straight 12

[Guest JT]

There was some discussion a while back on another board about the Packard monoblock 12 and whether or not it really existed. The Cormorant from 1974 contains an article on the straight 12 in which the author, Jack Triplett, talks with Ralph Kellogg who was involved in the design of the engine while he worked at Packard from 1925 to the end. After the car was completed in the experimental department it was sold to Warren Packard who was killed in a plane crash in 29. His widow then sold it back to the Packard factory.<BR>Given the number of Packard factory people that were alive when the article was written and confirmed the existence of the twelve makes for a convincing argument.

[Guest]

JT...think it thru...the laws of physics do not respect myths....Packard's Engineering Dept. did do some wild and wonderful things..but they were not a bunch of kids just fooling around...they were under continual controls and supervision, to come up with production-oriented improvements.<P>Some of the prototype things they did, as you probably know...was the 'Van Ranst' car, an experiment to see if a relatively light high rpm front wheel drive car could be developed for mass production. It was a great idea - proof of it is...that is how most cars are engineered today. <P>Unfortunately, low compression engines, which were dictated by the fuels of the day, couldn't work out...(as the girls who work in the cat houses say...(again, given the fuel problems of the day) there aint no substitute for cubic inches.......bottom line...the longer the stroke, the lower the rpm limit. Thus the Packard Twelve went into production as a MUCH larger displacement engine, (translation..MUCH longer stroke) than originally designed...HAD to...absent high compression...you couldn't get the power).<P>A few other goofy ideas were super-charging..a Packard Twelve with a super-charger is discussed in some Engineering Reports, and high gear ratios. (the famous "beat the golf ball" stunt where a bone stock '32 Packard Twelve did 124 m.p.h....was nothing more than a rear axle gear set change). They "played" with the concept, but could not justify further development in view of the obvious reliability problems inherent in the technology of the day.<P>Is it POSSIBLE to build a STRAIGHT or "IN LINE" twelve..? Of course. Did it ever go beyond the Gubitz drawings (those drawings, my suspicion is.....is what started the rumor that there was actually HARDWARE resulting from those drawings). Frankly, I dont know. <P>I doubt it...for the following reasons - again...the laws of physics....anyone even remotely familiar with power-plant design, knows that the longer the crank-shaft, the heavier it must be to resist torsional and other forces. It is a battle of diminishing returns...the longer an "in line" engine, the heavier in proportion to what kind of power you can pull out of it. By the late 1920's, power-plant design engineering theory was pretty sophisticated - engineering theorists knew what the limits were. COULD a prototype STRAGHT twelve been built. Yes...but so what.! WOULD Packard's Engineering Dept. have been able to get authorization for an absurd "goose chase" involving that kind of espense....like an "in-line" Twelve....I dont see it...given what we know about how Packard's various divisions were run in those days. <P>Does this answer your question. NOPE ! But it will be fun to see what some of our fellow pundits write in here...!

[Guest BillP]

The existence of the Monobloc Twelve is well documented.

[Guest JT]

Given the 1929 time period I can believe things were a little more lenient (pre crash)as far as what experimental projects they could get by with. Duesenberg built straight 12's in the early 20's so it could be done.

[Guest]

Voisin built an inline 12 cylinder auto engine. Peter Gubitz headed Packard styling department not engneering. Your statement saying ther aint no substitue or cubic inches is totaly wrong. The crude way of making horsepower is like what Packard did along with alot of other American Auto manufactures.

[Guest]

I keep hearing about "straight twelves" going beyond styling drawings into hardware, but have never seen any documentation. I don't know about the Venison..( thought that was something that scampered thru the forest..and if you were hungry enough..and a good enough shot..you had it for dinner..? )<P>I have a SUSPICION as to where these "straight twelve" rumors come from. First, you find an over-enthusiastic car buff.<P>Then...you throw in the Gubitz drawings....<P>Then you add a second guy...perhaps a well-meaning but ignorant guy (the kind of guy who would "buy" the RIMEX warnings about radial tires on classics ( the famous "separate wheel flanges and rims" nonsence) and take him to an old car event.<P>Put these guys together, and have them look under the hood of some of the many old motors that use two spark plugs per cylinder. Say...for example...a Rolls Royce six cyliner engine, ..they count twelve spark plugs, and smile knowingly at each other..... it must be a "straight twelve".<P>I would like to have a dollar for every time I have bought some food at an old car event where my American La France V-12 was displayed with its hood open, and listened to some "experts" slurping their cokes, discussing "that big V-24 in that old fire engine" ( per Underwriter's Regs, all big fire engines with gasoline engines had to have two entirely separate fuel and ignition systems to get a "rating").<P>Again...of course it would be PHYSICALLY possible to make an internal combustion engine in any wierd combination you want.<P>Would it be practical..? Would it make sense to thru the kind of time, money, and engineering effort into it ? No way. Would Packard's management have authorized that ? Anyone who thinks those guys were "loose" with their money, simply dosnt understand how Packard was run in those days...remember, BEFORE Packard "went to hell"....it was run by people who KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the various economic and technical aspects of the manufacturing - production process. They were VERY conservative with their resources.<P>Now...about that VENISON..? Really dont know. Never ate a piece of Bambi knowingly....<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

For '53<P>You...who own a '53 Packard...calling the big classics "crude".....!<P>Yeah...right....!

[Guest]

Cormorant Summer 2001 for more on the monobloc 12

[Guest]

Peter: I never make a statement that I can't backup. When I get some time this coming week I will explain. Then maybe you might see things in a different light. Voisin is a French that I am pretty sure that alot of the models are considered FULL CLASSICS. You should know you have been a member of the CCCA alot longer than I have

[John N. Packard]

JT,<BR> I read Jack Triplett's article in the 1974 Cormorant and find it to be well documented and quite convincing. I have a 1928 526 sedan and consider bolting two of these six cylinder engines in tandem a reasonable project. The article states that each bank of six cylinders had its own carburetor and distributor. Doesn't seem too challenging to me to mock this up in the Packard factory shops with all the necessary materials readily available. It's an interesting story.<P>jnp bbbb

[Guest]

Pack53, Gabriel Voisin was adamantly against American automobile designs, as you may know, so he'd chastise us all for liking Packards

[Guest]

If I saw a voison running around loose on my ranch..I'd shoot it, skin it..and cook it over a big open fire...YUM...YUM....Hmm...do viosons have antlers...?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter: Time for lesson number one tonight. So we need big cid engines to make horse power. Yeah Right. With out looking up this information a Stutz DV 32 had a 320 cid engine and developed 161 hp. What was the cid size and horsepower of the Packard V12 when it came out in 1933. Then please tell me what engine made more horsepower per cubic inch. The Packard way of making horsepower was the crude way of doing it. Stutz did it the refined way.

[Guest]

John - I am not sure I agree with your choice of words ( "your use of the word crude" ) but I would certainly agree the over-head cam multi valve Stutz was one hell of an engine design, and certainly POTENTIALLY far more effecient and powerful per cubic in. of displacement, than the motor in my "chicken coop"....!<P>Bear in mind, however, that those fancy "breathing" tricks, such as over-head valves and cams, etc. do not come free. They add considerable weight and complication, for the trade off of the POTENTIAL additional power. <P>The PROBLEM, John, is this - at the LOWER r.p.m's where most luxury car engines spent most of their operational lives, the additional technical complication did not yield additional performance. Secondly, these breathing advantages become more pronounced as compression increases and engine STROKE decreases. But the fuels of the day wouldn't permit that.<P>Of COURSE you are correct in that we see in Stutz the "wave of the future" - but Stutz and Packard were selling cars in THEIR "present". Given the low compression necessitated by the fuels of the day, and the typical driving "mission", it just didnt make economic sense. <P>I have a good friend with around a '28 Stutz, which I drive whenever I have the chance....I hate to admit this.... next to it, a Packard of the same year feels like a over-loaded cement truck ! If I were going to buy a new car in the 1920's.. I suspect that 1) it would be a Stutz....<BR>and 2) I'd have to wait in line at<BR> the show-room behind YOU...!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

I have heard of rumors of Hisso making a straight 12. Like everyone else, I have never seen a straight 12, and just can't imagine why one would be built. The Bugutti Royal had the longest hood, and didn't have one. Even straight 8's have starving for fuel end cylinders. I think the twin ignition concept may be more like it. Remember all the "documentation" on the Packard dies to Russia which has been proven to be a bunch of bull! How about all those brass era and even later cars with spray on paint jobs being judged 100% when they originally had brush jobs? Unfortunately, experience has shown me time and time again that automobile "historians' have about as much credability as a crack addicted whore in a court room. Like we used to say in the locker rooms, "You got 12? show me!"

