straight 12

[Guest]

Just a point. Two in line sixes nose to tail are just that. They are not a straight 12. Making 2 6 cyl crankshafts is easy work but making a single 12 cyl crankshaft is a whole different ball game. By the way any hot rodder will tell you the cheapest way to horse power is cubic inches. Just ask the Big Three. They have done it over and over and are doing it again now.

[Guest]

Unregis.. I think you just like to argue !<P>Let's try it again. There is NO known evidence...not a SHRED...no drawings, no engineering data...no memos...no NOTHING...(other than some PHOTOS of some of Werner's water-color sketches of long-hooded BODIES)...of a "mono block" Twelvepower-plant.<P>To my knowledge, Packard's first "mono-block" engine, was the Packard V-12. I can't imagine WHY someone would scribble "mono block" ....since to my knowledge...Packard's engines...ALL of them...prior to the V-12...were "built up" of separate aluminum crank-cases and iron cylinder blocks.<P>So we are back to the problem I pointed out earlier.....the by then obsolete Packard Six wasn't a mono block...! And as Reid notes...making this obsolete motor into a "straight twelve".......for WHAT ?<P>Where did you get the idea Packard would "make any car the customer wanted" ? Didn't happen. I think what MAY be confusing you, is that Packard DID have a "special order" dept, that DID get authority from PRODUCTION to accept some LIMITED changes in regular production cars. These were generally limited to upholstery and trim changes, with SOME VERY limited changes in interior fittings (for example...Club Sedans with Formal Sedan center compartment windows). There were a FEW exceptions...when management wanted a special body, some were farmed out to the custom body builders of the day, and some were "cobbled up" from production sheet metal in house, such as the famous McCauley "boat-tail" Speedster. And of course, the car show/world's fair cars...ALL had standard "production" engines and running gear. ALL of them ! Oh...forgot ONE exception that I am aware of...the 7th series Speedsters..a few of them...had 3.31 rear ends for extreme speed. Since they were so high geared..they were a bit sluggish "off the line", compared to the much lower gear ratios common to the era, and more appropriate to the speeds of the era. These were recalled by the factory. ONE of those 3:31 gear sets was grabbed by Engineering, and wound up in a '32 Packard Twelve coupe, which was used for that famous " Packard Twin Six Can Beat a Golf Ball" promo, and that Packard Twelve ( bone stock except for the high gearing) was clocked at the Proving Grounds at over 12o mph. I do not know what happened to it.<P>THINK...if Packard WERE interested in a prototype "staight twelve", where would the logic be in going BACKWARDS to an obsolete design ( by then the Packard SIX had been replaced by the so called "Standard Eight".<P>In the absence of ANY hard evidence, and in view of the technical aspects, I stand by my prior position....(that Britney Spear's body has MUCH better lines than any damn old Packard...! )<P>Pete Hartmann<p>[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: pete hartmann ]

[Guest]

it IS technicaly possible to mate to seperate blocks together into ONE CONTIUOUS UNIT. It is called Oven Brazeing. The Oven Brazeing is used extensively in R & D work. Oven Brazing is NOT a modern technique and was available as early as 1955 that i know of... and probably earlier.

[Restorer32]

For a photo of the car see Kimes' "Packard, A History of The Motor Car and The Company" page 303...a photo of the car, not of the drawings...or are we to believe this is a "jackalope" also? Was the Monobloc Twelve any more outrageous or unlikely to have been built than the Macauley Speedster?

[Guest BillP]

Mr. 32 <BR>Petey has said that it doesn't exist and never did. That should be enough. <BR>We should all go back to our homes; there's nothing more to see here.

