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

Photo of the Nash.

Attach file:

---

  (104.77 KB)

for the sharing your pair of fine looking cars with us Jim.

Photo of the Nash.

Attach file:

---

  (95.18 KB)

West,
I'm in the AACA. I assume you're the club's editor.

The 1939 Ambassador Eight weighed 3,800 lbs. and had 115 horsepower, for a power-to-weight ratio of 33.04 pounds per horsepower. The 1941 Ambassador Six weighed 3,300 and had 105 horsepower for a power-to-weight ratio of 31.43. The '41 had a better power-to-weight ratio. So the '41 Ambassador Six probably would seem to have better performance. (An additional consideration for the difference in the two cars you drove might be the state of tune.)

The main reason for the change in power to weight ratio was the adoption of independent front suspension in 1940. When Nash made that switch, all of their cars lost about 150 pounds each. The horsepower ratings on the OHV Sixes and Eights didn't change from 1939-41. If by "performance" you also mean the ride and handling, of course the ifs would affect that.

As to a comparison of the 1938 Ambassador Eight and the standard '38 Packard Eight (the 1192). Here are some facts.

1) The Packard was lighter by 140 pounds and that was probably due to the independent front suspension; the Nash was a solid front axle. The Packard had 5 more horsepower so it would have a better power-to-weight ratio. The Packard, though, had 22 more cubic inches so it would likely have used more gas.

2) With ifs and adding 2 inches more wheelbase (127 v. 125) I'm sure the Packard had a better ride. I noted in the Packard salesman's data book that these had rubber spring shackle bushings; the Nash's were steel. I would think that would also have contributed to a better ride.

3) The interior on the Nash was probably fancier. The front compartment had carpet whereas the Packard had a rubber floor mat. In the rear, the Nash had an ash tray AND lighter in each outboard arm rest and a center fold down arm rest. Rather than just one overhead light in the rear the Nash had one on each side by the c-pillar. The assist strap was on a sliding rail, rather than being screwed in place. It was these luxury features that I was looking for in the Packard Salesman's data book.

4) The Nash was overhead valve and had twin-ignition. The latter feature consisted of two spark plugs per cylinder. The plugs each fire at the same time and each set of plugs has its own coil and condenser. Thus, one set of plugs can fail (i.e.-the coil, condensor, or points) and the engine will run just fine. I actually had this happen when one of the coils went out; I was able to make it home just fine on one set of plugs.

5) The engine has nine main bearings whereas the Packard has five. And they're not nine bearings but smaller. Rather, they're just as large as in an engine with only five. Thus, the Packard has 56.6 square inches of main bearing surface whereas the Nash has 83.2. Which is 5.0 cubic inches per square inch of main bearing surface for the Packard and 3.13 for the Nash. The Nash would have less pressure on the bearings than the Packard.

6) The Nash intake and exhaust manifolds were cast internally in the cylinder head. Thus, there were no such manifolds to crack or warp and no related gaskets to leak. As well, it was unnecessary to have a heat riser on the Nash because the intake and exhaust passages were right next to each other in the cylinder head. Nash claimed a faster warmup as a result and a more even temperature for the intake passages.

7) The Nash engine had fully-cooled cylinders, full-length water jackets, and the pistons had invar struts. The Packard did not have these features. (Both had aluminum pistons.)

8) With overhead valves it was easier to adjust them than on a flathead. I don't know if the Packard valves required adjusting. The Nash lifters were solid and the Packard's were hydraulic. The latter may have eliminated some noise, and the need for adjusting.

9) The Nash had a roomier body. Attached are the dimensions from the 1938 Nash X-ray book of comparisons.

10) In 1938 Nash introduced its revolutionary "Conditioned Air for Winter Driving". The consisted of placing the heater core right up underneath the cowl vent intake under the dash. The resulted in a much larger volume of air coming through the heater core, which did a much better job of heating the interior, in particular the rear seat passengers. This also brought in a lot of fresh air, which helped to reduce greatly the fogging of the windows. This larger volume of air also created pressure inside the car, such that people could smoke and with the windows rolled up and the smoke would be pushed out. The system also had an air filter in it which allowed the windows to be closed (but with the cowl vent open) on a dusty road. That way, the interior didn't get filled with air yet there was fresh air coming in the car. Finally, it also included a water separator. This design of heater was so revolutionary that within a few years all cars had adopted this basic style.


But I can imagine from a sales standpoint the Packard would have made a strong impression. A test drive of the Packard would have revealed a quicker car and a more comfortable ride. To my eye, the Packard is more attractive. On a test drive the Nash would probably only have left an impression in the winter when the superior heater and quicker warm up would have been evident. The Nash's advantages were largely related to reliability, longevity, and ease of maintenance, all features which would not be readily apparent with a test drive. Though the fancier interior may have caught someone's eye. The Nash would also have gotten slightly better gas mileage and cost less.

Here are the interior dimensions.

Attach file:

---

  (155.03 KB)


  (162.56 KB)

In my mind the absolute pinnacle for Nash was the 890, 990, 1090, 1190 and 1290 series; these are bona fide CCCA "Full Classics" and very deservedly so - magnificnet cars. Never again did Nash flirt with the true luxury end of the market.

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.

Quote:

Hi Jim,

Beautiful cars!

I used to subscribe to both Collectible Automobile and was a charter subscriber to Hemmings Classic Car. I have since stopped both for the error reason you cite. My reason for subscribing in the first place was to learn about cars that I was unfamiliar with. However, when articles were error ridden regarding cars that I DID know about, it made the prospect of learning about the others very, very dim.

The pictures are nice; especially in Collectible Automobile and CA has the least number or errors that I've been able to find. Hemming's Classic Car's errors - which could be checked by a simple web search as well as typos are inexcusable!

Good luck with Patrick Foster. Hopefully he is more receptive than Richard Lentinello who I've been told can get just plain surly.

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."

I was a dedicated reader of Hemming's Special Interest Autos and thought it a fine publication and one not requiring "improvement". But like our old cars, some folks just can't resist tinkering with the product. I stuck with it a short while after it morphed into Hemmings Classic Car, but found it just filled to the gills with errors, really - just horrible. For a short time I tried writing to the editor about the mistakes and suggesting ways to elminate them (like having articles peer-reviewed) but the magazine failed to improve (and it has a LONG way to go) and I haven't renewed it.