[Guest]

For Dfield - about the "Packard Dies Going To Russia"....<P>Be careful with this...there are a lot of guys who want very badly to believe in that myth...! There is SO much passion about this crock of manure...that I actually got thrown off ClassicCarCom chat for poking holes in that myth.<P>As I am sure you know, the Russians "back engineered" what APPEARS to be a '41 Packard "180" limo, unless you look at it carefully - obviously, the further back on the hull of the car you go, the more it appears they also liked GM cars of the same era.<P>The REAL mystery is where did they get some of the parts they did NOT make themselves...( tail light shells, some dash-board parts, etc, which obviously came right out of the Packard parts bin). I have NO idea.

[Ed Miller]

Peter, The answer is that the Russians went over to 111 Pushkin Street in Leningrad for their Packard Parts. Andrei Rasputinovich was a long time Packard Dealer. It's rumored he salted away two Packard Darrins in the basement of the dealership just after Germany attacked Russia in June, 1941. Unfortunately the dealership was bombed and a tank factory built over the ruins but the parts survived in the dealership's parts depot next door. Noone has been able to get into the basement to this day. (For anyone who believes this tale, I also have bridge for sale.)

[Guest]

Peter: How about a V12 half the size of the Packard V12 and putting out 185 horse power. The Lagonda V12 1938 & 1939 273 cid V12 engine wit torsion bar front suspension. Let me rephrase something companies like Packard chose to make great amounts of horse power in a less refined way than some other manufacutures. I might add that Lagonda achieved this with out a super charger.

[Guest]

For Packard 53.<P>Look up the compresson ratio of the smaller engine...then do the math...then tell me you really believe that the dinky little Lagonda is going to have a similar power output to the Packard V-12. <P>If you believe that....suggest you contact Eddie for that bridge he has for sale....!

[Guest]

Peter: How about you doing the homework. The horse power on the Lagonda is confirmed by three different sources I have. Please prove me wrong if you can.

[Guest]

Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the article about the monoblock 12. Someone stated that it appeared in a 1974 edition of the Cormorant.

[John N. Packard]

Packard53,<BR> I'm on vacation right now; but when I get home next week I'll scan a copy and post it for you.<P>jnp

[Guest]

