1607

I agree with everything all of you guys in here have said. But, let me add two things: First - there is another reason why a commercial paint shop will not spray lacquer. It is ILLEGAL in most jurisdictions due to "air pollution" regs. Secondly - I do disagree about the "look". Those vastly superior modern finishing systems "look" different, and more shiny to even the untrained eye. There is something about the way light reacts to the modern finishes, that makes them "look" more spectacular then the old style lacqueers. Of COURSE I would pick a modern finishing system for any car that got daily use. But my collector vehicles are rarely out in harsh weather. So durability isnt a factor. I always take a car as far apart as is practical, when I paint it - so as to avoid that "re-paint" look of tell-tale masking lines. Then, if it is a "collector era" car, I re finish it in original materials. There is a certain "look" to authentic laquer paint jobs, that simply can not be recaptured with the admittedly much more durable modern finishes.

For Dynaflash: Regarding excessive oil consumption on a '52 Plymouth after going 90 mph. Dynaflash - I disagree...I dont think it would hurt the engine on a '52 Plymouth at all if it went 90 mph. Simple reason. Given the wind resistance of that body, the gearing, and the low power, NO way you could get a stock one to go that fast unless you shipped it UPS or Fed Ex. Typical shipping regs. require that the gasoline tank be drained. So.......there you are. Seriously, running wide open, assuming reasonable oil changes, shouldn't hurt those tough Chrysler Corp. six's one bit. Those were DAMN tough engines, serving well in all kinds of applications, not just cars, were they were run hard year after year. Given the outrageously optimistic speedometer errrors typical of that era, I am not surprised you saw 90 mph on the speedomter. As for your actual top speed, again, depending on the "final drive" diff. gear ratio on that particular car, I would venture a guess that you were actually doing somewhere between 78 asnd 85 mph ( that is....IF the wind was right !).

Couple of thoughts on tires: First of all, the WIDTH of white-walls shrank starting with the mid-1930's. By the early 1950's, only VOUGE still had anything even resembling a "wide" white-wall - you rarely saw those on anything but new Cads and Packards. By the mid 1950's, there was simply no such thing as a truly WIDE white-wall - pretty funny when you go to car shows and see present day collector "wides" on these 50's era cars. The white wall tires of the 1950's were around 2.2" wide. A pick up truck with white-walls in the 1950's..? NEVER saw one, even in the flamboyant Hollywood that I lived in, in those years. Sadly, there is WIDE variation in the quality of the "repro/collector" tires. I have Cokers on my 16,000 lb V-12 American La France fire engine - it handles so well I call it my "big red sports car". Of course they are bias - no radials are available in that size. I had "repro/collector" bias tires on my Packard Twelve - its sloppy handling, "plowing" in corners, "hunting" every tar strip, had me convinced something was wrong with the steering (because I KNEW how these cars DID handle with "real" quality bias tires). Ever tried to take the front end apart on a Packard Twelve with IFS ? DONT unless you read the instructions that may still come with the parts kit for these car by STEELE ( I know those instructions are good, and a safe way to do this...I wrote em ! ). The problem was not in the suspension - it was in the bias tires available in thatd size (8:25 x 16). Recently, a couple of "collector tire" companies have come out with full sixe 7:50 x 16 radial wide whites (that are, incidentally, NOT as wide as some - they are the CORRECT width for the more conservative later classic era ) and...presto - had my car's wonderful handling back. See...I KNOW how these cars handled with DECENT bias ply tires, so I KNOW that in this particular case, the radials simply RESTORED the built-in excellent road feel and handling. Another problem with many of the so called "collector/bias" tires - they accent the built in problem of bias tires - internal tire heating at speed. Internal tire heating is what causes catastrophic failure in tire casings. With the radials, you can drive heavy cars at normal freeway speeds without them coming apart. Believe me - a three ton car moving at 70 mph...having a blow out from those damned fool "collector / bias" tires, was not exactly a day in the park.

I would not hold out hope of finding an orig. '40 thru '42 air conditioning system. If you want to have something that LOOKS original, the original manufacturer, (Babcock something or other) is, I heard someone say, still in business. It might be possible for you to buy one of those funny looking piston-type compressors they used on that system. You'll need to add a much more competent radiator, and have a condensor made to fit the unusual shape of the narrow Packard grill. As for the evaporator, several of the modern "add on" air conditioning companies offer a truck mounted unit. If you worked at it, I bet you could come up with an installation that would fool most so called Packard "experts" - about the only think I can think of that would be the devil to make, would be the script that goes on the fenders just below the side mounts that says "air conditioned". If you go into the Classic Car Club Of America section, and check the index for "posts" there, you will find some comments on air conditioning classic-era cars with modern off-the-shelf components. Good luck.

