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

A picture is, as they say, worth a thousand words so perhaps the attached section of a PMCCo engineering drawing will help you visualize the combustion chamber/valve layout of the Packard Twelve of 1932-39. These blueprints are dated 1936 but other than the changes for 1935 in displacement and from babbit to insert bearings, the engine remained pretty much the same through its entire production run.

There are usually many reasons behind decisions. Some of the reasons for the introduction of the first V12 were prestige, a smoother and better powerplant, but certainly one consideration was that it was cheaper to manufacture than the prior "Dominant Eight" or "48". Likewise at the end of the early V12, the Single Eight was introduced, again in part because it was as smooth and powerful but also because it was cheaper to manufacture than the Twin Six. But the Twelve of 1932 became what it was primarily because of competitive pressures from the Cadillac V16/V12 pair.

Attach file:

---

  (256.36 KB)

John:

First and foremost, please PLEASE be assured I value your contributions from your apparently excellent and vast research sources. But, as usual, you let your enthusiasm get the best of you. You keep forgetting that there is a little teeny weenie itty bitty difference between us. I owned, drove, worked on and became familiar, in a 'hands on' basis, with most of the big engined classics. And, of course Packards of just about all descriptions, when I worked in a garage in the 1950's, and you didnt.

That dosnt make me any smarter than you - I just thru no clever-ness of my own, happen to have born into a time and era where I got more REAL info. on SOME of this stuff than you do.

Let me get you straightened out.

First of all, Packard's famous reputation for quality DID NOT CONTINUE as you claim "even thru the 50's and to the end". Wrong wrong wrong.

By late '54, their ever more horrid post-war build quality had become an industry bad joke. All the fancy claims and advertising in the world, that came to help sell the '55's, couldn't stop customers from rejecting Packard products when it turned out they were being shoved out of the factory doors as "do it yourself" kits. THAT is what killed Packard, plain and simple. All you have to do is look at the sales figures, to see how much the car buying public WISHED that Packard's claims were true. The '55's sold like hot-cakes for the first few months. Then, the "down-side" of that famous Packard advertisement about the "duties of reputation" caught up with them, and that was the end. Sales went thru the floor, and you couldn't give them away.

The Germans came out of the 2nd World War with labor, production, supply, and plant facilities issues that made Packard's problems look like kid stuff. And they, too, put out a lot of lower priced cars, even taxi cabs. But unlike Packard, they were DETERMINED to keep up their quality image, so buying THEIR products after the war didnt leave a bad taste in the consumer's mouth - insead, a desire to buy more.

Bottom line - what killed Packard was its management, setting a model for the kind of business practice that is now killing American industry.

Very simply - "screw the consumer - get the product out the door as cheaply as possible, and use whatever money you get in from the sales, to inflate management salaries".

Did you ever follow my suggestion and take a good look underneath the front-end of a '53 Cad., Buick Roadmaster, or Olds 98, and compare its strength and quality, with your '53 Packard ?

Did you ever try and "go off" at a stop-light with that '53 Packard, against one of the above ? THAT is what killed Packard, and all the fancy attempts at complex issues wont disguse that simple fact that Packard went out of its way to go down-hill.

A '52 Cadillac is a better, faster, nicer driving, more comfortable car that a '42 Cadillac. A '52 Packard "400/Patrician" is a slower, poorer quality, nastier driving hood fluttering piece of junk compared to a '42 Packard "180". THAT was only part of the problem, but when you combine an inferior performing product with bad built quality, you go out of business. It is that simple.

Going back to the thirites - you are totally wrong about the ACD Company. You ever actually owned an Aburn, Cord, or Duesenburg ? Much less worked on or even driven them ?

True, the Duesenburgs had good build-quality. But the others. Yuch. I know that Packard sold ten of its V-12's for every Cad. V-16, but I dont know how many HUNDREDS of Packard V-12's were sold (probably closer to THOUSANDS) for every Marmon V-16 or Duesenburg.