For '53<P>John...I bet you are one hell of a nice guy...but ..may I suggest...you are just a bit "gullible" as to "sources". Everyone who has a word processor and acess to a public forum is an "expert"....!<P>Do you recall how angry you got at me over your desire to believe Beverly Rae Kime's nonsence that<P> " the later '30's Packard 12<BR> was reduced in size, and was<BR> was on the same chassis as the<BR> Super Eight... "<P>As I explained to you at the time, all of us like to see our prejudices in print. As our culture becomes more "third world", and less interested in cold hard data and precision in speech, it is to be expected that there is more emotion and prejudice, and less hard fact, in our writings. Of course that section of Kime's excellent book was nonsence...a Packard Twelve and Super Eight frame are DIMENSIONALLY the same, but as you have seen me explain elsewhere, the much more powerful, faster, and heavier Packard Twelve requires, and has...a STRUCTRUALY much heavier chassis and running gear.<P>Now, as to your fascination with Lagonda's power claims. First of all..I would agree Lagonda is a neat car...(at least from the little I know about them). But...as to power... ?<P>Engine power is primarily a function of displacement and compression ratio. For a very simple reason - the more "explosive" mixture ( actually.."expansive" would be more accurate technically) you can get energy out of in a given time, the more power you are going to get out of a motor. <P>Thus, generally speaking, the larger the motor, the more real world raw power you are going to get out of it.<P>The exception, of course, is if you have an application where you are going to spin the smaller motor MUCH faster... you can get more mixture thru it...and hence more energy OUT of it, in a given time. <P>Part of the problem is the outlandish claims made by motor manufacturers.<P>I dont know what a Lagonda weighs, and I have never even seen one up close, much less driven one so I have NO idea what a similar body Lagonda would do performance-wise compared to a Packard Twelve. I AM aware that SOME European cars had higher final drive ratios than American practice of the classic era, so I would NOT be surprised if it would stay with a Packard Twelve at top speed. <P>But given the fuels of the era, I would expect its compression ratio, given the laws of physics and thermal dynamics, would be similar to other motors of its era. Given those inalterable physical limits, I think you are being a bit over-enthusiastic about the Lagonda's actual horse-power. <P>Now...as to TORQUE...which I think is far more important in determining raw brute gut wrenching performance. When you are discussing compression ratios of about 7 to 1, (roughly typical of that era) it is just about inalterable, that your torque output is going to be around 60% of your displacement (some unusually sophisticated motors, such as the four valve Dusenbergs, and the Packard Twelve, with its fully machined wedge shaped combustion chambers and pistons, ultra large carb. early version of "ram induction" and "free breathing" exhaust, do manage to get close to 80% of their displacement) , into torque. Simple rule of physics...the higher the compression, the more the power from a given displacement. "DO THE MATH"...John....!<P>So you see..John... back here in the real world, things often dont work out quite the way we wish they do.<P>Let me give you an example that I suspect may be relevant to the claims of "180 hp from a small displacement Lagonda".<P>In the mid 1960's...there was some kind of Plymouth coupe that was a "factory hot rod". I can't recall what it was called (does "Ram Charger" sound right..or something like that"..?<P>Anyway, I recall they advertised it as having something like 375 h.p. We got hold of one, and stuck it on a dyno. We found it actually had 128 rear axle shaft horsepower...! Then we put my Packard Twelve on the same dyno, and ran it up. Packard advertised the h.p. of the "high compression" version at 180 h.p. Of course the Packard Twelve, at 473 cu. in, was almost a hundred cubic inches larger than the Plymouth. The Packard Twelve's shaft axle h.p. was 126 !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter: First of all I AM NOT GULLIBLE. I might add that you didn't prove that I was wrong. Your knowlegde of the great classics from across the Atlantic is greatly lacking. Next week maybe we can help you a bit.

[Guest]

John Packard: I want to Thank You in advance for posting of the article. I will be looking forward to reading it. I was wondering how many cid the Pakcard monoblock was. I found out that the Voisin 12 was 4.8 liters in size. Certainly not very big around less that 300 cid in size.

[Guest]

John - You'd asked me once for pictures of my "toys". Finally..have figured out how to get photos into my computer, so..now.."can do". If you still want to see em - E mail me something so I have an E mail address to "send" to.<P>Word of caution -<P>The photos I like best of my Packard V-12 are "clean" - just the car.<P> B U T !<P>My favorite photo of the La France V-12 is one taken some years ago by a professional photographer, during the course of a "promo-shoot" (the photos were for some kind of advertisment...I believe it was a tool catalogue). <P>THe reason I bring this up about the '36 American La France fire engine BEFORE sending it to you, is that perched on the fender...is a particulary lovely girl, wearing only a smile (all she had on...was the radio...!). Let me know if this bothers you, and I will send instead (again, assuming you are interested at all!) one of the less dramatic photos I took myself of my "beast" (the American La France V-12 in my "beast" was their own design...not the smaller automobile-based V-12 they also sold, which they bought from Lycoming) and it is a true monster - 800 cubic in, dome-shaped pistons and combusion chamber...over-head cam, large "free breathing" dual intakes and exhaust systems, roller tappets (all the hot-rod type performance "tricks).<P>Pete Hartmann<P>P.S. I vaguely recall the Packard Club article about the BELIEF of the author's there SHOULD have been an "in-line" Twelve, because of all the Gubtiz "concept drawings". I do NOT recall any hard technical data that such a silly concept was ever actually fabricated.<P>That two Packard SIX blocks COULD have been hooked up together, is hardly rocket science..of course it is POSSIBLE. Would it make engineering sence, or have been commerically viable - of course not..do the math...figure out how much more it would have weighed than a "V" type engine of the same displacement, how obsolete the Packard Six was by the late 20's...(remember...they "ditched" it for the newer design "Standard Eight" which replaced it)....<P>Did some screwy designs come out of Europe...along with some very advanced ones...? OF COURSE....and you are correct - I am pretty ignorant about the European technology of that era.