[Guest]

Bill P..<P>I did NOT say it "never existed". I just am a bit suspicious of some of the stuff that winds up in auto hobby publications !<P>Say...did you hear the one about the wonderful prototype '66 Packard V-17 van..?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

For Restorer 32<P>The MacCauley Speedster was built in the Packard factory by Packard employees, on a standard production Packard chassis, by specific directive of a Packard executive.<P>Modifying a car's body is no big deal - any reasonably well-equipped car buff can do the same thing in his home work-shop. <P>Making up a whole new engine, is a whole different story. Interestingly, someone took two "mice" (Chevrolet / GMC "small block V-8's") and made a V-16 out of it...it was covered in the hot rod magazines a couple of years ago). But this was using a MODERN engine design with still being produced "off the shelf" parts, so it made sense. (interestng how they made a "jig" to weld V-8 cyl. heads and blocks together, and had a crank-shaft custom built).<P>A whole entire "new" mono block engine design, for a cylinder lay out that could not possibly make engineering sense..? Or wasting time on the then obsolete Packard Six to "prove up" a design..that again, made NO engineering sense..?<P>0f course it COULD have been done. I simply doubt it, based on factors discussed in previous "posts".<P>Still havnt received an answer to my quesdtion folks....my understanding..is that the first modern-style monobock engine castings were the '32 Ford V-8 and the '32 Packard Twelve (which they called the "Twin Six" in the first year, out of respect for the 1914-1923 "Twin Six", a much earlier engine design concept, that rightfully had one hell of a reputation for typical large Packard brute power, speed, and durability).<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Damn...with John Shinerman now starting to get suspicious of all the "monkey business" that is a tradition of "loud-mouth" self-styled experts writing articles in the glossy hobby magazines....what to do...who is going to "buy" the next article/legend...about that '66 Packard in-line V-17 van...made out of the Packard "180" dies that Roosevelt secretly shipped to Russia as part of his plot to trick the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor...and that Bill Clinton was in Moscow to recover ( he wanted to make a nice present to Monica...saw those beautiful emblems on Packard radio cabinets of the 1930's...thought they'd make a nice lockette for her.....which is why the Isreali Mossad attacked the World Trade Center......!<P>( see what happens...you guys...when you forget to wear those alumiunum foil caps when you go to sleep at night....! )<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[John N. Packard]

Pete,<BR> The beat goes on! Just returned from the AACA Special Eastern Division Meet in Purchase, NY. In the flea market I picked up a copy of "Classic Cars" Edited by Kevin Brazendale and Enrica Aceti and published by Exeter Books. In their discussion of Packard they state: "The lifetime of the Senior 180 Packard in the West was ended during World War II, when dies for its body and chassis were sold, at modest cost, to the Soviet Union, which had always shown a liking for Packards. Made to cement wartime relationships, this deal accounted for the postwar appearance of Russian ZIS models that looked identical to the pre-war Packard Senior 180 models which had been so successful."<P>I know that you have stated that this lend-lease agreement never took place. Can you substantiate this and refute the above statement with any valid documentation? If so, a lot of sources continue to promulgate this myth!<BR>jnp

[Guest]

Wouldn't a lively in-person discussion about the Packard Monoblock 12 be an enjoyable event at the Hershey Show?<P>Maybe one of you Hershey meet Old-timers could set up an informal discussion at one of the flee market areas.<P>It would be nice to hear the opinions of some of the folks who are not internet active.<P>Maybe someone with one of those big flee market tents could provide some sit down space out of the rain?

[Guest Randy Berger]

To ALL, I'm almost afraid of addressing this to any one person, BUT they measured one of those ZIS's and the component parts were close, but not the same as Packard's 180. You cannot change a steel die that much and it wouldn't have made sense to modify it anyway. Russia did a very good job of copying Packards and their later autos endorsed that styling - they loved it. <BR>Now if you ever see a newsreel of Yuri Gagarin in a parade in Red Square, (I caught it on the History channel), celebrating him as the first man in space, pay particular attention to the convertible he is riding in. It is a really good COPY of a 56 Caribbean. No, John Nance didn't sell the dies to Russia and neither did Egbert Humperdink or whatever his name was. But it was a damn good copy.<BR>YFAM, Randy Berger

[Guest]