The front-wheel drive Cords had TERRIBLE reliability issues, scaring off the public. The Aburn build quality was not the best.

I dont know where you got your info. about Marmon complete car weights. I do know that most of the Marmon V-16's I have seen had ALUMINUM bodies, which resulted in a significantly lighter car, body design for body design, than, for example, my own '38 Packard V-12 Formal Sedan.

As for Duesenburg power, modern dyno tests show it was VASTLY over-rated, and the Packard V-12 UNDER-rated.

All other things being equal, torque is almost a direct linear function of compression. Both had about the same compression. Because the Packard V-12 was "cammed" and set up to deliver max. power in the lower rpm ranges where most of its buyers would operate it, of course the MUCH more expensive Duesenburg motor was better suited to extreme speed operation, at least as far as valve and combustion chamber design goes.

I doubt if any present Duesenburg owner is going to go racing me these days, with those things worth nearly a million bucks, and fewer and fewer people capable of maintaining them properly. But it dosnt matter - the cars were not competitive. WAY different markets and price class. And dont try and tell me the manufacturer didnt WANT to sell cars. C'mon..man.

Incidentally, most closed Duesenburgs had VERY heavy HIGHEST quality bodies, which meant they had to be crippled with absurdly "low" final drive ratios to give decent performance.

Yes, I was beaten badly in a "flying mile" race by a late J Dusie, but a very high geared rear end. I never did a "flying mile" with a stock-geared closed Duesenburg - my suspicion is I had "no takers" because they knew they couldn't beat a high geared Packard V-12.

Where did you get the idea that ANY Packard V-12 from the 1930's would weigh only 4,950 lbs ? The lighest 2 door coupe, if I recall correctly, weighed in at around 5,400 lbs. Perhaps you got your reading sources confused ? My recollection is that we weighed my friend's Marmon V-16 couple that I raced, and it came in at around 4,600 lbs.

I'm not taking issue with anything else you said, but I think you overstate the case a bit for the postwar build quality. I'd say, having owned both, that the postwar Custom 8 of the 22nd/23rd series had build quality just as good as the prewar 180. Now they weren't the same car by any means, but the attention to detail in the assembly was pretty damn impeccable.

Owen;
I concur with your evaluation of the 22nd and 23rd series cars, especially the Customs. While I currently only own 3 of these cars I have compared and owned other makes of the time period to include Buick, Hudson, and Cadillac. I found my 22nd series Packards to be the equal and superior to them.

I have not had the pleasure of owning or working on any Dusenburgs or Auburns. I have had some experience with Cord. Let's just say, I was not impressed. I now only own Packards, a 1916 Model T and a 1949 Studebaker Pickup.

Yes - I agree - we owned several Packard from that era. But bear in mind they were still "pre-war" in design, execution, and to some extent, material. As I noted elsewhere, I was particularly fond of our '47 Super Clipper which, with the pre-war "356" engine, transmission, and overdrive, would eat anything I came across, for breakfast.

I dont know how you'd research it, but the auto industry news of the early-mid 50's had a ball with the famous incident at an auto show. A Packard executive had to KICK his way out of the back of a new Packard, in front of the news media, because the door fit was so miserable it wouldn't open when he tried to climb back out after a "photo op". By '51, the cars would break axles if you sneezed near them ( I dont now recall where Packard bought its axles). The gross inadequacy of that miserable "Ultramatic" transmission has been beaten to death elsewhere in this and other forums.

I can drive my pre-war Packard over the dismal conditions of the sorry excuses for cow-trails we call roads here in northern Arizona at any speed, without rattle or hood/body "flutter". Compare that with what happens when you hit a road imperfection with a 1951 or later Packard. The later hood stampings had NO bracing whatsoever.

Compare that "fluttery" feeling of the '51 and later, with the solid feel of a General Motors luxury car of the that era.

