55PackardGuy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hooked up to a dyno with no fanbelt driving the waterpump or generator. They would start and run them wide open until the valves would float or the motor would grenade itself. Whatever the dyno printout said is what the mfg could claim.</div></div> I think this is what was appropriately referred to as "gross" hp. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

A good cleaner that leaves virtually no residue is aerosol brake cleaner. It IS flammable while in use, however, and should be used with appropriate caution... avoiding anything hot, sparks, etc.

Tweaks rather than torches. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I b'lieve that was '71 you mean, there. But drop it (the 430) they did, at the time that they were dropping compression to meet emissions and increasing cid to sort of, I guess, even out the power loss. This seemed to play havoc with efficiency in many engines, although some say the venerable Buick 455 was still quite good. Since you're a Pontiac fan, do you know the differences between the Buick and Pontiac 455? For all I know, there were few similarities, but I'm curious. I imagine that by "the Pontiac block" you mean the 301. I had some second-hand experience with that in my brother's Grand Prix. I don't know how efficient it was for him, but it certainly seemed capable of taking a lot of hard use. This is also the engine they turbocharged for the Trans Am, correct?

That's great for a big 2-barrel carbureted engine. The 4-barrel primaries are smaller and typically more miserly for cruising. Anyone sitting on that many original Clipper tail-lights has got to be allergic to easy money. Or else they're his retirement savings plan. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's all in having torque enough to make acceleration very easy</div></div> "Thermal effciency" (how much of the heat energy available in the fuel that actually gets converted into power, as opposed to waste heat) friction and inertia of moving parts, rolling resistance, wind resistance, and final drive ratio all contribute to the potential fuel economy as well.

RE-POST Just thought I'd stick that post from the tranny thread here. Sorry, should've just started a new one: Quote from PackardV8: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Packard V8 engines are capable of very high rpm due to the massiveness of its internal parts.</div></div> There's been a lot of talk about how the "over-built" Packard V8 has a lot of potential for cid, but not much about RPM capabilities. Just how massive are the internals? Any comparisons of piston/rod/crankshaft/bearing specs with other engines? Also, does anybody have experience with how much RPM these engines would potentially take? I've never heard of one "throwing a rod"--ever. Just some weakness in the valve-train, specifically springs. Just wondering. Craig answered: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For contemporary comparison, see: Packard V-8 vs the competition The high rpm capabilities of the Packard V-8 come from its relatively short stroke (3.5in) compared to bore (4+in), relatively small main and rod bearing diameters, forged rods and last, but not least, the rocker shaft style valve actuation, as opposed to the stud-rocker ball style of the SBC and Pontiac V-8s of the same era.</div></div> Craig, The "over square" bore and stroke are a natural for high RPM applications. Just out of curiousity, were some of these valve train tricks carried over from aviation or marine engine designs?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Packard V8 engines are capable of very high rpm due to the massiveness of its internal parts.</div></div> There's been a lot of talk about how the "over-built" Packard V8 has a lot of potential for cid, but not much about RPM capabilities. Just how massive are the internals? Any comparisons of piston/rod/crankshaft/bearing specs with other engines? Also, does anybody have experience with how much RPM these engines would potentially take? I've never heard of one "throwing a rod"--ever. Just some weakness in the valve-train, specifically springs. Just wondering.

BqUICK, I'm surprised you have time to cruise the message boards, given your Faithful Pursuit project. Are you taking a break? I think the '69 carb setup may have had something to do with the 430 gas mileage that year as well. Looking through an old Chilton's, I discovered that the '69 was set up to run extra lean--and it was for that year only. I know that our '69 Electra had plenty of additional spark timing, too (my dad favored that) and pinged like a sonofagun under acceleration. But it regularly got over 20 mpg on freeway driving at 70 mph. It was easy to verify, 'cuz with a 25 gallon tank you could cruise over 400 miles between fillups (and I've done that without stopping). You kind of get stuck to the seat, though. And don't drink too much coffee! Also, it actually seemed to get a little better mileage on regular octane than "premium." I've read that there's acutally more btu's in regular, and depending on how you drive it can deliver better mileage. Any truth to that?

