Granitelli 574 ci Packard powered

[clonelark]

Even Granitelli mentioned

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1958-Correct-Craft-VERY-RARE-1-5-CYPRESS-GARDENS-/320727524949?pt=Power_Motorboats&hash=item4aacd9a655

[DEEPNHOCK]

I'd want some letters of provenance on the Granetelli statements.

[comatus]

I'm pretty sure the guy is telling the truth. He can spell Granatelli.

Golly, Uncle Jed, what's them statue fellers made of?
Them's Granite, Elly.

[52-fan]

I wonder if he means 574 horsepower? Still hard to prove.

[pdrnec]

He had the engines bored to 374 Cu. In. After this, He added McCulloch superchargers and after tuning the engines to the extent he wanted them, the engines turned out to be 574 Cu. In.

I'm still scratching my head over this one.

[BobPalma]

In 1962 ANDY GRANATELLI had 10 custom Packard V8 352 Cu. In. engines made for his race cars. They all had dual 4 barrel carburetors. He had the engines bored to 374 Cu. In. After this, He added McCulloch superchargers and after tuning the engines to the extent he wanted them, the engines turned out to be 574 Cu. In.

I'm still scratching my head over this one.

Me too, Pat. I had even copied that remark to paste it in a comment until I scrolled down and saw your post. That's some serious tuning! <GGG> BP

[PackardV8]

It's a beautiful, historic boat and one I'd love to have. I think it's easily worth the $40,000 of the BIN.

However, it is unfortunate he's tarnishing the provenance with what is most probably incorrect information about the engine. If he's as far out as it seems, any buyer would have recourse for misrepresentation.

1. In all of the years of researching Studebakers, Packards and the Granatellis, has any of us ever come across anything about them racing Packards in 1962 or building ten super custom 574" Packard V8s?
2. I've only been working on Packard V8s for fifty years. I can't imagine any combination of boring and stroking which will take a 352" to 574". With a maximum possible overbore to 4.250", it would require a 5" stroke. There's just no room for this, as even increasing the stroke to 3.75" requires grinding the bottom of the cylinders for rod clearance. With a 5" stroke, the connecting rods would be swinging up into the water jacket and through the middle of the camshaft.
3. The 2.25" rod journals and 2.5" main bearings would have zero overlap with a 5" stroke. The crank would have to have been made from a steel billet, but even then would be too weak to make any serious horsepower.
4. I would love to see the full main bearing girdle, as the Packard lower end is a weak point. That actually makes sense.

Again, love the boat; just wish the listing had the facts straight on what is certainly one of the best Packard V8s ever built.

jack vines

[JDP]

It's a beautiful, historic boat and one I'd love to have. I think it's easily worth the $40,000 of the BIN.

However, it is unfortunate he's tarnishing the provenance with what is most probably incorrect information about the engine. If he's as far out as it seems, any buyer would have recourse for misrepresentation.

1. In all of the years of researching Studebakers, Packards and the Granatellis, has any of us ever come across anything about them racing Packards in 1962 or building ten super custom 574" Packard V8s?
2. I've only been working on Packard V8s for fifty years. I can't imagine any combination of boring and stroking which will take a 352" to 574". With a maximum possible overbore to 4.250", it would require a 5" stroke. There's just no room for this, as even increasing the stroke to 3.75" requires grinding the bottom of the cylinders for rod clearance. With a 5" stroke, the connecting rods would be swinging up into the water jacket and through the middle of the camshaft.
3. The 2.25" rod journals and 2.5" main bearings would have zero overlap with a 5" stroke. The crank would have to have been made from a steel billet, but even then would be too weak to make any serious horsepower.
4. I would love to see the full main bearing girdle, as the Packard lower end is a weak point. That actually makes sense.

Again, love the boat; just wish the listing had the facts straight on what is certainly one of the best Packard V8s ever built.

jack vines

Here's some info on the 374 Packard marine engines.

http://forums.aaca.org/f134/packard-v8-boat-motors-208395.html

I assume they intended to say performs like a 574, or 574 HP. BTW, no need to stroke a 352, since the factory made a 374 anyway.

[pdrnec]

I suspect 52-fan nailed it - he was trying to claim 574HP

[sals54]

I'm still trying to imagine that engine in a 56 Golden Hawk ! ! ! ! ! !

[JDP]

I'm still trying to imagine that engine in a 56 Golden Hawk ! ! ! ! ! !

There were supercharged 56 J on the road back in the day, since they made the kits for both the single and dual four barrel versions.

[BobPalma]

All 3 Packard V8 displacements (320, 352, 374) had the same 3.5" stroke. Only the bore changed from one to the next. BP

[Jim B PEI]

574 CID is just plain silly. The Packard savvy folks have likely nailed it that it is supposed to be a claim for 574 horsepower. With supercharger and and twin 4 barrels, it would move the largest 56 Packy-derm at better than stately speeds.

Has anyone put a supercharger before on a 374 twin 4 bbl in an actual Packard car or a Golden Hawk, as in JDP's post, that still exists??

[63t-cab]

WOW !,and HOLY CRAP !

[PackardV8]

574 CID is just plain silly. The Packard savvy folks have likely nailed it that it is supposed to be a claim for 574 horsepower.

FWIW, with only one Paxton claiming 574 horsepower is just plain silly, too. A single Paxton won't make more than three or four pounds of boost on a 374" with 2x4bbls and a racy camshaft. The Paxton was designed for small engines and just runs out of capacity on anything larger than 300".

Having said that, it is easily in the top ten strongest Packard V8s ever built.

jack vines