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.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Owen_Dyneto (see edit history)

[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!

Edited July 4, 2011 by 55PackardGuy (see edit history)

[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.

[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.

[Guest 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.

[Guest KG8LB]

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

[Guest 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.

[Highlander160]

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?

Since the Kaiser Darrin was actually before the Vette by a few months, I'd say that whole gig was "worse" if you define worse as lame in the HP dept.

Post war Packards being dull: well I'd fully agree with that regarding the 48-50 models. Even though there's a precious few I might consider owning, well I can't think of or imagine an uglier front facia. Rear 3/4 view, drop dead sexy if you like swoopy "kustom" looking cars. Windshield, a sinister 49deg rake 1st used on the Clippers. Again, drop dead sexy. But you go forward to the grille/headlight/bumper area, sorry Packardites. The poor thing looks like a cross-eyed kid with a mouth full of jawbreakers. Even the front wheel opening is just, well, off. It doesn't flow with the rest of the car from the cowl back.

The Clippers are damn good lookin cars IMO. Again that sinister rake to the W/S, long high hood, and the Custom Super interiors are like that room at Granny's house that nobody was allowed to go in to. The 356 and 359 engines are arguably one of Packard's best ever. I've had the pleasure of having a few of them under my right foot and they never disappoint. Heavy maybe, not as practical for a hotrod/race application as some period choices, but still in the HP and speed dept, one of the best ever.

Those are my thoughts not yours, but some of us may agree. Tax and title extra, no purchase necessary, void where prohibited, see your retailer for details...

[JD in KC]

...Post war Packards being dull: well I'd fully agree with that regarding the 48-50 models. Even though there's a precious few I might consider owning, well I can't think of or imagine an uglier front facia...

Of course I totally disagree with you... but for uglier... how about a '57 Hudson? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Rusty_OToole]

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.

The tank engine made from five flathead sixes bunched together was made by Chrysler. It was the result of demand for tanks FAST. By combining 5 of their industrial flathead sixes, they could come up with a tank engine of the required horsepower in weeks instead of months, with a minimum of new tooling.

At the time, what the army needed was good tanks immediately, not excellent tanks next year.

In those days the US had the world's best baling wire, or seat of the pants engineers. The amount of war materiel they turned out in 3 years was astonishing, considering they went from a standing start in December 1941.

[Dave Mitchell]

At the risk of irritating someone, I would say we amazingly good - so good that our enemies were stunned by our output. We provided equipment to every one of our allies in large numbers, not just our own forces. We were also able to turn out engines like the Packard redesign of the Merlin which produced more power with fewer parts and less production time and resources. I didn't mean to say that the Sherman was a bad tank or had bad engines, but just pointing out one problem area that he mentioned. I thought those were Chrysler, but not knowing for sure didn't say. To me, it is an intriguing design and amazing that it worked at all. The Porsche designed German tanks certainly had their flaws too, although they had their advantages also. Anyway I was by no means trying to disparage the war effort and the incredible solutions they came up with in a short time for big problems. My grandmother was one of those war production workers and my dad was flying P 47s - powered by the awesome Pratt and Whitney R2800 with water injection and turbos. We could and did build great engines in those years. The Packard minesweeper engine seems like a very good engine to me and I just find it interesting that more of the technology didn't end up in automobiles.

[Guest stephen48]

Here is a photo taken earlier this year of a Packard Merlin powered Mustang.It sounds impressive!

[Dave Mitchell]

Thanks for posting the P 51. Have you been to the air museum in the south of NZ?

[Guest stephen48]

I have been to the RNZAF (airforce) museum in Christchurch which is very good.The one further South in Wanaka has now closed but I never got there.There is another at Ashburton South of Christchurch that I have yet to visit.

Incidently the transport museum in Auckland(Motat) opened its new aviation display building last week.It is very good with a large display of historic aircraft including Kittyhawk, Lancaster, Mosquito,Ventura etc.It is well worth a visit.

I know I am drifting away from the thread but here are some photos of part of the collection at Motat, Auckland,taken a few days ago.

[Dave Mitchell]

Looks like some very interesting planes there. Thanks for posting

[Guest jazzdude60]

I served on board a minesweeper that used Packard V-16 diesels for both main propulsion and minesweep generators....great screaming diesels..!!

[Guest shinyhubcap]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2011 at 9:45 AM, Dave Mitchell said:

..... The bottom engine would fill with oil and lock, stopping everything. I think his trick was to pull the spark plugs on that engine.....

 

REGARDING AMERICAN TANK ENGINES & THE FAILURE OF PACKARD:

First  - regarding tank engines:

I hope David will forgive me for correcting him - let me first "set-the-stage" for where we were in the early war years. 

 

We were in a hurry to get weapon systems in service.   Our first tanks during that era, were so light and small that by today's standards they were little more than armored cars!    Two Cadillac car motors coupled to two GM Hydramatic transmissions!  Yes, they ran well,  but we obviously needed a LOT more power.  What David is referring to is the CYLINDERS of a standard aircraft engine that was put in some tanks - a "985 Pratt & Whitney".  These  were radial engines - what Dave was referring to is "oil lock" or "cylinder lock".  

 

Yes, if you are not familiar with the starting drill for a radial engine,  you can destroy one just by trying to start it.   We call the proper procedure   "pulling thru".    Ever watched a piston airliner or radial equipped military aircraft start up?  They crank em over - oh...at least "seven  blades" before they turn on the ignition.  The starter drives had clutches in them that would slip, protecting the motor if there was enough oll in the lower cylinder to cause a hydraulic lock.

 

As the war went on, we got better and more easily managed motors - but that's another story.

 

Second - Regarding the failure of Packard.    I call it the "Packard Disease"...started in the late 1930's when new management correctly recognized they needed something a LOT cheaper to sell,  or they would go out of business. 

 

No question those 1930's Packard "120"s were a great car for the money IN THEIR PRICE CLASS - of course it is silly to compare them with much more expensive cars.  So they saved Packard.   For a while. 

 

Trouble was, new management started siphoning off profits for executive perks and stockholder benefits.  Funds that SHOULD have gone for quality and improvement.    So - quality started going down.   By the  late 1940's  Packard quality was so miserable that they had become a bad joke in the industry - I believe a Packard with the first series of Ultramatic Drive was about the SLOWEST accelerating car of its year.  (hmmm...a post-war Packard with a standard Hydramatic transmission...?  That would have been neat...!)

 

A TV news reporter preserved for all time the embarrassment of a senior Packard executive at a major auto show,  who had to repeatedly KICK his way out the back door of a Packard on exhibit.  Sad to say the mentality that killed Packard remained loose in our country's industry thinking......"out-source everything...strip the company of funds to the benefit of senior executives and stock-holders" then sell off /  license the product name to a foreign manufacturer  (who wants to guess where all the famous old brand-name "American"  products are now made.....! )

 

I was sitting on the curb at Beverly Hills Packard  in late '53 having lunch with some shop employees when a transporter came up loaded with some brand new Packards.   Cannot repeat his exact words since this is a "G" rated site.....!....but..to paraphrase......the shop foreman said       " here comes another load of "do-it-yourself-kits". 

 

Packard had a huge sign on their building, spelling out the tradition that made them an American industry legend " QUALITY FIRST".  Anyone who has actually worked on the later post-war Packards  know how miserably they failed to live up to their reputation.  

 

 

 

 

 

[trimacar]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2011 at 8:52 PM, Rusty_OToole said:

The amount of war materiel they turned out in 3 years was astonishing, considering they went from a standing start in December 1941.

Rusty, it's interesting, but the US did not go from a standing start at the time of Pearl Harbor....preparations for war had begun a few years prior, and many production systems were already in place by then....due to international agreements, prior to our entry into WWII, the US was making war goods but could not sell them overseas to our friends in Britain....so they were sold to Canada, which then sold them to Britain....

 

If you want a very interesting read on the topic, try "Freedom's Forge".....highly recommended, and shows how the automotive industry, among others, geared up and produced massive amounts of war material...... https://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-Forge-American-Business-Produced/dp/1400069645

[Rusty_OToole]

The 30 cylinder Chrysler tank engine came about like this. In a cooperative effort, Chrysler was to build tanks using special engines provided by Ford. But Chrysler got them in production so fast, they were coming off the assembly line before Ford tooled up for the motor. So Chrysler put together 5 of their flathead six industrial engines as a stop gap, just to have some kind of engine. Most of these ended up used for training but a few saw combat. They turned out to be very reliable, and would keep going even if one or two engines were damaged and out of commission. But they were prone to hydraulic lock as others have pointed out.

