Packard Forum Index » Packard Vehicles - For Sale, Wanted, Trade

precisely - the 356 is longer, therefore the transmission(frame) mounting is different, driveshaft is different, rear end is slightly different. thicker radiator, transmission linkage different, etc. From memory I think the brakes are slightly wider too.
Running an R11 is a great option, depending on what you find, be aware the input shaft/cover/TOB is 356. (or a custom pilot bearing)

Pinfo has your back...

DAF

Not 100% sure, but front springs may differ also

And after you drive a good running 120, especially with overdrive, you absolutely won't want a Super Eight.

I'm thinking that trying to convert a 120 to a 160 Super 8 would involve a substantial amount of work, not to mention all of the very difficult to find drive train and trim parts that would be needed. Although similar looking in outward appearance, there are significant differences between the two models. It would probably end up being more trouble that it is worth and I'm not sure how good the end result would be. The car would still be a 120 doctored to look like a 160. No doubt that this would impact resale value if the car were to be sold in the future.

I once saw a 1942 120 Convertible Coupe at an auction that had been modified to look like a 160. However, whoever restored the car only swapped out the trim and badging. The car still had the 282 CI 120 engine instead of the 356 CI. When the car came up on the block, a number of potential bidders sat on their hands as the car, although pretty nice, was seen as something that was faked. It probably sold for about what a regular 120 would have gone for, and probably a little bit less. I also heard that the car had been a no sale at a previous auction. Something to think about before undertaking this project.

There is now a fairly solid unrestored 1940 160 Coupe for sale on Facebook Marketplace at a very reasonable price of $3,300. Hard to tell how good it really is from the photos, but it may be of help. Car is located in Pennsylvania. Here is the link to the posting:

facebook.com/marketplace/item/9613746223 ... c319fb4-82e0-402f-a65e-bb82a8f74e19

All I can say is good luck!

Hi Ross,
I've always believed in the notion "there is no replacement for displacement". Why would I not want the 356? Perhaps with the right rear gear, the 282 with OD could be a good combo? The reason I am looking for more pep is on The Great Race, there were a lot of steep hills the car must traverse at a certain speed. Many of the low HP cars struggled on the hills and had to compensate to make up the time. The 120 I did drive did not have much pep, it was very sluggish. I'm not sure how out of tune or worn the engine may have been. Using that 120 would have been tough to maintain mph on an uphill.
Which ever engine I choose, whether 282 or 356 will be getting rebuilt. It would get some porting, custom pistons to raise compression, regrind cam, optimize timing and perhaps find a bigger carb. I've never worked on a Packard engine. Getting 200+ hp from a 282 doesn't seem like a big challenge. But then again, I'm not yet aware of the design obstacles to be crossed all while keeping external appearances stock original.

Mark

These engines have unbelievable torque so horsepower isn’t the only consideration. Since the 356 is a bigger, longer engine you may even have difficulties fitting it to a 120 frame. Being heavier, the senior cars (160 and 180) also had beefier suspension all around although I’m not sure if the frame itself was more heavily built.

Hi Packard 6. Thanks for the info. I have spoken to the guy in PA with the 160 coupe. My plan for the 120 was to keep it a 120, only replacing the 282 with a 356 for more pep and driveability. No appearance or badging changes in attempt to fake a 160.
I'm curious to see what differences there might be in swapping a 356 into a 120. As Ross mentioned, maybe I won't want to swap if the 282 performs at a sufficient level. Although, extra torque is always nice.

Hi Don,
I have not seen torque figures for these cars. I'd suspect the torque ratings may be close to the cube size or slightly shy of the cube size due to a 6.4:1 compression ratio.
Are these specs and more engine specs out there?

Mark

As said, these engines were designed for torque rather than horsepower. As with any straight eight, the issue in getting significantly more power is breathing/ even charge distribution. Look at the path to cyls 4&5 vs 1&8

It’s straightforward to bolt 160 trim to a 120. The resulting car is still a 120. It’s not straightforward to transplant the drive train

Torque numbers from old Chiltons for 1942 model year

356. 292 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm
282. 230 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm