Best V12 or V16 Classic

[Mark Huston]

Unregistered user Henry VIII or who ever you are, I read Peter's post you referred to, I read Chuck's post, I understand their positions, your statements and intent are what I don't understand.

[Guest]

Peter: Compaired to regular american production cars. Yes the American Classis are over engineered. But compaired to what was happening across the ocean they weren't that advanced. I have talked to one fellow that owns a Packard 12. I QUOTE AFTER 1935 THE PACKARD 120 WAS BETTER ENGINEERED CAR THAN THE 12'S AND A BETTER BUY $ FOR $. Another owner WHEN PACKARD CAME OUT WITH THE 120 I DONT KNOW HOW PACKARD SOLD ANY 12'S AT ALL. THE 120'S WHWERE GREAT CARS.

[Guest]

1937hd44/ I almost forgot about Voisin go to this web sight. <A HREF="http://www.automedia-online.com/e_oldtimer.htm." TARGET=_blank>www.automedia-online.com/e_oldtimer.htm.</A> This will tell you about Voisin. There isn't much information about Voisin out there.

[Guest]

For Henry VIII<P>I fully understand why someone who, for any number of personal reasons, owns only a Packard "120", would claim it is better than a Packard Twelve. <P>This IS a free country, and of course I would be the first to agree we should ALL free to make as silly and as un-informed statements as we wish - makes life more interesting and more fun. Also gives us an opportunity to learn and share info. <P>As you may have noted from my previous "posts", I am a Packard nut...and would agree that dollar for dollar, ANY Packard product in ANY price range, (not just their big engined classics) up until the late 1940's, was one hell of a buy compared to other offerings in its OWN price range. <P>That would include the Packard "120" series middle class cars, IN WHICH I WAS BORN ! The Packard "120" at around a thousand dollars (oh..say about twenty thousand in today's money) was a tremendously competent car. I challenge anyone to find a middle-class "common man" car IN ITS PRICE RANGE that can compare with it, dollar for dollar!. <P>BUT.....may I again remind you this is a "site" for CLASSIC car buffs. To suggest that a product selling for over FIVE TIMES more than the "120", from a responsible, dedicated, and customer-oriented icon such as the Packard Motor Co., is to make the nonsensical argument that in marketing the Twelves, Packard was defrauding its customers. And, by the way, is revealing about the lack of technical/engineering knowledge of the maker of the statement !<P>Heck...I just came back from a big book-store with my wife - wandered over to the magazine rack, found the automotive section. Wow....no more old cars...no more "collectable" cars...ALL old cars are now classics....brace yourself....found a magazine that says my Suburban is now a "classic". <P>Henry....let's, in our "mind's eye" stack all the parts for a '38 Packard V-12 like mine, alongside the stack of parts for a '38 Packard "120". Let's start putting the parts together, with a part-by-part comparison.<P>Afterwards, we can take em out on the highway, and do some performance comparisons. Would you like to begin the technical analysis of a side-by-side comparison ?<P>Let's "rumble" !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Friends:<P>I have been listening to this thread with the same dismay as in the past on other discussions around here. But I will not comment on that, at least not for now. Instead, how about these V-12's and 16's?<P>I have not owned a 12 or 16, but I have driven a Cadillac flathead 16 and worked for many hours on a Seagraves (derived from the P-A) 12. I am, of course, facinated by these engines, just counting the plugs (especially on the fire engine, with double sparkers!) is mesmerizing. There is no substitute for the emotional impact of just looking at one of these beautiful engines.<P>But, the fact is that these multi-cylinder beauties really don't offer much advantage over a decent straight or V-8. To be honest, I think my Cadillac flathead V-8 felt just about as smooth, quiet and powerful to me as the V-16 I drove. <P>I think these engines are gone for a reason, there was a heavy price in manufacturing costs, complexity, weight with little real return in terms of performance. The pattern of multi's dying is clear: the Jag 12 is not nearly so nice as the six in terms of performance and reliability. We still have Ferarri 12's, but you them building more and more sixes and eights. Can the new BMW 12 and other luxury makes survive? I doubt it.<P>But, mystique is real, and I sure would love to have a 12 or 16, just to look at all those beautiful distributors and carburators! <P>Bill.

