"Versatile" Packard V-8 ???

Pete1, that's sure great info about how far you guys developed the Pack-352!!!

I read recently that Teague had done extensive renderings for the '57 Packard land yacht that might have happened, had they made it past July '56. It was to have had a 440 Packard V-8, TWIN-UltraMatic trans and would have sat on a Linclon Premier chassis (Ford declined the offer to share). In the end, the once-proud make was snatching at straws, no?

 

'57 Caribbean as envisioned by Teague & crew in the "Bunker."

 

The 1955 and 1956 Packard was a face-lifted '54. The All-New Packard was scheduled for 1957 .

The standard transmission in the 1956 Golden Hawk was a 3-speed manual with overdrive made by Borg-Warner.

No

The Packard 320 from the Clipper was used in the 1955 Nash Ambassador and 1955 Hudson Hornet. The Packard 352 was used for most of 1956 in the Nash Ambassador and Hudson Hornet Custom. The engine was replaced with the new AMC 250 V8, and then the 327 in 1957 in the Rambler Rebel.

See above. Faster than a standard Nash or Hudson. The Golden Hawk was lighter and faster. Some consider the '57 Rambler Rebel to be the first muscle car with the AMC 327. This engine was also supposed to get the same electronic fuel injection that Chrysler used in 1958, but they shied away from it (probably a good thing).

The 1957 Packard (Packabaker) used Studebaker's supercharged 289 engine in all models, including the station wagons. The Golden Hawk also used this engine in 1957 & 1958. These were actually faster than the 352.

 

Swifster, you, sir, are not only a student but a repository of TREMENDOUS and invaluable information!

I always worry that people half-a-century from now will have NO info resources on what made the cars of the Golden Age of Hotrodding so special. I am GLAD this info still exists in dedicated car guys' brains -- for now anyway!!!

 

BTW, Swiftster, seems yo have a soft spot for the Rebel and other SURPRISE Rambler factory hotties? I DO, TOO. Styling may have been pretty ordinary, but they WOULD run!

 

One more little tidbit. Mason at Nash and Nance at Packard had the grand idea of merging all four (Hudson, Nash, Packard and Studebaker) independents. This would have covered all market segments from cheap to expensive. Mason and Nash merged with Hudson and Packard bought out Studebaker. Then Mason died in 1956, and George Romney (who became Michigan governor later) killed the last part of the merger. It very well could have been because of the parts issue.

So if Packard bought Studebaker, why did Packard stop building cars in 1957? They had no one to build them. Briggs built the body shells for Packard, but Chrysler bought Briggs for themselves. Packard shifted all operations to South Bend. They felt it was cheaper to make Studebakers rather than Packards. The idea of building Packards on Lincoln frames didn't really come about until they were grasping at straws to keep Packard going.

The Predicta show car is at the Studebaker National Museum.

 

I like all cars. I have two '64 Studebakers (Daytona & Commander) and I've had a lot of Mopars. I like the '58 EFI units but good luck finding one. There is only one operational unit on a '58 DeSoto convertible. Along with AMC, Studebaker was looking at the Bendix EFI unit for '58, but Bendix could get the thing to last. Technoloy was further ahead that durability.

 

What we need now is someone around the san mateo, ca. area that want's to take a Packard powered car to Bonneville and see what they can make it do. So far the record seems to be 155 mph.

 

I don't know if it was bought that way, but the local constable had a 61 Ford Interceptor with a 430 in it. Three speed with overdrive too.

 

Any easy way to get the tranny in my 55 Patrician out of reverse? It appears to have become stuck there, and I'm finally going to have some time to work on it. No, it's not a running car yet.

 

Especially since they didn't have any trouble using a Borg Warner 3 speed manual ..

 

Swifster, Nash bought out Hudson too! Mason and Nance did have the thought that the two remaining independents could possibly merge later, but there was one problem -- I think both wanted to be in charge! Romney, who was Mason's protege, didn't see things quite the same as Mason, and it's a good thing -- AMC probably would have been drug down with Packard/Studebaker. Jeep might have survived though. Buying Studebaker without doing enough financial research was Packard's big mistake! All accounts I've read state that Stude people were able to conceal the fact that South Bend needed to build 100K cars a year just to break even, and Stude hadn't done that for a few years when Packard bought them and moved all production down there.

A clarification on the GEN-1 AMC V-8 (1956-66 250/287/327): The 327 replaced the 250 in all Nash/Hudson cars in 1957. It was also used in the Rambler Rebel as you stated. The 250 came out late in 56 and was only used in the Nash Ambassador Special and Hudson Hornet Special, all other Nash and Hudson V-8 cars used the Packard V-8 through the end of the model year. The Specials were the shorter and a little lighter Statesman/Wasp two door coupe bodies with Ambassador/Hornet trim and manual trannys only. The Rambler V-8 was available starting in 1957 with the 250. Starting in 1958 all Rambler V-8 models used the 250 and were called Rebel (through 1960). The 250 was dropped after 1960, the 287 appeared in mid 63 because dealers were a bit angry that only the Ambassador had a V-8 from 61-mid 63. They missed some sales! Sort of a stupid move for AMC... it would be like having a six only in the Fairlane, if you wanted a V-8 you had to buy a Galaxie... Though in all truth it was more like six only in Falcon, Fairlane with V-8 only. That's a fairer actual size comparison... and looking at it that way it's not all that bad...

