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

John's books have helped him (and us, thanks to his contributions) learn a lot about classic-era Packards.

He is right about the ADVERTISED power of '38 Packard V-12's and Cadillac V-16's. The Packard V-12 ( 1935 - 1939 motors were the same) was "advertised" at 175 ( 180 with the HC heads ) and the Cad. V-16 was a trace more.

(Well, I take that back - the '35 - '39 Packard V-12 engine block casting had a couple of changes for the oil filler location, but no changes related to power output).

I do not know how many '35 - '39 Packard V-12's & '38 - '40 Cad. V-16's John has driven, nor the condition they were in.

My suspicion is this is another example of John focusing too much on my particular car, which is unfortunate. My "hunch" is many people in this forum do not own or drive "Senior" Packards from the classic era, never will, and for some goofy reason, actually resent those who do.

John - be assured the Packard V-12 was a faster, "guttier" car than the Cad. V-16. Not by a MAJOR amount, but noticeable.

The technical reasons have been discussed elsewhere in detail. To summarize, the '35 - '39 Packard V-12 had a longer stroke than the '38-'40 Cad V-16. Generally speaking, all other things being equal, a longer stroke provides more REAL wheel-twisting power at the lower rpms the "classics" were typically driven at. Adding stroke to get more power is STILL used in the hot-rod hobby. For example, my boat had a "mouse" (Chevrolet GMC) 350 cu. in. motor. I bought a "stroker" kit for my "mouse", now it has just under 400 cu. in. WOW...what a difference - boat just about JUMPS out of the water when I goose it.

If you look at an engineering cross-section of the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16, you will see what has been described as two "flat head" Pontiacs sitting on a common crank-shaft. Just cant "breathe" like the Packard V-12 was designed to do. My Cad. V-16 was a damn good car. Damn good engine. Not MUCH slower than a Packard V-12, but the difference IS noticeable. Incidentally, my recollection is the Cad V-16 was priced to a higher dollar market than the Packard V-12 was. So this is just another example of how Packards were an honest buy for the dollar, typically more than equal to not only competitor's cars in ITS price class, but often equal to or even better in SOME ways to more expensive products.

But "all things arent equal" when comparing a cross section of the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16 with a '35 - '39 Packard V-12. The Packard design is MUCH more technically sophisticated in terms of combustion chamber design, & intake and exhaust gas flow. End result is a more powerful engine.

So - John - dont be overly impressed, either by what you read in some of those fancy books, nor what Detroit would blabber about horsepower.

Let me give you another example about power exaggeration, and why you shouldnt get overly excited about what people CLAIM. Some years ago, I had a friend who had a hot rod tune up shop, with a full dyno. We stuck a then new factory hot-rod (A Plymouth with a Walter Lanz comic character on it) on the dyno. I cant recall what the "advertised" horsepower was - was at least 275, probably more. Just dont remember. But it was around TWICE what Packard advertised for the Packard V-12.

Then we ran my Packard V-12 on the dyno. Again, bone stock.

What we found, was that the rear wheel "axle shaft" horsepower of the Plymouth was around 128. The Packard V-12? 126 !

As I noted elsewhere, there is a reason for the Packard legend, the loyalty of its customers, and why we are still loyal to them today. In 1938 Packard sold something like 8 Packard V-12's for every Cad. V-16 sold. ONE of the reasons may well have been when a perspective new car buyer took the two cars out on the road and put their foot into it!

No, John, I dont have access to any books that say which one is faster. But I did own and operate both cars. The Cad V-16 is long gone - heard it just came up on auction back east somewhere for around a quarter million dollars! Wish I could have kept it - swell car - was MINT MINT MINT when I last saw it some FIFTY years ago.

CLIPPER47&Peter: Over my years on this earth I have had the privalge to talk to people a hell of a lot older than Peter, that are now dead.

Seems what I heard from them is a very much different than what Peter likes to portray things.

Tonight I fill you in on conversation I had with a person concerning, the perforemance difference of the V12 Packards and the super eights of the early 30's.

Highly different than Peter's accounts of things.