[R W Burgess]

Gentlemen!, The Packard tooling die issue is spoken about in this month's,Sept-2002, issue of Street Rodder on page 154. There are 9 interesting current pictures of the early cars you're speaking of and the innovated ways of keeping them operational. Wayne

[Guest]

Hey...Burgess...that's not fair..dont tease us like that...some of us hillbillys may have to wait days or weeks before we can get into town again..how about summerizing the "dies" article in here for us....!<P>Thanks<P>PFH

[Guest]

Peter: Information on the Lagonda V12. 60 dgree V12, overhead cam, 7.5 to 1 compresion ratio, duel SU carbs, bore 3inches, stroke 3 3/8 inches, 180 horsepower at 5500 rmp's.. The design wasdone by no other than the great W.O. Bently himself.So you realy need lots of Cubic Inches to make horsepower. I think you are wrong. I could give some other examples such as this one. Want to talk about a machine designed for high speed cruising that would put your chicken coupe to shame. PLEASE IN THE FUTURE NEVER CALL ME GULLIBLE AGAIN.

[Guest]

Hey GULLIBLE.....180 hp.. ? My fanny...!...we...maybe I should qualify that...by suggesting perhaps they used the little Belgian pony- horses...!<P>C,mon...man....THINK....LOOK at the short stroke...yes..I would agree that is a very "modern" concept...but "short' strokes are what you do when you have higher compression. With relatively low compression, a short stroke engine just can't move enough air-fuel mixture, and squeeze it tight enough..to get any real power out of it. <P>John..again..I have never driven or worked on a Lagona or Vioson V-12...in fact...never even seen one. But from the technical data you provided, I simply do not share your belief that these small European engines produced anywhere NEAR the REAL fly-wheel horse-power of the big displacement American engines of the same general compression ratio.<P>Remember...the way you got more power...is to move more fuel-air thru a motor..and squeeze it harder. This is not "rocket science". <P>John..my invitation stands....see if you can borrow someone's and bring it around and we will go to lunch in it..thrash the hell out of it..and get some real-world performance figures out of it. Then...after we have told a few lies...and killed some beer cans who richly deserve killing..we can go to dinner in my Packard Twelve...and I will show you what REAL horse-power is all about...<P>( should we order Voison for dinner..? )<P>Pete Hartmann

[John N. Packard]

Packard53,<BR> Jack Triplett states in his article in the Summer 1974 (Volume XXI, Number 2) of the Cormorant Magazine: "The Experimental Department took a straightforward approach to the task of designing a straight-twelve engine--basically, they coupled two Packard six-cylinder power plants end to end."..."The twelve's cylinder head, cylinder block, and crankcase were all cast from these drawings, and each of these parts was cast as a single piece. Thus, the 'Monobolock' term referred to this single casting method for forming the cylinder block of the twelve..." "The remainder of the engine was also based on the Packard six. Its crankshaft was formed by joining together two six-cylinder crankshafts. Pistons, valves, connecting rods, and other moving parts in the Monoblock Twelve were simply stock items from production of the Packard six. Intake manifolds also came from the standard six-cylinder enigne. Two were used, together with two carburetors (one for each group of six cylinders). The exhaust manifold was welded up from two six-cylinder exhaust manifolds, and fitted with a single pipe leading to the mufflers." My 5th series six has a bore and stroke of 3.5 by 5 inches (288.6 CID) which works out to 577.2 CID for the Monoblock 12.<P>The rest of the article is devoted primarily to the body design modifications required to accommodate this huge engine. A picture of the owner, Warren Packard (nephew of James Ward Packard and manager of the Detroit sales branch), with the car is included. Triplett interviewed Warren's widow who said "they used the Monoblock Twelve extensively through the summer of 1929, including taking it on a vacation trip to Canada".<P>It's a long article with many pictures. E-mail me privately and we can arrange to provide you a copy.<P>jnp<P>[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: John N. Packard ]<p>[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: John N. Packard ]