John Packard: Regarding the ZIS<P>The term "ZIS" is simply a phonetic contraction for (loosely translated) STALIN AUTO WORKS.<P>If you have ever actually SEEN a ZIS, you would immediately recognize the Packard "180" influence in the front. The rear, however, looks much more like General Motors large cars of that era.<P>The background is as follows - Stalin had a "thing" about Packards - he stole a rich nobleman's 1918 Twin Six right after the revolution - liked it so much, that he made sure he always had a big Packard around him. <P>The Packard influence, and his love for them, showed up even in later ZIS designs - if you look at the ZIS series even after his death, you will see how much the front ends look like the '55 - '56 Packard.<P>The belief that President Roosevelt got Stalin the dies for the Packard "180" is vital to a number of myths and fantasies. <P>The FACTS however, are a bit less glamorous. First, let me explain a bit about tool and die making, and what Packard was. Packard, like all auto manufacturers, made relatively little - they were ASSEMBLERS, buying much of the parts that went into the car, from vendors who specialized in a particular component. Packard could NOT have "given the dies to the Russians", because MOST of the dies, were not anywhere NEAR the Packard factory. Frames, for example, starting with the earliest Packards, came from A.O. Smith and Co., supplier of chassis to most of the auto industry. The pot metal grills, came from another out-side supplier. Brakes, electrical systems, carburetors, wheels, bearings, axle forgings, etc, the dies for NONE of this stuff were EVER in Packard's control.<P>True, SOME body sheet metal dies were "in house". One of the odd things about the early ZIS's (the ones that look SOMETHING like a '42 Packard "180" DO have some "off the shelf" Packard trim parts on them. HOW they got there...no-one knows, or even has a good guess !<P>But...let's clear up something. THe ZIS..was NOT made out of the dies for a '42 Packard 180. It was a POOR sub-standard COPY of a '42 Packard "180".<P>First of all, it is METRIC. Secondly, if you look closely at the fender, hood, and body lines, you will see subtle differences. Obviously, you can't "stretch" dies. Once a die is "cut" and "hardened"...each "copy" stamped out of that die...will be EXACTLY like the first, until the die is worn beyond use. For all practical purposes, it is correct to say that you cannot alter a die !<P>"Back-engineering" a near exact copy of American technology happened quite a bit in the strange world of the paranoid Soviet empire during and after World War Two. There is a fascinating story about how they "interned" an American B-29 and its crew, and copied the damn thing ! Their version even had the same battle-damage patch that the sample they copied had...!<P>Everybody likes to sound important, and see their fantasies and prejudices in print. The publications in the auto buff hobby, even the best of them...are NO exception !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Hey..Berger...you "party-pooper"...how dare you question the legend of how Engledink Humpabird conspired with Roosevelt to make the '67 Packard V-19 Super Van......and sell its dies to the Figi islanders......!<P>Pete

[John N. Packard]

Peter,

I have a 3-volume set of books on Russian automobiles and had a section on the ZIS-110 translated.

"Making equipment for the manufacturing of the body was very complicated. ZIS could only count on itself. The plant's specialists made stamps our of zinc-aluminum alloy cast, not milled. For the small-serial production, they had a sufficient durability, and they turned out to be cheaper, and more importantly, they required less labor."

"Moreover, M. Sedgwick could not be certain that there were similarities between ZIS-110 and Packard-180 bodies. The cars were very different in size, and many of their parts (for example, doors) were not interchangeable."

So, it seems that at least one Russian author agrees that the ZIS-110 and Packard 180 were different vehicles and that ZIS made its own dies.

I also researched back issues of the Cormorant and found very interesting articles on this subject in volumes Spring 1981, 75, & 76. Final concensus is that the ZIS and Packard 180 are distinctly different yet similar vehicles.

Roosevelt championed the "Lend-Lease" program to assist US allies in their war effort against Nazi Germany. It is difficult to understand why dies for a passenger car would be considered essential for the war effort, and then not to be used until after the war! I wonder where Robert Turnquist got the information referring to the die sale printed in The Packard Story: "It wasn't until recently that the true story came out." My copy of his book is the second printing 1966. I wonder if this appears in subsequent editions of his book?

jnp <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

You mean it wasn't a plot by Engledink Humpabird...?

