Packard Forum Index » Modification Discussion

See, all of this goes to show that if you allow a good discussion to happen among like minded, intelligent people many good idea come forth. Here we have two different ideas. One says to swap the engine and the other says to keep it original. But, there is also the compromise that allows both to happen. The engine can be replaced as a temporary measure in order to get the car on the road where it should be AND the original engine can be rebuilt gradually as funding, time, and parts are available. To use an analogy, the old car is given a newer, stronger heart while its old heart is repaired and "brought up to speed" so that it can eventually be restored to its rightful place.

Now, if only we could get our government to work together so well!

OH, and please, let us not let this get side-tracked into a political issue. I just made that comment for the sake of a little humor, not to offend anyone's sensibilities.

Gene

Frankly, Packard service letters detailing this swap where a tacit admission this heavily-modified version to fit in the Junior chassis wasn't one of their more robust powerplants

Honestly I find this pretty hard to fathom. Yes, no arguement, the 1935 "120" engine was "more advanced" in many ways over the 39 Super 8, but if Packard felt the 320 engine was a failure, they had 10 years of experience with it to do something about it other than simple evolutionary changes like insert bearings, belt-driven generator, etc. and they certainly didn't issue anything to replace it in the 1929 thru 1938 models. And though there were modifications to fit the 320 into what was basically a 120 chassis & body, the basic structural elements of the engine were not altered to any significant degree.

Take a look at the 1957 and 1958 S-P Service Bulletins and you'll find ample examples of parts substitutions, torque converters, cylinder heads, camshaft, suspension parts, etc. where later service parts were substituted for the "correct" earlier parts. The reason no doubt was one of simple logistics and economics in supplying service parts, no doubt especially true in the case at hand for a one-year only and very low production unit.

"Tacit admission"? Doubt it.

Hi Dave

You're right, it was unwise to jump to my conclusion without considering the possible shortage of service engine and parts for a one-year-only, low-production unit. It was unfair of me to indict the '39 320 ci engine as a less that robust based on what has been written on here. If the '39 service engine were unavailable, they had little choice but to substitute current production units. It's safe to assume 1938 and prior service engines wont swap without major modifications.

If the 320 engine design had deficits, as you point out, Packard would and did correct most of them by that point. What does strike me as odd about the '36-'39 engines is that Packard didn't replace them with a monoblock unit as soon as the 120 was safely in production. That experience was teaching them what was possible to build at lower unit costs. A '36 356 would have been a fine advancement.

That's what I like about this forum: we can proffer our opinions with civility, and agree or if not, do so without rancor....rather rare on many collector car boards.

Steve

PS I still do hold my position that in order to return the car to the road most expeditiously in consideration of all restraints and purposes, the 327 ci replacement is the best route available.

What does strike me as odd about the '36-'39 engines is that Packard didn't replace them with a monoblock unit as soon as the 120 was safely in production.

An interesting subject to ponder, I'd be interested in hearing speculation about why they did hold onto the old design. Of course the 120 wasn't their first successful monoblock design, the 1932 Twin Six (Twelve) was a monoblock as well, and an incredibly advanced casting for the time.