 

The Packard V-8 was available in the 55 Nash ambassador and Hudson Hornet in 320 cid.form, In 1956 they could both be had with the 352 with 220 bhp. Hope this helps, Indy

 

Seriously, there have been a WEALTH of great, info-packed, well-thought-out posts on here in the past 24 hours! I've been "all ears," so to speak!

If you guys aren't TOO busy, how 'bout a few more of you go to the top of the page and vote this thread some blue stars? The INTEREST in the Pack-V8 has obviously been here, but only two guys have "voted." Iif we rate the theme highly we'll porobably draw more (also knowledgable) readers to the thread, as well.

 

Farna & Swiftster, great stuff on the ins-outs of the ALMOST Detroit Big Fouth.

Mason was certainly not the only man on earth who pushed for a mega-merger of independents. But my conviction is that his death was the last nail in the coffin. Romney would have none of it, so the move fizzled.

To me, it is IRONIC that Packard (not known for many goof-ups) got suckered into merging with Studebaker. Packard may well have survived into the '60s, had they remained independent (or chose a more prudent merger?). Though not rich, the Packard coffers were comfortable, and Studebaker benefitted from access to Pack's capital. Actually, I'd read that analysts felt Stude was so far in the hole, they'd have had to sell 130,000 cars a year. Yike! An impossibility. I have also read an allegation that Packard was sold out in back-room meetings among Stude managers. But I saw nothing substantive to support that contention.

At ANY rate, the abortive merger efforts all boiled down to Packard a victim, pushed down the wrong road -- to ruin. Hudson? Nash was healthy, plus was well positioned with small-car products they could bring to market pretty quickly as a new market emerged after the recession of '58. Myself, as much as I love Hudsons, it was a make whose time had come to an end, and even some pretty concerted efforts by both Nash & Hudson managers and engineers could not win consumer support back for Hudson.

I feel Hudson neither hurt nor helped Nash much, so that merger was a toss-up. The Studebaker-Packard merger, however, directly resulted in Packard's rapid demise -- sadly. Though Packard was sacrificed, TIME was bought for Studebaker, long enough for a market resurgence with the suprise-hit Lark line of '59.

 

The Jeep connection, I think, just got a tad obscured in the exchange here. Jeep, of course, was a property of Willys and became Henry Kaiser's when he subsumed W/O. My two cents: I don't think Henry Kaiser's personality and ego would have allowed HIM to have any part of teaming up with any other independent(s).

Too, after '55, Jeep was about the only Kaiser product that carried on, domestically. If I recall correctly, Kaiser finally sold Jeep rights to AM in '69 or '70?

 

Frank, I wish you'd clear up an automotive historical detail for me! It deals with the AMC home-grown V-8 platform.

A while back, I read that this engine family had its roots in a design by a very talented engineer at Graham, done and shelved just prior to the war. The account I read seemed to indicate that Joe W. Frazer would have surely made Henry K. AWARE of this important property of G-P !!! God knows, K-F surely could have USED a V-8 offering by 1950, instead of its lock-step overreliance on the Continental inlines.

Further, I read that the aforementioned G-P engineer eventually found his way into the AMC stable, and THAT was how AMC came to have a V-8 platform, and on a timely basis. Clarifications? Outright corrections or opinions? Help me with details, guys!!! Thanks.

 

Studebaker's big problem was the cost of labor. They refused to take a strike and bragged about how well they got along with the UAW. Their unwillingness to take a strike is what really killed them. The cars were uncompetitive from a price standpoint, both from a building point of view and a retail point of view. This is why the breakeven point was so high.

After the war, the fat contracts the government passed out was gone. Ford, GM, Chrysler and the independents all had strikes except for Studebaker. Hard to compete when you have the highest labor costs in the industry.

Another problem was the '53 models. The C/K coupes and hardtops were striking cars, but an argument could be made that those were the cars that killed Studebaker. Nothing interchanged with the sedan/wagon even if they had the same names and looked similar. And when those cars were hot they couldn't build them fast enough. Add to that, the Korean War limited supplies, the Big 3 price wars and a resession and there were big problems. And in walks Packard.

The Lark was great in '59, but after Corvair, Falcon and Valiant came out, sales went in the tank. Also keep in mind that Studebaker didn't have enough money to update anything. The suspension under the '66 models still used the '53 suspension with kingpins. The engine design was from 1951.

And if you look at the automotive landscape in 1966, Studebaker would have had to spend HUGE amounts to continue selling cars. Emission controls, locking steering columns, colapseable steering columns, etc., would have forced redesigns of the engines, bodies, etc. The assembly plant needed to be replaced (horsedrawn wagons were made there), and that cost alone would have doomed them. Think of AMC trying to replace Kenosha. The ironic thing is that the automotive division made money in '65 & '66 while making cars in Canada. They also had a minor facelift planned. When they asked the BoD for a little money for the '67 models, the BoD told them there would be no '67 models.