I once severly lacerated my hand because I got careless, and rested it between the back of the front door and the body of my '51 convertible - that's how bad those weak bodies would flex and flutter on anything but a smooth road surface. General Motors convertibles, by the 50's, had a nice tight draft-fee snug convertible top design. Packard was still using the old-style snaps to fasten the back quarter of the convertible top. Forget to un-hook them when lowering the top, and you'd often tear your top's fabric. If you rememberd to snap em after raising the top, you still had drafts unknown in the GMC products.

Keep in mind that after 1930's, Packard had pretty well abandoned the actual manufacture of autombiles, being essentially an assembler of parts designed and produced by others.

Of course Packard, even before WW II, like other manufacturers, purchased starters, generators, carbs., interior fittings, brakes, wheels, in fact, even entire chassis frames from outside suppliers. I believe it was for the 1940 model year that Packard bodies were no longer built by Packard.

So there wasnt much left for Packard management to screw up. But a combination of management greed and incompetent..well, they sure found a way to do that !

By '51, the cars would break axles if you sneezed ,

Of course the problems with the 56 axles (made by Dana) are well-known and unforgiveable. But earlier Packards with axle problems? Never heard of any chronic problem with them. I've driven and been around all manner of Packards for nearly 50 years and the only axle failure I'm personally aware of was my 34 Eight.

Looking through the 51-54 STB's and SC's and I never really saw a trend to there being significant problems with the 51-54 series cars. The motor design was pretty much the same as it was for the previous 10+ years. Of course there were early issues with the Ultramatics, but by 1954 they were pretty well seasoned (except for the GearStart).

IMHO think one of the things that hurt Packard was how long it tool Packard to come out with a V8 compared to it's competitors. If you looks at the Salesmen Databooks from 1946-1954 that still made reference to V8 engines as being "to complex". Thats eight years beating the same drum. Packard was laggin style wise and by 1954 the Rheinhart body style was now in it's forth year, and it was showing competitively, and hence the changes to the Rheinhart body style in the 55 series.

Also think that the move to Conner, and the fact that Packard had to rapidly start making their own bodies again in '55 really upset the applecart, and caused the build problems that were evident in the early 55 series cars. Also the first year of any new redesign is going to have it's bugs and adjustments. So look at everything that was happening at Packard for the 55 model run in the last quarter of '54:


-Move to the Conner Plant
-Updated Body Style
-Bodies now produced again by Packard not Briggs
-First year for the new V8 after 20+ years of Straight Eights
-First year for the Twin-Ultramatic
-Still in the process of dealing with the Studebaker merger/purchase
-Economy was in a downturn between '54-57

But again...all this is just my

Peter: Marmon V16 weight for 1931 through 1933.

1931 V16 145 inch wheelbase

coupe 2 door 4 passenger 5090 lbs
sedan close coupled 4 door 5335 lbs
sedan 4 door 5200 lbs
sedan 7 passenger 5400 lbs

1932 V16 145 inch wheelbase

coupe 2 door 4 passenger 5090 lbs
sedan close couple 4 door 5335 lbs
sedan 4 door 5360 lbs
sedan 7 passenger 5440 lbs

1933 V16 145 inch wheelbase

coupe 4 passenger 5090 lbs
sedan 4 door 5360 lbs
convertible sendan 5 passenger 5285 lbs
sedan 7 passenger 5440 lbs

John F. Shireman

With cars of the early 50's era I was most impressed with the products from Chrysler. My first car was a 1952 Windsor and it was as close to my '47 Packard in build quality and reliability as any other car I owned from this period including a 1947 Cadillac 75 Limo which I bought with a "broken axle".

Peter: I made a mistake on the weight of the lightest Packard produced during the 30's. The lightest Packard V12 produced was in 1933.

1005 Twelve wheelbase 142 inches
631 body style 5 passenger Phaeton
Weight 5,095 lbs.

Sorry I was off by 145 lbs. During the 30's there were several Packard V12's built that came in under the 5400 lbs you quoted as being the lightest Packard V12.

John F. Shireman