Packard Forum Index » General

Quote:

Of course it is, more so than anything made after '56. That being said, I'd still take a '57 Packardbaker wagon if I ever came across one...

Thanks for the helpful responses all. It more or less confirmed what I'd heard anecdotally, in that the 6 is a durable smooth engine of adequate, but no more, power. Not really up to extended 60+ highway speeds perhaps, but that is of no matter to me, since I'd have no use for taking one out on the interstate for trips, in any event. Typical Packard high quality and durablity, and every inch a Packard within it's limitations. These things were used in taxis after all, with all the wear and abuse that implies. Not the ideal engine for long duration high speed trips, perhaps, but a great and economical around town engine for general usage, is what I take away from the comments I have heard. Any known problems with getting specific parts?

what about the pre 1915 Packard six, was that a real Packard? What about the six cylinder Packard of the twenties, companion to the big straight eight, was that a real Packard?

What is this anti six cylinder bias? Yes Chevs and Plymouths used sixes, but so did Rolls Royce, Bentley, Pierce Arrow and many other cars of unquestionable quality.

If the 120 was a Packard so was the 110. They represented a common sense move into modern mass production. The day of the hand made motor car was long gone. You have to move with the times if you want to stay in business.

The question is, did they truly represent Packard quality within their limitations? To say an eight cylinder car is a real Packard, while a practically identical six cylinder car is not, strikes me as a little ridiculous. And more than a little superficial.

Sorry if I got off on a rant there, no criticism of anybody is intended.

No need to apologize, I totally agree with you. A Packard engine is a Packard engine completely. Heck, I even consider the P51 Mustang with the Packard Merlin a Packard, lol!

True. The 245 Packard Six is one of the finest engines ever built in my opinion. Mine is as smooth and quiet as any inline six (modern included) in existence. I had it side by side with a 51 Rolls this last fall and it was better. You have to see the fan spinning to even tell its running. Nobody but Packard ever made them like this.

I'd go a little further and point out that the 245 six is actually the "father" of the 356, 288, 327, and 359. They worked out their new architecture, so to speak, on that engine first, and eventually settled on its bore size and spacing and valve locations so that all engines could be manufactured on the same tooling. So the eights listed above are actually sixes with extra cylinders and finessing. All but the 359 use the same piston, and the 245 shares rods with the 327.

Somehow Mercedes has managed to cover a very wide spectrum of price classes with no loss of prestige at the upper end. I think Packard could have done it too, but under Christopher lost the will or vision to do so.

This is a fascinating discussion on this thread. I did not know the history and development of the 6s and 8s. Ross's comment is well made -- the Six as the 'father' of the Eight. I had not thought that way before reading this discussion.

I would think a dependable engine is made by improving a good prototype over time (years) of service and re-design. I did not realize that the bore, spacing and strokes are based on the same engineering proportions.

Thanks to everybody for your comments.

DanL
PS: My Straight 8 screams at 60 w/o OD engaged.

I have a 115C and it has a smooth and powerful engine. Like its 8-cylinder siblings it is a long stroke, low speed, high torque engine. It will pull smoothly in high gear from 10 mph up to cruising speed. I usually cruise around 50 mph due to the high numerical rear end ratio.

The 257/282 cu. in. 8-cylinder engines were the basis for the 237/245 cu. in. 6-cylinder engines. The 257/282 came first.

I don't have torque specifications. These would add interest to the comparison.

I believe that 1948 was the last year the six was offered in a Packard, but they continued to power White trucks for years after that. They like their 8 cylinder siblings had marine applications too.

Attached is a table I put together comparing the six to its eight cylinder siblings. Please feel free to criticize or point out any errors I have made. After all, it is all about getting the correct information posted.

Edit: I revised the table to include B.H.P. per cylinder.

Attach file:

---

Size: 24.98 KB; Hits: 168

Very interesting all 'round, many thanks all. I've been contemplating buying a Six , and it seems that the general consensus here is that they are truly representative of Packard's unsurpassed expertise in engines - while perhaps not quite as speedy as some of their other masterpieces, no compromise was made in quality and durability; in other words, exactly what we'd expect from Packard, at least up until 1955! (as a former '56 owner, I can say this, eh?) For one like me who likes to just potter about at a leisurely pace, the simplicity and economy of a smooth, torquey and well made low rpm six is nigh about perfect.