forum expanding

[Guest Randy Berger]

I am glad to see this forum expanding. Some time back there was a post that we were being "exclusive" to V8s. I had asked for an example of that and never received it. That poster has never come back either, but I don't want to dwell on the negative. What I do enjoy is new and fresh contributors, so that questions on ALL years of Packard can be answered. We V8 owners don't necessarily have the expertise to answer questions on older models and I am glad that this forum is being recognized as a friendly one where ALL questions, regardless of year, can be asked and hopefully answered. Just my zwei pfennig worth.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[Guest imported_Speedster]

[color:"blue"] > HEAR, HEAR < <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Always more room for 'Those Who Own One', or Not. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Mr.Pushbutton]

Could it be that a number of us V-8 boys are currently working on our cars, and that's why there is so much V-8 chat? One thing I have noticed locally is that the people with the "glory years" Packards (classics) belong to the CCCA-tontine, and not PAC so as not to rub elbows with all those "bathtubs and 50's cars"(there is a faction there that wishes that Packard had never made junior cars, and had gone under in '37-'38 along with P-A and ACD) They also tend to write checks (reluctantly) rather than turn wrenches. I would love to read of the experiences of a master Packard 12 rebuilder, or someone skilled at remaking wooden body sub-structures. But, it's a free-world forum, and right now there's a lot of V-8 going on. Viva la difference! John

[Guest 51Patty400]

"They also tend to write checks (reluctantly) rather than turn wrenches."

Hey! I resemble that remark... But I'm getting better.

- Mark

[Dave Mitchell]

Ok, I don't look down on you V8 guys, please tread a little lightly on those of us with V12s. Not all of us have big checkbooks - I don't - and I do turn wrenches, saw up ash for body framing, and I have classics and a couple prewar juniors. All my money is in my cars, which I love and drive (the ones that I can), just like a lot of post war guys. I check out the posts here, and there isn't much I have to say about V8s because I concentrate on prewar, and when I had my 2 55 V8s, I asked questions and people were helpful here, but I sure don't post to make fun of the post war guys or thier cars. Right now, the post war cars are more popular and are more expensive - I've got V12s that no one will buy and they are cheap, less than what they are worth in parts, too bad I dont have a building full of V8s instead.

I wish that everyone would lighten up a little - just because I don't own a Model T doesn't mean I can't appreciate them. I can tell you from experience that going to a PAC or AACA meet with a big prewar classic, you won't always be welcomed with open arms, often you are treated with what I get a hint of here - such as: you are just trying to be a big shot, you undoubtedly hired somebody to do your car and I bet you can't even start it without your restorer there - are you here with that thinking you will impress us? I meet some non classic guys who have a real chip on their shoulder and I don't know why really. I wish you guys would explain this to me. I'm 43, and not one of the old gaurd, so people automatically think that the cars belong to my father. I just happen to like the styling of prewar big cars and not Camaros or muscle cars that were on the road when I learned to drive. I can tell you that I have been to meets where I have not felt at all welcome and I have been seldom been asked to bring a classic to an AACA/PAC meet. At the big PAC centennial meet I wasn't asked to bring my 100pt, PAC national best of show, one off prewar classic, I was asked to bring my average condition 46 club sedan, which was sort of a slap in the face. Most classics really cost more to restore than they are worth, especially the closed ones that I happen to like, and we have to do a lot of woodwork that guys with V8s don't have to, so please just give us the benefit of the doubt. Sure I have met some jerks with big money and a big cigar and an open classic, but I bet you guys have met some of those with V8s too.

I'd be happy to write about rebuilding V12s and Super 8s, how to restore a bijur lubrication system and doing structural woodwork and how to shim the body so your doors fit and how awesome the power and torque of the V12s and V16s is when you get one running right, but no one seems to be interested in that here. If you are, start a discussion, I'll be glad to join, but I don't want to be grouped with the elitists who think that the only car in the world worth anything is a 34 roadster. I'm just a regular guy who likes big cars and spends all his free time with them, and I bet I put more miles on prewar junior and seniors than most guys with V8s, and I always wave when I meet you on the road.

