Packard Forum Index » Modification Discussion

I'm not sure whether those are crazy ideas or not. Some might have merit if done properly with much testing but having said that:

California forced the retrofit of PVC in cars in the early to mid 60s to early 70s timeframe. Some cars did OK, others had difficulty because they were not designed for or could not be compensated for the frequently richer mixture.

Another little device was forced on newer cars not originally sold in the Calif market to try and control NOx. If moving into state, you could not get a California registration without it. A device that messed with the timing & a large disaster for many cars. Lots were removed or disabled as soon as inspection was over until the officialdom figured that out and started more inspections with serious penalties for tampering.

I can just imagine how many cars would have met an early scrapyard if they had tried to force catalytic converters as well. Actually, I'm surprised they didn't so they could get rid of more "polluters". California wanted all cars to adhere to their standards which was considerably tighter than the other states at the time. If they couldn't block them at the border, they could make it so they died quickly or performed so poorly they were replaced sooner rather than later.

Having lived thru that with a new 70 Pontiac that I had bought in New Mexico just before moving back out here, I wouldn't wish those kind of crazy ideas on anyone.

I understand your frustration HH56. Those were poor applications of technology that, I have to admit, has done us a lot of good in the long haul. Eventually they worked the bugs out (at great cost to consumers and manufacturers) and things that decreased pollution could even help cars gain some mileage and longevity. Of course, it was the electronics that finally really saved the day.

The early history of "pollution controls" for cars is a checkered one to say the least. If I recall correctly, it really helped out the Japanese imports, which (I think) were exempt from some of the CA standards, and also did a lot of tinkering with the add-on style stuff you mentioned and seemed to get that right sometimes. And they started out with lighter cars and smaller engines, so losses in mileage and performance may not have been so noticeable. If a car that could have gotten 30 mpg got 25 because of the pollution equipment and tuning, it was still perceived as very economical. But the difference in performance and economy was much more noticeable between the American cars from the 60s that we were used to and the new ones in the 70's, which which discouraged and angered a lot of buyers. That's how I see it anyway (but wadda I know?)

Quote:

Here in the land of the Crazy Ideas thread, we frown on such particulars.

A bit more seriously, the PVC conversion has successfully been done on draft tube equipped cars, and there are even some (shudder) instructions over on the P15 D24 (late 40's Plymouth/Dodge models) website.

As mods go, the PCV was not too big a deal for most. A few of the cars did run rich and changed air filters more frequently. There were some aftermarket kits available which made the job fairly easy though. Fortunately, that is one thing already on the car.

My issue was with the NOx device. My 70 Grand Prix did not like it. A car that ran beautifully in the 4 months before it was installed ran hot, knocked and barely had power to pull some of the San Francisco hills afterwards. Didn't even calculate any mileage changes.

Anyway, put up with that for about a year before I started a job which provided a company car. Only had room for one car so transferred the Pontiac to my aunt who lived in a less controlled air district. Since it was already CA registered then, we were able have the thing removed and re registered without it. She drove & had the car at her place another 14 years & it ran beautifully without that little crap module.

I don't remember how much of a pass the Japanese cars got. I know there were issues with some and those models usually had trouble passing the more stringent checks down here in the valley. They did get some kind of a waiver though because there was a limit on how much an owner was obligated to spend trying to make it pass before it was "grandfathered" for a length of time. Of course, that was only if the car had not been tampered with. If any of the controls were missing or disabled, sky was the limit on fixing back to stock and trying to make it pass again or else it didn't get re registered period.

HH56,

Not sure what the NOx device was. Was that the "air pump?"

As I recall, in the late 60's when they tackled hydrocarbons with leaner mixtures, PVC systems and stuff, it all worked pretty well, but when it came NOx ("oxides of nitrogen" was the term, I think) all hell broke loose. The worst though was the EGR stuff (Exhaust Gas Recirculation). Those stupid tubes running from exhaust pipe or manifolds straight back into the cylinders via HOLES drilled in the side of the heads. Most of them were scrapped and the holes plugged with bolts about a week after the cars were purchased. Many just could not possibly be driven. This was especially true in the 80's horror-cars. Then they got the EGR system with the valve that let exhaust gases into the intake manifold. Awful stumble with most of these when you stepped on the gas because it closed the valve and leaned out the mixture. Remember the "Reg-Right" that you could put in the vacuum line on the EGR valve? I got one for my '84 V8 Capri and man did that make a difference.

I had ONE of those EGR tube into the block cars that actually worked. My '89 Camaro IROC with the 350 had very good manners and no driveability problems at all. It was probably one of the last cars to have those tubes, and I guess with all the computer stuff and fuel injection they could make it work. The biggest hassle (has been for a long time) was the O2 sensor continually triggering the "check engine" light.

Actually, I think this discussion is on topic, since this IS the "crazy idea" thread and some of that stuff fits the category, even though engineered by the manufacturers.

In fact, more comments on factory "crazy ideas" that we amateurs could hardly hope to match would be cool to hear. Not styling so much, but mechanical foibles a f-ups from Detroit.

It wasn't an air pump but was for the nitrogen oxides. Don't remember all the details but the main piece was a small module a few inches square that had a second vacuum connection as well as having the existing vacuum advance connection go thru it. Also had an electrical connection. All I remember is it changed the timing with the results mentioned. Once it was taken off and car was back to normal.