[Guest]

Bill : I owned a flat-head Caddy V-16 too.. (mine was the ex Mae West car, which a good friend of mine (David Perlmutter..wonder where in hell he went) bought from Mt. St Mary's Convent in West Log Angeles for seventy five bucks. ( that was around '56...the car was in "near mint" condition then ) If the one you owned wasnt significantly better-performing, smoother, and more responsive than the Cad V-8 of the same year...well....all I can say is...this proves my point !<P>No question that with a little determination and sloppy maintainence you can reduce even the BEST of the big engined classis to something not worth writing home about. So sad...some guy rides in or drives a big engined classic, or talks to someone who owns one as a "status symbol", but is clue-less about how they should drive and handle as PROPERLY MAINTAINED automobiles, comes up with this nonsence.<P>Yes, the Cad flat-head Cad V-8 was a great buy for what it was (an upper mid-class car). <P>And yes, the idea of mounting a power-plant in rubber suspension instead of the earlier practice of bolting car motors directly to the frame, did REDUCE the difference between the multi-cylindered giants and the ordinary 8 cyl cars.<P>But, the difference between the ordinary upper middle class cars and the BIG mutli cylindered true classics was...well...c'mon...guys...get off it..you think we were ALL nuts for getting excited by classic cars, and joining Classic Car Club Of America ? <P>I can understand resentment of those not lucky enough to have owned and operated a PROPERLY MAINTAINED big-engined classic.<P>But do you realize how silly you sound comparing a flat-head Cad V-16 at 441 cu. in, with a flat-head Cad V-8, with a hundred cubic inches less, and claiming they are similar performers? C'mon...guys....fun is fun...and jealousy and resentment is what it is...but be serious...there are still some of us around who KNOW what these cars were like in service !<P>By the way, given the low compression of motors of that era, as a general rule of thumb, you can figure that the raw shaft torque of a motor of that era, produced 70% of its displacement, in torque. Thus the approx. 350 cu. in flat head Cad. V-8 would have produced around 250 ft lbs, and the V-16 around 310...and let me tell you...when you "put your foot into it"..you KNEW. I would also have to admit the FLAThead V-16's...were significantly smoother and quieter than my Packard Twelve, and, when you get into the 1938 model year,who can deny the all steel body of the GM line was superior to the old-style "composite" bodies (can we say "stage coach style) of the big Packards....<P>Another note of interest ....for those who care about such things...Cadillac built a splendid OVER HEAD V-12 and V-16 from 1932 - 1936. They were beautiful works of art to look at, and were mounted in larger, heavier and more elegant chassis, and often different bodies, than the ordinary V-8's of the same era. <P>In 1938, they dropped the idea of separate chassis, hoods, headlights, fittings and bodies, etc.for their "super luxury" cars, so that, for example...my Series 90 (V-16) Empress Imperial Formal Sedan was, except for the power-plant, the same as the V-8. <P>The "new for 1938" "flat-head" V-16 was of MUCH more modern design in that it had (even tho a flat-head) superior "breathing" thru much better DOWN-draft carbs, and MUCH shorter ("square") bore and stroke. Combined with "insert" type connecting rod bearings, these motors could really "scream", probably 1,500 rpm or more "red line" over and above the older design "over-head valve" V-16, or, for that matter, the "flat-head" V-8.<P>Thus the 1938 Caddy line, body for body, weighed the same, absent the much more powerful motor of the V-16.<P>Just out of curiosity, anybody know where the "Mae West" V-16 is these days..? Duke Shaeffer bought mine, then sold it to Roy Schnieder...lost track of it after that.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

When is the last time a subjct on this forum threatened to go to a second page?<P>Whether or not you like some of the comments, it certainly has been an interesting and productive thread on a somewhat limited subject.<P>By the way, those Cadillac V-8s of the late '30s and early '40s are, in certain models, accepted by the CCCA as Full Classics. I guess that is why they have been referred to here as "upper" middle class. My "upper middle class" family bought one of those '41 Cadillac Convertible sedans in Feb of 1941. I still have it. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Hey Pete:<P>There was no "resentment" implied by my post, I was just telling you some of my experiences with 12's and 16's. Just for the record, the V-16 I drove was an immaculately kept low mileage 1939 model 90 sedan and it ran beautifully. The V-8 I am talking about is also very well maintained and it is in a much lighter car, a '40 LaSalle Coupe, so the power to weight ratio is probably similar to that of the 16. <P>I would also add that the '39 Buick 90 has a similar frame and body as the V-16 Cad and I remember it is being just about as lively as the V-16 but not nearly as quiet.<P>As I said, I would love to have any 12 or 16, I think they are a fascinating part of automotive history. I am just saying that I think they disappeared largely because the advantages they offered were minimal relative to what they cost.

[Guest]

For Buick Plus...ah..given the facts you submitted in your last post, I would have to agree with you - in a MUCH lighter car such as a La Salle couple, of course the much less powerful V-8 would be able to offer similar performance to a V-16 closed car !<P>And I do agree with you about why the "multi cyl" giants disappeared. Fact is, the rubber motor mount , and ever higher compression motors DID reduce the advantage of a monster multi-cylinderd motor.<P>Hopefully, Henry 8th will "take the bait" and permit us to review, detail by detail, why a classic is so much more interesting than an ordinary old car of the same period. Again, this is NOT to make fun of the ordinary middle class cars - it is just a "teaching mechanism" to explain why we thought the big classics were worth saving..!<P>PFH

[Guest]

Peter/ After 1935 with Packard why where the senior models the last to recieve engineering improvements. Whether you like it or not I will stand by my statment as to the TWO OWNERS OF PACKARD 12'S TOLD ME. Since you owned the May West Caddy what custom coach builder made the body. You still have failed to show me or name a Full Classic produced in the USA that was more advanced egineering wise that my beloved little French car.

[Guest]

Henry 8th...<P>First of all, the '38 Caddy V-16 Imperial Formal Sedan I owned in the mid 1950's , was a Fleetwood (meaning "production" body), not a "custom". By 1938, the custom body era was pretty much over...most of the remaining big American classics were "production/factory" bodies.<P>As to your other comment, I dont care what some OWNER "told" you. You have been mis-informed. And I can understand it...the sad fact is, classic cars, as the years have gone by... have moved away from the original "classic car fans" who were mostly back-yard mechanics who maintained their cars in decent operating condition. Driving them was a large part of their attraction.<P>MANY people these days own them as "status symbols", with no interest in them as mechanical devices...other than getting them to run off and on the trailer to some car show. So many classics are not maintained in anything NEAR the mechanical condition they should be, no WONDER they dont run well...no wonder, in so many cases these days...their owners arent impressed with them as CARS !<P>I call em "trailer queens"...i.e. cars so beautifully turned into custume jewelery, but without regard for their mechanicals... you'd have to be NUTS to take em out on a rainy highway and beat the crap out of them.<P>Yes...to SOME extent..you are right...in SOME respects the "common man" Packards had SOME technological improvements before the big ones. I have NO idea why they did that.<P>I think you are referring to hydraulic brakes and "knee action" suspension, which, as you point out, the small "common man" Packards had first. <P>But I can tell you this. The vacuum assist mechanical brakes in the large Packards were fine in service..IF properly maintained. <P>True, with sloppy and/or incompetent tinkering, you can get those mechanical brakes SO terrible you wouldnt want to drive one around the block.<P>As for the knee action suspension, no question that Packard's version was superior, working out well in both their smaller and, two years later, in their larger cars. <BR> <BR>Overall, however, looking at the Packard of the 1935-1936 time period, I think if you were actually exposed to a REAL "120" compared side by side with a REAL Packard V-12...and got to drive them, OR, FOR THAT MANNER, COMPARED ANY "COMMON MAN' CAR WITH A TRUE CLASSIC...you'd understand why there are "classic car" enthusiasts..!<P>For example, in actual operation on the open road, especially in the higher speeds, the "big" 1935-1936 Packards had a much more stable "feel" than the "common man" "120". Obviously an unfair comparison, because they were designed with different criteria in mind. <P>If we turn our attention to the motors, we find the "L" head "120" a good power-plant for the money. But...remember..it was of conventional combustion chamber design, which was reflected in its power output, satisfactory for its size..but quite ordinary. <P>The Twelve, on the other hand, had a quite exciting and advanced combustion chamber design - wedge shaped pistons meeting a wedge shaped combustion chamber. The top of the block was at an ANGLE to the bore, which means you can't re-bore a Packard Twelve with ordinary shop boring bars...have to use a special one designed for high performance "competition" style power-plants. The Stromberg EE-3 carb. the Packard Twelve was equipped with, was the largest "swept volume" carb. until the introduction of the big four barrels during the Korean War. Which explains why the other big-engined classics dared not pick a fight with a Packard Twelve...the laws of phyics tell us that the motor that breathes the deepest, produces the most power. Even the "J" Dusenbergs didn't have the carb. breathing of the Packard Twelve..which explains why even their exotic engine design didn't give them THAT much of an edge. As with most of the high quality "super luxury" cars of the 1930's, the large series Packards had needle bearing valve trains, full pressue oil cooling and oil filters, which did not appear on ordinary cars for MANY MANY years afterwards.