Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

BH.

Yes, PMCC's reference to a "Utica engine number" is misleading to newcommers as well as to me. No doubt PMCC was over embellishing again by using that term. It somewhat begs the question then, WHERE ELSE did they build engines????? i.e. a Utica # as opposed to what other geograghical location????

General accepted terms accross nearly all manufactureres and public and governemts prior to the late 60's was:

"Serial Number" for the vehicle unit WHEREEVER so situated on the vehicle-unit identifying the entire vehicle-unit regardless of location or locationS (plural) that it mite appear.

"Engine number" would be a number on the engine identifying the engine and some character in the engine number would then identify geographical manufactureing location of the Engine.

I wonder if they had started a scheme that would have accommodated the grand merger that never happened. The plans were starting to be in place for the combined S-P bodies and chassis from both plants, as well as the Hash. With multiple factories they might have been thinking ahead and it just never changed when all fell apart.

Stuggling companies and prior to government control ca. late 60's used alot of tricks to fake out the competition, public, dealers, stock holders, et-al into believing that they were running more units than they actually were building or had orders for. This would have been especialy true in the last years of Packard.

One example i will cite is Indian in '53. Indian started out VN's higher than usual and changed the f/t. This was to make HD and Indian dealers think that they were gung-ho to build bikes when in reality they only built 300 and stopped production and went out of bussiness. The '53 VN's are still argued to this day but the general concensus is that Indan WAS playing games to over embellish demand image.

Other issues invlove special build or fleet vehicles that were rejected and sent onto dealers and they had VN'S higher than production figures.

So, PMCC is probably guilty of the same tricks in 55-56.

WHERE ELSE did they build engines?????

Of course prior to 1955 they built engines at East Grand, so my guess is it was to brag about their new state-of-the-art engine plant.

Well, I suspect the number was designated with the "Utica" adjective merely to distinguish it from any number stamped at the Conner plant - namely, the motor/vehicle serial number.

They had to track engine production at Utica (note the use of Utica numbers in some STBs), but the motor/vehicle serial number wasn't applied until it reached the point of vehicle assembly at the Conner Avenue plant. Not all engines went into vehicle production, let alone Conner - some went into marine use, some were diverted to service replacement inventory.

Engines and transmissions in my Chevies of the 1970s have their own unique serial numbers as well as a derivative of the VIN, which supports the whole "numbers matching" thing in the hobby, in addition to tracking production. Since the mid-1980s, you'll find VIN on all sorts of parts - even body sheet metal.

At the moment the car has the 3-speed without overdrive. I would prefer to change it to an automatic. I have been looking into the ultra torque kit from Sierra Packards. This allows you to use a chrysler toqueflite 727 and bolt it onto the engine.

Also,

In regards to the Utica engine number: I remember reading that the engines were built at Utica, and as at the time they were built they didn't know what car the engine was going into. I suspect this was a method used to keep better recording of the engines built rather than send them to the assembly line with no number designated they designed the utica number system.

I'm sure there was mention of this in the Beverly Rae Kimes Packard book

There were quite a few running changes of motors, and even more on the Twin Ultramatics, also built at Utica. If the engines had no numbers assigned at Utica, there would be no way of identifying which engines or transmissions had the changes, thus the need to number at Utica. Most if not all the TSB's that provide information about the running changes reference the Utica # at which the changes became effective.

The Utica plant was built with manufacture of engines for American Motors, probably some future manufacture of engines for the Studebaker line,the Twin-Ultramatics and, of course, the J-47 jet engines contracted for the U.S. Government (at the time that the plant was planned and built). While some engines could've been built elsewhere, one would think it highly unlikely taking into consideration the relocation of the assembly line to the Connor Plant for the 55th series cars. Even with the standard practise in the industry of the day of making production look more impressive than it really was, there is no evidence that PMCC inflated their engine production figures. The Utica numbers were, in all liklihood, merely a way to keep track of production and, as someone else stated, the appropriate vehicle numbers were added at the assembly points for Packard, AMC (Nash-Hudson)and the marine and industrial customers would've had their own system of further numbering engines for their purposes.

Just my take on what is known, you understand, but makes sense.

Packard 34, might I suggest before committing to the torqueflite conversion, you start a thread (yes, I know that's asking for it) for comments and experiences or check some archives on the Packard AACA forum.

Early this year or maybe late last there was quite a lively discussion on that particular conversion. While some had relatively good experience, others had not. It seemed to have a lot of vibration/fabrication problems IIRC.

Another option would be that Jack Nordstrom was/is converting a GM trans for use in 56 Stude Golden Hawks. I wouldn't think, aside from having to make some of the linkages & mounts yourself it would be too much to adapt that to the Packard.

Well... Latest update,

The past few days we have spent a great deal of time working on the 55. Front uppers & lower and all rubber suspension is bow comoplete, along with other jobs required to make the vehicle registrable. Once we had all the exhaust manifolds off I slid under the car to examine the stamped engine number and... no number, what a surprise It looks like the number may have been shaven off. It's a bit off a disappointment. So hopefully I can register the vehicle using the engine number 167 which has been the only number I have found stamped on the entire engine.