Hi Ed: You wanna be picky...eh..well...you came to the right place! Ed - I can't find my data books, so I can't argue with you as to the pre-35 Twelves. But be assured you are wrong about the "standard" axle ratios, at least on the later Twelves. The standard ratio for ALL twelves, not just the open ones, was 4:41, with the 4:69 limited to the heavy limos and custom body jobs. Even with the 4:07 ratio, I do not think it wise to run these cars at much over 55 mph. Especially the pre '35 Twelves, as they had much less strength in their rods, and the rod bearing itself was poured babbit, a much weaker bearing material than the copper lead "insert" type introduced for 1935 Yes...I know..I know...it seems to "float" at higher speeds - but that marvelous, effortless "feel" does NOT tell you the horrific centrifugal forces imposed on the reciprocating parts. Back when you could buy a really sharp "mint" later Packard Twelve for seventy five bucks (mine was not mind..so I paid $25. for it) Charles Last and the other Packard Twelve re-builders I knew, when they over-hauled a pre '35 Packard Twelve, automatically put the "late" or "insert" type rods in it. Take a look at your block just below the distributor. Hopefully, you will "get lucky" and tell me you see a little stamp that says "E.C. Last." If so, you DO have "insert" rods, and thus as high as 60 mph would be o.k. Yeah..Phil Hill got together with some guy from the east, and came up with a 3:58 ratio. I dont know who they sold the project to, but they are still avail. If you run out the math on those big 16" and 17" tires, that gives you roughly the equiv. of about a 3.21 axle ratio in terms of todays cars. With that ratio, you would be able to cruise at at least 65 without over-stressing the engine. As for as top speeds go, are you aware Packard did a "publicity stunt" in '32, "Packard Twelve races a golf ball" - did 122 mph...stock except for a 3:3 rear end out of a earlier speedster.!

Hey Desoto: Dont let anyone make fun of those little Chrysler product engines - they used them clear into the 60's. Tough little buggers - we had them in some of our fleet trucks - couldn't kill em no matter how rotten we were to them. As I am sure you know, Chrysler Corp. early on adopted "insert" connecting rod bearings thru out the line - which explains why you could run em wide open all year long without breaking them. Assuming you have everything reasonably in balance, I dont think even a steady 55 mph would hurt anything, depending, of course, on what your rear axle ratio is. I dont think you are going to have much of a chance winning any speeding trophies, but I have to admit, I truly ENVY the durability of those Chrysler Corp. engines of that era.

For Burgesss and Clipper '47: I AM here. But I had nothing to contribute to this particular discussion. I simply do not have any hard info. on the top speeds of these particular cars. At one time or another, I did own both 40's era Cads and Buicks of various series, but 1) While I do have personal experience with these cars, I am not suicidal; it would not have occured to me to try and take any of them much over 70 mph, given the tires of the day. Let me explain - there is a "standing wave" phenomena that can tear a old style "bias" tire apart at anything much over 80 mph. As other "posters" have noted, speedometer errors of 8-12 mph or MORE were typical of those days. Also, the Buick was a long stroke engine, meaning extremly high shock loads on the rods and cranks in the upper rpm ranges. Buick straigt eights did not get "insert" rod bearings until the early 1950's. If you want to know what happens to the straight eight Buicks when you REALLY "stand on them", take a look at the news articles of what happpened to people with "poured babbit" type rod bearings when they "went at it" on the then new Pennsylvania Turnpike. I did NOT make this stuff up, nor do I want to hurt anyone's feelings. Secondly, I dont have any literature that would shed light on the subject. The old Floyd Clymer / Motor Trend road tests that I have do not go that far back (I havnt seen any that go back past 1949). Thirdly, I see no point in aggravating people in the chat room. Some of these guys have a real "need" to "believe" in their cars, with "belief systems" that are so fragile, that if you so much as question some of their beliefs by discussing technology that conflicts with them, they go running to the Administrator and ask for conflicting views to be "banned". What's the point in upsetting them ? Some time ago, we had some people who insisted their stock '47 Buick Super would go over 100 mph, and (cant recall if it was the same guy) that his '47 Buick Roadmaster would go over 120. The mere suggestion that these fellows were being a bit over-enthusiastic in their claims caused a lot of bad feeling. Bottom line - again - I do still come in now and then to look around, but see no point in "jawing" when we KNOW it is going to upset people. If and when I have useful info. that will benefit people, and if and when I have the time to come in, I will. Hope you have a mild winter, and glad you decided to keep the '47 Super Clipper!

