Packard minesweeper engines

[Dave Mitchell]

Does anyone have or know about the Packard minesweeper engines built in the 1950s? They are non magnetic - all aluminum, stainless steel, copper and brass, 4 valve per cylinder, overhead cam turbo diesels, used both for propulsion and also for powering the generators that created magnetic field that attracted the mines so they could be shot and blown up harmlessly. As far as I know they were V12s and inline 6s. I have one of the 850 cu in 6s. It would be fun to get it running, but that is pretty far down on my list of projects.

[Owen_Dyneto]

This series of engines are covered in some detail in Robert Neal's book on the subject. Perhaps you'll also find some new information at:

PackardClub.org • View topic - Non-magnetic Marine Diesels

[Dave Mitchell]

Thanks for the link! Interesting. I wonder how many of these are still around? Have you seen one of the 6 cylinder ones. Mine has a reduction gearbox which seems to indicate that it was used for propulsion. It has been so long since I read the Neal book, I forgot that there were V16s.

[tfee]

Dave, can you share some pictures of it? That sounds like a really cool engine.

[Dave Mitchell]

I don't have enough space to have all my stuff on display, and the big engine is in storage in a spot where I can't get a good photo, but I will dig it out this summer and then post some photos. I had some but lost a lot of photos in a flood last year.

It is an interesting motor and knowing that they had the means to build a sophisticated 4 valve per cylinder overhead cam turbocharged engine makes you wonder what they could have built for passenger cars. If Packard had built a car that was a competitor to the Mercedes 300SL or Corvette would they still be around?

[Restorer32]

The 16 cylinder Packard Marine engines were popular in the 1980's as tractor pulling engines. They were available from a surplus military outfit in San Diego (limited numbers I assume). I just happened to be at a local truck freight terminal and saw one on their dock and questioned the fellow picking it up. He said they put out 1400 HP with modern fuels and ran like hell until they broke.

[Owen_Dyneto]

"Popular" is a relative term. Sources indicate that only 5 of the V16 marine diesels (designated ID-2270) were built, and of the earlier gasoline V16 of 1946 for proposed new PT boat use (IM-3300) only 40 were built.

[Dave Fields]

Dave, remember Ford had an all aluminum DOHC V-8 and V-12 pre war. These ol' boys were far more advanced than we give them credt for.
Packard choose to produce unimaginative, dull cars after 1947. They had wonderful ride qualties, but no engine would have saved the lack of creativity that decended lke a wet blanket on Packard Styling after the war.
Perhaps the people who were responsible for the Packard colors for 1939 were promoted to styling.
At that time, MB was building cars in bombed out factores, BMW making goofy Isettas, and Honda was rebuilding surplus discarded US Army generator motors for bicycles.
Packard's moto became "But we always did it that way."

[55PackardGuy]

Dave, remember Ford had an all aluminum DOHC V-8 and V-12 pre war. These ol' boys were far more advanced than we give them credt for.
Packard choose to produce unimaginative, dull cars after 1947. They had wonderful ride qualties, but no engine would have saved the lack of creativity that decended lke a wet blanket on Packard Styling after the war.
Packard's moto became "But we always did it that way."

Oh my, Dave. Where to start. Ford's pre-war automotive V-12s were a joke alongside Packard V12s produced years earlier.

In addition, Packard never got compensated for the real value of the awesome engines they designed and built for the war effort, as noted in this thread. Their post-war military contracts dried up as soon as a former head of GM, Charles Wilson, became Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower, and instituted a "narrow-based procurement policy" (ie GM and few other favored suppliers) for military manufacturing contracts with the automotive industry. The estimated loss of defense work amounted to about $426 million (back when a million was a lot of money) for Studebaker-Packard.*

As far as Packard "always doing it that way" I can't help but wonder whether the largest, most powerful V8, and a completely new full torsion bar suspension was the way Packard (or anybody else) "always did it." These cars were built under great economic duress, brought on largely by the loss of deserved military contracts that were terminated, or outright broken.

So these cars were "dull?" Interesting perspective, considering they were more advanced than any of the "big three" cars of the time, and produced by an independent manufacturer that bested the others when they were fat with cash.

Your comment is uninformed, or if you are informed, purposely misleading.

*To read more, see pg 579 of "Packard, A History of the Motor Car and the Company," Beverly Rae Kimes, ed., copyright 1978, Automobile Quarterly, Inc.

[Dave Mitchell]

I don't want to start a fight over what killed Packard, I am just saying that this big diesel is a very high quality, well built and well engineered, high tech powerplant, and therefore they obviously had the capability to built such a unit. They obviously decided that the market wasn't there for a car with such a high tech engine, or that the cost was too high, because it wsn't a lack of ability to build the motor that stopped them. Perhaps it was a lack of imagination that they could even build a sports car... (not to put down the 400s and Carribeans - nice cars, but not competitors to the 300SL or even early Corvettes)


I am not familiar with the Ford DOHC prewar engines. I don't think that the prewar Lincoln V12s Continentals were the products that Ford would be most proud of though, so putting some of that technology into those eninges would have helped a lot. I had a 42 Lincoln Cabriolet for a while and it was an interesting car, but not one I kept. But then again, I would have to agree that the postwar Packards aren't my favorites either I have had a 1946 2106 club sedan and 55 400 and Patrician, (and all of them were nice to drive, had good power and a nice ride) but much prefer the prewar styling, and definitely feel that there is a difference in build quality between pre and post war Packards.

What if Packard had built a lightweight DOHC inline 6, V8 or even better V12 with a small turbo on it and built a sports car around it? Oh well, all just pie in the sky now, but I think this diesel engine is a testament to what they could still build in 1952 when times weren't the best for Packard.

