Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

JW
It's same difference, besides I can fix stupid. See post above.

It's a toss up.

Buying my first Packard I had the choice of a '38 Eight(120) Touring Sedan with dual sidemounts and a '40 110 Touring Sedan without sidemounts, both owned by the same guy. Both restored, the '38 was an older restoration with a great motor, while the '40 was a newer restoration but had "piston slap". Driving and handling characteristics were similar although the '38 with much more weight up front with the bigger engine and sidemounts required much greater effort at low and parking speeds. Despite the '40 being $5K cheaper I bought the '38, I must admit the sidemounts were a very attractive feature at the time. Very happy with it but had always wanted a coupe and found a '41 120 Club Coupe on eBay in Idaho and bought that too. The '41 needed a complete mechanical overhaul, which was done except for the engine and trans, and was finished about 18 months after buying it. Sold the '38 and plowed a substantial part of the proceeds into completely rebuilding the engine clutch and trans of the '41 to finish the job. Although the '41 still ran, it burned a lot of oil and ran very quietly but it just wasn't as powerful as it should be. Also during the course of the '41 engine rebuild, at my mate Wade's workshop, he swapped a rebuilt engine into a '39 Six Touring Sedan which also had a reasonably running but very tired engine for another Packard club member. Since the rebuilds I've been impressed by the power the '39 Six has, having had the chance to drive it on a number of occasions. While not as powerful as the 120, it's more than adequate, being fairly torquey and with good acceleration, and that could be improved too because the accelerator linkage was very sloppy. Accordingly if presented with the same initial buying decision now between the '38 and '40, in light of what I now know, I would probably choose the '40. Another factor to consider would be maintenance and repair costs. More Six/110's built than Eight/120's should mean more parts available so lower costs, plus there was some commonality in parts between the cars, excluding the engines. Saying that, I actually used a harmonic balancer off the tired engine that came out of the '39 Six on my '41 120 engine when I found the 120's balancer was cracked. Engine rebuild cost would be lower just because there are less parts to repair or replace in a 6 versus an 8.

I've based my response on my own experiences in the last few years and not that of a new car buyer from 70 odd years ago. Although, back then, I'd imagine that test driving would be one factor in a selection process, the initial cost with the Eight being 25% dearer than the Six would be a significant difference for the times. Plus maintenance and repair costs would be another factor for the times with regular valve grinds(top end overhauls) and oil changes being cheaper as well.

My for what its worth.

When Carl Altz, who worked at the proving ground was asked a few years ago, "What was your favorite car to drive?" he shocked the crowd by saying the '39 Six. Now this was a man who had piloted everything that Packard had to offer.

Mal noted the 25% premium for a 120. If my car was to be used mostly in town the six would be hands down winner as they are much lighter on their feet and were geared to be effortlessly suitable for town use. A customer has a low mileage 38 Six which is absolutely delightful on the twisty slow roads around here. For long distance the 120 would be the best bet, but with overdrive please. My observation of cars that come through here is that a fairly small percentage of junior cars got that option. In the bathtub era, the percentage went way up.

The 160/180 cars are fabulously smooth and powerful, but especially with sidemounts don't hold a candle to the lighter cars when driven on indifferent roads.

Quote:

Hmmmm, wonder what the meaning of this is?

(o{I}o)

JW

Are we taking turns?

You caught my stupid typo, then I corrected it.

There's a saying "You can't fix stupid" but thanks to BigKevs wonderful website he has the "edit" function of which I availed myself.

Is it your turn now?

Quote:

Fred, I was not intending to play a game with you. I really did not know what you meant with your posting. I share an affliction where my fingers are faster than my brain. The important thing is to have accurate and helpful information here. Thanks for correcting my error.

(o{I}o)