<P>If you look at the rear suspension of the Twelves, compared to the "120", you see all kinds of exotic anti sway and ride control devices. Clearly no point in providing these to the ordinary "common man" "120", which was never intended for extremes. Clearly they meant the "super cars" to be "super" in all respects, including the ability, should the owner desire it, to give a good accounting of themselves under pretty wild driving. The "120"s we owned were good cars, but their soft uncontrolled suspensions simply could NOT handle what the Twelves take in stride.<P>The upholstery and fittings of the "120" were typical of good middle class cars. The Twelves, on the other hand, had the "best of the best"...Wilton super plush carpeting, Laidlaw 32 lb broad-cloth...rose-wood trim...high cost luxuries that would not make sense to provide in an ordinary car.<P>Take a look, if you get the chance, at the diagrams in Packard parts books, or...for that matter, compare how ANY of the big classics were built, with the ordinary old cars of their day.<P>Just LOOK, for example, at the suspension bearings, king pin design...the "120" had an ordinary "Elliot" design...the Packard Twelve had the much more expensive "Reverse Elliot"...more rugged..better bearings, higher quality, performance and engineering...is what makes a classic a CLASSIC. <P>Bottom line.....ordinary cars..for ordinary people...classic cars for classic people...! <P>Yes, some of those European cars, even the non classic ones, had some interesting innovative designs. BUT..once you were actually FAMILIAR with well maintained classics....would you REALLY want to try and "take on" a big engined American classic on a rainy night...or on a burning hot August day in the desert...with very many ordinary models of the classic era..even those so called "innovative European" ones?<P>Pete Hartmann

[1937hd45]

Henry VIII, I agree with your earlier statement that a European Classic is more advanced that an American example. If you can get a Type 57C Bugatti to take on the above challenge let me know. If I get to drive the Bug, better yet!

[Guest]

C'mon...guys...be serious...a Bug 57 is a SPORTS car, not a LUXURY car...geez. If we are going to learn more about what the Classic Car Club is, why it is what it is, and why we love the true classics, of what use is comparing apples and oranges..?<P>To my knowledge, the only thing even approaching an American sports car in the 1930's, would have been the Cord Supercharged 810. Hopefully, someone who knows what he is talking about, as to Cord Supercharged 810's ( I sure dont ! ) can come in and tell us what HE thinks a COMPORABLE European car would do when stacked up against it).<P>Heck....I bet I could back up over a Bug 57 with my Packard Twelve...and not even FEEL it....!<P>PFH

[1937hd45]

I think it is time to consult you library, a Type 57C Bugatti is a fine road car, many have four place coachwork. The one you plan to back over with your truck is the Grand Prix car I believe. Please remember the original post was about advanced design, not longevity or weight.<p>[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: 1937hd45 ]

[Guest]

Agreed...! I really shouldn't have said anything about Italian cars - again, as to the European classics, I do NOT...I say again..I do NOT know what I am talking about !<P>Pete Hartmann

[1937hd45]

For the record the Bugatti was built in France. The reason most of the Bugatti G.P. cars are blue is because that in the international racing color assigned to France. British Racing Green to cars from the U.K. Red for the Italian cars etc. The U.S.A is white with light blue stripes

[Idle Swede]

Like he said, doesn't know what he's talking about

[Guest]

Hey Pete:<P>I for one am grateful that you are not running the CCCA. If you were, it would have to be renamed the Gigantic Car Club of America. <P>I'm sure you have your personal reasons for being so obsessed with the size of your cars. I sure you know that the Full Classics list includes quite a few dimunitive cars that slithered past the classification committee.<P>BTW, I did check out that Viosin. Only the French could build such a thing, this car out-Citroens the Citroen. I really do admire odd creatures like that.<P>Bill.

