Packard V8 may return to production ?

[gary roth]

I wrote to Packard Motor Car Co, and suggested that they make the V8 again, and I got a very encouraging response. They said that they were considering the V8 possibly for a lower cost new Packard, when they get further along financing plans. They are interested in what the main market would be, and what the size of the market would be, for the V8 engine itself. They said the V8 would have to be port injected, and be all aluminum of course. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Gary Roth wrote: "I wrote to Packard Motor Car Co, and suggested that ..."

What's their adress????? I'd like to write to them too. They have no web site or email address???? DO we write them via Post Office mail????

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

On SECOND THOT, i'm wondering if they plan to make the back side of the block compatable with a 700R4. If only a T'Ultra will fit, then it will probably hurt the engines popularity.

[WCraigH]

Any engineer with "half a brain" would fit the back of the block with a BOP or Chebbie bolt-pattern for the tranny. Then it would be relatively simple to make a spacer "kit" to adapt a T-U. The opposite adapation is the real problem.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

AMEN to that Craig!!

[Guest Randy Berger]

Hmmm? Goodyear, AZ? The drug of choice in that area is peyote, but maybe they burn a lot of rubber in that town and the smoke finally got to them. They do blow a lot of smoke(lol). That aberration they cobbled together that resembles the worst-designed Packard (48-50) was a joke. Common sense would dictate an upgrade of what Dick Teague had given Packard in 55-56. I rarely ever bet, but would be willing to lay down hard american currency that they do nothing - absolutely nothing.

No offense to those owners of 48-50 Packards intended - time has offered evidence that the body style of those years just isn't well-liked.

[55PackardGuy]

There was a lively "Design-a-Packard" discussion here a while back about how a new Packard should be built. I sent the posts (with permission) to the Packard Motor Car Company. They do answer their e-mail. However in the year or two that I've been familiar with their website, virtually nothing has changed. They put out a little "Packard Newletter" that is basically about showing the car. They also started offering some re-pop running boards. I think they're just having fun showing their car and keeping up some interest in reviving the Packard name in an exclusive car--not a custom body on running gear from another manufacturer. At the rate they're going though, it'll be a couple of lifetimes before they have established any kind of regular production. Whether they're prepared for anything as complex as producing V8 engines is questionable.

Maybe others have actually seen the car? The pictures indicate a finished product, but they never have any reports of actual driving performance. You have to wonder what's really underneath the body.

Opinions on the styling and running gear may vary, but I think it's at the very least an interesting project.

Here's a link to a photo of the body:

http://www.packardmotorcar.com/p2.htm

Here's a pic of the chassis and specs:

http://www.packardmotorcar.com/specs.htm

Either one of these gets you to the website and you can look around at other pics and information.

I actually like the styling, since it is mainstream enough to be comparable to what's being sold today, yet it is distinctive and has unmistakable Packard elements. I think the slight resemblance to the rounded Packards of '48-'50 just reflects the fact that mainstream styling is now almost uniformly rounded and contoured. They can't help it if automotive design has caught up to the '48-'50 Packards!

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I remember one artical that said they were actually trying to make money with Law-suits and never really intented to produce cars but don't know where they got their facts.

[Peter Gariepy]

Is it April 1 and i didnt know it?

[gary roth]

I dont know about Packards prospects. All I know is that NAFTA stands for Numerous American Factories Taken Away , and OPEC stands for Oil Price Extortion Conspiracy.

[6219_Rules]

I would anticipate and fully support a new Packard in this field of mice. We need a wolf to thin out the herds. But please, make it look good (not like that sadly modified Hiundai I last saw). Badging and a familiar grill doth not a Packard make. Just look at the '58. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Kevin AZ]

I have a couple pics of the new Packard 12 taken in California a couple of years ago at a PI meet in Orange. (Pics too big attach) Maybe Peter G. can email me privately and I will send them to him so he can trim them down to size and post for all to see here. (BTW 78 degrees here in Tucson today!) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Dr Morbius]

Hey Guy, You might be on to something there.........The rounded '48 - '50 Packards do look like modern cars of today . Just a mite too tall!! Maybe Packard was 50 years ahead - only nobody knew it at the time !!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

............Steve <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

[Peter Gariepy]

Kevin,

Send them to petergar@yahoo.com

Thanks

Peter

[Peter Gariepy]

B.H.

Not sure why a prototype is neccessary... it's a reproduction, isnt it? Ok, so modern ignition and carburation/injection, but that can be done on an original block and heads.

My question is... who are the customers for such a product. Other than Packard enthusiasts who would buy them?

Peter

[Twitch]

It'll be curious to see if anything comes of it. How many "independent" companies have come with huge fanfare to carp out, Bricklin, Stutz and DeLorean come to mind but there's many more. Everything that's been projected has either been a customized Cougar "Packard" or something in the exotic class akin to a Dusenburg price level brought forward to the new century.

It's just dead. Let it lie in peace.

[Guest JT]

I wish them the best but I too am skeptical about a Packard "comeback" and you can't turn the clock back as we all would like to do.

Hey, owning a car made by any independent not around today is more desirable anyway <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[SafeTFlex]

I agree with Twitch - the name is dead in terms of modern realities.

