Packard Forum Index » General

Hi

Except for the oversquare configuration, the result would have been a replay of the 1926-'34 Stutz OHC engines, whether single or dual cam. While benefitting from inherent freer-breathing, they ran noisier than the quiet valve-in-blocks, unacceptable for most luxury cars except one with a sporting reputation. Packard would have never allowed that in their cars, being counter to the customer preferences. In either case, as marvelous as the powerplants were in their time, technology had marched on rendering the old long stroke/low rpm/high torque configuration outdated.

Preception is reality: when the public embraced the ohv V8 as the great new coming thing, any other configuration was toast. The public was ready for such advances that solved driveability issues, whether higher horsepower V8's, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc. Whether these were advances is always questionable but folks voted with their dollars so the point is moot. Packard should have embraced the old saying "If ya can't beat 'um, join 'um" just done so a tad sooner.

As far as long hoods, postwar that would simply be a styling affectation, no one expected it to be a function of engine configuration.

Steve

I suppose this means that a transverse setup is out of the question? For the compact Packard....the Packard mini....

Pat:

The idea of a compact Packard in the early 1950s would have destroyed whatever customer loyalty was left for the brand. In the early '50s, compact cars were equated with cheap cars, such as the Henry J/Allstate, Nash Metropolitan, and Volkswagen Beetle. To create a compact car, Packard would have to retool a lot of its Grand Boulevard plant, produce its first four-cylinder engine since the early 1900s, and try to sell the American public that smaller is better than bigger at a time when Cadillac, Chrysler, Lincoln, Buick, etc. couldn't keep up with customer demamd.

Take for example Volkswagen's entrance into the luxury car field:

"The [Volkswagen] Phaeton debuted at prices comparable to similar offerings from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Lexus and the Volkswagen Group's own Audi A8 (which shared its powertrain with the Phaeton).

"Sales fell far short of expectations. In 2002, the manufacturer stated the annual capacity of the new Phaeton plant at Dresden was 20,000; by September 2006 a four-year total of 25,000 had been built,[12] with production running at approximately 6,000 cars annually. The domestic market is the Phaeton's strongest, with 19,314 Phaetons delivered in Germany alone by January 2009.

"In the United States market, 1,433 Phaetons were sold in 2004, and 820 were sold in 2005, leading the company to announce that sales in the American market would end after the 2006 model year. The W12-engined models have depreciated significantly, and sell for a small fraction of their original cost.[13]

"As of January 2011, Volkswagen reported the possibility of bringing the Phaeton back to the U.S. in the car's next product cycle.[14]

"In autumn 2013 The Economist placed Phaeton into the report on Europe's biggest loss making cars."

(Wikipedia)

Sure, Suburu could throw caution to the wind and produce a $250,000 supercar, but the question is: Who would buy it? Now picture Packard, a respected, conservative luxury car manufacturer noted for building large sedans and limousines suddenly bringing out a model the size of a Henry J. What would they call it? The Dinghy?

I'm thinking soon after WW2. Could this have been the unique powerplant to accelerate them ahead? If not ahead, perhaps set them off as unique alternative or at least prevented their deceleration. Would have been helpful especially in the 1951-54 models. One important selling point would have been fuel economy, which Nance would come to learn became a negative with Packard customers in these years owing to their Eight.

What would have been the disadvantages? NVH, and if they couldn't bring it down to levels at or near their existing Eight, would have needed to abandon the idea.

Would this have minimized the need for new tooling? Yes and this would have been a major reason for considering the design. If they could run it down their existing Eight line might have saved millions, maybe $15M or more, which would have made all the difference in 1954. Perhaps a modern V8 and manufacturing plant could have been postponed to coincide with the new, low 1957s, but OHCs might have been required for the new motor to keep Packard from falling short of its own recent standard for efficiency and high tech specs.

I see design accentuating longer hoods to celebrate the difference..... Yes, though as Steve said, the two were becoming dissociated.

Think a six liter type 57 engine..... Yes, 366 CID sounds like a good size. The challenge would have been to keep up with the ever enlarging V8s, which would grow to well over 400 CID, a potential problem for a straight 8 setup. Duesy was what, 420 or so but the biggest Packard and Pierce eights never grew beyond 385 or so. Pierce tried to keep pace with Packard and others in the Twenties by throwing technology (dual valves) at its Six rather than cylinders. Didn't quite work so well though the products had shortcomings having nothing to do with the engine.

Not thinking an ardun head of sorts; a new engine.... Yes, however the more tooling they could have carried over, the better.

[i]I'm thinking 300 hp in 1950.....naturally aspirated....[/i] So long as the number stayed ahead of Cadillac and the engine delivered better fuel economy and good torque, the actual HP needn't have been the max possible for the size. It's all about trade-offs and Packard would have needed to error on the side of smoothness and quietness.

It's interesting to ponder the possiblility in light of what's going on today with 6 cylinder engines. Almost everyone has switched to V6s, the lone holdouts being Volvo, Jaguar and BMW. And yet, BMW remains a dominant player. Maybe one lesson is, whatever you do, do it well and you just might do well.

You can't realize how far Packard had fallen until you drive the 49 Caddy 75. It is a true classic. It's the 48 75 body with the modern OHV V-8. On the road it is like riding in a Pullman on the finest track.

While the Custom 8 is wonderful for its smoothness and even feels like a more modern car, the 49 Caddy 75 truly lives up to being the standard of the world.

I've driven my 56 and Cadillacs of similar vintage. I'd have to give a clear nod to the tl ride. Of course that doesn't address a number of other issues.....

In the quality small car field, let us not overlook the Porsche....

Sorry but Porsche don't compare to anything in my opinion: they started out as a flattened vw bug with a bigger engine. Later on they turned into a sports car that pulled off some big things.
I know I'm gonna get a truckload mad car enthusiasts telling me different, but that's how I see it!