Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Rusty. U are comparing an engine of a $5K car to engines of $2.5K cars. That is tantamount to comparing a Harley to a Honda 350.

Not really, it's all just dumb iron. It doesn't matter if it's a Chevy V8, a Plymouth flathead 6, a Packard V12, a Ford 292, or even the glorious Packard V8, it's all just dumb iron. Are some engines better than others? Yes. Is an engine in a 2K car better than the engine in a 5K car? You decide.

Is the engine in a Ferrari that requires $60 a quart oil and oil changes every 3000 miles on the dot, and costs more in maintenance a year than it costs to buy a new Honda better than the engine in the Honda? Depends on your point of view.

Me, I'll stick with the old flatheads and let you whipper snappers with your new fangled OHV engines fight it out.

Quote:
Amen to that, brutha!

Since I was just a kid in the '60s, I can't say much about mechanical quality back then. Exterior styling of American cars generally looked good to me, but interiors were still rather primitive - only reached maximum comfort in the '70s. Interiors of the average import car, then, seemed much more primitive, and their body sheet metal was equally, if not more, prone to rust.

Problems really began when GM went down the garden path of downsizing in the '70s; Ford and Chrysler followed. The reduction in size/weight wasn't so much a problem as was the all-too-greedy quest to maximize profit at the expense of long-term quality. For example, chrome-plating on bumpers was terrible right off the assembly line, but didn't hold up long on the plastic ornaments being introduced, either (and still doesn't on their late-model junk). A lot more little things broke in the first year on my dad's Chevies back then - some of the simplest things that had been around for years with no trouble (and that has only gotten worse in recent years). Yet, Japanese vehicles were still every bit the rust bucket as any American car - at least around these parts.

With a few exceptions, the '80s served up some of the worst and ugliest vehicles I ever saw. Seems like there were only two schools of styling: econobox and jelly-bean - neither very attractive. Sticker prices started skyrocketing after 1979. A used 1978 Malibu that I stripped, repainted, and tweaked was better to me than any new car. Sure, with over 50,000 miles, there was always something breaking, but almost nothing I couldn't fix at home. OE parts were still affordable. Probably the only good thing to come out of that decade was the widespread adoption of EFI, improving performance and economy, and the increased use of galvanized sheet metal, minizing rust-through.

Coming into the 1990s, I thought things had turned the corner for American automakers, but I was wrong. I've had a lot more trouble with late model GM of this period than any before. For example, the intake on its 3100-V6 was resealed for oil/coolant leaks no less four times in just over 100K, with all work done by a dealer. Meanwhile, the price of OE parts for domestic vehicles began to skyrocket - now at ridiculous levels (even those made offshore).

In comparison, any design flaws of the Packard V8 seem easy to handle. If it wasn't for all the snow and salt here (and the cost of replacing a windshield), I'd rather be driving one of my V8 Packards for daily transport.

Luxury never attracted me to any car; in fact, the "Grey Poupon" class just turns me off. Rather, it was styling and engineering (plus my dad's Exec) that drew me to Packard.

Mind you, these are just my long-winded, personal observations and opinions.

Many good thoughts and comments here. I know from a Chevy mechanic friend that even that vaunted small block had all kind of camshaft wear problems in the mid-80s, so even they weren't invulnerable to the beancounters...

Eric, flatheads sure have their appeal to me - that's why I posted a while back on the idea of putting a straight 8 in a 55/56. Man, a 9 bearing 8 sure has appeal for me in one of those cars... but it'd be major surgery though apparently. My Exec, at least, will remain stock, but maybe someday...

Meantime, my engine will be checked out by Mr Miller, so it is in good hands, and I'll listen carefully to his prescriptions
with the knowledge that I gain from the good folks here.

Are you suggesting the 1951-58 Chrysler hemi was a cheap motor? I don't mean to insult you but the Chrysler had it over the best Packard engine ever made like a dollar over a dime.

If you mean to suggest Chrysler's engineers didn't know what they were doing you certainly don't know much about cars.

My point was that ANY engine from ANY car maker can have flaws, and that these flaws must be corrected. Packard's oil pump troubles were not unusual or worse than what any other car maker faced and I am sure that they would have solved them. The only reason they didn't was that the engine went out of production after only 2 years.

If you want to talk about expensive engines with oiling problems what about the prewar Rolls Royce V12?

I also wouldn't compare a Harley to a Honda 350 because I am a Harley fan and the comparison would be just too humiliating to Harley.

It is also fair to point out that Chev and Ford had at least 10 times as many engineers on staff as Packard. So if Ford and Chev couldn't get it right at the first attempt Packard shouldn't feel too bad.

If you want to talk about cars in the Packard class Lincoln brought out a new flathead V8 in 1949 that was a notorious smoker and oil burner. It took a year or 2 to work out the problems in that motor. Then they dropped it for an OHV V8.

"Is the engine in a Ferrari that requires $60 a quart oil and oil changes every 3000 miles on the dot, and costs more in maintenance a year than it costs to buy a new Honda better than the engine in the Honda? Depends on your point of view."

Have you ever heard of a sports car called a Bizzarini? There actually was such a thing. In the mid sixties an Italian industrialist named Bizzarini was insulted by Enzo Ferrari and decided to make his own sports car. For reasons of cost he had to use a ready made motor and he chose the Chev 327.

He hired an ex Ferrari engineer to design the chassis. This engineer thought he had been saddled with some kind of truck motor - until he tried it.

After tests, he said the Chev engine was comparable to the Ferrari V12 in horsepower, speed, weight, and overall size and was actually better on the street because it had more torque and a smoother power curve.

And of course, in terms of cost and engine life there was no comparison.

The one place the Ferrari had the edge was in horsepower per cubic inch which is important in racing classification but meaningless on the street.

If you want to talk about expensive engines with oiling problems what about the prewar Rolls Royce V12?

You're right about that Rusty. You can argue endlessly about which was the best prewar V12, but there's no argument about which was the worst, Rolls wins easily.

Also the comments on the Chrysler Hemi reminds me of that, perhaps inaccurate, comment attributed to a Rolls engineer when their new postwar V8 was introduced and he was asked how good it was, and his response supposedly was "damn near as good as a Chrysler".

You would have to go back to contemporary sources to find out just how lousy cars were in the fifties.

You might be surprised. One expert said that the basic car, ie the chassis engine and drive trains were generally reliable and long lived but the accessories were junky. Power windows, power seats, power steering, etc often gave trouble. Chrome resembled tinsel and lasted about as long as last year's Christmas tree.

Tire quality was spotty, many cars came with tires that were lumpy, out of round, and impossible to balance.

Body metal was thin and rusted easily. The designs of the fifties had many traps for mud and slush. Fenders and rocker panels rusted through within 2 years especially in the North. Galvanized metal and other rust proofing methods were not used. They didn't even get paint, except where the customer saw it.

One reason Volkswagen made so many converts was their quality control. Customers got a simple, reliable, well made car, period.

To be fair, if Detroit made the same stripped down model as long as VW made the beetle they could have got all the bugs out too.

At this time there is not much point in going over problems motorists had 50 years ago. Those cars that survive are no longer in everyday use, with a few exceptions.

But it is worth bearing in mind that standards of quality and reliability were not what they are today.