[Guest]

rjneal0000@aol.com Greetings to all Monobloc 12 enthusiasts;

It has been quite a while since anything has been posted regarding the Packard Monobloc 12. JT started it all back on 7/08/02 it seems when he brought up the subject of Jack Triplett?s 1974 Cormorant article on the subject. JT seemed to think the article was well researched and written and made a ?convincing argument.? I have been somewhat of an historian for a number of years, with Packard as my most active subject in recent years, and I came to the same conclusion he did when I first read the article in 1974. My first thought at the time was that I would certainly keep my eyes open for any documentary proof during my research on various Packard topics. I figured I would one day come across something to kind of finish off Jack?s excellent job with the final proof in writing and perhaps even a photo of the engine. You see, Packard photographed virtually ?everything?, as I believe someone in this forum has pointed out.

First, let me say that I have published a lot of material over the years and have done a great deal of research everywhere from the Smithsonian to the NASM to the National Archives to the Studebaker National Museum (I mention this one because it holds the remainder of the Packard archives, which one could measure in tons rather than pages of material) to the NAHC (which holds the remainder of the Packard photo archives, which can also be measured almost in tons) etc. etc. My research and writing has been primarily on subjects related to Packard and antique Smith & Wesson firearms. My first published material on S&W was in 1966 and on Packard was 1974. I have been at it ever since. I can guarantee you I have not done it for money (one can easily starve to death trying it) but for the love of it. I can honestly say I try to do a perfect job of it, that is to say I strive to make no mistakes and publish no erroneous material. I won?t say I have been faultless, but so far as I know I can only be caught in a couple of misspelled names and a rare occasion of putting an incorrect bore or stroke in a list of 100 or so engines. I say this because I think most enthusiasts who write about antique auto subjects follow the same set of rules as I do.

Among the many comments that have been made regarding this subject has been the one that ?would Packard?s engineering department have been able to get authorization for an absurd goose chase involving this kind of expense.? I can see why this could certainly be a valid question. However, the answer is yes. In this case the engineering department was headed by the man who undoubtedly initiated this project, Colonel Jesse G. Vincent. Vincent was Packard?s Vice President of Engineering. Vincent was, without doubt, the second most powerful executive at Packard. (He was the second highest paid.) The most powerful was President and Chairman of the Board, Alvan Macauley. If Macauley authorized it, it happened. If Vincent asked Macauley if he could do it, it was authorized. There you have the required two steps to get something such as this to happen. You also have the two steps that actually happened in this case.

There are a number of entries in Col. Vincent?s diaries regarding this engine and on March 6, 1929, it was noted that its assembly was completed and the engine was put on the dynamometer and worked in all night. I came upon these entries while researching a book back in 1995. About six months ago I finally managed to catch up with a photograph of the engine. Yep ? it did indeed exist. Sorry about that Peter H., but it is crow-eating time, or will be in a few months at any rate.

This may stir up a hornet or two, but no I won?t post or send anyone a scan of the photo or reveal its source at this point. There will be a full article on all additional information now known in a future Cormorant edition. I cannot say exactly when it will appear but probably some time in 2003.

Just for the record, so far, four factory photos have been found. They are as follows: right ¾ front view, left ¾ rear view, left broad side view, and right side ¾ view of the engine from the front (in the car with hood open). All these factory photos were taken originally with an 8x10 negative camera and are highly detailed. Two candid shots are known: one front view with Warren Packard standing by the car and one right side view with two friends of Warren Packard standing by the car. All but the right ¾ front and the engine shot have been published in either the ?Cormorant? magazine, the ?Cormorant News Bulletin? or in ?Packard a History of The Motor Car and The Company? published by Automobile Quarterly. In addition, mention of the car and/or its engine appear in Col. Vincent?s diaries at least nine times. All of this material will appear in the upcoming Cormorant article.

