Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

I would be keen to know what peoples impressions of the performance of the Packard six is like against it's larger 120 brother?

Having not driven a six, it would be interesting to know if it's considered underpowered, or otherwise?

Thanks
Lyndon.

Lyndon, Having owned a 1937 six cyl and a 1947 six cyl I think the six cylinders are under rated. Both of them were peppy and durable. They did lack the top end speed of the eight cylinder cars. My experience with Packards began in 1980 with a 1949 Deluxe 8 with the 288 engine. I drove this car to all 4 borders of the USA to different PAC National meets. Then I bought a 1949 super 8 with the 327 and there is a noticible difference in the performance of the 327 compared to the 288. I have 3 Packards that are driven regularly with the 327 and one 245 six that gets regular use and I would compare the difference of the six as about the same as comparing the 288 with the 327. Others will have different opinions. Packardtaximan

Lyndon,

There has been some discussion about this in the past with the consensus generally being as Packardtaximan described. My own limited experiences in driving Packards, a number of 120's and a couple of Sixes, one a '39 TJ Richards bodied '39 Sedan, supports that. Found the Sixes quite peppy after rebuild with good acceleration comparing favourably to the 120's. I have also seen comments by others, owning a range of Packards from Twelve's down, that their favourite driving Packard is/was a Six/110!

g'day all, I have two Packard Sixes on the road. A 533 ( 1927 production with a 304 7 Passenger body and a 1938 with a Richards sedan body. Both Six engines are "minus two cylinder" versions of the 384 and 327 eight engines respectively. My 533 had a 4.69 diff which I changed out to 4.38 in 1976. It cruises well and reasonably stress free at around 50 - 55 mph( 2,300 rpm) with a trailer of bikes behind.
The 38 Six however was souped up a bit in 1974 when I bored it out 62.5 thou and shaved the head 150 thou. I fitted an R6 overdrive and 4.36 ( 120 ) rear axle ratio. In 1979, I had the vehicle up to 100 mph on the speedo (probably 92mph or thereabouts in actual) during a "test" with a 1948 "sunbeam Talbot" English sports car. I won the "test" easily, surely due entirely to my overdrive. The vehicle cruises at a GPS 65 mph ( 2,200rpm)very comfortably and noise free.
I would rate the 533 engine as age fragile with poured bearings ( similar to the 384 motor), but the 38 six is almost bullet proof and cruising speed in OZ is dependant on how many points you have left on your licence. IMHO, With regard to comparisons with the bigger version engines, the factory numerically lower rear axle ratios of the smaller engines means that they are not capable of the same top speed. It is only when you give them a better r/a ratio that allows them to compete on an equal footing, and they are not often far behind, if at all, depending on the driver in many cases. Best regards Peter Toet

Attach file:

---

  (53.12 KB)


  (47.31 KB)

I recall that the late Carl Altz, who had been a test driver just about forever at the Proving Grounds was quite adamant that the late 30's sixes were his favorite to drive.

Have personally driven a few and liked them quite well as they were very light on their feet. For modern usage, overdrive is about a must.

A customer's 38 with low miles and good upkeep was quite a revelation for smoothness, quietness, and an outstanding ride.

I recently had the pleasure of driving a 1939 Six, a 1941 110 (six), and my own 1940 Super Eight 180, all equipped with overdrive. I really enjoyed driving the 1941 110 (the '39 was good, too, but I had a hard time seeing over the steering wheel ). The sixes were very peppy and light footed, easy to steer, etc., and they could be taken out on the freeway. As mentioned, probably no where near the top end of the 180, but they were a LOT more fun to drive than the 180... at least around town. I like the 180 on the freeway better because the wheelbase is much longer, and it can easily go 75mph+.

Attach file:

---

  (154.75 KB)

Thanks for the replies so far. It sounds like a six with OD and maybe longer legs would suit me fine.

My grandfather (owns a 426, 633 & a 52 200) is trying to get me to buy a 120, one advantage is being able to use post war I8's if required.

However, I think it would be unwise not to buy a six if the right car comes along.

Cheers
Lyndon

I think the looks of the 120 is better, because the hood is a little longer. But, yes, if the right 110 or Six comes along, give it a fair shot. Check it out carefully, though, as being the bottom of the line Packard, they were ignored for a long time, and spending money on correct maintenance and restoration just wasn't in the cards for most. Also, most were NOT equipped with overdrive. The two that I recently drove were fitted with o.d. during restoration at great expense and work.

If the front end suspension, shocks, steering, king pins, tie rod ends, etc. (and most importantly the center steering link), are properly rebuilt, modern tires are not needed in order to get a wonderful handling car. I'll argue all day long that prewar cars DO NOT need radial tires. Putting 18-inch tires on the car may not work, as there's not very much room between the tire and the fender lip. I have slightly oversize tires on my 180, and if i go over a bump at the same time as I'm turning, my tires hits the fender.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Packard sixes in the 1930s-1940s basically eight-cylinder designs with two less cylinders?

Oddly enough, the later six with the 3.5" bore became the father of the 1940 356 and then the postwar 288/327/359. I believe that Packard very wisely rationalized their bore spacings and sizes to minimize redundant machine tools. All senior cars after the demise of the 12 were tricked out juniors--ie the juniors made it possible for Packard to offer seniors at all