[Restorer32]

You mean the 1 cylinder 5 1/8 bore by 10" stroke engine I'm restoring won't rev up to 3600 r.p.m. ?????????? Newcomer to these forums, find them fascinating and educational, not to mention entertaining.

[Guest]

For John Packard<P>Yes..I remember reading that article...but do NOT recall seeing any legit. technical confirmation...other than the Gurbitz drawings, and as John Shinerman notes, they were only drawings...from the art dept..!<P>Here's the problem I have with that story...first..let me again note...of course it is something that COULD have been done. Problem is...the timing - this was the late 1920's..... Remember...the SIX had been phased out ...as obsolete. By the time this supposed "story" takes place, Packard was hard at work on FUTURE, SALEABLE IDEAS ! Down-draft carbueration...more modern cylinder casting designs...better cyl head design..improved carbueration...by '29, my recollection is they were already test driving DOWN-draft carb. proposals sent over by Stromberg. They were also hard at work on the 645 - 745 "factory hot rods". And they were thinking about super-charging, and then there was the birth of the Packard Twelve ...roughly about the same time.<P>A in-line Twelve built out of two the Packard by-then sixes, would have been a silly, inefficient turkey. Is it POSSIBLE they got authorization to do a "one off" "proof of concept" experiment...OF COURSE. Is it LIKELY they could have done it...given the business attitude of the time....I remain skeptical...!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

typo error in my last paragraph....should have read " a Packard in line Twelve built out of two OBSOLETE sixes...." etc.

[Guest]

