PDA

View Full Version : Late to the Party - The Packard V-8



Packard5687
08-28-2018, 01:20 PM
Wherein we also speak of the 56J Golden Hawks and the '56 Sky Hawks:

Gear Head Tuesday: Late to the Party - The Packard V-8
https://56packardman.com/2018/08/28/ge ... he-party-the-packard-v-8/ (https://56packardman.com/2018/08/28/gear-head-tuesday-late-to-the-party-the-packard-v-8/)

Another blogger has this post about Packards:
https://disaffectedmusings.com/2018/08/28/tuesday-notes/

dpson
08-28-2018, 02:27 PM
At the end of the first article noted above there is a photo of an engine compartment titled: The Packard V-8 installed in a ’55 Caribbean and fitted with two four barrel Rochester carburetor. Ironically this high end car is also fitted with a vacuum wiper motor, regaled to the low end lines by many car manufacturers by 1955.

PackardV8
08-28-2018, 04:12 PM
Very well written article, but no new news in it.

One must take issue with the title, "Late to the Party". It's not as if there were deadline; rather it was an ongoing process. Every manufacturer introduced a new OHV8 design between 1949 and 1955.

1949 - Cadillac and Oldsmobile
1951 - Studebaker and Chrysler
1952 - Lincoln and DeSoto
1953 - Dodge and Buick
1954 - Ford/Mercury
1955 - Packard, Plymouth, Chevrolet and Pontiac

To single out Packard as "late to the (V8) party", when Chevrolet, Pontiac and Plymouth were on the same time line is just flawed logic.

As we all know, the independents were doomed. It was only a matter of how and when they'd go under. There will always be debate if Studebaker, Hudson, Packard and Nash had merged and if a magician with the talent of a Lee Iacocca became the CEO, they may have lasted longer and may even have fought Chrysler in the race to the bottom.

jack vines

70Avanti2
08-28-2018, 04:51 PM
Sorry Chevrolet had a v8 in 1917.

Packard5687
08-28-2018, 05:39 PM
At the end of the first article noted above there is a photo of an engine compartment titled: The Packard V-8 installed in a ’55 Caribbean and fitted with two four barrel Rochester carburetor. Ironically this high end car is also fitted with a vacuum wiper motor, regaled to the low end lines by many car manufacturers by 1955.

You are so right! Packard made a lot of important upgrades to the '55-'56 models but for reasons lost to us today, they didn't convert the wipers to electric units.

Packard5687
08-28-2018, 05:44 PM
Very well written article, but no new news in it.

One must take issue with the title, "Late to the Party". It's not as if there were deadline; rather it was an ongoing process. Every manufacturer introduced a new OHV8 design between 1949 and 1955.

1949 - Cadillac and Oldsmobile
1951 - Studebaker and Chrysler
1952 - Lincoln and DeSoto
1953 - Dodge and Buick
1954 - Ford/Mercury
1955 - Packard, Plymouth, Chevrolet and Pontiac

To single out Packard as "late to the (V8) party", when Chevrolet, Pontiac and Plymouth were on the same time line is just flawed logic.

As we all know, the independents were doomed. It was only a matter of how and when they'd go under. There will always be debate if Studebaker, Hudson, Packard and Nash had merged and if a magician with the talent of a Lee Iacocca became the CEO, they may have lasted longer and may even have fought Chrysler in the race to the bottom.

jack vines

Hi, Jack - You are right in the sequencing of when the various manufacturers brought their V-8s to market.

My point is that if Packard was the "Master Motor Builder" the company should have anticipated the V-8 trend and been one of the first rather than last Luxury car manufacturers with a V-8. Of course, with Christopher running the show, that wasn't going to happen. I have long thought that the tardiness of Packard in bringing its V-8 to market is one of the (many) reasons the company died.

For other readers who don't know Jack - he is extraordinarily knowledgeable about Packards generally and the V-8s in particular. :-)

PackardV8
08-28-2018, 07:59 PM
Thank you for the kind words. Your article was one of the most complete I've ever read and thank you for explaining the '56J and how/why it was unfairly maligned.


I have long thought that the tardiness of Packard in bringing its V-8 to market is one of the (many) reasons the company died.

Just for the sake of debate, since Studebaker was among the first to bring an OHV8 to market, that undoubtedly explains why they survived. ;>)

jack vines

acolds
08-28-2018, 08:24 PM
I always wondered why when Studebaker and Packard came to be one that the engineers from both divisions would not have worked together. Studebaker had early problems with their V8 with camshafts which they worked out more engineers you would think would be a good thing

Packard5687
08-28-2018, 09:02 PM
Thank you for the kind words. Your article was one of the most complete I've ever read and thank you for explaining the '56J and how/why it was unfairly maligned.



Just for the sake of debate, since Studebaker was among the first to bring an OHV8 to market, that undoubtedly explains why they survived. ;>)

jack vines

Jack Vines - ROTFLMAO!!!! :!!: Yes! No doubt that was a key factor! :D

Packard5687
08-28-2018, 09:30 PM
I always wondered why when Studebaker and Packard came to be one that the engineers from both divisions would not have worked together. Studebaker had early problems with their V8 with camshafts which they worked out more engineers you would think would be a good thing

The sad thing is that there was a lot of "RC" factor (Resistance to Change) at work at Studebaker with Vance and Hoffman setting the example for the others. For one example, Studebaker refused to close their proving grounds. Packard kept their proving grounds open. Needless duplication. Unnecessary overhead. There was resistance throughout the organization to working together. Both companies were in a death struggle. They should have all been "singing off the same sheet of music" - but they weren't. (Pardon the mixed metaphor ...)

Packard5687
08-28-2018, 10:04 PM
Stuart Blond provided the following from his research:











Packard's management authorized production of the V-8 engine in March of 1953. Serious discussions were taking place before then, however. Robert J. Neal quoted the minutes of the Operating Committee meeting of January 2, 1951 in his book, Master Motor Builders: “A preliminary cost study of the V-8 engine for use in the 26th Series [1953] has been completed by the Manufacturing Division, and Mr. Reifel reported that it indicated a tool cost of approximately $13 million with a slight increase in piece cost.” “By January of 1952,” Neal wrote, “the committee had approved spending $1.2 million for the development of the necessary machine tools to set up a modern new engine production facility. By the end of 1953, $3 million had been spent on design, tooling and prototype production of a new V-8 engine, and the company was contemplating further outlay of some $14 million before complete production facilities would be in place. Necessary funds to complete this process were not committed until 1954… There is ample evidence that the engine was designed and prototypes built by early 1953.”

Packard5687
08-29-2018, 06:58 AM
Sorry Chevrolet had a v8 in 1917.
Indeed they did!
That was part of the battle between the Chevrolet brothers and their new master, GM. The brothers wanted to build an "upmarket" car while GM wanted to use the brand to build a low-priced car and aim for volume.