[Guest]

I have owned a Classic Packard for 15 years and have never joined the "club". This entire thread about superiority tells me I was right not to join.

[Guest]

Quotation...(partial text from advevertisment ( - prepared by Young and Rubican for PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO.,Senior Division, 1580 E. Grand Blvd., Detroit 32, Mich. Printed in a number of "most certainly NOT for the common man" magazines, including FORTUNE, in that year.<P> product. Packard Twelve...<P><BR>" ... TO THE MAN OF POSITION, HIS MOTOR<BR> CAR MUST BE MORE THAN MERE TRANSPORTATION.<BR> SUCH A MAN SHOULD MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT<BR> THIS FACT...THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR<BR> SIZE, WEIGHT, AND POWER, WHEN IT COMES<BR> TO MOTORING SATISFACTION, OR FOR <BR> REFLECTING THE DIGNITY OF HIS POSITION..."<P>Hey...guys...stop blaming the fact that there really WERE big engined classics, on me. And don't blame the Classic Car Club Of America, and its Rules, Regs., etc. on me. Go pick on the guys who started the Club !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

For Idle Sweede..<P>Damn...you can learn so much from these "sites"...all this time I thought "Eatery Bugatti" was an Italian restaurant....how the hell was I to know it is some kind car...?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter/ Bugatti being produced in Italy. You had to be realy joking about, or where you being serious. If the Bugatti where a 57S or 57SC model that Packard of your would be hard pressed to even keep up with the Bugatti. This modle Bugatti came with an inline 8 of 199 cid. This sweet little gem put out between 175 to 200 horsepower. The 175 hp engine was achieved withno blower on it. Kind of makes that Packard 12 look unrefind as far as engineering goes.

[1937hd45]

While we're at it can the Type 57SC have the optional Kotal gear box? Might as well have an advanced gearbox too.

[Guest]

O.K..guys...put up or shut up....you bring your Type 59 2/3 Linguini over...and we will have a "drag" race....MY kind of "drag race"...the kind I specialized in, to deal with "smart alecs"... when I was in high school back in the early 1950's with my Packard Twelve....! <P>( We chain the rear bumpers together, with the cars headed in the opposite direction,...now THAT's a "drag" race....! )and see whether a true American classic can drag something that sounds like it belongs in the menu of an Italian restaurant, into small enough pieces that we can get it into boxes..and ship it to Japan...where they will grind it up and make a REAL car out of it...!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Mark Huston]

I will be happy to pay admission to watch a drag race like that.

[Guest]

Although it's not a road car, and probably not on the CCCA list, (however, we're only talking engines here) the Auto Union Grand Prix engines of 1934-1937 were quite remarkable. Initial capacity was 4.4 liters and at that size it generated 295 horsepower. Further development brought it out to 6. 3 liters and it yielded 545 horsepower at 5,000 rpm. And bumper-yanking torque of 650 lb/ft. <P>The engine was a supercharged 45-degree 16-cylinder designed by Ferdinand Porsche. <P>In fall 1934, the racing car was fitted with a partial enclosed body after which Hans Stuck drove it to a record top speed for the flying kilometer of 203.2 miles per hour.

[Guest]

OOps! Topic heading states Classic Car. I guess that doesn't include the Auto-Union.

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann? The 1937 & 1938 Bugatti 57SC with a supercharger could top 120 mph. Just think having 199 cid engine ONE HORSEPOWER FOR EVERY CUBIC INCH. Please name me an American classic that did that. Thats a feat that the two brother couldn't even do. Another example of the excellence of Europen engineering.

