Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

...and oil consumption on the Packard V8's is bad enuf as it is.

PackardV8, I find that comment interesting, I'd be interested in hearing what your experience with oil consumption has been that lead you to that statement? My own experience is only based on ownership of a single V8, a high-mileage (90,000+) 56 Caribbean which apparently has had no major motor work done, though one can never be sure of that without a teardown. I change oil every 1000 miles or so and in 14 years of driving have never had to add oil between changes.

Owen,

Took the words right out of my mouth. Three Packard V8 engine cars, varying mileage, they were year-round drivers. Oil was not changed more frequently than every 3000 miles (usually quite a bit longer, as dad had to keep a lot of engines in oil, money was not splurged on upkeep). Nary a drop added between changes. SAE 10W 40 Trop Artic always used.

One engine was overhauled with major head modification (milled .125). Same results after rebuild, virtually no oil consumption.

I have never heard reference to Packard V8 engines as oil-burners, though I certainly could have missed something.

BH provided us with a nice list. Look down thru it. At a quck glance i count 4 factory identifications of oil consumption:

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/serviceinfo/catindex.php?cat=20&series=1&

All I got is three real-life examples.

I just thought that drawing the conclusion "oil consumption on the Packard V8's is bad enuf as it is." was a little bit of an over-generalization, or maybe a lot. Especially putting it in the present tense, which implies they are essential flaws that can't be corrected. For instance, what kind of oil consumption have you actually experienced?

Maybe a good topic for another thread, not Henry's blog, although I'm sure he'd be interested in what he migh expect from his rebuild.

In my very original 56 Exec with 34K miles (when i got it) oil consumption was about 1 qt every 700 miles. After my mods to the overhead it is still 700 miles/qt.

Most likely due to rings. I've never replaced them and at 34K miles they should not have needed replacing.

Pay close attention to one of the SC's that indicate piston rings installed upside down.

SC vol 30 #2 p 7.

PV8,

All three 352's I am familiar with were '55s. Total mileage on 2 unknown. But one of the '55 Clippers was bought new at auction late in the year-- it may have been a late-built '55 but who knows how long it sat at a dealer's lot?

Neither of the Clippers ever had lifter noise, but the '55 400 had it before and after rebuild. Oil pressure on the 400 was never too bad, though--had an extra mechanical gauge, usually around 20 psi. The Clipper bought new had around 65K on it when sold.

Maybe Kev can lift these last few posts and start a thread on the V8 forum called something like "V8 Oil Consumption?" Could glean a lot of info and interest on this topic i would guess.

Sorry for continuing to plug up your Project Blog, Henry. Maybe we can get it cleaned up for you.

Agreed, if there is much interest let's spin off "oil consumption" to it's own thread. And BTW, cylinder bores and piston rings didn't have the degree of precision then as they did later; Packard service information as late as 1934 gave oil consumption in miles per gallon, not miles per quart! Specifically in 1934 they cited 2200 miles per gallon as typical for steady driving at 40 mph. At a steady 70 it was about 550 miles per gallon. At 20 mph it was about 3200 miles per gallon.

With today's precision boring/honing and improved rings etc., I today get about 1000 miles per quart from my 34 Eight.

Topic spit as requested.

Given we've agreed in several previous threads there is nothing special about the Packard V8 design, we must also be willing to concede there is nothing inherent in the design which would cause them to consume oil.

jack vines

AS for design then perhaps nothing inherent to cause any excessive oil consumption. True. Maybe.

But apparently there was excessive oil consumption. Otherwise how does one explain the stb's and sc's regarding it???? one of the SC's indicate upside down compression ring. Not a design problem true but nontheless an oil consumption problem. I don;t know, maybe the factory writing the STB's and SC's didn't have anything else better to do???

Valve spring baffle campaign is another possibility pointing to complaints of oil consumption.

What???? It's all just imaginary or something???