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

Peter: Quick question for you. Cubic inch of an engine isn't the only thing that counts in drag racing. Gear ratios als o have a very important part in both performance off the line and in the top speed of a car.

What gears ratios did RR use during the 20's in the Silver Ghost, and what gear ratio did the Springfield Phantom have, such as are in your RR.

You know that I already have the answer to the questions I asked. Answer my question then I will proceed.

John F. Shireman

Peter: Here is the answer to to the question I asked you about gear ratios that RR used during the 20's.


Silver Ghost 3:25 to 1
Phantom I produced in England 3.:25 to 1 and 347: to 1
Phantom I produced in Springfield 3:72 to 1.

With those kind of high speed gear ratios used by RR in the 20's they should have a better top end than most American luxury cars of the time.

Knowing the gear ratios that American luxury makers used at the time in most cases the RR should have a higher cruising speed. That part I concede to you.

In October 1932 the magazine Cars of Today test a Phantom II
with a gear ratio of 3:72 to 1. The top speed of the Phantom II was 80 mph. I am very sure that some American luxury cars of 20's if pushed hard could come close to the that top speed.

In 1929 the RR engine had about a 20 horsepower advantage over the Packard engine. The 1929 Packard had a standard gear ratio of 4:38 to 1 off the line up through the gears
the Packard would have been more than a match off the line for a Phantom I.

The average weight of a Phantom I was considerably more than the Standard Eight of a 1929 Packard. The extra horsepower of the Phantom would have been need to combat the
lighter weight advantage of the Packard.



John F. Shireman

Johnne Johnnie Johnnie - all this book-reading you do - you make my head spin with all the fantstic things YOU know about classic era Rolls Royce and Packard cars that I did not...leaving me totally confused and wondering...wondering, for example...just WHY is it you insist on having the "last word" on these esoteric "comparison" issues.

Say...did you ever try that experiment I suggested - in which you pile some of those fancy coffee-table books on a REAL Packard and Rolls Royce, and see if those books would change the real-world technical differences of the vehicles? Please, please let me know..the excitement, the anticipation....!

You mention you know about the "average weight of a 1929 Packard Standard Eight". You do ? What model do YOU own?

You are aware that:

1) a 1929 Packard Standard Eight could be had with any number of VERY different bodies of VERY different weights?

2) You are aware that a 1929 Packard Standard Eight was Packard's "low price leader" - still very expensive, still way out of reach of the average person, but hardly in the rarified price class or PERFORMANCE LEVELS of the super-cars ?

Are you seriously trying to compare a 320 cu. inch motor with its primitive "flat head" design and miserably poor "breathing", in a car costing about two thousand dollars, with a Rolls Royce Phantom of that year that cost five or more times that amount ? When you would multiple the dollar values by a factor of around FIFTEEN to get their present value in today's dollars?

If you want to impress us, tell us when you last drove a Hisso J-2 ? Now THERE's a car that will blow the doors off most anything I can think of.

You are so right that final drive ratios are a major factor controlling both "off-the line" and "flat out" speed. And you are PARTIALLY right about SOME of the gear ratio figures you provided.

Perhaps you have in that vast library of yours, a "spec. sheet" showing the ACTUAL ratios offered by Packard in the classic era? Perhaps you could tell us about the WIDE selection of gear ratios in the "option" list, reflecting the manufacturer's awareness of the WIDE range of body weights, and WIDELY different driving conditions people would buy cars for?

I have never seen any "CARS OF TODAY" magazine, so I have no idea of the level of technical competence (if any) the writers had. As you note, Rolls Royce ALSO had a variety of gear ratios, to reflect the WIDE selection of body weights and the WIDELY ranging driving conditions the owners specified when ordering their cars. You did not tell us, in reciting what you read in this "CARS OF TODAY" magazine, what the "specs" were on the particular car tested, body type, etc.

Point is, of COURSE you can "prove" to us from your books, that under some conditions, a lighter weight cheaper car can be "faster" under some conditions, and given other factors as to gear ratios, then a heavy bodied "super" car. I can even prove to you that apples are different than oranges ! ( Dont have any fancy coffee table books to prove it, tho...)

May I again suggest that you take a deep breath, stop burying your nose in all these books, and get out and enjoy your own pre-war Rolls Royce & Packard automobiles, and compare THEM with other SIMILIARLY EQUIPPED AND PRICED cars? That would be more interesting from a real-world historical perspective.

Oh, by the way, what reference source did you use to determine a Rolls Phantom in the 20's had "about a 20 hp. advantage"? I personally have never seen actual published technical data from Rolls in that era, of the actual power of its motors. Can you "post" that in here? I would love to see it. (Even if there was such a thing, the Brits used a different measuring standard then we Americans did).

Again, remain puzzled as to why you'd compare a Packard Standard Eight - ANY Packard, for that matter, with a Rolls Royce? The cheapest Rolls Phantom, as far as I am aware, once equipped with a body, sold for MANY times what the most expensive Packard sold for. Apples and oranges.

Was a Packard a "better buy" then a Rolls Royce ? NOW we are talking! Well, once we get into the mid-1930's - damn right it was! But that's a whole different subject in economics. As you once pointed out, given how a "rush" of new technology improved the smaller cheaper cars, hard to argue that a '38 Packard "120" offers THAT much less pleasant transportation then a Packard Twelve ( Or Rolls Royce Phantom III for that matter !)

Now, getting back to the 1920's era Rolls Phantom -vs- Packard comparison you were trying to make. Be ASSURED a 460 cu. in. Rolls Royce Phantom motor, with its much more modern and free breating induction, overhead valves, and less restrictive exhaust, will produce more raw power then a much smaller flat-head such as the American luxury cars of the 1920's. How much more, I dont know (but you can sure feel it when you go "pedal to the metal"...!

Again, let us know YOUR background in owning, working on, driving the "super cars" of the classic era ( meaning pre World War II) so we can more accurately judge your real world knowledge.

Peter: To answer a couple of your questions.

The Packard Standard Eight of 1929 came in ten different models. The total weight of those ten models comes to 41,443
pounds. That averages out to 4,144 pounds.

To answer your question if I own a 1929 Packard. The answer to that is no, which is the same as can be said about you.

Time grows short tonight more coming later.

John F. Shireman

RR

OVER PRICED
OVER RATED

Peter: In another thread you just made the statement about the 1938 Packard V12 having more power than a 1938 Caddy V16.

Maybe you have some figures that I don't have. I do remember you stating on 9/21 that The Caddy V16 introduced in 1938 was in some ways superior to the Packard V12. Much more modern in design, short stroke engine and smoother than the Packard V12. The second generation Caddy was rated at 185 horsepower, while the Packard V12 was rated at 175.

Please explain to me how the Packard V12 was so much more of a powerful engine than the Caddy 16 of 1938.

John F. Shireman

Why don't you two guys exchange email addresses and just banter back and forth privately, I suspect most of us are getting pretty tired of this.

I agree that this thread is getting a little long in the tooth, and it really just a "waving" contest at this point.

Owen: I will be very blunt with you. I started this thread for a reason if you don't like then IGNORE IT. Hell if I would have asked that question in another thread I would have been accused of flaming

I am a historian who loves auto's. A lot of statments made about cars of the 30's by one person in some cases just aren't factual.

In this case I just asked Peter to explain how the Packard V12 is a more powerfull engine than the Caddy V16.

Kevin: Because of my statement in the second paragrah I don't consider it any kind of waving contest. Having said that you run the show and I will abide your wishes.


John F. Shireman

This banter between John and Peter reminds me of my father and a young German immigrant who was a friend of his. My father served in the Canadian navy during WW2 on motor torpedo boats. He was involved in fire fights with the equivalent German E boats. In other words he "was there". The young German, on the other hand, was just a boy during the war but was very interested and knowledgeable about all the differences between Allied and Axis weaponry,tanks and warships and had a huge collection of books on the subject. Here we have a similar situation and to tell you the truth I find it enjoyable in admittedly a perverse sort of way.

This banter between John and Peter reminds me of my father and a young German immigrant who was a friend of his. My father served in the Canadian navy during WW2 on motor torpedo boats. He was involved in fire fights with the equivalent German E boats. In other words he "was there". The young German, on the other hand, was just a boy during the war but was very interested and knowledgeable about all the differences between Allied and Axis weaponry,tanks and warships and had a huge collection of books on the subject.My father could relate from having actual been there as to how each boat performed in combat and the German had all the technical facts about the engines , hull designs etc. so when they disagreed it was from different perspectives. On paper the E-boats should have won against an MTB but in combat they did not always. Here we have a similar situation and to tell you the truth I find it enjoyable in admittedly a perverse sort of way.