"Versatile" Packard V-8 ???

Okay, Packard V-8 gurus, I've read a bunch of disjointed info about Packard's final, long-delayed forray into V-8 territory. But I have not found any definitive "overview" by a real expert (or at least serious student/fan).

So, I'm still left with little more than speculation on a number of issues around this pretty powerful engine. In some logical order:

(1) Packard was winding up their "High Pockets" series in 1954. Is this the reason they held back the new V-8, so that they could promo "ALL-NEW" models for '55?

(2) After the Stude-Packard "marriage," the first Stude Golden Hawk ('56) featured the 352 Packard V-8 (w. nothing but an UltraMatic tranny). Though the Golden Hawk was one of THE most powerful/fast cars in '56, it surely seems an optional standard trans. could have enhanced the car's performance. My two cents. What do OTHERS think?

(3) Did a Packard V-8 appear in ANY other Studebaker besides the Golden Hawk?

(4) I am generally aware that, to raise capital, Packard made their V-8s available to Nash/Hudson, which used them in SOME N/H models in '55 and '56. Anybody know WHAT MODELS?

(5) I know the Rambler had an available Packard engine (not the 352, though?). Sounds like a good power/weight ratio, no? Anybody know if THIS car was a screaming factory hotrod?

Given the OVERALL facts I'm aware of, seems like the P-V-8 was a decent engine (save for the oil pump). But it may have been a case of A LOT, BUT A YEAR OR TWO TOO LATE???

 

My rudimentary understanding of the Packard demise is 3 things:

1. The "Bathtub" design was a step backwards from the clippers aesthetically and hurt them going into the 50s.

2. The late change over from Straight 8 to V-8 (which is what you are alluding too).

3. Finally, the quality control issues with the 55 cars put the nail in the coffin.

Btw, one of my all time favorite 1950s cars is the 53 Caribbean and my co-favorite "halo" car along with the skylark.

 

Nads has one in his Packford

 

Not exactly what you are asking about except for the 'decent engine' comment...
Bob Hubler, NorthWest drag racer in the old days made some serious horse power with a roller cammed Packard back in the 60's. Most folks, however, will remember Bob with his altered wheelbase 57 Ford running at Woodburn.


.

 

if so it didn't make it into the one book I have that might show it....the 56 GH is the only one with anything bigger than a 289

 

'56 hawk is the only Packard powered Stude. The Packard engine was not made into '57 or beyond. Some 352 powered Hawks did indeed come with stick shift 3 speed with O'drive and T 10s I think.That's where I got my bellhousing for my Packard powered Vega. The Nash/Hudson engine was a 320 inch version. They all were 3 1/2 stroke only the bore differed and no you can't bore a 320 to take 374 pistons.

 

HRM did a build-up article on one of these circa '56-7. It was a very high dollar build with biggest and best of everything, fairly radical bump in displacement.
What happened to the tooling is barely believable! For a clue, look in the musclecar history series book on the Chevy big block.

 

The Packard was too heavy in the Stude body and they did not handle as well.

The Packard has oiling issues that need to be addressed for high performance builds - see the Packard forums at www.aaca.org for extensive details of how people have contended with this issue.

The 55-56 body is actually a mild retooling of the 51-54 body, just like the 49-50 body was a mild retool of the mid-40s body (and probably a mistake given everyone else had all-new cars by then).

As far as I know, the first actual Rambler with a V8 was the 1957 Rebel with an AMC V8. The Packard was used in some Ambassadors in 55-56 (but not the Ambassador Special) and some Hornets as well. This book notes the '56 version to be a 352. It was replaced basically about halfway through the production run with the AMC 327.

Collectible Automobile did a feature on the last real Packards many years ago, or perhaps it was Special Interest Automobiles? Either way, there was one last-ditch plan for '57 to buy the tooling from Ford for the '56 Lincoln and rework it to become the '58 Packard. That would have been, well, unique. I don't think there were any sketches or clays shown.

 

The 56 Nash Ambassador Super had a Packard 352 with a 2-bbl. carburetor. It was rated at 225 HP. The same Ultramatic trans used in the Packard was also in the Nash. Dad switched his Nash over to a Dual Range Hydramatic after making 3 or 4 unsuccessful attempts to rebuild the Ultramatic. Since he ran the best automatic transmission shop in Nashville, Tennessee, that means the Ultramatic was a piece of junk. It did, however, have a lockup clutch in the torque converter, one of the earliest attempts to solve the 10% slip problem that all torque converters have.
Jerry

 

U remember how your dad bolted the dual range hydramatic to the Packard 352? Did it have the same bell pattern as the Nash V8's? Interested in getting a Packard 374 and bolting a dual range behind it. 57 Carribean would be a nice car without the SLUTRAMATIC and a good old dual range hydro.

