Supercharged Packard

[Xander Wildeisen]

https://desmoines.craigslist.org/cto/d/1936-packard-straight-eight/6258793901.html

[Bloo]

Is that a Graham supercharger?

[trimacar]

That's a REALLY interesting picture, to see a supercharger under a Packard hood.....sure would like to know the rest of the story!

[alsancle]

17 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Is that a Graham supercharger?

 

I believe so.

[8E45E]

Here I was expecting either a '57 Packard, or a '58 Packard Hawk!

 

Craig

[Restorer32]

Or at least something other than a sedan.

[Xander Wildeisen]

What would that supercharger do to the engine performance in that Packard?

[Bloo]

Make it go faster.

 

Seriously, though I have wondered if it really would. There seem to be more superchargers around than Grahams these days. It begs the questions "what Graham did it come off of?" and "what is the displacement and expected normal RPM range of this particular Packard?"

 

Many supercharged Grahams were sixes somewhere around 196 or 217 cubic inches. There were eights too, I'm not sure how big. Was the supercharger bigger on the eight? I don't know.

 

 

[Brass is Best]

Those Graham Super-Chargers end up on lots of cars. Here is one on a Ford 9N tractor motor powered hot rod.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Brass is Best (see edit history)

[auburnseeker]

That's a pretty clean job they did on the Tractor motor.  If it was a cast manifold you would almost think it came that way. 

[Guest SaddleRider]

forced induction ( either an exhaust-driven or a mechanical fan)  (turbo-charger and/or super-charger) has a very simple effect.  Cram more air-fuel into a motor.  That can dramatically raise the compression ratio.

 

The problem with Packard motors,  is that they don't have enough head-bolts to secure the cylinder heads ( and thus the head-gaskets)  against significant increases in compression ratio.  The so-called "junior" Packards..meaning the "120" and "110" series - and ALL Packard straight eights after the destruction of the so called "Senior Division" plant in July of 1939......were notorious for "blowing" cyl. head gaskets if you got a bit "frisky" with those motors.

 

I have no doubt that forced induction would significantly "perk-up"  any Packard.   Certainly would help the ordinary /  "junior" Packards, which while great buys for the money....well..let's face it..they were "slugs" compared to their competition when it comes to performance.

 

As a side-note, those of you who have been lucky enough to get your hands on a PROPERLY MAINTAINED "Senior" Packard of the pre-war days...knows they perform very nicely "out of the box".

 

As a side-note, Packard did experiment with forced induction as far back as the First World War - became masters of it,  as evidenced by their taking the notoriously unreliable Rolls Royce Merlin ( the design of  which was actually stolen from Packard - Packard had overhead valve and overhead cam motors in production during World War ONE ) increasing its power, and TRIPLING its "TBO"  ( time between overhaul).

 

 An interesting example is an early 30's experiment with super-charging a Packard V-12.    It did not go into production for the simple and obvious reason that "bone stock" a Packard V-12 was an outstanding performer within the r.p.m. ranges their customers were most likely to use. I do not know for how many engine hours Packard ran that V-12 with the super-charger....or what the service record was of its head-gaskets...!

Edited September 27, 2017 by SaddleRider
asparagus (see edit history)

[Frank DuVal]

Yes, looks like the supercharger  assembly under my hood ('38 model 97 in thumbnail). Also the air cleaner assembly is the same. The carburetor seems to be a later model Rochester, though, but the picture is very poor.

 

About a 25% HP increase on the Graham engine of 217 cu in.  90 vs 116 HP.

 

It appears every supercharged Graham that was scrapped had its Supercharger saved. They are EVERYWHERE.

[Gary_Ash]

I used my ancient Dyno 2000 engine software to model the Packard 120 engine with and without supercharging.  I found most of the Packard engine dimensions (bore, stroke, cam, compression, etc.) but I don't know what the airflow rating of a Stromberg EE14 is.  I tried a couple of values for airflow and at about 200 cfm, the peak output of 124 hp and ~200 lb-ft of torque is about what the Packard 120 produced.  I think the dual-throat EE14 is a little better than that, but the stock manifold would not have been too great.  The graph below compares the two cases.

 

Adding 3 psi of boost changes things dramatically.  Now the hp gets to ~200 at 4000 rpm and the torque is at 300 lb-ft.  I did boost the flow to 250 cfm since it would make sense to add a larger carb.  These numbers may not be exact, but they do illustrate the benefits of even mild boost, especially on an older flathead engine with poor breathing.

 

The Dyno 2000 software runs on Windows XP so I have to have a "virtual machine" with XP installed inside of my big Windows 10 desktop.  The software wasn't really designed to model low performance flathead engines, but works OK.