Michael, Great history! The Tuskegee Airmen have finally gotten a lot more "ink" in the past several years, including a chapter in "The Wild Blue--the Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24's Over Germany" by Stephen E. Ambrose. One of the B-24 Liberator bombers that the 99th Fighter Squadron, Fifth Air Force "Tuskegee Airmen" escorted with their Mustangs was piloted by George McGovern of the 741st Squadron, 455th Bomb Group, Fifteenth Air Force. He flew 35 missions. I think he'd be interested in a project like yours honoring the Tuskegee Airmen. My father, Anton ("Tony"), was stationed at Victorville air base in California during the war, ultimately becoming Hanger Chief, responsible for the airworthiness of every plane that went through the maintenance procedures. He was thoroughly familiar with the B-24, flew many hours as Engineer during test flights, and passed along a lot of inside information and anecdotes to us over the years. He died on March 11, 1999, and is buried with a marker designating his rank as Technical Sergeant in the Army Air Force. (It was changed from "Air Corps" during [or possibly even before] the war, but many didn't seem to notice.) Best regards,

These are great photos--I like how the people take precedence to the car... any info on them would be appreciated. Of course, the car looks spectacular, too!

Today's alcohol "enriched" fuels also seem to do a good job of increasing the likelihood of vapor lock. In Minnesota, "oxygenated" (alcohol added) fuels are now the norm all year 'round instead of just in winter months. You can still get "pure" no-lead at special pumps, though, for small engine use and performance/collector cars. This alcohol-free gas may be the simplest "first line defense" against vapor lock when running anything with a carb and mechanical fuel pump setup. Depending on the economics of the day, it can even be a few cents cheaper per gallon than "regular" oxygenated gas. Probably has to do with the price of ethanol at the time. Cheers! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Never meant to be insulting myself on the FWD issue, just opinionated. I thought your reply there was unnecessarily harsh, so I just blew it off as you may recall. It didn't seem to make much sense to start a war over what, in the end, is pretty much a "religious" issue. Topography and weather definitely alter the cars we use and love. After all, sometimes it becomes a true life-or-death matter, and FWD has freed many people in the North, particularly in hilly areas, to live and prosper. I think the hill-climbing aspect is particularly noteable (do you remember my reference to the original Toronado ad campaigns that were all about Pike's Peak Hill Climb results?) Nothing, but NOTHING can beat FWD to pull you up hills, especially on snow or ice. I don't care if you've got limited slip, chains, and whatever, if you're only driving the back wheels slippery hills will be harder to negotiate. As for my last post, I did not see your reply to NTX, because I either did not notice the new page 2 or because we posted at the same time. When I went back to the thread, I read your reply to NTX and I let my post stand, because it really was in reply to your previous post, which, unless I'm really paranoid, took some pointed shots at yours truly. The fact that you replied to NTX with apologies did not seem to me to rectify this. I just come to these message boards to share some good ideas, information, and anecdotes about the cars we enjoy. It's relaxing and fun. When it stops being fun, it's usually because the discussions are getting heated and turning into arguments about "who's right" and "mine's better." I'm all for having clear facts and data, yet when it comes down to it, even with these, you usually make your choices based on opinion because there are a lot of ways to interpet the "facts." And I'm ready to "discuss" all day as long as the tone stays respectful, if sometimes a little pithy. I'll try to watch myself when it comes to stating opinion as fact. That's a habit that I don't enjoy in myself. Best wishes to you... and thanks for replying.

86 2-door, MAN you seem to have an edge, and I can't really tell if you're mad at me or some mythical "drifter" that you've decided hates you and everything you stand for. As for "insulting what you know nothing about," in addition to NTX's comments, see the "430 gas mileage" thread I told you about. Then, send a note to each of the "grandpas" that posted their personal experiences with 20+ mpg with their bb Buick "land yachts" and call THEM liars, too. This just needed to be said. Your tone is not appreciated. I would much sooner continue with a civil discussion that honors differences of opinion, and acknowledges our (many) similar opinions. I feel like you're "laying for me" every time I post. Is that your intention?

