Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Just out of curiosity, where did the "white paper" come from and who is the author????

I think the "white paper" he refers to is the Packard handout at an SAE meeting. I'll doublecheck and if we don't have it on site, I will scan it in and post it here.
I thought the vacuum pump doubled as a pressure pump forcing vapors out of the crankcase via the draft tube rather than scavenging them and pushing them where??

Other than being the largest engine of its era, I can't find anything unique or pioneering in the Packard V8. It was just a standard Kettering V8, already somewhat obsolescent when introduced. However, in 1959, when Chrysler designed a wedge head engine to replace the hemi, the 350", 361", 383", 400", 413", 426", and 440" looked a lot like the Packard and was built up through the mid-1970s.

An air gap intake is one which has an air space underneath it and a separate plate to cover the lifter gallery. All the first generation Kettering and Chrysler intakes were of this design. The '55 Chevrolet was the first I remember which used the intake to cover the lifter chamber and all subsequent GM engines were of the same one-piece design. Recently, Edelbrock introduced a new performance "Air Gap" intake for the SBC which has an air space under intake runners. The theory is the air/fuel is not heated by the hot oil in the lifter area. The more things change, the more they become the same.

thnx, jack vines

Quote:

I've been trying to get some feedback on that "wedge head" design that Chrysler touted and how much of it might be derived from the Packard combustion chamber arrangement from 4 years earlier. Chrysler probably felt they had to push the "wedge" identity to differentiate it from the "hemi," especially when the displacement equaled the famous 426 ci "racing" hemi debuted in 1964 for the stock car circuit, and offered as a "street" engine in 1966. The "440 Wedge" in particular I think, owed its frequent wedge referece to give it a performance image separate from the 426 street Hemi, since they were available in many of the same models.

Considering the number of possible upgrades it could have undergone, as well as its "mainstream" design, how was the Packard V8 "obsolescent," especially since it supposedly had such a typical Kettering design that definitely did not show any tendency toward obsolescence, but was refined over the next 40-50 years or so, and is still around in some applications?

As for the "air gap" intake, yes it appears GM "improved" on it with their intake, but it was, as Jack points out, probably an inferior performing design due to heat. It saved a little height and probably was cheaper to manufacture in the long run than if it had separate lifter valley cover, but not a performance plus.


Quote:

The printed version I have appeared in the Summer 1991 Packards International, and no author is given. It is limited to specs on the 352 ci version.


Quote:

"Scavenged" is my poor choice of words. What the article says is the pump "creates a pressure difference which assists in the circulation of the air through the crankcase... thereby assuring positive ventilation of the engine under all operating conditions." (pg 36).

The paper touts the "free breathing" qualities of the Packard V8, and maybe intake design, valves, and exhaust were fairly strong points in comparison with other designs of the time.

If the article is a reprint of a Packard SAE meeting handout, it explains its sometimes "PR"-like style. However, it gives hard numbers and good engineering specs and drawings.

If the SAE paper is available and posted here, I could tell if it's the same piece as the article. Also, that entire issue of Packards International is dedicated mostly to V8 Packards, and includes a remembrance of Dick Teague and another technical article on the TL suspenion. It would be a great addition to the site, but PI may still be selling reprints of the issue (I got mine for just a few bucks) and wouldn't necessarily want to release it to the internet.

The '49 GM/Kettering design for the Oldsmobile and Cadillac influenced '51 Studebaker, then '55 Packard and finally '58 Chrysler.

The Mopar did NOT carry forward the worst features of the Kettering:

1. Siamesed center exhaust ports
2. Rear mounted distributor
3. Large separate iron water pump manifold
4. Unsupported lifter bores
5. Weak main bearing webs
6. Extended bell housing on the block

Other than improvements in these areas, the '59-74 big block Mopar was very similar in size and general design architecture to the '55-56 Packard V8.

thnx, jack vines

The printed version I have appeared in the Summer 1991 Packards International, and no author is given. It is limited to specs on the 352 ci version.

Don't you just love it, another authorless paper. How much stock can you put in it?