For '53 I agree with everything you posted. Of course diesels are called "compression ignition" engines because the heat of the much higher compression stroke ignites the mixture; they dont need a "spark" to set off the "fire". And yes, all other things being equal, the longer the stroke, the more power. Except all other things are not equal. For example, take a look at the modern short stroke gasoline engines of the 70's and 80's. Take a large luxury car's engine of that era - roughly the same displacement as the Packard Twelve, Cad. V-16, etc. but MUCH shorter stroke. But LOOK at how much more raw power, not only horse-power, but specifically TORQUE they produce. SOME small part of that is due to more efficient engine design, BUT just about ALL of it is due simply to more compression. Again, the harder you squeeze a mixture, the more energy in the fuel is released as MECHANICAL energy, and the less is wasted as HEAT. Take a look at how much more efficient engines get, as the compression goes up. Less heat has to be disposed of by radiators, as the energy that is otherwise wasted as heat in the older low compression cars, is released as more mechanical energy in the more modern motor. Here's an example you would be more familiar with. Look at the power output of your '53 Packard. It is around 327 cu. in. Now compare it with the ubiquitious GMC / Chevrolet "mouse"....or "small block". Just about the same size in displacement. MUCH shorter stroke. But higher compression; roughly TWICE the horse-power and torque of your long stroke Packard of the same displacement ( yes, folks - I am aware there are both larger and smaller "mice"...but to illustrate the advantages of higher compression, I am using the 327 cu. in. version as our example here). Now that you have finally gotten your '53 Packard out on the road, you have found that the old Flyod Clymer / Motor Trend road tests were correct when they pronounced those early '50's Packards as just about the SLOWEST cars they tested ( I did find one SLOWER car - the '50 Chevrolet with PowerGlide). While much of that sluggishness is due to the poor transmission design of those "single speed" Ultramatics, part of it is due to the poor power output compared to the more modern engine designs it was in competition with. Modern technology has made it possible to get more and more mechanical power out of power-plants with less and less energy wasted as heat. That's where you got off the track. All things, and all engines, are NOT equal. Bottom line - more compression means more power.

For Clipper 47: The fact that a Packard Super Eight or Twelve (along with many other of the big engined cars of the pre war era) can start in high gear from a dead stop, does NOT tell us much about their torque. It happens that the Packard Twelve, because of its advanced combustion chamber design, and unusually (for that era) good "breathing", developes significantly more torque per cubic in. than any other engine of that period of which I am aware, except, of course, for the Dusenberg. All OTHER things being equal, torque is a function of compression. The higher the compression, the more torque. That is why diesel engines, with their much higher compression ratios, produce so much more torque per cubic in., then a gasoline engine of equal displacement. Given the approx. six to seven to one compression ratios of that era, a ROUGH "rule of thumb" for the torque of a gasoline engine of that era, is multiply the displacement by .75. Try that, for example, on the Cadillac V-16 (note there were two very different Cad. V-16's, but the formula works fairly accurately for both). The Packard Twelve gets around EIGHTY percent of its displacement in torque, due partially to the unique "wedge shaped" combustion chamber, the "peek into the future" so called "ram induction", and the largest carburetor of that era in a mass produced automobile. And, of course, it is just about the largest-engined car of that era. However, all this is irrelevant to what you saw when you saw a Packard Twelve start easily from a dead stop in high gear. What you actually saw was the result of excessively low gearing. The Packard Twelves were usually delivered with 4.41 to one rear ends, meaning their engines, at any given speed, are spinning just about TWICE as fast as a modern car. Of course the engineers at Packard knew better, but they knew that the typical buyer of a car of that price range, was not mechanically inclined, did not want to shift gears, so anything they could do to reduce shifting, would sell cars. Many of us with cars from the pre war era have re-geared our cars to permit normal highway speeds without over-revving the engines. When re-geared to permit comfortable road speeds of today without being a traffic hazard, the Packard Twelve, like any other powerful car of ANY era, will NOT start comfortably in the higher gears from a dead stop. By the time your '47 was in the show-room, over-drive was a often requested option. With over-drive, your '47 Clipper Super has a fairly low axle ratio for pleasant high gear slow speed driving, but with over-drive ENGAGED, has an over-all final drive ratio of around 2.9 to one. You wouldnt THINK of trying to start your '47 Clipper (if you could lock it into overdrive when stopped), no matter how much torque it develops). But that Clipper, in over-drive, sure goes down the road along with modern traffic, just as the re-geared pre-war cars do. In conclusion, having lots of torque is great. The Packard Twelve is well-endowed in that regard, probably "torquier" than just about anything else on the road of its era. But think about how low geared those pre-war cars are, and how hard it is on them, unless re-geared, to keep up with a "modern" car, like that '47 of yours!.