Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

There was a displacement and horsepower racing going on in the 1950s and 1960s. Packard was in the thick of it, primarily against Cadillac, its perceived rival, but Chrysler with its Imperial and 300 series and Ford's Lincoln were not far behind.

What if Packard had stayed in business with enough resource to continue its participation in this race? Cadillac certainly did continue, culminating in a 500CID engine in 1970. Here's a table comparing Packard and Cadillac. The Caddy displacements are real and the post 1956 Packard displacements are "What if?"

<table><tr><td><b>Year</b></td><td><b>Packard</b></td><td><b>Cadillac</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>1955</td><td>352</td><td>331</td></tr>
<tr><td>1956</td><td>374</td><td>365</td></tr>
<tr><td>1959</td><td>414?</td><td>390</td></tr>
<tr><td>1964</td><td>440?</td><td>429</td></tr>
<tr><td>1968</td><td>500?</td><td>472</td></tr>
<tr><td>1970</td><td>-</td><td>500</td></tr></table>

The 1959 Packard 414CID I took from this article:

http://www.1956packardpanther.com/PV8C/HRM195702A.html

This displacement could have easily happened in 1957. We know that this stroke (3/8in over stock 1956 3.500in) actually worked in the 1956 352 block. BTW, the bore was the same as 374 (352+0.125).

The 1964 Packard 440CID I took from reports that Black Bess prototype had an engine of that displacement. It is just the 414CID above bored another 1/8in, so that would have also worked in basically a 1956 374 block if the bore walls were cast equivalently thicker. This displacement could have also happened in 1957, but Packard may have held back for whatever reason.

The 1968 Packard 500CID I took from reports that this was the "ultimate design displacement of the Packard block." Given it's large size (5.000in bore ctr-ctr) and tall deck height, this is certainly reasonable. One configuration would be 4.375in bore and 4.165in stroke. The bore would be +0.125 compared to the 440CID with a larger stroke of 4.165in. This stroke would have required modifying the lower block casting significantly. Also, other bore/stroke combos are feasible.

Other related "What if?" like cylinder heads, cams, etc could be discussed if anyone is interested.

Craig

The V-8 followed typical practice and was nothing special from and engineering standpoint. If it was a deep block with cross bolt mains and a reinforing web then that would be something. Adding displacement would just cause the thing to drink petrol and blow up. The best one was the Clipper because it was detuned and thus more durable.

Tim Cole: you missed my point, I guess. So did Caddy according to you.

Craig

Yes, it would have been no problem to extend the displacement of the Packard V8 to 500" with reliability. The few weak points would have been easily remedied.

No, the Packard V8 was nothing special from an engineering standpoint, but then neither is the Cadillac 500". GM just kept continually refining and expanding it. A hot rod turbocharged Cadillac just went 360 MPH at Bonneville. As Craig is trying to point out, that could have been a Packard V8 just as easily.

Maybe, Craig should have mentioned the '49 Cadillac V8 was redesigned in '56 and there was an entirely new engine in the late '60s. They didn't get from 331" to 500" with the same engine.

jack vines

Jack Vines wrote Quote:

Good point; whereas Packard could have gone from 320CID to 500CID with the same basic engine. How is that "typical practice and ... nothing special"? The biggest production Gen I Chebbie SBC was 400CID and Pontiac's was 455CID. Aftermarket engine builders have gone larger, of course, but the point of this post was OEM.

Craig

I wish other mfrs would have done what pontiac did; make the external engine dimensions the same and just work on bore and stroke inside the motor.

There are small and large journal pontiac motors (even the small journal is larger than a bb chevy i believe) but no big block or small block. You have a pontiac car? put in a 350 or a 455.

If other OEM's had followed suit, it would have been cheaper for them to make and cheaper for us to upgrade later.

I remember reading in either Hemmings Classic Car mag or Collectible Automobile but I think it was the former, that the Packard V8 lived on in the Rolls-Royce & Bentley 412 V8. The claim was Rolls bought up the plans/rights in 1958 or so. I've only read it there so wouldn't bet my car on it but....

Quote:

Don't go for pinks. Definitely an auto urban legend utterly without basis. The RR and the Packard engine share nothing in common, other than being V8s.

Lots of good reading here -http://www.rroc.org.au/wiki/index.php?title=History:RR-V8_Designer

jack vines

On a somewhat related topic, I STILL think it's cool that Lou Senter, back in the 1950s, had the first rail/dragster to go 150 MPH, and it was powered by a Packard V-8!

I've never been able to find a pic of it to post here....

On the related topic of drag racing, Everett Hatch's "Big Bad Clipper" ran a best of 97.75mph 1/4-mile at a weight of 4575. That is 338 rear wheel HP which is at least 400HP at the flywheel!

http://www.1956packardpanther.com/PV8C/HRM195708A.html

It used a 352CID with 2x4 Carib intake and carbs. The only hot rod tricks in the engine were an Isky E2 camshaft (256/256, .420/.420 solid lifters) and "home brew" ported cylinder heads. From my experience, I'd say ol' Everett was a pretty good head porter to get that kind of HP out of the 352.

Also, using a modern profile (computer generated) hydraulic "bracket racing" camshaft instead of the archaic E2 would probably be worth another 40-50HP.

Craig