[Guest]

Henry 8th<P>I have told you several times I am not competent to comment on European cars...(other than Rolls "Phantoms" of varios series.....) never owned one...never worked on one...never even DRIVEN one.<P>From what you and others have told me, it sounds like they had some very advanced features. <P>In the early years of the Classic Car Club Of America, the focus was on the largest LUXURY cars of the classic era. All you need do to get a perspective on that, is look at early "back issues" of THE CLASSIC CAR, or the So. Calif. Region's SIDE MOUNT MIRROR, where you will find photographs of our events, and rosters indicating the names of the participants and the cars they drove.<P>I was part of the California group, which, for some years, split off from "National CCCA" and operated as the Classic Car Club Of Southern Calif. (until re-joining "national" meaning the New Jersey headquartered group, in late 1958). <P>I was dimly aware that we had people advocating "taking on" to "classic" status some of the more exotic European cars that were primarily sports cars, but, frankly, never gave it much thought. I do not recall even seeing big European cars other than the occasional Rolls, at our meets.<P>From what you and others tell me, we can all benefit from studying what appear to be some fascinating technical features on these European cars that were years ahead of their time.<P>I suspect these exotic European cars you have discussed, were VERY expensive, hardly "common man" cars. If that assumption is correct, their inclusion within our roster of "acceptable" cars as classics, is certianly appropriate.<P>As noted in an earlier "post", from the little I know about the cars you are discussing, they were more "sports car" than anything else. There were big engined super luxury European classics, and, for example, if you take the "Grosser" Mercedes as an example, you can find some technical advances that on first glance appear to make them more advanced than American super-luxury cars of the same era.<P>In actual operation, however, for sheer riding comfort, reliability, "driveability", I would SUSPECT..again...without knowing personally what I am talking about, the American super-luxury car was far more car for far less money. I did see a English language translation of a Damiler-Benz owner's manual of the era, and was surprised to learn they KNEW and ADMITTED their cars could not stand sustained extreme speed operation.<P>Contrast that with the typical American super-luxury car of that era, which could run wide open all day long under the most brutal conditions, for days and WEEKS on end, without working up a sweat.<P>Bottom line...for those of us who are interested in "the best of the best", the Classic Car Club Of America is the right place to share knowledge about such vehicles. I hope you will continue to contribute to our knowledge....about "classics".<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<p>[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Chuck Conrad ]

[Guest]

Boy! did I fall down the rabbit hole- I'm almost frightened to write this letter(post) cause I know you "classic" guys won't talk to a mutt like me. Why not? You say? Well, I drive a '26 Tudor sedan-pretty plebian-and I mean when you guys talk about your v12's and your v16's and even disdainfully discuss v8's I am pretty sad that all I got is a v6. Buick that is. All kidding aside all you folks are doing is having the age-old argument---my dog's bettern yours---cheers...tom

[Guest]

Thos...you are right..."my dog...IS better than yours"....!<P>But so what...! There is always someone ELSE around with a better dog than mine !<P>Pete Hartmann

[56Roadmaster]

Ok fellas,<BR> Can you come up with the REAL engineering figures to settle this i.e. :<BR> type of materials used in the engine<BR> fatigue calculations used in designing the crank shaft.<BR> the type of materials and the design calculations used in determining the frame strengths of the car.<BR> keep in mind ( I love Packard) that the flathead is just inefficient and more polluting than an overhead valve engine.<BR> and the more cylinders the more power overlap and thus the smoother the engine (says something for Marmon and Caddy)<BR> draw back is that longer cranks give more torsional deflection.<BR> You also need to mention how long your cars have gone (milage) with out overhaul there the proof is in the pudding!!<BR> lets have the ENGINEERING FACTS NOT talk

[Guest]

Hi Scott!<P>Thank you for your interest in the Classic Car Club Of America, and your interest in the technical aspects of "what makes a car a "classic".<P>I no longer contribute in public in this "site". I would certainly be happy to review your questions with you, but I am no longer confident our discussion would be of value to the majority of the people who frequent this "site". You are welcome to contact me privately. I can be located in any of the PACKARD Club or Classic Car Club Of America directories. <P>Of course any information I have provided in the past, and would assist any of you in private in the futre, is my own contribution, and in no way should be interpeted as the "official word" of the Classic Car Club Of America.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