Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Packard Engine (1955 Hot Rod Magazine Article)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Packard Engine (1955 Hot Rod Magazine Article)

    http://www.1956packardpanther.com/PV8C/HRM195508A.html

    (A good read)

    HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

    Jeff


    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



    Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

  • #2
    To: DEEPNHOCK,----That was a good read! Don't want to start World War III here, but I must say I have to laugh when I hear folks say that this 'monster' is "about the same size and weight" as a
    Studebaker V8. S-U-R-E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      As big as the block castings were on that thing, surely someone could have gotten really really big with a stroker and bore job.. Coulda, woulda, shoulda!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SN-60 View Post
        To: DEEPNHOCK,----That was a good read! Don't want to start World War III here, but I must say I have to laugh when I hear folks say that this 'monster' is "about the same size and weight" as a
        Studebaker V8. S-U-R-E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Maybe, some facts might prevent WWIII.

        Yes, they're absolutely about the same weight. The '56 Golden Hawk 275hp 352" Packard V8 weighs 710# and the '57 Studebaker 275hp 289" V8 weighs 695# on the same scale on the same day.

        FWIW, the Studebaker V8 is one of the heaviest-per-cubic-inch of all the OHV8s. Only the Dodge and DeSoto hemis as heavy. The 352"-374" Packard weighs less than the 354"-392" Chrysler hemi.

        No, they're not the same physical size. The Packard V8 is an inch taller, two inches wider and four inches longer. Because the Packard weight is slightly higher and slightly further forward, the two cars feel more different than the 15# weight difference.

        As big as the block castings were on that thing, surely someone could have gotten really really big with a stroker and bore job.. Coulda, woulda, shoulda!!
        The Packard V8 was designed as a 5.0" bore c/c. This is the same bore center as the late Cadillac 500" V8. Now wouldn't a 500" with 2x4-bbls have been fun in the '56 GH before TwinTraction was available! The 352" spun the right rear wheel clear through a 0-30 MPH run.

        jack vines
        Last edited by PackardV8; 12-02-2012, 03:37 PM.
        PackardV8

        Comment


        • #5
          To: Packard V8,----That all makes sense Jack....but how could a piece of cast iron be 1" taller, 2" wider, and 4" longer.....yet only weigh 15 lbs. more?....Black Magic, I think!!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SN-60 View Post
            To: Packard V8,----That all makes sense Jack....but how could a piece of cast iron be 1" taller, 2" wider, and 4" longer.....yet only weigh 15 lbs. more?....Black Magic, I think!!!!!
            Air inside a cylinder weighs less than iron outside. Packard used the iron to enclose much more displacement.

            Having said that, the Studebaker is much stronger up the middle of the block because of all that extra iron.

            Packard
            320" = 2.21#/cu.in.
            352" = 2.01 #/cu.in.
            374" = 1.89#/cu.in.

            Studebaker
            224" = 3.10#/cu.in.
            259" = 2.68#/cu.in.
            289" = 2.40#/cu.in.
            304" = 2.28#/cu.in

            jack vines
            PackardV8

            Comment


            • #7
              To: Packard V8,----So You're saying that where the Studebaker engine had cast iron (inside) the Packard engine had hollow, open areas......well, I guess that could explain the closeness in weight.

              Comment


              • #8
                JV will rightly correct whatever I may say in error .
                The Packard has hollow journals in the crank , and when I checked the engines that I had ,
                it seemed to have generally thinner cyl walls etc. as well . It was designed at roughly the same time
                as the SBC , and was probably more along the thinwall design philosophy . It even had lighter valve
                covers . Just a somewhat more modern engine , leading to relative lightness .
                Bill H
                Daytona Beach
                SDC member since 1970
                Owner of The Skeeter Hawk .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
                  The Packard V8 was designed as a 5.0" bore c/c. This is the same bore center as the late Cadillac 500" V8. Now wouldn't a 500" with 2x4-bbls have been fun in the '56 GH before TwinTraction was available!
                  Had everything gone as planned for 1957, with Packard still being made in Detroit producing the Predictor-inspired cars, further engine devopments would have included a 440 cubic inch displacement along with some other engineering refinements in ride which the Black Bess prototype had at the time.

                  Craig

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Something shifter4 said about thin wall design in these Packard engines......Years ago I purchased two Packard engines for parts....both engines had frozen over, and both blocks were cracked....but the way
                    those blocks cracked!.....bulges and hairline cracks radiating all over the outside of the blocks...the core (freeze) plugs never moved. The one or two Studebaker V8's I've seen that have been allowed to 'freeze over'
                    lost their core (freeze) plugs, ....but the blocks themselves held up...interesting.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X