Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

All -

Be advised that the document that has recently been referred to here as "white paper" is NOT that at all.

The information on the V8 (and T-L suspension) that appears in the cited magazine was reprinted from original papers that were submitted by Packard engineers for publication by the SAE from back in the day. That fact should have been known by the parties involved from previous discussion of that content at previous forum. Furthermore, those papers were originally published with the author named right on the front cover. Reprints of those papers are available for purchase directly from the SAE.

For the benefit of those who do not understand, it is one thing to cite facts and quote excerpts from copyrighted material as long as you give proper credit to the source, but please DO NOT upload copyrighted material to this site - not without express written permission from the copyright holder (a copy of which should be provided to and retained by the site owner). BigKev sure doesn't need the hassle, and I'd hate to see the hard work of so many members who have supported this site be put in jeopardy. What is done privately, off-site is of no concern to me.

This message is presented as constructive criticism and food for thought.

Owen -

FWIW, I don't find your posts to be provoking at all (not in the negative sense), but sometimes people read too much between the lines - intent that really isn't there. As such, sometimes a few extra words can help soften the blow of otherwise more direct commentary, on-screen.

Moreover, I've found most people I've met online are actually a lot different when I met them in person - in a positive way.

That said, I look forward to meeting you and other forum regulars in Warren this year!

Rusty,

Thanks for the additional input. I think you mentioned the Polysphere being copied by Chevrolet before. What was the difference between the Polysphere and the Wedge? (And why isn't Packard's Wedge more famous than Dodge's?) BTW I noticed in the Kettering writeup on wiki that Oldsmobile wanted to advertise their 303 V8 as the "Kettering" but corporate put the kaibosh on it.

Quote:

Brian,

By the definition of "white paper" (which is a descriptive term adopted for decades to refer to government papers and such, but more recently in commercial papers) the material re-printed in PI was such a paper. It was created by the company (Packard, as you correctly cite) for use in presentation to SAE (as has been pointed out previously) which is of course an engineering society) for the purpose of "informing and/or persuading." If you read the article, you will note that it fits the definition of a Technical White Paper to a "T":

[A technical white paper]... Helps influencers (like engineers) to understand how a concept or technology works. (From Wikipedia definition)

As such, the paper is written both as information for the SAE engineers and is appropriately described as a "white paper" to differentiate it from other types of corporate publications such as manuals or brochures. There is a quality to the writing that is recognizably PR-like, describing the Packard V8 and its design in the most flattering terms--although I doubt if any of the material is inaccurate or misleading. For instance, they make a case for how much better it was to use a cast crank rather than a forged one. Bit of sleight of hand, there.

BTW, who was given official credit as the author? I think it's safe and appropriate to post that here.

Quote:
Who did that? I think we can trust Kevin to smoke 'em out.

Quote:
Sorry, I don't remember that. I DO remember a big argument about ANOTHER article that appeared in ANOTHER magazine and was of dubious origin. And that's what I believed Owen's comment was about, and I'd like to keep from having anything like that resurrected here.

Owen,

Sorry if I misinterpreted your reference to what my intentions might be in starting this thread-- it just sounded like you thought I was trying to pull some kind of fast one here, and that's never my intent. I'm no good at hoaxes, although mistakes I can surely make. (Usually though it's when I think I'm wrong and it turns out I'm really right.)

Eric,

If you don't have permission from Bill Murray, his agent, and the studio that shot Caddyshack? you better get busy.


Another long post, but so many apologies and clarifications to make, plus keeping Eric on the straight and narrow, and incidentally trying to keep the actual discussion going.

As you were saying, Rusty? Polysphere?...

Guy, I'd say "phuk them".

"Rusty,

Thanks for the additional input. I think you mentioned the Polysphere being copied by Chevrolet before. What was the difference between the Polysphere and the Wedge? (And why isn't Packard's Wedge more famous than Dodge's?) BTW I noticed in the Kettering writeup on wiki that Oldsmobile wanted to advertise their 303 V8 as the "Kettering" but corporate put the kaibosh on it."

The Polysphere was more like a Hemi head than a wedge head. Chrysler brought out their first Hemi V8 for the New Yorker, Imperial and Saratoga in 1951 while keeping the flathead 6 for the Windsor. In 1954 they introduced a new V8 for the Windsor which they called a Polysphere V8.

To make the engine cheaper, they kept the basic Hemi design but modified the cylinder heads.

In a Hemi, the valves are arranged in a V shape above the cylinder. To make the Poly, they left the intake side of the head alone but moved the exhaust valve to a vertical position, putting the valves in more of a K arrangement.