Robert Neal

[Guest]

Hi Robert:

Sounds like you have really done your homework - this is one very impressive bit of research. I am frankly amazed ! And...frankly...still puzzled, as the whole idea makes no engineering sense whatsoever ! ( the laws of physics being what they are ).

Would love to see pictures of this thing - is my suspicion correct...that if they DID engage in such a foolish waste of time, they did it by "mating" a couple of those already obsolete Packard Six's together ?

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Neal -

Welcome to this forum, and thanks for your input!

While my primary interest in Packards id focused on the V8-powered cars of 1955-56, I look forward to well-researched and well-documented articles (such as what you have "teased" us with) in the Cormorant.

Thanks for an insightful post!

BH

(Brian Harpst)

[WCraigH]

I add a hearty welcome to the forum as well!

I agree with PH and BH's comments above.

May I be so presumptuous to ask for the following things when you add/expand on your post about the straight-12.

(1) Start another thread, as this one is too long already.

(2) Please provide as much engineering details and rational for the particular design as possible. Off the top of my head, such details as crankshaft harmonics, # of main bearings (13???), physical dimensions (gotta be LONNNGGG), weight compared to early Twin-Six and 1930's V-12 etc. would be very interesting, to say the least.

(3) Maybe you can give us here on the forum a little preview before the Cormorant pub date? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Randy Berger]

Mr. Neal's bonafides are well-known and a well-documented article revealing any truths are needed in The Cormorant. Thank you Mr. Neal for your research and for being a contributor to PAC's quarterly magazine.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[Guest]

have ANY factory drawings been found for the I-12 ????

[Guest JT]

Robert, This is certainly a wonderful find you have made in your research of Packard material. Can you give us an idea of how much of the Packard archives in the various locations have been cataloged or researched? It sounds very encouraging in that there is so much material for future Cormorants and other publications.

[Guest]

Looking foward to the documentation....hmmm..you dont suppose this is another gag plot by the famous Packard historian EngelDink Hump-a-bird...do you...?

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO - TOP SECRET

01 APRIL 1927

PROPERTY OF THE PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY

1580 EAST GRAND AVENUE

DETROIT 32, MICH.

FROM : J. VINCENT - ADVANCED PRODUCTS ENGINEERING DIV.

TO : BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SUBJECT - ALL THOSE EXTRA OBSOLETE SIX CYLINDER ENGINE BLOCKS

WE HAVE LYING AROUND BACK IN THE PARTS DEPT.

LISTEN..BOYS...I AM REALLY BORED SITTING HERE WITH ALL THIS EXPENSIVE PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT, AND ALL THESE HIGH SALARIED ENGINEERS......WE DECIDED WE ARE TRIED OF WORKING SO HARD TO PRODUCE MARKETABLE PRODUCTS, AND WE WANT TO TAKE A FEW DAYS OFF TO GOOF OFF AND MAKE UP SOME REALLY SPIFFY OUTRAGEOUS PRODUCTS, THAT WOULDN'T BE WORTH A DAMN IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL PRODUCT, SALES, ETC, BUT SURE WOULD BE FUN FOR FUTURE HISTORIANS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT IF WE REALLY DID ANYTHING SO STUPID....SO...HERE'S WHAT I WANT:

I WANT AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE TIME AND RESOURCES OF MY DIVISION, TO JOIN TWO OF THESE OBSOLETE PACKARD SIXES, AND MAKE A STRAIGHT TWELVE OUT OF THEM. YEAH...YEAH...I KNOW...I KNOW....THE DAMN THING WILL BE SO OVER-WEIGHT FOR ITS POWER POTENTIAL, GIVEN THE DYNAMICS OF A CRANK-SHAFT SO LONG, IT WILL BE VIRTUALLY USELESS AND UN SALEABLE...BUT WOULDNT IT BE FUN....?

PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN THERE ARE NO LEGITIMAE RECORDS, PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC. OF THIS THING....I CERTAINLY DONT WANT ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN LOOKING AT THIS YEARS FROM NOW...AND WONDERING IF WE'D LOST OUR COLLECTIVE MINDS.....

