Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

Anyone who has owned a 1948 Super Eight Convertible, (not the Custom) can you tell me what the ride was like? Did it have much less comfort than the Custom model?

Chrysler corporation did wind tunnel tests for sure. The fins definitely aided stability at high speeds, like the feathers on an arrow or the tail fin on an airplane.

Andy Granatelli did a lot of racing in Chrysler products. He confirmed that the 1961 Chrysler was a lot steadier at high speed ( which could mean 140 - 200 MPH to him) compared to the 1962 Chrysler. They were practically identical except the 1962 was shorn of tailfins.

Other cars, not so much. It was rumored that the horizontal fins on the 1959 Chev actually hurt stability, by creating lift like an airplane wing but this was a myth.

The stabilizing effect came from vertical fins the higher and farther back the better.

You might also look at some English racing cars of the fifties like the Lotus 11 and Vanwall. They used fins for their practical advantages even though they had nothing but contempt for American styling.

Rusty, I owned a 1960 Desoto Adventurer with the big fins and a 1962 Chrysler New Yorker in the 1960's. I never had either car much over 80MPH on the 401 so can't say if the fins helped or not.

How does Packard compare with other classics of years 1948 to 1950's regarding MPG. Which ones were the thirsty beasts ?

The only one that bragged about their gas mileage at that time was Cadillac. The 1949 thru early fifties models with OHV 331 cu in engine were supposed to be good for 20 mpg or better, on a long hiway trip at a steady 50 to 60 MPH. This was better than most low priced cars at the time.

Earlier flathead Cad, Lincoln, Chrysler, Buick and Packards more like 15 MPG. Buick straight eight with Dynaflow transmission were probably the worst, and could easily dip to the single digits in traffic. Lincoln flathead V8 with overdrive, or OHV V8 with Hydramatic were pretty good.

In the early fifties Packard put a lot of effort into improving gas mileage but I don't think they ever were as good as Cadillac. But they were better than Buick. Buicks were the worst gas hogs, in fact General Motors cars usually got less mileage than competitive makes except for Cadillac.

From the late fifties on, 15 MPG was again the norm in spite of more efficient OHV engines. Increased power, heavier bodies, and many power sapping accessories like automatic trans, air conditioning, power steering were he cause.

If I recall correctly, Granatelli was talking about speed records on Daytona Beach. The wet sand surface was not the best for racing. It had a lot of drag, not much grip, and could be uneven and rippled. It took a lot of nerve and a delicate touch to keep a car on an even keel while running at 100MPH+. More so than on a paved road or track. I think 1962 was about the last year beach racing was allowed.

Or, maybe it was the Bonneville Salt Flats. I do know his point was, the tailfinned models were steadier under bad conditions of wind or iffy traction.

No need to speculate for 1955 as we have hard data. Here's the data for gas mileage at various speeds as recorded by Motor Trend in their testing of the 1955 cars. The braking distance data is also interesting to review. Comparative data for other years can also be found in the Motor Trend annual summaries.

All the vehicles were automatic transmission except the Chevrolet 210 6, Nash Rambler Custom and Studebaker Champion, all of which had stick & OD.

Attach file:

---

  (115.37 KB)

I have some small experiences with Packard gas mileage. My 1950 Deluxe Touring Sedan with Ultramatic get about 10 mpg in freeway driving. I have not tried to rebuild or adjust the carburetor.
As a teenager in the 50s I went to a high school prom in a late 50s Packard. It was an elegant ride but the owner was a bit ashamed at its 7 mpg. This is real world and not tuned for gas mileage.

Sounds like a couple of Packards begging for a thorough tune-up! With mileage like that, you could be driving a Twelve.

Fred

How fast are you driving? The OD setup gets about 20 mpg at 50 and 13-14 at 65 +. I'm thinking 15-16 for you at 55. Is your transmission going into direct drive?



Regards


John Harley