dings, despite being an always garaged, 82,631-original-mile California car, i ordered a set of new trim rings, then spent an evening at the buffing wheel polishing them even more.

But when i went to put them on the car, i spent the longest time holding one up to the front wheel, then removing it, standing back, comparing the way it looked with and without trim ring.

And stuck the gleaming new trim rings in the closet where they remain. So, as always, am interested in whatever historical vindication i can get. My tastes are not for everyone. I like sedate, understated to the point where all you see are the car's lines, NO distractions. My car's black, with blackwall tires, skirts. I removed the bulky postwar bumper extensions fore and aft, "fender shields," in Packard parlance, as well as the heavy, useless front license plate bracket, leaving the car in clearner '42 mode.

And i pulled the Super Clipper script from the side of the car, as the Custom Supers wisely omitted that tackiness because you never saw such on a R-R/Bentley or anything fine from across the Atlantic.
I even removed the Packard script from the trunk lid, as the Custom Eight bathtubs did--- the only thing those porcine monstrosities got right.

The only bling on my "windstreamed (Packard's term)" ebony carriage are the cloisonne front hubcaps. I pulled the rear hubcaps since the fender skirts cover them and all they do is add unsprung weight. Am a big believer in a few pounds here, a few pounds there, and before you know it, your car has a curb weight 150 or so pounds less than factory, weight being the enemy in any road car.

In fact, so help me, i toyed with the idea of pulling the front hubcaps, because the black powdercoated Packard wheels are handsome industrial design in their own right,
but i left 'em on.

Saw a period photo of the Los Angeles police chief's black '47 Super Clipper, but couldn't see whether the City and County of Los Angeles sprang for trim rings.

So, tho' eminently happy, would dearly love what historical vindication anyone might muster.

Thanks!

Whew, that's gonna be some honker. Since you live in the land of Autobahn, you might look for a differential out of a non-overdrive Packard to give you longer legs in overdrive.

Old rule of thumb was that, in general, an ohv engine can go a full number higher compression than a flathead without pinging. I agree with the gents above, 9.2 sounds high as a kite, and the above adviso to doublecheck valve clearance is good.
You have to think Packard knew what they were doing when they called it a day at 8.7 to 1. Perhaps you'll make it.
Please keep us posted. 327's are good, husky engines.

We stuck a 327 head on my '47's 356.
Since the 327 came out halfway through the '47 model year so Packard could finally offer a postwar convertible, that model of the '48 bathtub coming out earlier, a 1947 Packard Service Counsellor mentioned using the 327 head on the 356 would give a little more power.

Tho' Packard never wrote anything about using the 288 head on a 356, a friend did so on his '42 160 convertible.
But we figure i'm still a relatively conservative 7.5:1 and he around 8:1.

I wonder if carbon is an issue with modern oils, cleaner gasoline, than when your engine was new or late model.

Again, if you use DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, you'll never, ever have to worry about brake lines, master and wheel cylinders again. See discussion of DOT 5 elsewhere on these General/Pre & Postwar Forums so you don't suffer the usual dated "warnings."
A friend has the same batch in his '42 160 drophead he installed in 1978 and it still looks new. I've used nothing but in my Packards since the late '70s. We've never had a problem. Just flush your system with denatured/rubbing alcohol from any pharmacy, blow the system with compressed air and away you go.