YOURS VERY TRULY

J. VINCENT

(ghost written by Pete Hartmann)

(who would be delighted to be proven wrong....! )

(If I am wrong...this would shed a whole new light

on what we know about the PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. and

its PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING DIV. in those days.....! )

[Guest]

Pete. i sincerely DOUBT that u will be proven wrong. We're both thinking the same thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Hi Pack. V-8....thanks for your confidence in me...but...please...seriously....I did NOT come in here to be proven right...or wrong...only reason I come in here...is to see what I can learn, and...if I can be of help in those areas I may know a bit of something about.... If I had a dollar for every time I made a horse's hindquartes of myself..and fifty cents for every time I was wrong, and/or got something bass ackwards......I wouldn't be sitting here...I'd be out on that yacht on that warm Carribean Sea.....helping Britney Spears find religion ( as in..."oh god.....OHHH GAWD..")

Hey...I could be wrong...you know...the guy did have a good point...the

big shots at Packard....WERE big shots...and DID "call the shots".....! To that extent..I most certainly agree.....! Now.....could this have caused them to go off on a "wild tear"...and produce an in line twelve cylinder engine...? Of course it sounds NUTS....but....I am willing to learn...!

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Hi Pete and others,

First I appreciate the compliments and votes of confidence from those who gave them. Second, no Pete this was not two 5th Series Six engines bolted together. I am assuming that you mean that more or less literally. I will varify Jack Triplett's statement on page 4 of his 1974 article, although he stated during his initial description of how the design was built that "they coupled two Packard six-cylinder power plants end to end", that statement was meant to describe how the design was created, not how the actual engine was built. One easily sees that as he reads on in the same paragraph. He then states "the twelve's cylinder head, cylinder block, and crancase were all were cast from these drawings, and each of these parts were cast as a single piece." The point is that "each of these parts were cast as a single piece." They were. This was not two sixes taken from stock and hacked up and bolted together. I do not intend to go much beyond this or perhaps other generalities because I dont want to dilute the upcoming article by dealing out a large part of the story and information piecemeal. I am sure you will all understand that. I intend to put absolutely all I know about the subject in the article but don't expect that to be a full set of engineering data, power and torque curves, etc. We will know a lot more that we did before, but there will still be something to learn. After all, it would be no fun if we knew everything.

Robert Neal rjneal0000@aol.com

[Guest]

Fascinating...so they went to the additional trouble of casting a whole new engine block, for a project that, by definition...had to go NO WHERE....

Hmmmm...say...this wasn't for a prototype SUV or van....was it...?

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Mr. Neal: Welcome to our chatroom. I will be looking forward to reading your article. I haven't made up my mind on this subject yet, its entirely possible that Packard built hte monoblock 12. I have done some research on the net and have found that Franklin built an inline 12 cylinder around 1910 and tested it. Voisin of France also built an inline 12.. Now Peter youcan't prove that the inline wasn't built by the research department at Packard. You weren't there in 1929 and either was I, but I will wait and read the article first and then make my final judgement and comments, the same as you should do.

[Restorer32]

I suspect that if the Cadillac V-16 had not actually gone into production we would be hearing the same arguments re how ridiculous the concept was, why Caddy engineers would never waste time on something so frivolous, why it would never work....etc...and exactly why wouldn't an inline 12 work efficiently? Certainly there have been longer and heavier engines used in marine applications for example. Inline 6 engines are noted for their reliability and longevity..what are the limiting factors in going to 12 ? After all, that's only 4 more cylinders in a row than the Straight 8, which was fairly successful I think.

[Guest]

Restorer..with all due respects..you simply do not know what you are talking about.

First of all, the V-12 and V-16 configuerations are and have been common in industrial applications for a number of technical reasons. So whether this or that automotive company would have built one...would be irrelevant to the laws of physics that make these configuations attractive for some applications.

Secondly, there is NO application for which a "straight twelve" would make sense. Yes...there were STRAIGHT EIGHT engines, but they suffered tremendously when compared to V type engines, which may explain why that configuration is out of favor. The problem is in the dynamics of rotational mass, and how much "waste" there would be, to make a IN LINE twelve that could survive the forces it would generate in such a long crank-shaft.

