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

Peter: To close this conversation between us. Some owners
of the so called Senior Packards have no problem trying to compair thier cars with the likes of Rolls Royce.

RR in the 20's and 30's certainly cost more than senior Packards did of the day. Just because something like a Rolls Royce of that time costs more than a Packard doesn't make it a better car.

My intention was to give my personal thoughts about a rare experience that most persons will never have the chance to do.

You may think the comparison isn't fair, but I stand by my statement and my views.


John F. Shireman

Please, John, be assured I appreciate your passion for Packard !

And also be assured I am not picking on you personally when I poke a little fun at those who read and write books about events and products that were out of service long before they were born, having little or know personal "hands-on" experience as to what they are talking or writing about.

Of course we both know people who own Packards of various types, who are so passionate about them, they talk themselves into all kinds of nonsence. All the desire to WISH something to be fact, wont change fantasy into fact.

Let me give you one example of how far off you are. Packard, Cadillac, Lincoln products of the early and mid twenties were good, quality cars, providing exellant performance, vastly superior to the ordinary cars of their day. They had engine displacements of about 380 cu. in., all "flat-heads' of very simple unsophisticated design.

My '28 Rolls Phantom had almost ONE HUNDRED CUBIC INCHES MORE engine displacement. And it had a much more modern engine - free breathing induction system, over-head valves, and a much higher final drive ratio. Of course you could buy four (actually a bit more) American luxury cars of the 20's, for the price of my Rolls Phantom.

To say that a $3,500. Packard or Lincoln or Cadillac of that era is any match for a $15,000 Rolls Phantom, simply shows your passion has gotten the best of real world facts and real world knowledge.

Be assured the Rolls is SO much faster - will out-drag, out flying mile, AND provide a MUCH smother ride and more enjoyable driving experience than you could get from the much cheaper cars. EVERYTHING about the much more expensive Rolls Phantom is nicer, better, faster, etc., than the American luxury cars, which means that in BOTH cases, the customer got what he paid for !

Now, to be fair, Rolls eventually lost its technical superiority - they werent able to "keep up". The last of the Phantom II's will not keep up with an American car of their era. The Rolls V-12 had poured babbit bearings; so it couldn't possibly handle the kind of extreme speeds the later Packard V-12 or Cadillac V-16 could.

All this points out how your discussion of "fairness" has nothing to do with reality. The real world isnt "fair". So no matter what you "think" is fair, if you actually run across the above vehicles, you are stuck with their REALITY.

Of course there are examples, as you point out, that price alone dosnt necessarily mean you get more bang for your buck. But not what you are talking about.

And please, dont tell me when a "conversation is over". When I see stuff in here that is historically inaccurate, I will try and talk some sense. Trying to compare an early 30's V-8 Cadillac to a much much more expensive Packard (or Cadillac or Lincoln or Pierce Arrow, for that matter), dosnt tell us anything other than your passion has gotten in the way of your thought process.

Lets try and help fellow car buffs with FACTUAL information that can add to their knowledge and appreciation of REAL world automotive history.

(OK, I think this recent exchange has gone to another venue now. Thanks '53.)

Question for Turbopackman,

If you would, could you say a word about the 348/409 versions of the Chevy Big Block (I believe it used to be referred to as the "W" engine because of the shape of the valve covers). Did they need special boring tools for the non-square cylinder to deck placement? Perhaps this will shed a little light on how Packard V12's were re-bored.

I have a shot of a "Nailhead" block very similar to the front cutaway of the Chevy engine, which shows how Buick achieved some of the same combustion chamber wedge effects with a 90? cylinder-to -eck arrangement and a "canted" head, so veritical valves lining up with the wedge shaped chamber. It's a '58 322 I believe, but I think the general setup was used for all the "Nailheads."

Thanks

In a word, yes. Go ask any machine shop about boring a 348/409. Most of them can't because they don't have the boring plate to align the machine to the bore.

Interesting tidbit of info, the 348 was the MKII Chevy BB, anyone know what the "MKI" version was? It's a lot closer to home than you think!

Turbo,

So Chevy repeated a 20-year-old "mistake" except where their dealerships were concerned. They would naturally have "special tool #....." on hand.

So, how're all the current Packard V12 and get 'em-up Chevy owners doing these chores these days?

Interesting stuff.

I'll bite on only one aspect of the MKI. I'm pretty sure it was used only in trucks, and possibly in 427 displacement.

I once saw a nice book on the BB and how it started as Chevy's "answer" to diesel big rigs... and it worked quite well. But then I think they kind of beat themselves with the 2-cylce "Jimmy" GMC diesel.

Please, enlighten us with the real scoop.

From what I understand, and it's just hearsay from somewhere, possibly on here, that at the time Chevy was looking for a big block engine, they considered using the Packard V8. I'm sure some of our more knowledgeable members here would know more, but I remember someone somewhere mentioning that. For whatever reason, they didn't do it. Too bad they didn't, if they did it would have made parts availability a LOT better for the Packard V8. The 348 came out in 1958, so the timing's perfect since they would have had to have started looking and developing at least two years before.

Eric,

Never heard that one about Chevy looking at Packard V8s. They sure could've done worse. Actually did, from what I've heard about the inefficiency of their early design BB. But what amazes me is that they essentially borrowed a very cumbersome, heavy truck engine (about 664 lbs "dry for the 348) to fill the gap, and somehow sold it on the basis of being a "Chevy." In any car, it made for a plowing, overweight front end. (As you can probably tell, not my favorite engine--except for the sheer audacity of it).

But, what about your previous question? I couldn't find much more than my original guess, except that the "W" or Mk I was available in 427 cu in for the Impala Super Sport. This was a 427 "W" not to be confused with the later 427 "W".

Generation 1 Chevy BB
From 1958 to 61, 348 (used in trucks until 1964)
1962-1964, 409
1963, 427 "Z11" for racing. 57 produced (stroked 409 dual carbs 13.5:1.

Didn't find much on the Mk I except the 1958 "Scarab" Mk I which used a Corvette 283 bored and stroked to 339 and raced against European sports cars.

To revise:
Here's what I found on the MkI and MkII:
Inside Chevrolet Engineering, it [the new non-W race motor] was called the Mark II, a 427ci V-8 that had no bloodline with the 409, which was dubbed the "Mark I."
From this site:
superchevy.com/features/sucp_0607_mark_iv_big_block_chevy_engine/index.html

Eric and all,

Here's a little update on the Chevy BB relationship with Packard. Just ran across it on another forum:

ford-trucks.com/forums/74161-500-cid-lincoln-y-block-for-53-56-f100.html

Quote:

This has certainly gone

About all it has to do with the later Packard V12 is it's about a Packard engine.

Interesting, though.

I think the discussion should go over to the Packard V8 Board.

Discussion of the Packard V8 and Chevy BB has been moved to the V8 forum in the thread: Did Chevy consider Packard V8 BB Design?