[Guest Albert]

Mark I have another friend in the Toronto area who was also doing the same writing checks, but lately he has found someone else that also loves working on the Packards, and has been showing him how to do a lot of the work on his car. A couple of months ago we replace all the wheel cylinders on his 56 Clipper and did some major cleaning up on his front end.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Dave, good post and we shouldn't characterize Classic owners any more than they should look down on us. We ALL like Packards and a few on either side of the

fence have caused some problems in the past with their comments. One of the

nicest comments I ever received came from Ed Blennd, who is a fanatic V12 owner.

It didn't stop him from coming over and sharing his admiration for any Packard.

Welcome to this forum - glad you're posting here.

YFAM, Randy Berger

[26pack]

OK Dave, you're on. I've posted here before-I'm rebuilding a 1926 six cylinder 433 club sedan. The body is done, I just need to track down some engine parts. But, onto the Bijur. The pump seems to work fine, but the system's been sitting there for probably 50 years. Who knows what gunk is in the lines? anyway, what do you suggest for cleaning them out? Take the whole system apart? Fill it with oil, pull the plunger, see which tips don't ooze oil and clean them or what? Also, what weight oil should I use in the system, 50 weight? Finally, do you know where I can find a reasonably priced cap for the thing? Its the screw on type. I found a number of them at hershey's, but in all honesty, restoring this car is a hobby, not someone elses retirement fund if you know what I mean.

[Dave Mitchell]

HI jd26pack, Good for you for restoring a 26 club sedan - I don't think I have ever seen one, it should be a really neat car. I just redid the whole bijur system on a 36 std 8, but I had to replace it since someone had cut it out. I think to check your lines the best thing would be to disconnect the ends and squirt some solvent like "brake clean" that will quickly evaporate through them and see if you get it out the other end. These are all copper lines and they should clean up. If not you can get new line. I'm not sure what size the 26 uses, some of it is common, some you have to get from Bijur which is still in business. If you need the drip fittings or other parts, I have a source to get them wholesale, not all of them are still available, but you can substitute ones with the same rate. The system is still used on some farm machinery and also milling machines, but was really developed for Packard. Your idea of just seeing which ones don't drip makes sense, just go from there and work back cleaning, or just do the whole thing up front rather that force crud into the fittings, I guess it depends on how bad/dirty the car is. It should be a closed system, so it may be fairly clean. I don't know if you need to go as heavy as 50, if you ever have the car where it is cool, 50 will be very slow. I'll ask and get back to you. Parts for Packards aren't cheap, and I suppose the problem is that usually you don't find a cap off of the unit and no one wants to take a cap off a complete unit to sell separately. I will look for one. Good luck.

[Guest 51Patty400]

Kewl. I'm in good comapny then. ;-)

Everyone has to start someplace. Mine will be a 2-barrel carb kit.

Here goes nothing...or everything. Smile and wave if you pass me stranded on the side of the road.

Or stop if you just happen to be able to field-strip a botched carb.

- Mark

[Dave Mitchell]