In any event, a short engine is simply more efficient, and contains less "waste" than a long one. The shorter the engine, the less wasted weight.

As John notes, none of us were alive in the 1920's, when this Packard Van (excuse me....IN LINE twelve) was supposedly built.

Of course I have no way of knowing whether one was actually built, or not. I have my suspicions - which have been discussed previously. If I am wrong, it sure as heck wouldn't be the first time - and I have NO problem in being proved wrong, when it helps to add to our knowledge.

Pete Hartmann

[Restorer32]

Pete, you would make a good attorney....when the facts are with you argue the facts, when they are against you argue the law....Please explain why my ALF 980 cu. in. 6 cylinder runs and runs well..the crank certainly is as long or longer than a straight 12 would be...at what point would an engine self distruct? Would 9 cylinders be ok ? How about 10? Or is 12 the magic number ? Apparently Packard made a mistake building all those inefficient Straight 8s...if they were ignorant enough to build them doesn't it follow that they might also have been ignorant enough to build an inline 12 ? And if the V-12 was so wonderful why did they continue building Straight 8s ?

[Restorer32]

Inline 12 currently in production; Not a Monobloc but still interesting:

Wartsila NSD RTA96-C

Inline 12

Bore 3'2"

Stroke 8' 2"

89,640 HP @ 90 RPM

Fuel Consumption 1660 gal/hr

Crankshaft weight 300 TON

[Guest]

Wow! Now there is an in-line 12 one would want to see, but not in my car please. Anyway, back to the car kind. Its funny how at first the cynics accepted the fact (yes its a fact) that Packard really did build the Monobloc 12, then rapidly drifted back to the same old statements and arguments that it couldn't or probably didn't happen because it was just not practical. I will agree that the arguments are reasonably sound and the practicallity is probably shakey, but believe me, it did happen.

Now to some prior questions. No, I am afraid that as yet no engineering drawings of the Monobloc 12 have been found.

How much as yet undocumented material on Packard is there? A bunch. The Studebaker National Museum in South Bend his most of what is left of the Packard archives. Some has been gone through, but most has not. It amounts to tons. And, of course, there are the Vincent diaries which have been briefly gone through by a few of us but what really should happen is they should be published in book form in their entirety. They would provide enough new information to keep all the national Packard club magazines going on fresh material for years.

Robert Neal

[Guest]

Restorer...you no good s.o.b..you didnt tell us you were also an ALF fire engine buff....! Hey...man....whatcha got...a Type 12.., Type 48? I LOVE those big ole "T" heads....! I have a picture of my '36 ALF Type 400 you might get a kick out of ( was part of a photo-shoot for a tool calendar...perched on the front fender...is a very pretty and very naked young lady.....! ) ....now that ALF V-12....THERE is a V-12....! 750 cu in. over-head cam....domed pistons....incredibly beautiful machining...we will have to get together someday and tell lies about our brilliance...love to see a picture !

Packard's big six (around 550 cu in) was highly successful both from a sales and performance standpoint - but times change...so out came the 'Twin Six' the first "modern high speed" engine (1914). You raise a fascinating subject for discussion...why did Packard "dump" the "Twin Six" in favor of the "Single Eight" of 1924 ? We could have a marvelous time debating this technical issue...!

Without going into a lot of technical mumbo jumbo, fact is, as you know, the longer the crankshaft, the more it is susceptable to all kinds of stress, so it and its supporting crank-shaft and bearings have to be increased in size and strengh (and thus weight) at geometric rates, far out of proportion to the power realized.

Thus for a given power, the V-type generally makes sense, producing more power for a given weight than an in-line. Again, of COURSE an in line engine beyond 8 cyls COULD be built, but, at the risk of repeating myself, it would NOT be a very attractive engine either from a production or service aspect.