[jbbuick22]

The Ford DOHC engines (GAA & GAN ), were used in the M4 Sherman medium tank, and the
Pershing M26 heavy tank in WW2 and Korea.

1200 CI 450 HP at 1200 rpm , DOHC with 4 valves per cyl. and shaft drive on the cams,

aluminum block and heads, two large 2 bbl carbs. It was considered one of the better

powerplants used in the Sherman.

JB

[55PackardGuy]

Perhaps it was a lack of imagination that they could even build a sports car... (not to put down the 400s and Carribeans - nice cars, but not competitors to the 300SL or even early Corvettes)

What if Packard had built a lightweight DOHC inline 6, V8 or even better V12 with a small turbo on it and built a sports car around it? Oh well, all just pie in the sky now, but I think this diesel engine is a testament to what they could still build in 1952 when times weren't the best for Packard.

Dave M,

I guess you could as easily ask why Ford didn't put a DOHC engine in a postwar car. First, the government was paying for at least a portion of the development and manufacturing expenses incurred designing and building these high-tech engines, and second, I'd say that the general motoring public did not care much about how many cams or where they were on the cars they were buying-- especially in the first few postwar years--and to expect them to pay the extra cost (not to mention the critical time-to-market lag) would have been folly for any of the manufacturers.

BTW, I don't think Packard could ever be accused of lacking the "imagination" to build a sports car in the early 50's, they just didn't seem to have the will or the funds to put the various incarnations of the Panther into production. Also, I think you'd agree that, engine-wise, practically ANY car of the early 50's had an engine that was "in the league with" the Corvette's gussied up stovebolt 6!

[Rusty_OToole]

There was an interview with 2 of Packards top brass published in popular Mechanics in the early fifties. In it they commented on the latest cars they had examined and driven on a fact finding trip to Europe. They were dismissive of the Bentley saying it did not compare to Packards cheapest model and they felt the MG had a noisy muffler. All in all they did not find any foreign designs worth emulating.

[Dave Fields]

When did Packard stop building aircraft and marine engines? Where were they built? Was this sector combined with Studebaker too? If so how? Were these Packard factories kept runing? Did this sector survive the PAckard/ Studebaker closure?

[Dave Fields]

1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides" has been moved from Germany to Ft Bliss, EL Paso. They brought their museum with them. was there last week attempting to research an article for The Antique Autmobile and talked to the director. She said some of the yanks had Ford DOHC V-8's, but showed no interest in opening one up for viewing. Ditto for a German armored vehicle with a 6 clinder Maybach. No photos of engines, engines on stands, etc. Not much ambition on the director's part from my perspective. It is an excellent museum with displays still under construction.

[Dave Fields]

55 Packard Guy: I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

[55PackardGuy]

55 Packard Guy: I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

Dave,

I presume this refers to my comment on the Chevy stovebolt 6 being a lame attempt at a "sports car" engine in the first Corvettes. So, in your opinion, what was a worse attempt at a souped up "performance" engine in an early 50's American car. I understand that if you find one, then you'd be wrong to agree with me. But if you don't, you can agree, and be right, too.

[olcrow]

dave: why was/is a chevy 6 cylinder called a "stovebolt 6? i have heard several reasons long time ago. wonder how many reason there really are?

[jbbuick22]

Google Ford GAA engine many sites with pic of the GAA engine, and its history.

JB

[55PackardGuy]

dave: why was/is a chevy 6 cylinder called a "stovebolt 6? i have heard several reasons long time ago. wonder how many reason there really are?

I dunno about the Ford GAA, but the Chevy "Stovebolt" had some very long, thin head bolts (as opposed to the ubiquitous flatheads around when Chevy was OHV) and that's the reason I always heard. They even had one head bolt that went right through one of the exhaust ports! An interesting design feature.

Now Dave, are you going to make us both wrong about what a sorry excuse for a "sports car engine" this thing really was? Can you really find something worse?

[Restorer32]

Old cook stoves had long "stove bolts" that went from the top plate to the bottom plate and held the whole thing together similar to the Chev engines.

[Rusty_OToole]

A stove bolt was a distinct type of bolt with a round head slotted for a screwdriver. It usually had a square nut on the other end. All wood stoves and coal stoves made of iron, were held together with stove bolts.

The first Chev sixes used the same type bolts to hold the valve cover and side covers on and to fasten other accessories to the engine. Probably because they were cheaper than other bolts.

So it got the name Stovebolt Six.

[KG8LB]

A new, or nearly new minesweeper engine is currently on exhibit at the Packard Proving Grounds on Van Dyke, near Utica, MI.

[KG8LB]

BTW, Things could (should) have turned out much differently. Perhaps our own government could have treated Bantam and Packard more fairly. Instead they chose to fund and support rebuilding industries in Germany and Japan.
From the accounts of a couple of tank mechanics that I have known, the Fords in Sherman tanks were no real prize !

[Dave Mitchell]

A new, or nearly new minesweeper engine is currently on exhibit at the Packard Proving Grounds on Van Dyke, near Utica, MI.

Thanks for the tip, I will have to check that out the next time I am in Detroit.

There was a man who used to stop by our shop who was a mechanic in the Army in WWII - both in Europe and was sent to the Pacific - he didn't like the Sherman at all. I know he didn't like the Fords, but I can't remember exactly why and he is no longer with us. I do remember that the other engine which was built something like five inline six cylinder engines arranged radially around a common center had a problem he was amazed that they hadn't designed out. The bottom engine would fill with oil and lock, stopping everything. I think his trick was to pull the spark plugs on that engine and just let it drain and hope it hadn't done more damage, but sometimes he had to replace that bottom engine. He said they were pretty good otherwise. I know he thought both were bad in the winter from the stories he told of trying to keep them running during the Battle of the Bulge.