 

McCulloch was making centrifugal blowers in 1937 for Ford V8s (221 cubic inches).  Would one of those be large enough for a 282 cubic inch Packard?

   

[Guest SaddleRider]

20 minutes ago, Gary_Ash said:

I used my ancient Dyno 2000 engine software to model the Packard 120 ..........Adding 3 psi of boost changes things dramatically. ........  These numbers may not be exact, but they do illustrate the benefits of even mild boost, especially on an older flathead engine with poor breathing.

 

Yes, Gary - I agree with your figures - pretty typical of what one can expect.....

 

As a side-note, for engines   with "stock" compression ratios typical of the mid 1930's clear to the early 1950's.....a "general-rule-of-thumb"  will be you can figure on getting about seventy per-cent of the displacement  number, in torque.

 

As far as advertised horsepower goes...well..that is probably primarily a function of what the advertising division thought would work to sell cars......

 

You were honest enough to note yours is a theoretical discussion.........What you did NOT discuss,  is what you think would happen in the real world to a Packard "120"  if you spun it that fast trying to get that much power out of it......!

Edited September 27, 2017 by SaddleRider
apple sauce (see edit history)

[Gary_Ash]

What we need is someone to build a Packard-powered race car with a blower.  Maybe one of the other Speedster thread members would like to try a hand at it and report back with the results. 

 

Maybe this one?  http://autoweek.com/article/classic-cars/what-heck-awesome-packard-mystery-racer

 

Studebaker straight 8 engines of 250 and 337 cubic inches were used at Indianapolis during the 1930s with excellent reliability records.  They would have been turning 4000 rpm or so and pumping out 200 hp for hours on end.  It was claimed - though perhaps never verified absolutely - that they used stock engine blocks, pistons, rods, valves, etc.   Surely a Packard ought to be able to do the same.  I note, however, that after the Packard Twin Six ran at Indy in 1919, I don't see any references to later cars using Packard engines.  There were some straight 8 Packards that ran in the Mexican Road Race in the 1950s.

 

Actually, for putting one of those centrifugal superchargers in a vintage sedan or roadster, I doubt it would have a major negative effect on engine life, assuming one started with an engine in good shape.  In most street driving, a 10 or 20 second run-up through the gears at full throttle would have you well beyond legal road speeds - and beyond where a 1930s suspension is comfortable and half-safe.  It would be difficult to put on enough hours at high rpm/power to wear out anything.  At cruising speeds, the engine wouldn't be wound up that tight.  Unless, of course, you decided to drive across Nevada at top speed some night... 

[Xander Wildeisen]

Cool Packard race car Gary_Ash. That would be a blast to drive around.

[padgett]

Seems like very few people really understand how to boost an engine. For one thing the major limit is detonation (why modern DI engines take boost so nicely, isn't such an issue), second as long as the flow does not go sonic, the carb size on a blow through is not important while on a suck through it is critical (but easier to jet). Finally the major benefit to increasing the size of the chamber (lowering effective pressure) is to be able to increase the boost.

 

Personally used to think a supercharger had a place: above 10,000 feet but recent experience with turbo diesels and boosted DI gas engines has changed that a bit. Still like a good N/A DOHC 6.

[Guest SaddleRider]

2 hours ago, Gary_Ash said:

What we need is someone to build a Packard-powered race car with a blower.   why..who would want it ?  For what purpose ?

  Maybe one of the other Speedster thread members would like to try a hand at it and report back with the results. 

 

 

Studebaker straight 8 engines of 250 and 337 cubic inches were used at Indianapolis during the 1930s with excellent reliability records.   what was the bore-stroke relationship of the motors

 

however, that after the Packard Twin Six ran at Indy in 1919, I don't see any references to later cars using Packard engines. correct...as a mater of corp. policy, Packard management elected not to get involved.    In any event...the displacement limits ruled out any Packard production motors.

 

 There were some straight 8 Packards that ran in the Mexican Road Race in the 1950s. correct...but these had no connection to the Packard "120" except they both happened to have eight cylinders.  Look at the bore / stroke relationship to understand the difference.

 

Actually, for putting one of those centrifugal superchargers in a vintage sedan or roadster, I doubt it would have a major negative effect on engine life,  overly broad, unrealistic  general station.  would depend on, amongst other things,  the bore-stroke relationship.  

 

where a 1930s suspension is comfortable and half-safe.   depends...some cars were still using a "solid front axle/beam style" clear into the late 30's.   These do not handle anywhere near as well as those who used a more modern suspension design  combined with sway bars.

