Hello and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
202 user(s) are online (143 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 4
Guests: 198

Don B, BigKev, 37Blanche, R H, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal



« 1 2 3 (4)

Re: How bad WERE the '55 Packards?
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home

Kevin
See User information
Ah ha! Found it! It's in the Spring 2007 issue of The Packard Cormorant!

First thing I'd suspect about Conner and its degraded condition would be that the war materiel plants may not have been built to the usual peacetime standards, and they either used substitute building materials, or were rushed to completion, or both.

The next thing I'd suspect was that in converting the plant, whether it was a substandard structure or not, Packard may have had to cut their own corners in making Conner fit their bill and to do so quickly. Things that should not have been cut may have been, and things that should not have been excavated may have been. Not to mention that the plant sat directly on top of the old stream bed and the enclosed drain that was once Conner Creek. Maybe the footings weren't the best...

No doubt that Packard didn't put any maintenance into the buildings after the conversion, and Chrysler probably didn't lift a finger after they purchased Briggs. When Packard left, they left in a hurry, so who knows what water the plant ended up getting in the basement, etc.

Posted on: 2008/12/26 21:07
 Top  Print   
 


Re: How bad WERE the '55 Packards?
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home

Packard53
See User information
I was reading the history during the summer. In 1949 Hudson claimed that the 262 inline six cylinder engine, that depending on the octane of fuel, they could obtain compression ratios from 9.3 to 1 to a high of 12.5 to 1.

John F. Shireman

Posted on: 2008/12/26 21:12
REMEMBERING BRAD BERRY MY PACKARD TEACHER
 Top  Print   
 


Re: How bad WERE the '55 Packards?
#33
Forum Ambassador
Forum Ambassador

Owen_Dyneto
See User information
We had 12.5/1 pistons in the Hornet for a very short time, it was a rare day indeed when a head gasket lasted more than 1/4 mile. That was with the 7D engine, the 7X had larger diameter head bolts but doubt it would have made much difference. Ultimately we reverted to stock CR. Packard's 8.7/1 for a flathead was really pushing the limit, GM stated that compression ratios over 8.2 or so were not practical in their flathead engines, though we also have to remember the gasolines of the time. As I remember the ARCO Purple and other super high octane gasolines came along a bit later and by that time flatheads from Detroit were dead. Our Hudson was a V8 Oldsmobile killer though in the 1/4 mile.

On the questions of PackardV8 on the engine bearings, it's just too long ago to remember, sorry.

Posted on: 2008/12/26 23:38
 Top  Print   
 




« 1 2 3 (4)




Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved