Packard Forum Index » Packard Parts & Misc - For Sale, Wanted, Trade

So the considered opinion here is Packard Engineering was composed of idiots who just wasted money to no effect when they designed the four-barrel intake and used it on the 327"?

jack vines

Nope. The engine originally equipped with the 4 bbl intake probably combined it with more compression, a more aggressive camshaft profile, and a higher RPM horsepower peak. Adding 4 bbl intake and carb to an otherwise unmodified engine with (probably) lower compression and milder camshaft would not be likely to gain much, if any power, and it might de-tune the engine at some speed ranges. Getting the linkage to work correctly, especially with an automatic transmission, could be a headache. Some engines of the same displacement had a good many differences between 2 and 4 barrel versions,including compression, cam profile, valve size, and more. 4 bbls can perform better than 2 bbls under such conditions as going from 55 to 75 MPH in passing gear at wide open throttle. The rest of the time, they're mostly along for the ride.

Quote:

Agree, Packard did some interesting variations with those last 327"s, five mains and seven mains, hydraulic lifters and solid lifters. Where can we go to confirm the 4-bbl engines did in fact have higher compression and more camshaft duration?

jack vines

I've spent a fair amount of time wandering through the parts book and the specs they published every year. There are very complete specs in the service counselors. Here are the basic finds: (from memory)

Solid lifter cams were all the same 48-54.

Hyd. lifter cams were all the same 48-54.

359 cams were a different part # mostly to provide clearance for the rods on that long stroke engine.

'54 327s got their cam timing bumped 5 degrees by means of a different driven gear. Pretty sure 359s had the same cam timing. Jack, I love to hear your thoughts on the cam timing if you find a copy of the specs.

Cyl heads were tweaked almost every year. Ultramatic cars got an extra half point compression 49-52 compared to stick. After that it was 7.7 for the 288s and 8.0 for the 327s. Later cars got a lot more advance from the distributor.

I notice that all of the Packard heads had rather elaborate contouring of the of the combustion chamber and I'm pretty sure they knew what they were doing. That's why I'm not so enamored of the aftermarket aluminum heads with their simplistic chambers but don't have any dyno results to prove it. What ratio were they providing?

In period road tests the 4bbl cars did better on gas than their predecessors and were faster. But that may have been the recalibrated dizzy. For rural driving with many curves and hills I find the tip-in of the 2bbl preferable.

At the end of the day, this is what I build for myself: port the engine just to clean up the bumps and stalactites. Relieve the valve pockets a bit. Run the latest possible cylinder head I can find. Use a 53 or 54 dizzy. Use a 327 manifold even if its a 288 as they have larger passages. My only dyno is the seat of my pants, but this seems to work well.

Packard built engines to provide high torque at useful speed ranges and quiet operation, and they were very good at it. I wouldn't be in a rush to modify a stock engine that is in good shape, and I'd want to be very sure that any modification done would achieve my objectives.

I have a 1966 Oldsmobile sedan with a 425 high compression V8 with a large 2 BBl carb. It has very good power and response at all speeds. If it had a 4bbl, 50 to 70 MPH ET in passing gear might improve a little, but it's already good, so why go to the hassle? Likewise, dual exhaust might help WOT high RPM performance a little, but the added weight would tax any gain.

Improvements in the automatic transmission may have contributed to better MPG on the later cars. A tighter torque converter and better shift schedule can make a substantial difference.
With most old vehicles, raising compression gives the most bang for the buck, giving improvements in both power and economy.

There are many things on older cars that can sap performance. Many of these issues can be addressed at little or no expense, or modest expense. For instance, as radial tires were becoming popular, it was widely asserted that radial tires had about 10% lower rolling resistance than comparable bias ply tires. The benefits of that on performance and economy are obvious.

Most old cars are not in an optimum state of tune, including the engine, driveline, suspension, brakes, etc.Many such cars could pick up a 10% improvement in performance simply by giving all systems a good going over .

Quote:

Agree with Ross, "Anecdotal Evidence" is that a good port job is worth about 20 horsepower.

Thanks again for all the great advice, I will stick with the 2bbl 327 intake.

Now I need all of your’s great knowledge and expertise over on the Modifications page with my post about putting a 23 series ultramatic into a 22 series 2dr sedan that was setup to be a manual.

I have all most the parts and I’m ready to rock this. I don’t want to have to go to a modern transmission… yet 🤣

However, if you change your mind and decide you want a 4bbl manifold, Wat seems to have gone from 2 to 5 in the last year. Three have carbs. But I think that if I were building horsepower, Speedway (and probably others) sells (for cheap) an adapter to lose the WCFB and adapt an Edelbrock to it.


It's your engine and your money, so make your self happy.

BlakesPackards,

for including your '50 Super Eight Touring Sedan and '48 Standard Eight Club Sedan in PackardInfo's Packard Vehicle Registry.