I don't base everything on what I read in books, alot of it has to do with the contact with persons that were more than back mechanics during the 30's and 40's.

John F. Shireman

John, Don't be so touchy! I learn a lot from you two and if you keep it civil it can be entertaining as well.

John (or anyone else in these forums) should not be critisized for being "touchy" about the subject of "Senior" classic era Packards. Lots of people, from many different eras, and from many different view-points, resented, even HATED the big "Senior" Packards of the classic era.

For a background on how universal the hatred was, of the "Senior" classic-era Packards, see if you can find a copy of a FORTUNE MAGAZINE issue - think it was around middle of 1937. Extensive multi-page article with great photos, summarizing the change of direction Packard took when it decided to abandon the "super car" market, and concentrate on ordinary "middle class" cars like the "120". The article covers both the technical aspects of Packard manufacturing techniques, the economics, and the policies of the PMCC. Wish I'd kept a copy. Maybe John or someone else in here has one and can add it to Kev's library?

As a side note, that decision to add a low-medium price line saved Packard, but that's a whole different story.

What I am getting at, is that in that article, one of the new high-ranking members of the then new Packard management, upon being taken thru the various plants at Packard, and seeing how much different the construction, engineering, and quality of the Senior Packards were at the entirely separate "Senior Division" plant, was quoted as saying

"THAT GODDAMN SENIOR STUFF"

and then went on to issue orders that "gutted" that facility, so that Packard would never again have the facilities to produce a "super car" line, ( thus abandoning the very profitable high priced line to Cadillac).

Most people agree that Packard might still be with us had it kept BOTH its middle class line, AND its Super Car line, AND kept up its famous quality (Note that Damiler-Benz came out of World War Two with much worse a situation than Packard - also sold a lot of taxi-cabs, but kept its quality up. Damiler-Benz's famous Mercedes line of cars made a FORTUNE selling VERY expensive super-luxury cars. Still does. But that also, is another story.

Point is, dont pick on John and some of these guys for resenting Packard products from the glory years, and the people who keep them out before the public.

Actually, the more he focuses on picking on me and my Packard V-12, the more excuse I have to discuss the REAL technical issues that made Packard such a legend! And the later changes in corporate policy that led to its downfall.

Lots to learn here - so by all means let's encourage John to communicate in any way he deems fit. I can handle it. And I have learned a lot from John's excellent reference sources.

Peter: I have never viewed the article you site in Fortune
Magazine. Just wondering out loud how qualified the people or persons were that wrote the story. So being that you weren't actually there you can't be sure the information in the story was correct.

As far as any comments on the latter part of your last post it deserves none.

John F. Shireman

Hope you won't mind an on-topic quip:

One thing about Rolls Royce that is not a myth is that at one time they advertised the horsepower of their engines as "adequate."

As for the performance arguments, none of them are ever settled on paper... they're settled at the track. Even then, there's always another night at the track and a little extra edge for an engine that, say, likes to run in cooler ambient temperatures.

So, you can argue forever. But I agree that what comes out of the arguments is pretty entertaining and enlightening--if it doesn't get personal, sarcastic, or nasty. Pithy is fine.

BTW, here's something you can't argue with:

The Road Runner was a Warner Brothers cartoon character.

Walter Lanz did Woody Woodpecker.

So waddaya got to say to that, huh? Am I right or am I right?

regarding the dyno test where we "ran" a then new Plymouth "factory hot rod" and then my Packard V-12, to see what REAL horsepower they had at the rear wheels.

Sorry - cant answer your question. Too many years ago. The h.p. figures that came off the dyno readings, I do remember. The Plymouth - cant remember. Just that it had SOME kind of cartoon character on it to differentiate it from the "mamma and pappa" cars.

Bottom line - as John notes, keep a raised eyebrow on what you read.

That extensive 1937 FORTUNE MAGAZINE article about Packard and its change of corporate direction ? John is right. Of course I wasnt there. Maybe the reporter from FORTUNE made up all that stuff, faked the photos & all the quotes just to make John mad?