 

My neighbour has one of these:



Sounds like it needs the valves set and smokes a little, but man that car is smooth!

 

A proper Packard bolts to a Ford top loader. Pontiac fuel injection from Hilborn works if streched 7/8 inch. The Olds oil pump seems to work for me. If you think you want a Packard I say go for it. One of these would be nice in a Stude. Packard-Ask the man who races one. Edit. If a top loader bolts to the stock bellhousing of a Packard installed in a Stude Hawk I wonder if a Top loader bolts to a Stude bellhousing?

 

Although I have never researched the topic at length, my research seems to show that Packard had geared up for WWII and after the war they had to make many changes to their plants. They were heavily in debt as were many firms but as soon as they started to get back in the black the company President James Nance (sales background I believe) invested millions in refurbishing the plants. Not necessarily a bad idea but as soon as they worked themselves into the black side of the ledger they were immediately thrown back into the red side. During the glory years of the Packard they had died in the wool customers that wanted the senior cars (be it senior 8s or 12s, depending on the period). After the war they could no longer rely on their senior line to carry the name. The junior series of the mid thirties (110, 115 and 120) onward some claim was their downfall, although I am not convinced that is the case- a contributing factor-maybe. The clippers were not overly attractive and the bathtubs had little to offer that was extra special. The Packard Name and their slogans could only carry them so far. Dick Teague was a pretty good designer in the fifties (his T-top design and some of his edgy mid fifties Packards were appealing to many-plus his late 60s mid engine AMXs were extremely attractive) but he could only carry them so far. Too little too late. They were already on life support by the time the 55s rolled out so I cannot blame them on any claims of quality control.

My opinion is that their cars were always the finest to drive from the teens through the thirties. I have driven some pretty good iron and in my opinion nothing was quite as good-Jim

 

Guys, I have been so busy fighting with the '38 to get it squared away for the winter that I can't do ALL this WONDERFUL input justice tonight!

AWESOME stuff, you guys! I promise, I REALLY want to comment, probe around AND ask more questions RE about every one of these posts. I can't remember when everybody came in with such productive stuff (and I am sorry I rolled ALL my Packard V-8 questions into one thread, but I thought it might just get blown off, you know?).

So, THANKS for the input, and I'll get into thie detail tomorrow (my 59th birthday, BTW! LOL).

 

'57 is basically a rebadged Stude and should have the same Borg-Warner trans that Fords used.

There are adapters to put a Chrysler 727 behind the Packard V8; to run the Hydro would be childs play for someone with machining capabilities because the Hydro usually used a short iron bellhousing to connect it to the various motors it was used with (including Hudsons for a few years).

 

AlsAncle wrote: My rudimentary understanding of the Packard demise is 3 things:

1. The "Bathtub" design was a step backwards from the clippers aesthetically and hurt them going into the 50s.

2. The late change over from Straight 8 to V-8 (which is what you are alluding too).

3. Finally, the quality control issues with the 55 cars put the nail in the coffin.

Btw, one of my all time favorite 1950s cars is the 53 Caribbean and my co-favorite "halo" car along with the skylark.

Jimi: Thanks, AlsAncle, for your insights. I think your points are ALL sound and TRUE ones. BUT, I honestly think Packard's troubles were brewing before the war and only worsened after. They were not a company (in my opinion) to make product or marketing mistakes often, but make mistakes they did.

When prestige builders Peerless, Locomobile, Pierce and ACD were falling by the wayside in the Depression years, Packard manage to stay alive, almost thrive, by making a wise decision to offer some lower-priced models. BUT, their MAIN appeal was as a luxury make; so, I feel they lost a measure of their elite appeal by dropping the V-12 after '40.

Stylewise, the early Clipper seemed to be headed in a sleek direction, following upon the BEAUTIFUL models of the late '30s. But during the war, the feds required Packard to ship the body dies they had PREPARED for post-war production to Russia to help (somehow) with their war effort (explains the Packard-looking Russian cars even into the 1950s). But, directly or indirectly, that contributed to styling issues post-war. And having your cars chuckled at as "Pregnant Elephant" or "Upside-Down Bathtub" is a nightmare for designers, marketers and PR people!

However, dropping the 12 or premiering the V-8 after the horse was out of the barn, I don't think were the reasons Packard fell off it's pedestal. I think Packard's core problem was the SAME as for ALL the independents. What none come see coming in their crystal balls was that THE U.S. CAR, THE MARKETING, STYLING AND PRICING WOULD ALL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY, FROM ABOUT '40 OR '50 ONWARD.

People from George Mason to Earl Muntz campaigned to get independents to band together into congloms like Ford, Chrysler & GM. When they finally got around to building alliances like that, most companies were already behind the ol' 8-ball.

Despite some negative market forces, Packard's capital reserves were healthier than most independents when they may the FATAL error of merging with Studebaker -- deeply in debt and needing to sell 135,000 Studes a year to stay afloat (yike!). That was it. And Packard -- not Studebaker -- suffered doom for a terrible decision.

<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

 

BTW, AlsAncle, I HEAR you RE the '53 Cribbean (and the Packard show-circuit cars, too)! I liked the "High Pockets" series myself, though Packard sales gradually declined when they stayed around too long with out a new model.

My eprsonal fave (for personal reasons) is the '48 "Pregnant Elephant" Deluxe. Where some see BULBOUS, I see a design theme take to an extremem -- BUT WELL DONE.

 

TMan, that's COOL to hear of a 352 Pack in a 'rod! What year/model is Nads' Ford??? Does it have the dual-four intake??? What tranny did he use?

 

73RR: Gary, that's keen info, man. Any recollection (just a WAG) WHAT kind of "serious hp" Bob was getting with the roller cam? And what else did he hop it up with (I assume, at least he laid hands on the dual-4 intake?). Was more of the rest quality machining, fune-tuning, compression, carbs, etc.?

 

Squirril, I'm sure you were discounting the 302 (and 302 Avantis) that came along MUCH later. But, yeah, Rich echoed what you said, in that the '56 GH was the ONLY Stude to get a true Packard engine. Matter settled there.

Rich, THANKS a TON for the fact that some Golden Hawks DID come with 3-speed w. OD !!!! There has been some BAD info on other sites on the 'net about the Golden Hawk, apparently. SO, a HAMBer sets the record straight!

Man, I'm happy to KNOW this fact; NOW, Ionly wish I had some time-trial data on the standard-t Golden Hawk.

 

RustyNY, yup, I've heard the Golden Hawk didn't corner great for being so front-heavy. Heavy, yes, BUT fast, yes. Poor handling was -- I IMAGINE -- at least part of the reason the '57 GH was pure Stude (though wasn't that the first year for the McCullough supercharger in a Hawk?).

I had a '62 Hawk coupe w. 289 B/W 4-speed & TwinTrack. NO POWER STEERING, THOUGH!!! My point? Here, I'm driving this mid-size car which is a BITCH to parallel park. And I'm thinking: "What the hell! I sure HOPE all those Golden Hawks in '56 came with power steering!!!!!"

 

I believe the '56 Golden Hawk only had a automatic and a T85 three speed that was available with overdrive. Studebaker did not use the T-10 four speed until '61.

The '56 Golden Hawks did not handle well, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but they were pretty quick in a straight line. I new a guy that use to do a little street racing in the '60's with his and was very successful.

 

Did the Packard engines come with integral bell housing? If so it might be fairly easy to bolt to hydro with either Pontiac or Olds short bell housing.

 

The '56 Golden Hawk doesn't handle any worse than the Hawks with the Stude 289. Remember, the Stude V8 is a 650 lb monster--the Packard V8 doesn't weigh all that much more, really (690 lbs). The total weight of the '56 Golden Hawk is only 40 lbs more than a '57 Golden Hawk.

The reason Studebaker went with the supercharged 289 in 1957 is because they had STOPPED MAKING PACKARD ENGINES, plain and simple.

 

Lets remember that all 1956 American sedans were "Poor handeling" by todays magazine writers standard. We thought they were fine in '56.

 

Rich, I see your comparative point. However, Uncle Tom McCahill of MECHANIX ILLUSTRATED was very much into handling, not just pavement-scalding power and accelleration during this same era. So, all I'm saying is that people WERE watching this aspect of cars' overall performance.

 

Alan, thanks for the WEIGHT info on the Packard 352 VS. the Stude 289.

When I was driving my 289 without power steering & had to park, I really DID ask: "How would somebody have handled the heavy Packard engine!?!"

 

Allan, what a dumbass I am. When I wrote the question about the '57 Hawk, I had a brain fart and forgot for a second that ops at the old Packard plant HALTED in July 1956!!! Sorry, everybody!

 

Are you sure? I always thought of the 55/56 as a 100% fresh design. Personally, I've thought the bathtub 48-50 was a big step back from the clipper 46-48 and really got Packard going in the wrong direction.

 

This is a little bit off your question, but there were several Packard-powered dragsters, including Indiana's Jimmy Russell "Bubble Buster," a TE-440 with 6-97's from Colorado, and a blown Packard build by Louie Senter, who co-founded Ansen Automotive. The car was to be driven by Leonard Harris, who I think was Senter's nephew, but Leonard died at Lions before he could drive the car.