Hydrostatic drive is very big in farm tractors and heavy equipment. At least it was when I was driving some of that stuff in the '70s and '80s. The main advantage is you can "shift" up and down into an infinite number of "ratios" without releasing the clutch, even under power. I don't know if this does much for you in an automobile. In using heavy equipment, the throttle position is not varied much once you start working, as it's usually lever operated and set where power is sufficient to do the job. The hydrostatic drive lets you change vehicle speed without changing the throttle setting, and to change direction quickly from forward to reverse--a big timesaver when moving back and forth to push dirt or dump loads, but not much of an advantage in a car, it seems. The CVT would be kind of a strange experience to drive, I think, because the engine speed would not give an indication of vehicle speed. That's one reason I asked for an impression from someone who's driven one. Like Packard said, "Ask the man who owns one."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When do we get back to the Dynaflow days of no gears ? The day is coming.</div></div> I wonder if the CVT will ever be mainstreamed? No gears, unlimited ratios. But, it seems to be an "also-ran" technology so far. Anyone out there driven one? In the real old days, Dodge Bros. made parts for other manufacturers before they started making their own cars. Perhaps that's why their early cars were such tanks... they knew what they were supplying to others, and wanted to outdo them in their own vehicles!? "Distinct Entities" has kind of always been a matter of degree, I think, depending on the prevailing market realities. Independents and later AMC bought lots of stuff from the Big 3 parts suppliers, yet maintained their own distinct vehicle identities, possibly moreso than the big corporations could, with their many models from different divisions based on similar "platforms."

'69s FOREVER! That is beautiful paint, BTW.

I just like the older V8 powered Buicks better. Nothing against the V6s, just my prejudice. My comment about torque was to point out how this particular spec seems to often be overlooked today, and the days of 1 ft/lb+ per cu in were excellent days indeed (445 ft/lb in the 401 nailhead, fer instance). These cars, of course, had heavy rwd drivetrains that could take all that torque. When I tool around today, I try to fit the car's performance to the road, thus rwd for fair weather, 4wd for foul. It works for me. I wouldn't use the 455 for the V8 comparison, as the 430 is higher compression (in base form) and generally a more efficient design. (20 mpg+ in the real world on real highways in a '69 Electra for instance. I know a lot of 455 lovers will scream about this--OK, that's a great engine, too.) One might do a comparison of mpg vs weight some time. These big heavy cars were truly marvels of efficiency. (See the thread on "430 gas mileage" and read all the responses from bb Buick owners about their experiences with Economy.) I enthusiastically admit that the cars of the last half of the '60s are the most interesting to me. A lot of great engineering and hair-raising performance came in those years. I'm 47, but I guess I'm still living in my tender youth when it comes to cars. They'll never be the same, nor should they be, and trying to imitate the past would be mostly counter-productive, I think. However, I'd still like to go buy a new car that gives a reasonable facsimile of the performance and feel of those cars. Even if it's a hybrid or is hydrogen-fuel-cell powered. Or fwd???!!! (only if it's a longitudinally-mounted engine design). If I want the "real thing" I'll keep getting cars like my '89 IROC (See? I'm not stuck in the '60s!) to play around with and (I hope) sell them for about what I put into them and get another one. I've got my eye on a '69 Electra convertible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also kind of fit into the GM midset that it didn't matter how many cylinders an engine had, it was the horsepower that mattered (an orientation that carries on today).</div></div> Horsepower may matter the most according to GM tradition, but Buick tradition is more about TORQUE. That great off-the-line feeling that an Electra had that made it feel like it was light as a feather. Look under the hood of a nailhead powered Buick and you won't find the HP rating on the air cleaner, you'll see "Wildcat 445" designating the torque! No arguments with what you said, but I thought this needed to be added for proper perspective. What's the torque rating of that new OHC V6? In today's promotions when they brag about 170 ft/lbs of torque like it's going to make you wet your pants, I just have to laugh.