No EGR on that car that I remember although I did have a Mazda pickup and the blasted valve would stick partially open causing it to run like crap with the check engine light on.

on the original topic i would think if one were to diesel a packard (which seems like it would negate the purpose of owning a packard) one would want to do it in such a manner that it was snuck in and if you never popped the hood, no one would know. I have owned and driven near every diesel out there and the only one that would seem like it was even a candidate would be the duramax as it is whisper quiet to start with and i think one could quiet it further by going with larger pipe but extra mufflers in succession. I did this by accident when i put 5" turbo back on the shop truck and had to modify things because the truck is lowered 6 inches. I put an extra 5" muffler on it to get out past the dually fender because i ran out of pipe and the truck shop was closed. i started up waiting to hear the rumble and power of 22 feet of five inch stainless steel pipe and it was quieter than stock. I think if one was to play with this phenomenon and add a dual walled insulated downpipe like the 12 you could get it to the point where you could stand next to it and not know it was running. That is personally how I would do it if someone showed up at my shop asking for a diesel conversion on their packard and I couldn't talk them out of it. Or of course if we lived in a fantasy world where pre war senior packards were as plentiful as volkswagon bugs. I have been guilty of thinking in the back of my head how it might be neat to attempt a convincing period correct turbo twelve that would pas as a factory option. I have a thing for early turbo and supercharger cars and the packard twelves manifold set up almost looks as if though they were planning a blow through turbo set up. Plus the turbo would make it even quieter.

The thought of lowslung senior prewar fenderless landspeed saltflat style racer powered by a 1500hp packard pt-boat supercharged twelve built from all period correct parts has also crossed the drawingboard in the back of my head.

like this one from PT-boats site

"Despite the commonplace assumption, the new-generation Packard marine engine, initially tagged the 4M-2500, was anything but a re-popped Liberty. Instead, Vincent, Packards lead engineer, started with a clean sheet and designed a four-stroke, 60-degree V-12 with an aluminum block with a bore of 6.04 inches and a 6.50-inch stroke, which brought it to 2,490 cubic inches. Weighing 2,900 pounds, the 4M-2500 had four valves per cylinder, a 6.4:1 compression ratio, and a centrifugal supercharger, later models were also fitted with an intercooler. A Holley 1685F aircraft carburetor supplied the fuel, 100-octane gasoline, fired by two spark plugs per cylinder. The first engines developed 1,200hp, but improved versions with higher boost levels nominally made 1,500hp. Packard built 14,000 marine engines during the war, three of which went into each of the Navy's 768 PT boats, two astern and one amidships for better service access. "

I would imagine it would be well into the passanger compartment to get it behind the rad. But all packard.

Attach file:

---

  (13.89 KB)


  (6.41 KB)

Very neat idea, foxhole. In fact all these years of stuffing V12 Merlin and Packard built/modified Merlin engines in cars may have been off the mark. Aviation engines are very purpose-built, with the holy grail being HP per pound for obvious reasons.

Marine engines, on the other hand, can be a bit heavier per HP without a great deal of concern-- they're basically ballast. Also, they're meant to operate at sea level, not 20,000 feet, and they don't need carbs that can deliver fuel upside down.

And also, of course, as you point out, this would be an all-Packard engine with a storied history.

I think the biggest single difference in big inboard 4-stroke marine engines vs auomotive applications is the cam. They are set up for as much efficiency as possible at constant-throttle cruising RPM, plus some of these engines drove Righthand props, so they were reverse-rotation, also naturally requiring different cam for correct valve timing.

Keep tinkering in the back of your brain, especially about problem #1-- where to get one of those things? If you could acquire an engine, the challenge would be to build a car around it.

The aero Packard V12 automobile has been a favorite pipe dream for me for many, many years, and now I suppose it will be joined with the marine dream.

Quote:

The other thing that torqued me off about the fight against NOx was that it was achieved by methods that were completely counter to efficiency and power. One was to knock down compression ratio, and the other was to "mess with the timing" as you say. Your reference to the vacuum "advance" reminds me of the dual vacuum hoses connected to the diaphragm on my '73 Opel Manta. The second hose was for vacuum spark "retard"! The advance hose, much smaller, had to pull against this other one, which, needless to say, was most frequently disconnected and plugged.

I don't know much about the air pump, but I do believe it was a way to lower emissions without too much loss of mileage or performance. Its main detriment to the engine was, I think, parasitic drag. Otherwise, I believe it just pumped air into the exhaust to help burn off excess hydrocarbons.

So, crazy factory idea, in general, was to lower emissions at the cost of efficiency and power. So my question always was, "What was the net gain of ppm of pollutants if a car was using 1/3 more gas to travel the same distance, and burning that much more fuel?" If, for instance, the drop in emissions was 1/3 lower per gallon of fuel, it would be a wash-- except for the oil companies, where it would be a definite gain! And yet, no one ever seemed to have those numbers.

Quote:

Would that be a wet dream then 55? LOL

Oxides of nitrogen and carbon-monoxide don't break down easily or quickly in the atmosphere. Carbon-dioxide does. These mods to the cars might have killed efficiencies, but the output of the exhaust was much better for the earth.

Through new grades of metals, types of platings or coatings a long with better combustion control(computers), the automotive industry has made great gains in efficiency while still controlling dangerous emissions.