Packard Forum Index » General

John

I don't propose to get into a long winded debate with you over this as we both know where those have gotten us in the past. I am not even close to suggesting that your sources are wrong or inaccurate. However to parphrase a line from a favorite christmas movie of mine " three sources are hardly proof positive" Accept the fact that there can NEVER be a definitive conclusion to this subject. Since at this time all of the main participants are dead. We can never know. To call Jim Nance and out and out liar based on one of your sources, all I can say is don't quit your day job and go to work for a newspaper, they would go bankrupt from the lawsuits. Nance had his opinion and reasons, Mason had his, and Romney had his. Who is right, and who is wrong, no one KNOWS for sure. We all have our opinions, sources, theories, and conjectures. As I said it will NEVER be solved. But it does make for spirited conversation.

Here is my day dream of how the Studebaker-Packard merger might have worked out, based on historical fact and possibility. In other words, everything here could have happened.

1945 - George Mason of Nash sets out to plan his company's postwar program. He forsees that the independents (Nash, Packard, Studebaker,Willys, Kaiser-Frazer and Hudson) are in for a few good years until the pent up demand for new cars is satisfied, but in the longer term they are at a decided disadvantage to the Big 3.

The solution he comes up with is to merge the 4 leading independents into a 4th full line auto giant to be called American Motors.

1949 - After in depth discussions among company leaders, it is decided to merge Studebaker with Packard and Nash with Hudson, then merge the 2 companies at a later date.

1950 - Packard management gets an advance look at the new Studebaker V8 slated for introduction on their 1951 models. They consider making a V8 for Packard but decide this would not be the best use of available resources. Remember, Packard brought out their Ultramatic,the only automatic developed by an independent. Their all new body design for 1951. There were many demands on their resources for power steering, torsion bar suspension, air conditioning etc. The 50s were a very fast paced design era.

In the end they decide the Studebaker V8 is too small for Packard, so they develop an all new OHV Packard V12.

Basically the excellent Stude V8 with 4 more cylinders.

This would be a very economical engine to develop and produce.

They would need new block, head, and manifold castings but all the small parts like valves, connecting rods, pistons etc would be the same.

The block could be bored on the same transfer line by boring 8 cylinders then moving the block ahead and boring the other 4. The boring bars would pass harmlessly through the 4 cylinders that had already been bored.

The Stude debuted at 232 cu in and 120HP. This would have given a Packard V12 of 348 cu in and 180HP. Compare to the Cadillac V8 of 331 cu in and 160HP or the Chrysler Hemi V8 331cu in 180HP.

A V12 would have had additional advantages of extreme silence, smoothness, low speed pulling power, and a broad power band. Perfectly suited to the 2 speed Ultramatic transmission.

It would have been no longer than a large 6 cylinder. Besides a long hood is no drawback on a luxury car.

1951 - Studebaker introduces 232cu in 120HP V8, first OHV V8 by an independent. Road tester Tom McCahill describes it as "rip roaring hell-for-leather performer".

Long rumored Studebaker-Packard merger formally announced.

1952 - The Packard V12 Patrician debuts.

348 engine largest in industry. McCahill reports: "As smooth and relaxed as drinking a Brandy Alexander in silk pyjamas - with a nitroglycerine chaser"

Straight 8 Clipper and Cavalier models continue.

1953 - Packard buys the Briggs body company, outbidding Chrysler using the money they saved by not tooling up their own V8. They tell Chrysler that they will continue to make Chrysler bodies as long as they have the extra plant capacity.

Studebaker-Packard merges with Nash-Hudson to form American Motors.

1954 - Packard drops the straight eight engine after 30 years. Clipper offers 162HP 259 V8 as base engine in place of 150HP 288 straight eight. Medium priced Packards use a 336 cu in 180HP V12 with 2 barrel carb, based on the Studebaker 224. Senior cars have a 348 cu in 220HP engine. 245HP Caribbean engine optional on all models is the world's most powerful production car engine. Second most powerful, Chrysler New Yorker optional 235HP 331 Hemi V8. Cadillac is third at 230HP 331 cu in.

Panther causes a sensation at auto shows and in the showrooms. This is a Studebaker hardtop body on a Clipper frame with Packard designed front and rear sections and Packard luxury appointments. It joins the Caribbean line as America's ultimate personal luxury car.