Maybe the new Packard management LOVED the idea of continuing its traditions and reputation for ever higher quality cars. Maybe Packards got better and better until finally, in 1955, the reason people rejected Packard is 'cause they didn't want a good car, so they bought junky sluggish Cadillacs and Chryslers instead, to teach Packard a lesson.

You never know.

But John may know? He may have tried that experiment I suggested to him, as to why there are no more Packards ? Maybe he took his '53 Packard out to run against some guy with a '53 Cadillac, Buick, Olds, or Chrysler, and "went off" against them at a stop-light?

John may know? Maybe he bent down and looked underneath each competing car's front end, and saw how big and rugged and well-braced the '53 Packard's bumper and frame bracing was, and how fragile and delicate those crummy '53 GM cars were..?

Maybe he has gone over rough roads and saw how that high quality well-braced hood on the '50's Packards resisted "shake" and flexing, and how crummy those '53 GM cars were with that silly bracing that reduced the phone of watching "hood flutter".

You never know...!

(anyone want to stop by and help me get one of those 150 LB. wheels off my Packard V-12....time to inspect my brakes...)

(anyone have for sale a LEGIT 'PACKARD DATA BOOK' for my V-12 ? My copy is apparently a phony, at least according to that article from PACKARD COMORANT I discussed above - because it shows the fantastic Packard "fresh air" factory heating system (damn..wish the guy who ordered my car new had ordered that..!) (oh, forget, read somewhere Packard didnt install accessories at the factory)

Seriously, folks, that 1937 FORTUNE MAGAZINE article looked "legit" to me; strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Packard history. I do not recall Packard (whose legal dept. had a "hair trigger" for filing law-suits if they felt the product was being insulted) going after FORTUNE. In fact, they continued to pay LARGE amounts to FORTUNE to advertise the Packard product.

To me, how you build up a company, or even a country, and how you destroy it, is a fascinating study in human behavior. "Out-sourcing", taking cash out that COULD have been used for product development and quality, and using it for executive salaries, fancy financing deals...yes, Packard was a pioneer on its way up, and on its way down.

WIth Rolls Royce, the story was a bit different. Rolls made fantastic cars in the 1920's. They continued to make fantastic 1920's cars in the 1930's. The Phantom III (late 30's was a great car, but the trouble was, technology made it possible to get almost as nice a driving experience in a much less expensive car. The war finished off the Phantom III.

By the late 1940's, Rolls Royce was still making fantastic 1920's cars ! Whereas my 1928 Rolls Phantom was probably the fastest, if not one of the fastest production cars you could buy in that era, by the early 1950's, Rolls was amongst the slowest.

Well, not sure about that - maybe a 1950-54 Packard with Ultra-matic might beat it in "which is the slowest slug" race?

Which leads me back to my own personal belief - we have the Packard legend, and we STILL have people who are fascinated by Packard products, because of their "golden years" determination to give an honest product for an honest dollar. But once you start fooling the public, as Packard's old advertisement about "REPUTATION" warns, you commit corporate suicide.

What an irony - the company that built the aircraft engines the Germans used to try and destroy Rolls Royce...NOW OWNS R.R. AND MAKES ITS PARTS !

Here is what is undoubtedly one of the ugliest Rolls-Royces ever built, a body by Vignale from 1954. This car was purchased by a big NY banker and had a rather interesting feature: a toilet built into the back seat. One would lift the seat cushion on the rear driver seat and there was a black plastic toilet seat lid. Lift that and there was a stainless steel "funnel" mounted beneath the seat that directed the "product" to the road below.

Oh, and there was a brake cable that ran directly under the "output" of the funnel.


Eeeeewwww!

Attach file:

---

  (40.92 KB)

Quote:
So that's where some of the long distance truckers in Canada got the idea. The Trans Canada highway is littered with 2 liter pop bottle full of urine tossed out by the drivers but some have even resorted to cutting holes in the floor to defecate from as well.There are sometimes as many as 4 drivers in each of the sleeper cabs so the truck never stops except for fuel.

Remind me never to travel the Trans-Canadian highway in a convertible with the top down!