I was on the CCCA national board for 9 very long years and I was one member who favored banning the people who make obnoxious and condescending remarks on the CCCA forum, especially the guy you mentioned. I hated it so much that I quit looking at the site for a long time, it just infuriated me. We have enough of an image problem from 20 - 30 years ago when there were some snobs in the CCCA, that we don't need a vocal one now, especially on a forum like this. Trust me, most of the CCCA board members have non classics and love them and so do a lot of the normal members, the guy you are talking about is not representative of the club at all, and in fact is way out of touch with the current club. In fact when he comes to events he is not welcomed with open arms. I love my big V12s and my V16 and my Super 8s, but I don't think that they are the end all and be all of cars. My 39 Packard 6 is a lot easier to drive than my 34 Cad 16 town car, so does that mean I should junk the Cad? The 6 doesn't have custom vanities with hidden lights and double beveled mirrors and a rear seat radio, so should I junk the 6 even though I have put 50K plus miles on it? No, they are just different cars, both fun in their own way. I like my Dad's 54 Stude Commander coupe that we did a frame off restoration on for him. Does that make me less of a Packard guy because I think the styling of that is better than the 54 Packards, even though the build quality is lower? No. All I ask is that you try not to have tunnel vision, and please don't group all of us guys with classics with one troll, and don't give us the cold shoulder if we come to a PAC/AACA meet with a 30s classic.

[Guest]

Dave, Great postings.

As a boy in the early and late 50's I had a passion for prewar cars. Especially the big Classics. I never had much interest in contemporary cars in the 50's or 60's but always hankered for a fine prewar or later early post war Packards.

As you recall Dave I met you at the PAC National in Minneapolis in 1992 when I still had not the funds to own a Packard and you so graciously allowed me to not only ride in your V-12 you also let me drive it! At one stop I mistakenly started out in 3rd gear and it moved away so smoothly I thought I was starting in 1st until you reminded me that I was not in 1st but in 3rd but that the V-12 had so much torque it really didn't matter! I met the publisher Mr. Peterson with his '41 180 Limo at the meet also and he was so down to earth and willing to talk to me about his car that I came away with a great respect for Packard enthusiasts of all walks and economic status and more determined than ever to once in my life become an owner of a Packard automobile.

Since then I have finally found the few dollars needed to buy my '47 Super Clipper which I am attempting to restore as money and time become available.

I have never had a lot of interest in the 50's era Packards at least until I found this forum. At first I thought that this was exclusively all about the V-8's but I patiently waded through all the discussions about Treadlevac and Ultramatic transmissions and have grown to appreciate these cars so much that I now think I would like to own a 55-56 Patrician largely because of the amount of information and experience and especially the enthusiasm to be found among these forum members.

Now I see a few more members like myself who own earlier cars and this has made this forum even more enjoyable. I may never own a V-12 as much as I would dearly love to some day so it is nice to see you also contributing to this forum with your expertise. We are all Packard people and we all have an interest in the preservation of these magnificent cars. I for one do hope that this forum expands to include enthusiatsts from every era of Packard production so that we all might benefit from the collective knowledge to which in ways small and large each of us can contribute.

[1607]

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!.

[Guest]

Dave: Welcome to the forum. I am also a memeber of the CCCA for the past three years. Interesting that you own a Packard as well as a Caddy V16.

There are a couple of questions that I would like to ask you about your 1934 Caddy. What body style is your Caddy, and who built the body Fisher or the great custom coach builder that moved from Penna. Fleetwood.

I think we all know in this forum that Peter Hartmann is nothing but an IDOT, WHO HAS GIVEN OUT A LOT OF MISINFORMATION.

[John N. Packard]

jd26pack,

The information I have indicates that the Bijur lines can be flushed with kerosene and the recommended oil was Mobiloil B. I don't know what that translates to today. I have a 526 sedan with the Bijur system; but haven't done anything to it as yet. In the earlier models more points were lubricated by the system than in later years.

jnp

[Guest]

Packard Blue: I maybe wrong about what I am going to say, but your statements about torque and what makes it are wrong from what I have been taught. The reason that diesel engine has such high compresion ratios is becuase the higher compresion ratios are need to build up heat to ignite the diesel fuel. What helps determine the amount of torque produce by an engine in great part is the lenght of the stroke. Thats why diesels produce in most cases more torque than gas engines.

[1607]

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.