Lincoln designers work furiously to make 1956 Continental Mark II a success but it's widely regarded as a "me too" copy of the Panther. Continental lasts less than 2 years.

1955 - All new Packard body design replaces "high pockets" used from 1951 to 1954. Gorgeous looks, torsion bar suspension, pushbutton transmission, V12 engine, 3 tone paint jobs, reversible upholstery. Unquestionably the world's greatest luxury car.

Cadillac executives ponder sagging sales, consider suicide.

1956 - Panther "Daytona" smashes all stock car records at Daytona Beach. Special V12 engine with solid lifter cam, 2 4 barrel carbs,dual exhaust, overdrive transmission. Officially timed at 2 way average speed of 149.7 MPH.

Enzo Ferrari faints.

1957-Two new engines announced for 1957. 389 cu in V12 used in senior models. Clipper V8 is now 289 cu in.348 continues in medium price models.


Ultimately, a Packard V12 with the same bore and stroke as a Studey 289 would have 434cu in and develop 375HP with no trouble. This would have taken Packard well into the 1960s or 70s.

Consider what might have been if Studebaker and Packard had merged a few years earlier than they did, before they dissipated their capital (especially Studebaker). Better management at Studebaker and intelligent use of their combined resources might have kept them both alive for many years.

Rusty, that has the be the most promising "what if" I've ever heard.

AL: I would just like to clear up a misconception on your part. When I stated that Nance was a LIAR I based it more than just one source, which is what you stated I did.

I think that I stated that I have read accounts of the possible merger from both sides . From reading all the accounts that I have, I have come to the conclusion
that Nance lied. The other thing is that I never had any intention of debating you on the matter. Just stated things as how I view them.

John F. Shireman

Just think what Packard could have done if they wouldn't have put the 17 million dollars they spent on buying a factory near Utica and the tooling cost to get into the production of jet engines.

One of the problems with Packard after the WWII they made the mistake of thinking they could be a defense contractor
and auto builder at the same time. The money spent on tooling costs and the other related costs of getting into defense work, should have been spent on R&D cost for the basic core business of Packard which was car production.

John F. Shireman

More daydreams-

Having covered the Packard engine situation in a previous post, I would like to discuss the powertrain program for the whole of American Motors.

The engines for all makes and models would be based on the Studebaker V8. Simply because it was available from 1951 on, and at the time we are talking about it was the newest engine they had available, and the only modern OHV V8.

Fortunately the Studebaker was an excellent engine, very durable and economical if heavy. More on this later.

I have already discussed the use of the Studebaker engine as the basis for a new Packard V12.

The V8 would be used unaltered by Packard Clipper, Nash, and of course Studebaker. Hudson would also use this engine possibly in a larger form. More on this too.

The first thing to do would be to adapt this engine to all lines.

The next would be to develop a new OHV six cylinder, based on V8 components.

The idea would be to use the existing pistons, valves, bearings, etc. in a new 6 cylinder block.

This would save a lot of development time, and of course the more identical parts you make the cheaper they get.

Chevrolet used this same trick when they brought out a new six in 1963. The whole engine was based on the 283 V8 and many parts interchanged.

Another popular trick is to make various sizes of engine simply by changing the crankshaft stroke. This makes it possible to offer a choice of power plants at negligible cost.

Chrysler's slant 6 was an extreme example, the 170 cu in compact engine and the 225 long stroke full size car engine had the same pistons but the stroke differed by a full inch.



Ringing the changes on the Studebaker engine would give us a range from 168 cu in 105HP to 217 cu in and 187HP.

This would be plenty to be getting on with, and right in line with the rest of the industry. In fact it would probably be necessary to tone down the horsepower a little.

Another thing that was common in the industry was developing a new engine based on an old one. For example, Oldsmobile made their first V8 from 1949 to 1956 gradually enlarging it from 303 to 324 cu in. Then they redesigned it to a 371 for 1957 and 58, and revamped it again to a 394 that lasted from 59 to 64.

All the car companies did this. It cost money to make a new block, heads etc but they kept the same machine tools which was the big savings.

The trick here is to keep the same dimensions such as bore spacing and the distance between the crankshaft and camshaft so you don't have to tear up all your tooling.