I'm not sure just what you're looking for in this thread. Unlike some of their early non-automotive V8s, that of 55/56 was pretty plain vanilla, just large. But there were quite a few magazine articles on it over the years and perhaps you'd like to read 2 of them that I've saved.

(1) Stude, Packard, Nash or Hudson by Don Francisco, Hot Rod Magazine, February 1957.

(2) How Potent is the Packard V8? by Racer Brown, date and publication unknown.

I won't post these because of copyright issues but if you PM me with your postal address, I'll send you copies.

Quote:

I'm sure it was mentioned only in jest, but I respectfully request that there be no discussion or comment regarding the statement about "another authorless paper." In the context of this forum, it is liable to evoke unpleasant memories and feelings among many. (If you don't know what I'm referring to, please don't ask--it's not worth the time it takes to reply.)

Although the "white paper" on Packard V8 that I mentioned earlier appears as an article in PI, they used sound judgment and honesty, in my opinion, by NOT claiming authorship. A "white paper" comes from sources within corporate, engineering and/or marketing and often cites no author(s). It gets its authority or "authorship" from the company name associated with it.

Thus, from Wikipedia:
Commercial white papers
...many white papers today reveal the benefits of particular technologies and products.
These types of white papers are almost always marketing communications documents designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products. As a marketing tool, it is important to note that these papers will always highlight information favourable to the company authorizing or sponsoring the paper. Such white papers are often used to generate sales leads, establish thought leadership, make a business case, or to educate customers. There are three primary types of commercial white papers:
1. Business-benefits: Focuses on making a business case to executives
2. Technical: Helps influencers (like engineers) to understand how a concept or technology works
3. Hybrid: Combines high-level business focus and technical details into a single paper

This thread was started to address a "hearsay" regarding a relationship between the Packard V8 and the "Big Block" Chevy. I expressly did not represent this as a known fact. I hoped the discussion would lead toward some more knowledge about the history of the Packard V8. I had no intention to introduce the information from PI, but, as the discussion grew into a more general comparison of the OHV V8 engines of the '50s and beyond, I thought the information would add something.

I find it interesting to hear what people have to say about the Packard V8 engines in comparison with others of that vintage. I don't have a hidden agenda or allegiance, nor am I now or ever been a member of an automobile club or any other related shady enterprise.

Hope that's an OK explanation for the people who have looked at this thread, and to those among them who have offered interesting responses to the many questions and comments that have come up.

May we have many more.

And that's all I got to say about that.

Sincerely,

Sorry you felt it necessary to write such a lengthy response, I know (and JS will attest to this) my writing style occasionally seems to provoke something that wasn't intended, and in this case I was just genuinely interested in what further information you were trying to get at.

Big block and small block were handy nicknames for Chev engines. They actually had 2 completely different engine designs, one big and one small.

They did make a 366 cu in big block engine. It was used in trucks and school buses. They also made a 400 small block so in this case, a "small block" was "bigger" than a "big block".

Other makers, such as Pontiac had one basic engine design. But made different versions of it, that spanned the same size range. In that case the names "big block" or "small block" have no meaning. The blocks (engines) are all variations on the same design.

As far as Packard copying anyone, or anyone copying Packard. The Packard engine was not a copy of anything. It was Packard's own design, a development of a theme introduced by General Motors. It was the fruit of one of "Boss" Kettering's last breakthroughs, the modern short stroke, big bore, high compression overhead valve engine. It was called the Kettering engine in his honor.

This design theme was developed in different ways by Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Chevrolet at GM. It was also adopted by American Motors, Studebaker, Ford, Mercury and Lincoln as well as Packard.

Buick, Chrysler,and Plymouth had V8s that were similar in some ways to the Kettering engine but radically different in head design.

The Packard was most similar to the Pontiac. Experts agree that this was a coincidence. Both were designed at the same time and reflect the state of the art of that time. This accounts for a superficial similarity. But close analysis reveals that the basic design philosophy was quite different.

As far as the Chev big block being a copy of the Packard there is no similarity at all. The Chev is actually a copy of the Chrysler Polysphere.

Quote:

And hence my statement that GM never had an original idea.....