This saved money in several ways. The head was narrower and lighter, saving at least 20 pounds of iron per head. The rocker arms all went on one shaft instead of 2 on the hemi. But everything else was shared with the old engine including intake manifold.

The only drawback was a more flattened out combustion chamber and a slightly smaller exhaust valve. The Poly was down on power compared to a Hemi but the difference was not noticable below about 80 MPH.

The wedge head design has all the valves in a row, at an angle to the cylinder resulting in a wedge shaped combustion chamber. This makes it easier to get a high compression ratio but restricts the size of the valves, and can also result in exhaust valve cooling problems due to the valves being crowded together with no coolant passages in between. The Kettering engine with the 2 middle exhaust valves side by side was a particular patsy for this. The Olds V8 was known for warping heads and burning exhaust valves under stock car racing stress and other high stress applications.

The big block Chev featured what they called a "canted valve" head. It has the valves at an angle and a flattened out Hemi head like a Poly.

Only Chev brought out their engine just as Chrysler was dropping the Poly head, 1965 - 66.

I DO remember a big argument about ANOTHER article that appeared in ANOTHER magazine and was of dubious origin. And that's what I believed Owen's comment was about,

It wasn't.

Owen, Sorry if I misinterpreted your reference to what my intentions might be in starting this thread-- it just sounded like you thought I was trying to pull some kind of fast one here,

I wasn't.


(PS- I'm thinking that if I use less words, I'll get myself into less hot water!).

Guy -

The entry I found on "white paper" at Wikipeida does not match your previous quote that:

Quote:
Rather, it simply states that:

Quote:
While Wikepdia notes that the term "white paper" began to be applied to commercial documents in the early 1990s and does include the technical type, SAE papers are not at all like a piece of gubbamint propoganda or some marketing pitch. SAE describes them, more appropriately, as "technical papers".

Actually, it was I who pointed you to the magazine with that information several years ago:

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/190948/Searchpage/2/Main/47871/Words/teague/Search/true/Re_Starkweather_Packard_on_His#Post190948

Though I must admit that information on SAE papers was tangential to the topic, and I only specified content on the T-L system and not the engine.

The problem I have is that, folowing your use of the term "white paper", people start referring to this paper as a "meeting handout" and you're expressing hope that someone else will post a copy by saying things like:

Quote:
...and...

Quote:
..instead of doing the legwork, like Randy did:

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=23332&topic_id=2362&#forumpost23332

I highly encourage you to look at the SAE site, specifically:

http://www.sae.org/about/intelproperty/

...where they discuss how they maintain and protect their rights.

Quote:

Don't know why the wording changed. If you check back to the post I made previously regarding the definition of "white paper" it does include those few extra words--which I did get from the dictionary--and they don't change the meaning.

Quote:

http://forums.aaca.org/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/190948/
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=23332&topic_id=2362&#forumpost23332

You da man!

Quote:
I don't say things like that, I say that very thing. And I don't see where the problem is. Am I supposed to put in a caveat "only if it's legal... " every time I ask if someone can make an item available? I thought we were supposed to run those things by Kev. The that the article in question may have been used as a "handout" does not preclude copyright. It probably was used as a handout.

Quote:
I asked Randy if he would do that. I presume he had access to the originals, and the "legwork" would not be burdensome. Any submission like that has to follow a protocol, which I don't have handy.

Speaking of leg work, the old thread of mine you cite on the Starkweather/Ward Packard included my writing several letters and reading articles and an entire book on the subject. In fact, I ran across some of the research lately and I should follow up on it.

Quote:
http://www.sae.org/about/intelproperty/where they discuss how they maintain and protect their rights.
That's well worth looking at, but I'll trust that if you sense even the appearance of impropriety, I and a few others here will probably hear about it faster than we can hit "delete."

It would probably be beneficial to have the referral to the site's protocol for submissions referred to in a "sticky" thread.

I don't really appreciate the allusion that I've somehow come under suspicion as an intellectual property thief for asking Randy to post something here.

So, then, who is the author, W.E. Schwieder? Anyone heard of him?

Quote:

Have to agree with you on that. It seems the more you try to explain and clarify, the more your words will be used against you--if your posts are somehow regarded as suspect and worthy of close scrutiny.

There is no equal protection in the court of the internet.

And now, after those brief words from our sponsors... back to the show:

Quote:
Rusty,

Was that the Chevy "Porcupine Head" or "Semi-Hemi" I've seen references to?

And, since engine design is on topic here, who came up with that wondrous "egg-beater"-- the true Chrysler hemi? Quite an engineering marvel, although why they didn't just go ahead and use overhead cams, I'll never know. Pushrods were the hard way... but then I suppose they saw some efficiencies in having a multi-use block.