The Studebaker block always seemed to have a lot of "meat" between the cylinders. I believe it would have been possible to redesign and enlarge this engine, to 350 cu in at least and possibly larger, depending how much room there was for a long stroke crank before you hit the camshaft.

There was a real explosion in engine sizes in the late 50s. The above mentioned Olds, the Pontiac 389, the new big block engines from Ford, Chev and Dodge in 1958, the even bigger engines from Lincoln and Chrysler going over 400 cu in.

Studebaker would have been about due for a new engine by then. Something in the 350 to 400 cu in range would have been perfect for the Hudson and high performance Studebakers like the Golden Hawk.

So there is the American Motors engine lineup for the 50s.

Existing Studebaker V8 for all cars except Rambler American , Studebaker Champion (or Lark) and senior Packards.

New Studebaker based V12 for Packard

New Studebaker based 6 for American, Champion (or Lark) and base engine for Studebaker, Rambler, Nash and Hudson.

New big V8 eventually, also Studebaker based, for Studebaker Land Cruiser (or Strato Cruiser)and Golden Hawk, Packard Clipper, Hudson Hornet, and Nash Ambassador.

This would have been in line with industry trends of the time and would have given American Motors a very competitive lineup at minimal cost.

As for transmissions the company was in good shape, with the Packard Ultramatic and the Borg Warner 3 speed used by Studebaker and Nash anyway.Hudson preferred the GM Hydramatic but that could have been remedied.

Eventually, say by the late 50s or early 60s it would have been necessary to develop a new 3 speed Ultramatic to stay competitive.

Manual transmission could have been obtained from the usual suppliers.

Interesting concept & certainly had some thought behind it. Wonder if the Stude engine was as robust as envisioned though. Seem to recall reading that when developing the R series engines for Avanti and then Hawks etc, there was some limitations (aside from money) that they had to contend with. I believe Granatelli (or Paxton) made a few R5 engines which were bored out but the blocks had to be very carefully selected because there wasn't that much meat available.

Quote:

This is quite correct. 289 cu in was about the limit of the original block and head castings. Under Granatelli they bored it out to 304 cu in. This used up some of the cylinder thickness normally reserved for service and rebuilding overbores.

But this was all with the original 1951 casting patterns.

The first model had a 3 3/8 bore and 3 1/4 stroke for 232 cu in.

All subsequent models had the bore enlarged to 3 9/16 (1/16 larger) except the 304 at 3.6563 (5/32 larger).

Stroke ranged from 2 13/16 to 3 5/8.

Let's say this was the limit of the original castings. But what if they had redesigned the engine and made new casting patterns but kept the same machine tooling?

This would have allowed them to make an all new engine on the cheap. But how big could it have been?

The limitation on crankshaft stroke is the clearance between the camshaft and the connecting rods or crankshaft. I don't know how much room there was in this area but I'm going to assume the crank could be stroked to 3 7/8". This would be an increase of 1/4 which would only bring the rod 1/8" closer to the cam.

Deck height is another factor in stroke length. But this is easy to change when making new patterns.

I'm going to assume a 1/4" larger bore.

The Studebaker blocks I have seen had a lot of room between the cylinders so I believe this would have been reasonable.

What does this give us?

A 3 13/16 bore X 3 7/8 equals 353.89 cu in. If the bores could be taken out to an even 4 inches we would have a 389.55 displacement.

If this seems impossible remember the Chev V8 was taken from 265 to 283 to 327 to 350 to 400 without raising the deck height or changing major dimensions.

Plymouth's Polysphere V8 began life as a 277 then went to 303, 318, and finally 340 and 360 cu in. All this with only one major redesign in the early 60s when they went to wedge heads. The block was never changed except to reduce its weight and to fit the new heads.

Likewise the Ford 221-260-289-302-351-400. In this case the deck was raised for the 351 and 400.

With new block castings,would come new heads and manifolds . Larger valves ports and manifold passages would be required to go with the larger displacement.

This would also be a good time to slim down the very strong but heavy original design, by eliminating unnecessary iron in the light of the latest engineering developments.

I believe it would have been possible to make a new engine in the 350 to 400 cu in range without major investment in tooling (except new casting patterns) and that this engine would not have weighed any more than the old one, at a cost that would have been well within the means of a dynamic and profitable American Motors.