I really like the red & white. I saw in a magazine (that I didn't save) one that was dark green and beige that really looked good too.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
1956-1958 Hot Rod Wagons
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by t walgamuth View PostThat looks nice!
How much does a Packard v8 weigh?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Packard8 View PostI've seen figures of 698# and 705# listed as the dry weight of a 1956 Packard 374 V8. Probably only 20-30# more than a Stude 289. However in the '56 GH, the weight was more forward and higher than a 289 Stude engine in a Sky Hawk which would account for the nose-heavy handling impressions reported by contemporary road testers. RE transplanting into a Stude wagon, I doubt that the extra few pounds would present a problem, unless you plan on road racing...
This would make a great engine in a Scotsman 2-door sedan too...Last edited by Swifster; 09-09-2013, 04:57 PM.Tom - Bradenton, FL
1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD
Comment
-
Originally posted by Swifster View PostThis was my thought. For cruising and the very occasional trip down the drag strip, I would think it wouldn't pose a problem. It might even tow a vintage travel trailer. The idea isn't to build a dragster, but a comfortable cruiser. Add a 4L80E and who knows, I might even get 20 MPG out of it...
This would make a great engine in a Scotsman 2-door sedan too...(better beef up the suspension & brakes, tho).
1996 Impala SS
1967 Jag XKE FHC
1963 Avanti R2
1963 Avanti R1
1956 Packard Patrician
1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
1909 Hupmobile Model 20
Comment
-
Originally posted by Packard8 View PostI've seen figures of 698# and 705# listed as the dry weight of a 1956 Packard 374 V8. Probably only 20-30# more than a Stude 289. However in the '56 GH, the weight was more forward and higher than a 289 Stude engine in a Sky Hawk which would account for the nose-heavy handling impressions
Comment
-
Originally posted by Packard8 View PostI believe a 20 MPG cruiser would be doable. I originally had this engine in a 56 GH with a T85/OD and a 3:08 axle. I never had the speedo corrected, but it showed about 1800-1900 RPM at 68-70 MPH (clocked by a modern car alongside) and was just loafing along with the rear venturis closed. A Scotsman would be cool, and you wouldn't need to worry about towng with 400+ Lbs of torque.(better beef up the suspension & brakes, tho).
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Nox;776947]When I was gonna start with my project loads of folx told me the sedans had more headroom under the hood & that I probably wouldn't be able to fit the torqueflite under the tunnel...
...So whatever mr SN-60 says: if you aint tried it you do NOT really know yet.
& yeah, I believed it all & cut the tunnel & had to weld it close again, all for nothing AND there's a small dent in my hood from the not-so-high headroom... but that's okidoki; it's my own car & aint gonna be sold!
You dont even have to put up with the dent.... just use shorter motor mounts. I use Volvo or some other makers, that I can't think of just now. I go to the NAPA parts store and browse the book with the motor and trans mounts and find one that looks the same, but shorter. It'll give you up to 3/4" of extra clearance. Just keep an eye on your lower pan and pulley to keep them from touching the bell crank.sals54
Comment
-
Well Sal: the engine is sitting so low that it touched the steering arm under the pan so I had to ad plates under the engine-mounts.
& the engine-mounts are boat-stuff, a little harder than the car mounts.
I've been wrestling a lot with the clearance issue, like different carb's & lowering the air-filter over it & even moving the engine slightly to passenger side & tilting it a bit... yep, I've been on to it for the whole last winter.
The thing is that I want it to look old under the hood, & I mean: LOOK OLD! ...+ having LPG installed.
& I do NOT wanna have the pipe-from-carb-to-the-filter-aside-look.
This picture was taken last week, since then the fan-shield has been installed again for the front-light electrix & the old loox & other valve-covers will go on for a while when it's going to the main test for getting out on the road.
But then: this aint no Packard engine & not a 56-58 & not a wagon...
Comment
-
Nox, Sorry about that. I went back to re-read your posts. I forgot that you were dealing with a Mopar installation. You've been through the ringer on this already, haven't you?? It all looks good in there, though. Is there a low rise manifold available for your engine? I thought the Edlebrock type carbs were shorter than the Holley style. Are they not? Or perhaps not enough to make much difference? That is surprising.
How about using a low clearance lower section of an air cleaner with an old looking top mounted to it to give it the look you want?
When I was young and too poor to buy a nice chrome air cleaner, I used a stock Mopar air cleaner for my early style AFB. I could not use the adapter cuz of the same hood clearance issues. So I got tin snips to meticulously cut away the outer portion of the air cleaner top to show off the air filter and bent the lower portion lower the height. Then had to install the shortest 14 inch air cleaner I could find. I think I painted it red for that real custom look.... ugh.
Good luck on your quest.sals54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nox View PostWell Sal: the engine is sitting so low that it touched the steering arm under the pan so I had to ad plates under the engine-mounts.
& the engine-mounts are boat-stuff, a little harder than the car mounts.
I've been wrestling a lot with the clearance issue, like different carb's & lowering the air-filter over it & even moving the engine slightly to passenger side & tilting it a bit... yep, I've been on to it for the whole last winter.
The thing is that I want it to look old under the hood, & I mean: LOOK OLD! ...+ having LPG installed.
& I do NOT wanna have the pipe-from-carb-to-the-filter-aside-look.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27365[/ATTACH]
This picture was taken last week, since then the fan-shield has been installed again for the front-light electrix & the old loox & other valve-covers will go on for a while when it's going to the main test for getting out on the road.
But then: this aint no Packard engine & not a 56-58 & not a wagon...1996 Impala SS
1967 Jag XKE FHC
1963 Avanti R2
1963 Avanti R1
1956 Packard Patrician
1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
1909 Hupmobile Model 20
Comment
-
Originally posted by GThawkwind View PostJust curious. If yo. Had this in a GH why did you pull it and dress it for the sea? Do you a boat planned for it, and what happened to the GH? I think Jack is building a Packard powered hot rod truck as we speak.1996 Impala SS
1967 Jag XKE FHC
1963 Avanti R2
1963 Avanti R1
1956 Packard Patrician
1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
1909 Hupmobile Model 20
Comment
-
Well thanx for the support, but I still want the engine to look really old & tame with the kind of air-cleaner I already have.
A lower intake manifold would be great but as I first want to get the stuff out on the road & I'm without work at the moment I can't afford that & the same goes for the carb.
So you can be sure that I wouldn't say no to to either of it but since nobody want to give it for free I guess I just have to wait...
Or get really-really surprised...?
One can only hope!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nox View PostWell thanx for the support, but I still want the engine to look really old & tame with the kind of air-cleaner I already have.
A lower intake manifold would be great but as I first want to get the stuff out on the road & I'm without work at the moment I can't afford that & the same goes for the carb.
So you can be sure that I wouldn't say no to to either of it but since nobody want to give it for free I guess I just have to wait...
Or get really-really surprised...?
One can only hope!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...Q9QEwAw&dur=771996 Impala SS
1967 Jag XKE FHC
1963 Avanti R2
1963 Avanti R1
1956 Packard Patrician
1948 Jag Mk IV DHC
1909 Hupmobile Model 20
Comment
Comment