[Dave Mitchell]

Packard 53 - great to have you in the CCCA. We need more active and excited members, who like old cars in general. My Cad is a 34 V16 town car, 7 pass with division, V windshield, built by Fleetwood, in fact a special order car with some differences from the other 8 V16 town cars built from 34 - 37, 4 of which still exist that I know of. My email is packard12s@hotmail.com and if you email me, I will send you a couple photos of it. I have attached a photo with 3 of my cars, the 34 Cad, 37 1508, and 46 2106.

My thought on the thread here was that we should all try to be friendly and get along and I won't get into the fray on why some cars are better than others, or who had the most torque or horsepower or why. I'll let whoever wants to set up a new thread and have all the fights you want with Peter, and I don't mind if he keeps it technical, but I really don't like when he puts down other cars and their owners. The CCCA is not for elitist snobs, the rules say that you just have to like classics to join, not that you have to be a millionaire, and perhaps he has forgotten that. Maybe he should be given his own section in the forum.

I have gone off the deep edge and I am admittedly nuts, but I have 5 38 Packard 12s in various states of (dis)repair, so I like them, but I don't think that they are the best car ever built. I have put about 17,000 miles on one of my 37 Packard 12s, a 7 pass sedan, and I love that car, it is fantastic, fun and absolutely reliable after I completely restored the engine and chassis in my own shop, getting my own hands dirty, but with the help of a fantastic engine man/restorer who works with me and has been doing show winning Packards and other cars for 40+ years. I'm lucky to have him and to be able to learn from him. That 37 is also worth less than I have in it, according to all the professional and non professional appraisors in the hobby, but that I have more fun with it than they can imagine, and I could drive it to a show, not trailer it. I also have a 6 and a 37 120CD (great original with 27,000 miles), which I think are great cars for the money, and other 12s and Super 8s, two one off customs and two semi customs. I have spent all my money over the years on cars, so I don't have a fancy house to show off, and I struggle to keep the cars properly garaged. I also have an all original 38 Buick special with 60,000 miles, and my first car, a 29 Chrysler 65 coupe, in pieces that I saved from being street rodded. No offense to rods, just not my thing, I spend my life bringing historic cars back from the dead and putting them back as close as possible to new and authentic condition.

[Ed Miller]

Packard Blue, This may be a little picky but here it goes...Most Packard Twelves were delivered with a 4.69:1 rearend as standard equipment. Only open and convertible Twelves were delivered with a 4.41:1 rearend. The optional rearends were 4.06:1 (some books say 4.07:1, take your pick) and 5.07:1. I changed the rearend in my 1933 Twelve from 4.41:1 to 4:07:1. With the 4.06:1 setup the top cruising speed is 70 MPH. Theoretical top speed is 101.31 MPH. Over the years other high speed rearends have been available. without dusting off my old magazines but dusting off my memory the other available ratios were 3.70:1 and a very long 3.54:1. An acquaintance of mine until recently owned a 1934 Packard Twelve Dietrich (split winshield) Convertible Sedan, claimed that he was able to cruise from Orlando to Sarasota at speeds up to 85 MPH using the 3.54:1 ratio.

[Constellation]

Ed,

I'm glad you gave us the Skinny on the rear end ratios. In this modern day and age being able to flow with traffic is essential. Its nice to be able to cruise along.

However Ed, you must be kidding us about driving your '33 at 70 MPH and even possibly at 101. I can't imagine even you attempting such a thing on the road from Naples going to the Big Meet. Afterall what would you do if an unfortunate Dog ran out in the road in front of you ? Run it over ! The braking system on any 1930's vehicle, including your '33 is no match for modern disc brakes found in the cars of today. You may need that engine compression and the RPM's to facilitate braking that a lower gear will give you.

Thats the trade off. It may be nice to have your '33 be able to pass Jack Harlin in his '56 on your way to Tom K's. However, you may not be able to stop in time to make Tom's driveway.

Bob

[1607]

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.!

[Jack Harlin]

HI to All

Dont you guys know the cars delivered in the North had lower rears than those delivered & sold in the South??? LOL Jack