We find in industrial applications all sorts of in line SIX cyl. engines, but I am not aware of any modern EIGHT cyl. "in lines" - my suspicion is...that takes us beyond the outer limits of practicality for high speed high load service. Remember, modern fuels have permitted MUCH higher compression ratios, with MUCH greater "loads" on the crankshaft, than were thought of in the old days. Given these MUCH higher forces, I would NOT expect ever again to see in line straight eights. Certainly not a straight twelve.

Wish we could get together over a beer and argue all this stuff...would be a lot of fun. Let me say again....I DO NOT have all the answers....only questions and suspicions..!

Pete Hartmann

[Guest Randy Berger]

Just posting a fact.

Voisin produced two in line twelves in 1937. The objective was reduced polar moment of inertia, but the company was on its last legs at the time.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[Restorer32]

No question about the stresses inherent in any long inline engine but Manufacturers built quite a few things that, looking back, makes one wonder "What in the hell were they thinking? " We restored a 1917 Bell automobile with a 4 cylinder Lycoming engine...it had NO center main bearing...tramp on the gas and you could feel the crank flex...chuck a Straight 8 crankshaft in a lathe, set up a dial indicator and notice that you can flex the thing several thou just with the pressure of your little finger...thus the 9 main bearings...

[Guest]

I know this going to start a real firestorm and that I am going to get rash of manure from someone, but here goes. I think i might have some proof that Packard built more than one inline 12. In an article from the November 1979 edition of Car & Parts the front cover has Packard a sensuous pleasure. In 1920 when Packard began devolopement work on a new inline engine was started. W.R>Criswold engineer in charge of analysis of design. Power reqirement of between 80 & 90 hp a piston displacemnt of 360 cubic innches was necessary, and 6,8,12 cylinder engines of this size were deigned, built and tested,having the following demensions 6 cyl 3 1/3 bore 5 1/2 stroke. 8cyl 3 3/8 bore 5in stroke, 12 cyl 3in bore 4 1/4 stroke. The six was canned becaused it was considered inefficient and insufficiently smooth. The design staff next turned to the 12. It met all the desiderata except simplicity and accessibility said the designers. The inaccessibility of the valves being an objection that we wish to eliminate, together with the desire for a more simple construction, led to an examination of the eigh cylinder in line engine. What I written here is basically what is printed in the article. So it might be that Packard played around twice with building an inline 12. I am only printing what I have found in my library. I have no reason to lie about this or any reason to make up this story.

[Guest]

Still waiting to see some LEGIT documentation on this "stright twelve" thnig.. again, my "hunch" is, that by the early 1920's, design theory - SAE protocols, etc, became highly enough evolved, that engineers wouldn't have even thought of a IN-LINE twelve as a worth while design.

Again, it is my understanding that in "in line" motor of more than eight cylinders is impractical due to various "loads" on too long a crank-shaft - it would have to have too rugged a "lower end" to be economiclaly viable...thus the V-16 config. is the largest number of cyls. you find (still in use in some marine and industrial applications).

i was not even BORN in that era, but from what I have read, and heard from those who WERE "there", Packard's prototype engineering citerea reflected the times...very conservative...in that they put their energies into products that had potential sale value. Yes, they did try some "hot rodding" (the famous high speed rear end in '32 so a Packard V-12 ( then called a "twin six) could catcha golf-ball donig 120 mph.....and super-charging, but these efforts were devoted to items of prospectve value to the Company.

Who knows...maybe this discussion will trigger the discovery of some pretty interesting stuff...? ... I am puzzled by the comment "it met critera except for simplicity and accessibility...." that is puzzling to me...I do not understand how, if it were to be reliable, (and thus would be MUCH heavier than a comprable displacement V type engine...it could possibly have been viable).

Pete Hartmann

[Guest Reatta1]

Face it guys. You aren't going to win your arguments with Mr. Hartman. He is extremely knowledgable, well educated, a prolific contributor to several sub groups of the forum and has the laws of physics on his side. He apparently also believes a bumble bee can't fly and a 47 buick straight 8 can't achieve a speed of 100 mph. We should all get on our knees and bow to his superior knowledge.