[Guest shinyhubcap]

Thanks Rusty - for refreshing my memory - shows I owe Dave an apology.   I was and am correct that you dare not try and fire up a radial without first "pulling thru" to make sure the bottom cylinders don't have oil in them....meaning...a "hydraulic lock" that could destroy the motor.    Of course that is correct about the typical radial aircraft engine, such as the "985"  Pratt & Whitney that was used in some of our World War Two Tanks.

 

My mistake was "correcting" Dave - he correctly noted that Chrysler had made a "radial" out of a bunch of light truck/industrial engines by mounting them around a common crankcase.  So yes,  the bottom "engine" of the Chrysler industrial motor would be in the same situation regarding potential "hydraulic lock" as an ordinary radial aircraft engine.

 

I was also reminded that the earlier big radials did NOT have "slip clutches" on their starter-motors - which explains why in films of World War Two "pre-flight"...you see guys moving the propellors by hand.

 

I do not agree, however, that Packard missed anything prior to the 2nd World War,  by failing to use the technology in motor engineering they had developed even as early as the First World War  ( overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, supercharging, etc.). 

 

Of course they had the engineering skill and manufacturing capability to do just about anything.    They knew what they were doing as far as the market for luxury cars is concerned - the typical buyer of an expensive car was quite conservative - look at the factory photos; most of the cars coming off the assembly line were very conservative colors, I doubt if more than half even had white walls.

 

Packard correctly recognized its particular market wanted a quiet easy-to-drive vehicle ( many of the buyers came to adulthood BEFORE the automotive era even arrived) that exhibited good taste.    I wonder how many of Packard's customers knew or cared what a cylinder was - best proof of that when Packard ceased production of its famous "Twin Six" in the early 20's,  and went to the much simplier-to-manufacture in-line eight,  their sales increased steadily. 

 

As for the 1930's,  by then things like rubber motor mounts, higher compression shorter stroke motors,  reduced the difference between an inexpensive car and a luxury one.   Packard correctly recognized the market for the super-cars died in the late 1930's;  not to come back until after the 2nd World War.  They did very well with the so-called "120" series, a good buy for the money,  but quite conservative in its engineering and styling.

[Dwilbur]

I'm a former mine sweep Packard teck what would you like to now could. Do it in my sleep

 

[Restorer32]

You must be in your nineties then? We would love to hear your Packard memories.

[Dwilbur]

Nope I am in 53 we ran the Packard's up till 1988 4 of the v12 in the main engine room 1 inline 6 for ships power. That we're a lot of work to keep running lots of cylinder head trouble .

[Paul Jones]

Navy diesel mechanic, trained on Packard V12 in Charleston SC and served aboard USS Excel MSO-439 from 1973 to 1976 in San Francisco Bay, Treasure Island. During that time it was a reserve training ship, but had been in Viet Nam prior. I was part of the regular Navy crew that lived on board.

 

Main engine room had 4 of the V12 1700 cu. in. Packards that ran a constant RPM, reduction gears and variable pitch props. If the pilot house called for too much pitch, the manifold pressure would often go too high and blow at least one head gasket, evidenced after the engine shut down and you opened the vent plugs and rotated the engine....coolant would shoot out of the vent. That meant you were staying to change the gasket...a lengthy process when you'd rather be on liberty with the rest of the crew.

 

Forward engine room had an inline 6 Packard that generated 185KW, and at least one (memory faint) V12 that fed minesweeping equipment which didn't run often.

 

The Packards had a reputation of poor reliability, so we were ordered to stay within sight of land. What impressed me about the engines was the build quality...stainless crankshaft and individual cylinder heads, aluminum block to minimize the amount of ferrous material on board. Huge turbo mounted on top rear, air starter below the turbo in the Vee. Starter removal required long extension with universal joint socket.

[Patrick J Reeve]

Hi All- I'm the Dad of  Patrick. The name I remember of the 1954-55 corvette 6 was 'blue flame 6'. The reason I thought was at that time they all blew blue smoke at 20,000 miles. No detergent oil-bad valve guides; I loved them as the first American affordable sports car.

 

Mike