Perhaps I may wade in on the controversy about the Packard straight 12? My old article (Cormorant, 1974) has been cited (thanks for the support) and disparaged in this forum. Some readers might like to know something of how it came to be written, and also how much credence we can put on the evidence that was summarized in the article.<P>Peter Hartmann’s position, if I understand it, is that the straight 12 was unlikely, for a number of reasons, including impractibility, cost, and so forth. Interestingly, roughly 30 years ago that is more or less what another Packard authority said, in words that were about as testy and personal as are Hartmann’s. In the early 1970’s, I knew about the dispute but I really didn’t know anything about the straight 12, other than the Werner (not Peter) Gubitz drawing that survived. This drawing was published in my article.<P>At the time, I was greatly interested in Packard history, had published a few articles in the Cormorant, and had made a number of visits to the Automotive History collection at the Detroit library. One day, the late James Bradley asked me if I would like to see the Packard photo archives that were stored in a sort of attic in the library. There is a long story about how those archives came to be saved. I may not actually know all of it, but they were supposed to be destroyed and would have been but for the clandestine intervention of certain individuals to whom we all owe a great debt. For this reason, I take it that few had actually seen those holdings at the time Bradley extended his invitation to me. I think Jim had the idea that I might help organize them, which I subsequently did to an extent, but the job was far too great for an infrequent visitor. But that is off the topic.<P>Of course, I accepted the invitation. We went upstairs into this room packed with boxes and boxes of photos. To satisfy my curiosity about their contents, I put my hand into one of the boxes, more or less at random, and pulled out the straight twelve photos that were published in my 1974 article. Talk about beginner’s luck. As I said, I didn’t know anything about the straight 12, but I knew about the controversy, so I knew what I had found. The captions on the photos in the article were not mine, by the way, those photos were labeled “Monoblock Twelve” by someone at Packard years ago. <P>That evening, I told someone (I’ve now forgotten who it was—Dwight Heinmiller?) about this <BR>discovery. He responded that this was a real coincidence because that very day he had been <BR>talking with a former employee of the Packard experimental department who had mentioned working on the straight 12. I immediately followed up. The information is in the 1974 article. About the same time, I learned of Warren Packard’s widow and son, from whom I got the additional information about the car they called the “Easter Egg,” and the photo of Warren Packard with the car. All that I uncovered is in the article, those who are interested may read it for themselves.<P>Hartmann focuses on what is not known and therefore missing from the article. There are no surviving actual drawings or photos of the straight twelve engine. The drawings part we can dismiss because Ralph Kellog’s story indicates there weren’t any real drawings, the engineering was minimal, they just used the drawings for the Packard six, turned end to end. As for photos of the engine, you’d think—this is implicit in Hartmann’s criticism—that someone would have photographed the engine, if a straight twelve had been built. I looked through all those boxes, I really wanted an engine photo. I never found one. I presume that all those photos remain at Detroit (I haven’t been there for years), perhaps someone else will have more luck. If by lack of “documentation” Hartmann means photos of the straight 12 engine, he has a point.<P>On the other hand, you have to put evidence from the absence of a surviving photo of the engine against the evidence of the photos that have survived. Someone in the experimental department built a Packard chassis with an extremely long hood, far longer than required for an eight or a V-12. Why did they do that? To make it harder to duct the air from the radiator to the fan? Perhaps. Just as a styling exercise, with nothing unusual under that long hood? Perhaps. To believe the long-hooded Packard was not built for a straight twelve requires not just Hartmann’s theory (that a straight twelve was unlikely), but some other theory for why it was done, and that other theory has to be consistent with the factory labeling the photos “Monoblock Twelve.”<P>Then there is evidence from Ralph Kellogg and Cliff Bailey. Kellogg worked under Jesse Vincent in the experimental department, but he was an old man at the time I talked with him. Perhaps his memory was faulty, which may be Hartmann’s view. Or perhaps Kellogg and Bailey thought I was “gullible” (a term thrown around in the forum) and decided to “gull” me. I think memories of people who worked in the industry are an invaluable part of automotive history, but others may disagree.<P>There is also the story from the Packards. I suppose the real skeptic will say: They weren’t engineers, maybe they didn’t know what they had, they mistook the number of spark plugs for the number of cylinders, or whatever. <P>The real point is: To contend that there never was a straight 12, you have to discount three pieces of evidence—the surviving factory photos and their labels, the memories of Ralph Kellogg in the experimental department, and the memories and the photo from the Packards, who used the car. And you have to discount that evidence—not because you have other conflicting evidence, which you don’t—but because you believe an unsubstantiated theory that Packard (which was a very prosperous company in the 1920’s and had an active experimental department that built experimental cars) would not have built such a thing. I am reminded of the old lawyer’s adage: When the facts are with you, argue the facts; when they are not, argue the law.<P>Jack E. Triplett<BR>JTRIPLETT@BROOKINGS.EDU

[Guest]

Thank you for that excellent report, Mr. Triplett. It is this kind of unbiased, factual commentary that the hobby in general and this forum in particular needs. <P>Mr. Hartmann, the old lawyer, hasn't indicated a tendency to let evidence cloud his very vocal opinions. <P>Member, Cadillac LaSalle Club, Packard Automobile Classics, Porsche Club of America

[Guest]

Drawings notwithstanding. In many R&D shops a product is nearly fully developed BEFORE it is ever drawn by draft room. IN fact, many times such a prototype if sheduled for production must first go thru a Design Check dept. for approval and midor midifcations for mass production purposes.<P>The existence or non-existence of a drawing is somewhat of a moot point. Sometimes there r drawings made for wich the first screw is NEVER turned.<P>Prototypes r NOT to be confused with production nor any idea that the company may have had any intent to manufacture.<P>Who knows???? the I12 may have been slated for boats or airplanes or something.