Can't wait to see the "interim" results with all the paint and brightwork. Don't let Jay Leno hear about this car or he's going to want it! His restored "bone-stock looking" '56 (I think) Buick with a Chevy BB "crate motor" and Corvette underpinnings is a hoot. I'm sure he'd love to add a Grand Touring Electra to his huge collection. On second thought, maybe a pic to him would get a response... and possibly some support?? Eye spy: On Lake Street in South Minneapolis last week-- a yellow '69 Electra convertible with black top. Looks rough around the edges, but I'm going to give it a "once-over" soon when I'm in the neighborhood. I had no idea you had/have so many '69s. Still my favorite year for Electra, although I spent a lot more time drivng my '65 4-door "with-a-post" back in the '70s. Good luck! (although I think you make your own luck with hard work and good faith).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LaCrosse works for me</div></div> Thanks for the list, My3Buicks. I agree with everything but the above (it's an OK name, but they really needed a "home run," and this isn't even a goal! reminds me too much of Soccermom. Oops, hope the marketing deptartment doesn't see that one) and Velite, which just reminds me of some kind new food additive or "space age plastic." Take the "V" off and it's the Elite--been done. Somebody mentioned Centurion. I KNEW I was forgetting one of my favorites. It's a reminder of the Century without being as "diluted" as Century. (At least, I think that Century has become "old hat." But again, whaddoiknow?)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Buick had a similar arrangement in their engine, but with no apparent adverse effects</div></div> Brian, Just a "left field" what-if question: The early Oldsmobile V8s with hydraulic lifters were sometimes referred to as the "racket V8" because of lifter noise. Did they possibly have the oil/vacuum pump arrangement? Early hydraulic valve trains had other problems that caused noise, but I just wonder if part of the Olds problem was also related to a vacuum pump? Just a thought...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look at the rave reviews the Chrysler 300's getting with the new vehicle that name is now attached to--and THAT's a name that predates LeSabre AND Park Avenue as production vehicle names!</div></div> Reviving vehicle names has a lot to do with whether or not the name has been "diluted" by use on lesser vehicles, I think. Maybe not always true, Ford did OK with "Mustang" even after the Mustang II came along. But that was an exceptional badge due to its history. People were likely to be waiting for the "next GOOD Mustang." The Chrysler 300 was legendary, and had a reputation for always being on worthy performance vehicles. It had been gathering dust for a long time, but look at how people responded to it. One reason was probably that Chrysler did some "reminder" advertising to bring younger people up to date on the legend, and to bring back fond memories for people who were familiar with the cars. Buick has, in my opinion, diluted the LeSabre name almost out of possibile recovery because of so many "ho hum" examples of it. Riviera seems to still have a lot of appeal because, even though it's been around a long time, it's always been a "special" car. Chevy is reviving Impala SS and Malibu, not Biscayne etc., because they know which past badges had the most panache. Buick might look to some lesser known yet appealing older badges like "Wildcat" and even "Invicta." Electra seems to stand on its own merits. It's just a cool name that seemingly can't lose its appeal. And it's always stood for a really good, big car that wasn't a Cadillac. Kind of the Bentley of the U.S. The 225 was a legendary specialty version that entered pop culture with the "Deuce and a Quarter" nickname, which also found its way to popular music. Some names seem to be destined to get "dated," like "Special" and maybe even "Skylark" (from the old popular song). It appears that Buick is struggling to come up with new names that match the appeal of some of the old ones, but I haven't seen one yet that looks much like a "home run." Buick may do well to borrow from the past those names which can appear fresh again and also maintain their historical aura of great motoring and performance. I think Electra 225, Wildcat, and Riviera are keepers. Maybe three or four "classic" names are enough to keep. Then come up with some really good new names that are as cool as, for instance, LeSabre originally was. But that's just my opinion... anyone want to start a list?

Craig, Thanks for the pics. Very pretty and very Italian! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> BTW any news on the Panther Project?

Brian, As Packard8 mentioned, I wouldn't worry much about overfilling causing additional foaming problems unless it's overfilled to the point of being "whipped" by the crank. I have a feeling that the reason over-filling helps is what has been referred to as "dispersal" of the air in the oil. More oil, more dispersal. Makes sense to me anyway, but what do I know? I DO know that I posted elsewhere on an Oil Pump Thread that I suspected anti-foaming oil may be a "fix" for the Packard lifter noise problem. At least Mercedes Benz thinks it is for their cars! I have read where some of their newer engines call for anti-foaming oil (I don't know if it's because of lifter noise, or what). So, they're OK with having owners use a different oil rather than trying to fix the cause of the foaming in the first place. So, I don't think it's really a "copout" to treat the Packard symptom with oil rather than chasing the cause. BTW, as I recall the vacuum windshield wipers were STILL pretty pathetic in our '55s, even with the booster pump. It didn't seem to be worth going to all the trouble of putting a booster on the system when every time you hit the gas hard the wipers stopped anyway. But, again, what do I know??

My!