 

It would be difficult to put on enough hours at high rpm/power to wear out anything.  At cruising speeds, the engine wouldn't be wound up that tight.  Unless, of course, you decided to drive across Nevada at top speed some night... you appear to be unaware of the differences in "final drive" ratios down thru the years.   Let's take, for example, a 1931 Cadillac V-16, with its well over 4.5 final drive ratio, poured babbit con. rod bearings, long stroke,  and compare that with a "modern" car,  such as a 1941 Cadillac with its 3.23 rear axle, and drive them both at  a modern cruising speed of say  75 mph.       

 

Let's see some discussion about the issues I raised regarding "gary'" s above comments.

[Spinneyhill]

The original picture will be lost when the item is sold or the sale is stopped. Here it is:

[Spinneyhill]

Tell us why the bore/stroke ratio is so important please.

 

You can find out the ratios of the Studebaker motors yourself with 5 minutes on the internet.

[Gary_Ash]

SaddleRider, I think you missed the point of my "modest proposal" - it was meant to be humorous, an intellectual exercise.  This is supposed to be about fun with cars.  However, as the web link showed, someone had already taken the bait a few years before and actually constructed a Packard-powered car to emulate the 1930s Indy cars.  In those years, stock block engines up to 366 cubic inch displacement were allowed (without superchargers), so the Packards could have been used.  While the factory might not have supported such an effort, nothing would have prevented a private owner/builder from doing so, as people like Russ Snowberger and Phil Shafer did with Studebaker and Buick engines.  Hudson and Chrysler engines were also used.  That is not to say that they didn't get a little "out the back door" factory support, but not officially.

 

My statement about the suspensions was that speeds with superchargers would quickly be "BEYOND where a 1930s suspension was comfortable and half-safe."  Yes, it is truly scary to drive old solid front axle cars with leaf springs and lousy shocks much over 60 mph. But, lots of people have done it, and many of them lived to tell the tale.

 

As for stroke/bore ratios, see the table below for some engines that ran at Indy in the 1930s plus a 1951 Packard straight 8, such as would have been used in a Mexican Road Race car.  For all of those big straight 8s, the stroke/bore ratio is very similar and much higher than engines today.  It is true that the Studebaker engines (at least) had modern-style insert shell bearings , not poured babbitt.  The Studebaker Indy cars used stock 1928 Studebaker Commander (model GB or EW) rear axles with 3.08 ratios; both 3.31 and 3.08 were available on the smaller roadsters and sedans using the older slow-turning six-cylinder engines.   A 1932 Packard sedan with 7.00-17 tires and 4.5 rear axle would be turning about 2870 rpm at 60 mph. 

 

1932-1933 ENGINES, 8 cyl	BORE	STROKE	Stroke/Bore	Stock Compression
Packard 282 (1936)	3.25	4.25	1.31	6.5
Packard 320 (1932)	3.19	5.00	1.57	6.0
Packard 356 (1951)	3.50	4.63	1.32	7.0
Studebaker 337	3.50	4.38	1.25	6.0
Studebaker 250	3.06	4.25	1.39	6.5
Hudson 254	3.00	4.50	1.50	5.8
Buick 345	3.31	5.00	1.51	4.4-4.8
Chrysler 299	3.25	4.50	1.38	5.2

 

Still, an old 1930s sedan with a blower could provide a lot of driving fun - not Indy racing, but great for cruising the road and maybe surprising a few youngsters in their "tuner" cars at a stoplight.  I'd love to hear comments from the guy that actually owns the supercharged 1936 Packard. 

[Guest SaddleRider]

6 hours ago, Spinneyhill said:

Tell us why the bore/stroke ratio is so important please.

 

Simple - the longer the stroke the higher the piston-speed,   the harder the shock-loads on the connecting rod bearings, and the higher the surface speed is on the surface of the rod journal.

 

The higher the compression,   the more power can be obtained from a given fuel/air mixture, with less energy wasted as heat.   The higher the compression,  the less need there is for a long stroke.

 

As I noted earlier - let's not make fun of the early engineers for their specifying those long strokes.  They had no choice - it was a basic law of physics, given the lower octane ( faster flame speed) of the earlier fuels.   The higher the octane of a fuel,  the slower it burns,  giving more time for the burning of the fuel to be converted into mechanical energy,  with less wasted as heat.

 

The reason this is important to understand,  is to better understand what the designers had to work with in terms of physics, metulurgy, and fuel chemistry.

[jrbartlett]

The estimate given of horsepower gain from addition of a blower may be over-optimistic.

 

'35/'36 Auburn straight 8 gained only 35 HP from the addition of a  blower -- from 115 to 150 (advertised numbers). That was from a 278 cubic inch engine.

 

Duesenberg J's 420-cubic-inch engine gained 55 HP from addition of a supercharger -- from 265 to 320 (advertised numbers). The latter figure later went to 400 HP with changes to the intake manifold design and addition of another carburetor, and maybe some other changes.   

[Guest SaddleRider]

1 hour ago, Gary_Ash said:

SaddleRider, I think you missed the point of my "modest proposal" - it was meant to be humorous, an intellectual exercise.  This is supposed to be about fun with cars.  ....................my apologies -  my mistake... I did not recognize that your posts were meant for fun & entertainment,  not necessarily for exchanging accurate technical info.

 

My statement about the suspensions was that speeds with superchargers would quickly be "BEYOND where a 1930s suspension was comfortable and half-safe."  Yes, it is truly scary to drive old solid front axle cars with leaf springs and lousy shocks much over 60 mph. But, lots of people have done it, and many of them lived to tell the tale...................you apparently have never driven one of the super-luxury super powered pre-war cars that we USED to call "classics" (before the word "classic" was taken over by the sellers of used Chevrolet pick-up trucks and potato salad....! )  You statement would be true if you were referring to low or even middle-class cars of that era.  It would be inaccurate if you were referring to any of the properly engineered super cars of that era with front "beam" suspensions.

 

I can assure you my 1935 Packard V-12 was as stable as a rock even when being abused at extreme speeds.  Same can be said for a Pierce Arrow, Cadillac V-16, etc.   But I "get it"....the "best of the best", for any number of reasons,  is not for everyone.  As a side - note,  as good as the best "beam-axle" cars were as "high-speed drivers"....the introduction of independent front suspension, with swayl bars front and rear, lateral control arms... made them even better. 

 

I felt perfectly under control when I would road-race or even "drift" with my '38 Cad. V-16 up Mullholland Drive (in the Hollywood Hills )     (which I had to sell for college money)  and also my '38 Packard V-12,  which I still have... ( and still abuse...!)

 

As for stroke/bore ratios, see the table below for some engines that ran at Indy in the 1930s plus a 1951 Packard straight 8, such as would have been used in a Mexican Road Race car. 

Your table is pretty much correct - but your comments are in error.   By 1951, Packard had  significantly reduced the performance of its "top-of-the-line" cars.    As the young ladies in a certain occupation will tell you "there aint no substitute for cubic inches".....1951 Packards did NOT have the big "356" - that was long gone.   They had a shorter stroke motor based on the pre-war "120" design.

 

I think you are also confusing  pre-war Packard engines.   The "120" series was an entirely different 'breed of cat" then the so called "Standard" and "Super Eight" motors.  The  "120" was a much more modern concept with a one-piece engine block casting.

 

Quote

Still, an old 1930s sedan with a blower could provide a lot of driving fun - not Indy racing, but great for cruising the road and maybe surprising a few youngsters in their "tuner" cars at a stoplight. 

 

As for stop-light drag racing....hmmm....in a 3,600 lb. Packard "120"...?    yes...you could probably get good off-the-line performance  (until the motor blew a head-gasket......blew apart...... or you broke an axle.....) from one of those with a super-charger.  

 

Unfortunately,  the reality of the  laws of physics wont change to suit what we WISH would be true.   The so called "senior" Packard products had little to do with the '120" series - they were built in a separate plant,  with virtually no interchangeable parts cept for things like  SOME cosmetic fasteners,  dome light housings, and in some cases, door handles.  They were MUCH heavier cars.   Same name on their data plates - but otherwise, they were for all practical purposes different make cars.

 

Adding weight to a physics acceleration problem....well.....I don't care how much power you add to a big "Senior" Packard - when you are dealing with 5,000. lb plus cars...they are not going to impress anyone "off-the-line".

Edited September 28, 2017 by SaddleRider (see edit history)

[Guest SaddleRider]

16 minutes ago, jrbartlett said:

 

Duesenberg J's 420-cubic-inch engine gained 55 HP from addition of a supercharger -- from 265 to 320 (advertised numbers). The latter figure later went to 400 HP with changes to the intake manifold design and addition of another carburetor, and maybe some other changes.   

 

Yes - Duesenberg motors had outstanding breathing with their over-head cam design.   What limited them was the carbs. of the era they started out with.  

 

Towards the end, they got smart, and went to the Stromberg  EE-3.   The significance of using the same carb. that Packard spec'd out for their Packard V-12...?

 

That carb.t could BREATHE !   If memory serves correct...the EE-3's "throat"   was by far the largest "swept volume" of any car carbuerator until post war four-barrels came into being.  ( which explains why a Packard 12 out-accelerates a Cad V-16 all other things being equal ).