Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Just came across this book online. Does not include all the pages but if you scroll about half way down to pages 177-179 it talks about how the AMC V8 cost $10M to develop and that the total 1955 Nash/Hudson freshening cost $11M. Why did the Packard V8 cost over twice as much (around $22M)? And why did the '55 Packard redesign cost, by most accounts, much more than the AMC effort? Any insights? Thanks.


http://books.google.com/books?id=PerGbKxOPZYC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=John+Conde+nash+history&source=bl&ots=0bovaYez5T&sig=z0ZmY3GcgPUxcH3C-sJPpjNYGDw&hl=en&ei=yOUkTfXEA9K04QaSxryeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=John%20Conde%20nash%20history&f=false

Paul West

Perhaps one reason is that the AMC V8 walked itself in the door of AMC HQ on Plymouth road already designed. The engineer that designed it did so at Kaiser-Frazier, it was meant to be their V-8 effort, but by the time it was ready for production the money had dissipated to fund the program due to sluggish sales of K-F product. He walked into AMC on an interview and brought the prints to the engine with him. They hired him, and used the design almost verbatim. K-F didn't care by then, they knew the deal was up. Packard may have amortized the cost of converting the former Utica defense (that plant was built to accommodate Packard's J-47 jet engine contracts) into the reported cost of the new Packard V-8. I do know one thing, when the V-8 engine line was started at Utica it had almost all new, state-of-the-art machinery, almost nothing was taken from EGB.

Yet the K-F/AMC V-8 was reliable right out of the gate, by all accounts, not something that could ever be said about Packard's, unfortunately.

Thoughts:

Corporate bookkeeping and tax reporting is legalized theft. There is no way Packard spent $22m on developing the V8. We'll never know all the details, but there was some well-thought-out tax advantage to S-P (and other of Ike's friends) in the building a whole new plant, crashing the company, selling the huge loss to Curtis-Wright as tax writeoff. The Board of Directors and the rest of the industry knew Packard was dead meat before the first '55 rolled off the line.

Yes, the AMC Gen I V8 was hell-for-stout and overall a more robust design than the Packard. For some reason, the Packard engineers put the iron in the wrong places. Too much in the cylinder block and too little in the main bearing webs and lifter bores.

No, the Packard V8 never had a chance. By the time it was in production, the organization was dead and cold. Even the famous Chevy V8 had oiling problems in its first year of production. GM quickly fixed them. Packard didn't last long enough.

Maybe, it is what it is. The only V8 we got and one with great potential, never realized.

jack vines

Jack Vines wrote: Quote:

Exactly! Look what Pontiac did with a similar engine and some corporate backing within a few years.

Craig

When the Packard V8 was announced the company claimed it cost $5 million. At least that was the figure quoted in contemporary magazine accounts.

Posted on behalf of Roscoe:

Attach file:

---

Size: 194.38 KB; Hits: 46

Thanks, incredible detail there. Anyone know the plant's capacity?

Also as Roscoe point out to me, the artice states: The block and heads are purchased castings

Interesting article!

Shouldn't come as a surprise that they purchased the castings. Remember the discussions we had on this site about Packard's sale of their casting plant and forge during 1954? It would still be nice to know who they contracted the work out to.

Dave