Even if the name had commerical value today, I would have questions about how realistic it is to enter the new car market. "Economy of scale" permitted Packard to make money on a few thousand cars a year up thru the First World War. Then, as technology marched on, you had to make more and more cars to pay for the development costs and other manufacturing issues, and still make a profit.

Can't recall where I read it, but to survive, even in those simpler times of 1956, Packard would have had to sell 100,000 cars a year . They actually made around 27,000, and had a devil of a time "un-loading" those.

Let me give you an example of the dollars involved in making a competitive motor - just the motor !. Look what a MOTOR costs in the general aviation industry. These are relatively simple four and six cylinder engines, without computers, just good old fashioned magnetos and simple manually operated fuel injection (you can still buy one with a carb !). Far less expensive to develop than the much more complex car motors in today's cars.

Even with a 'core' exchange, you are still talking over twenty grand, and THAT is with the development costs gone, and the tooling costs for crank-shafts, cylinder blocks, cylinders, etc. already paid for.

You can buy a new "big block" GMC with over 700 hp., roller tappets, warranty, etc. AND a 4L80 four speed heavy duty automatic transmission WITH built in over-drive, ready to "plug in", for less than ten grand, out of any of the major hot rod engine & trans. suppliers.

Even if Packard's name had commercial value to the buyer of today, no way I can see you could start making a whole new car and deal with thsoe economic realities. Listen to Twitch.

[Guest]

I can just guess what we will have next, is a story being published by one of the two Packard Clubs publications ( MANUFACTURE OF THE NEW PACKARD V8 ENGINE ).

Since it seems to be fact that some of two clubs publications editors looks in from time to time, they are at this very moment on the phone to the Packard Motor Car Company trying to get an exclusive story. When published it will of course be a piece of fiction complete with fake photos, and the publications proclaming that the story is real.

John F. Shireman

[SafeTFlex]

Hi John !

We dont agree that often, but we sure do agree on this issue ! Good post !

[SafeTFlex]

Re: Dave's comment about funding (perhas LOTS of funding could get the Packard name going again.... ? )

I noted earlier the problem of "economy of scale". Up thru the first ten years of the last century, Packard was able to make money on just a few thousand cars a year. Simple cars - simple production problems and costs. Technology exploded, and with it, the cost of producing that first car.

I forget how many Packard 120's were sold during its heyday, taking a guess, it was around 60,000 in the best years of the late 1930's,; they made good money off that volume.

By the 1950's, I believe ( read it somewhere...cant recall where ) a manufacturer would have to sell 100,000 vehicles a year for several years just to cover the tooling and development costs, never mind making a profit and paying stockhlders something on their investment.

Assuming all that is reasonably accurate, I dont see the point in wanting to get into the auto manufacturing business these days.

In the early teens, if you had a Packard 5-48 or Twin Six, you had something MUCH faster and MUCH more reliable than most other cars in its price range - in that era of much simplier technology, piling a lot of money on a car could produce great differences for the rich. Tremendous improvements in engine mount systems, higher compression engines, better bearing materials, made the differences in ordinary cars and the big Packards less and less dramatic as the years went on.

Let's be honest - is that rolling locomotive of a museum that my '38 Packard Twelve was when new, SEVEN TIMES better ( it cost about seven times as much) in terms of driver comfort and performance than a new Chevrolet or Plymouth of the same year ? Hardly.

And look where we are now ? If you were blind-folded and put in the back of our Toyota RAV 4 "mini SUV", could you really tell the difference under the same situation in a car costing many times more ? I dont think so.

As another "poster" said earlier in this "thread" - "let it die in peace"....! The advances in technology make better cars every year no matter what the price range or physical exterior dimensions. Time marches on.

The anology I would make, would be the bitter joke we have about the aviation business - perhaps some of you have heard it...

" HOW DO YOU MAKE A SMALL FORTUNE IN THE AIRCRAFT BUSINESS..?"

" SIMPLE.....START WITH A VERY LARGE FORTUNE...AND GET OUT FAST BEFORE IT IS ALL GONE..."

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I realize that great advances have been made in metalurgy over the last 20 years, but that cast Al. frame does not impress me any in terms of durability nor actual intent to ever build any. Thats a real eye brow raiser.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Well, modern Aircraft use Aluminum frames. One of my homebuilt aircraft had complete aluminum construction. It's durability just depends on the quality and type of aluminum used.

[SafeTFlex]

C'mon Rick..be serious. How many labor hours is it acceptable in the auto industry to assemble an auto, and how many labor hours are involved in aircraft work. i've done both - believe me - aircraft construction is a bit more labor-intensive than what they do in auto production.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Yes, That's true, but I was not talking about the difference in labor involved, in building planes and cars. I was referring to the great strength and durability of Aluminum, in vehicle frame construction, if they are designed and fabricated correctly.

The only problem I can see with using aluminum frame, is that if you are in a collision, you can't just put it on the frame-straightener and stretch it back into shape, like you can a steel frame. So it kinda becomes a disposable car if you crunch it that badly. But most people would Not want a steel car that had been on on the frame-straightener either, cause even those can have weak spots after stretching.