[Guest]

HORSE FEATHERS !<P>Listen...guys...about the REALITY of the Detroit Public Library's collection of old Packard stuff.. it confirms, even in its incomplete form, the Packard Photo Dept. ran wild thruout the Packard organization in those "golden years"...looks to me like they photographed just about everything in the buildings, if so much as a mouse had moved the day before. <P>Incidentally, Jack, about the guys who handled that "burglary". During the "last days at the bunker" Packard management TOLD staff that the old historical stuff would be saved. But secretly, they hired a demolition crew to "waste" everything. Someone felt this was an atrocity, and "spilled the beans" to some Packard "old timers". They actually DID break in and steal what they could. That's PROBABLY a true story - the guys who told me this (met em when I was in Dearborn for the fire engine meet many years ago) sure seemed "legit", and I have heard from other sources, management was determined to destroy EVERYTHING. THAT is one story I will "buy into".<P>But better than that...I even went to a nearby MacDOnalds, and talked to a guy who knew a guy who bought some fries from a guy whose cousin worked in a lumber yard where they sold a can of nails to a guy who made outhouses for a guy...etc...and HE said...<P>Now...let's get serious..for a second...THINK...Jack...a MONOBLOCK "straight twelve". The problem with that...Jack...is...the old Packard "6" (that the so called "standard eight" replaced)...was NOT a "mono block" ! The first production "mono block" Packard engine was the TWELVE ! (prior to that, Packard automotive engine cylinder blocks and crank-cases were cast separately...out of different materials!<P>C'mon...which is it...make up your mind...? A proto-type made out of two obsolete Packard "Sixs"...or a real "mono bloc" ? <P>Right...Packard Engineering Dept. did things "just for fun" without bugetary authority. ! Sure...! Did Packard Engineering just spend man-hours "tinkering" without authorization ? Be serious. Do you have a damn CLUE how such organizations did business? <P>It isn't that simple. Proposals, PLANS had to be submitted to get budget authority...THAT is how things were done. Wasting company time on some wild-hair private project WITHOUT a authorized budget for personnel & materials......? COULD it have happened ? Given the business climate and culture of that era....sorry..Jack..just not buying it.<P>COULD it have been done...OF COURSE ! I at one time saw photos of Werner's drawings of that ultra long hooded thingy. But they were DRAWINGS ! <P>Protype for a marine engine ? Not "buying" into that wild guess either..Jack...Marine engines have far different power-loading requirements than a passenger car engine...they are designed to operate under full rated power duty cycles - unlike passenger car engines, which are rarely called upon to deliver rated power for very long. Given the ineffiencies inherent in long skinny crank-shafts...it would have made even LESS sense to do an in-line of more than eight cylinders for that application. <P>Say...Jack..I understand there is a need for a guy to write about the "almost was 1966 Packard V-13 moving van", for the next issue of the COMORANT....are you interested...? Helpful hint...DONT submit that one to Bud..I think he is a bit burned out on stuff like yours....!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

ERRATA<P>Just to clear up a point, Jack, if I understand him correctly, does NOT maintain he saw photos of the Packard "mono block"...he apparently only saw PHOTOS of some DRAWINGS of Werner's "long hooded monster". <P>Somone correct me if I am wrong....when was the concept of casting a LARGE displacement engine in one piece (meaning "mono-block", which I THINK the first was the Packard Twelve and the Ford V-8,both introduced in '32) first appeared ? I am not sure. <P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

PFH wrote:<BR>"It isn't that simple. Proposals, PLANS had to be submitted to get budget authority...THAT is how things were done. Wasting company time on some wild-hair private project WITHOUT a authorized budget for personnel & materials......? COULD it have happened ? Given the business climate and culture of that era....sorry..Jack..just not buying it. "<P>That mite convince a jury but then agin we know that jusrors are usually picked for their DUMBNESS. There r probably just as many 'government jobs' going in and out of those R&D shops as there r official projects. That is especialy true during the those years. In most cases, a chief engineer is given a budget to work with. He can pretty much spend it anyway he wants to. Of course he has to meet his official projects too. BUT, if he does NOT spend the budget all the way then he will get LESS next time.<P>I dont know if there was an I12 or not. Dont really give a rip either. BUT, it could have been a bill of goods sold to the bean counters too.<P>During those days, Packard and many other companies would build a car ANY way someones wallet wanted it. No matter how ridiculous!! Could be that some big shot doctor, LAWYER or judge decided he wanted an I12 and ordered it from Packard??????