 

Swifster, you compressed the Studebaker death knell into five paragraphs probably better than anyone I've read! So TRUE: AND WHAT IS AMAZING IS THAT THE LABOR POLICIES GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO ALBERT ERSKINE!!! YIKE.

The rest of your analysis deals with the various corners Studebaker itself painted itself into over the decades, but particularly after WWII. I love Studebakers, but it is HARD to feel "pity" for a company that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot!

 

If you're comparing automatic to automatic, I agree. The 1956 GH was handicapped by its 2-speed automatic, while the 57-8 Golden Hawks had 3-speed automatics.

But comparing manual O/D to manual O/D, the 56 GH was faster than the 57-8. I'd be happy to prove that to you if you can find someone who wants to volunteer his 57-8 GH for a comparison test.

As you doubtless know, but others may not, in its 57-8 incarnation, Studebaker's supercharged 289 only had a 2-barrel carb and 7.5:1 compression ratio. The R2 supercharged 289's of the early 60's had 9:1 CR and a 4-barrel, plus a hotter cam, and were a good bit stronger, despite the similar advertised horsepower (275 vs 280).

 

You're so right about the opinions of some their later designs. The only sexy view of a 'bathtub' is from behind. Clean and sparse with really swoopy lines all blended in...into a cross-eyed kid with a mouth full of jaw breakers from the front! I personally like the Clipper design. The 49deg rake to the windshield is just short of sinister. The interiors were quite oppulant as well with higher end woodgrain and the front to rear headliner seams. The rear compartment ended up looking more like 'grandma's forbidden sofa' facing what almost appear as Roman columns at the back of the front seat. Then there's that engine. The 356 8 is just a wonder of power and smoothness. No, it's not a 12, but it wasn't supposed to be. It was in many ways better (I almost choke saying that) and certainly more user friendly regarding service and mileage. If you can't tell I'm a fan of the 160/Clipper cars and mainly it is the drivetrain that gets me fired up about em. I currently have a 47 Custom Super Clipper and 41 160 Buisness Coupe (yes a Buisness Coupe!). Both as similar as they are different, both sure to be a pleasure to drive long distances at today's speeds. And they will do that without breaking a sweat. So what does this have to do with Packard V-8s? Not a damn thing. Just waxing on about my favorite car.

 

413Coronet, I like your spunk and willingness to stand by your point. Most of the time, all that's presented are quotes of old figures, some of which invariably seem piecemeal, even questionable.

Guys on this thread have confirmed that some '56 Golden Hawks came with B/W std. trannys. So, it would be refreshing to see someone (you?) with a '56 Packard-engined GH go up against someone with a '57/'58 289-equipped GH with McCullogh supercharger (same trans) and JUST DRAG RACE FROM A DEAD START.

Anybody out in HAMBland care to risk their '57/'58 Golden Hawk to try & shut down a '56 w. Pack-352?

 

Both engines in the Golden Hawk were rated at 275HP if I remember correctly. It would be a good race. The 289SC was a heavy engine just like the 352. The transmission and rear gear would probably make all the difference.

 

Swifster, yup, I think that was 413's point: Race using the same basic std. tranny.

 

Despite what some other guy(s) have said on this thread, I remember reading that the '56 Packard had an available dual-four intake. That would surely help hp & torque.

 

Yes, I own one.

 

Many THANKS, Nads! I read it in a buddy's '56 hotrod mag and returned it to him. So I started wondering if the NO-DUALS guys were actually right, since I didn't have proof (even to myself).

Good save, Nads. SEEMS TO ME THE DUAL-FOURS AND 21 PERCENT MORE CUBES SHOULD EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD AGAINST A 289 (GENUINE 289, NOT A 302 AND NOT ONE OF THE "R" SERIES) WITH SUPERCHARGER, AS SET UP IN 1957/58 STUDES, DON'T YOU THINK?

I'd like to SEE such a head-to-head drag race -- one warm-up, one for the braggin' rights. Packard GH or Stude GH?

 

I might be wrong, but if I remember correctly that intake was only available on the Carribean 374 engine as an option.

 

Swifster, thanks for the input, man. Nads has a dual-four. The article I read dealt with a Packard-powered '56. NOW, THIS WAS A HOTROD MAG! So, could it BE that the intake was swapped onto the Hawk???

This is, of course, unless Nads knows the ID of the car his dually came off of. Anybody else with input? Please, no speculation. We're trying to nail down a specific application fpr the '56 Studebaker/Packard Golden Hawk.

 

Dual four barrels were standard on 55 and 56 Caribbeans. The 55 Carib had a 352-inch motor; the 56 had a 374.

Frank Ambrogio, who is probably the 56 Golden Hawk authenticity expert, says he has found no evidence that a dual-four intake was ever installed in a 56 Studebaker Golden Hawk by the factory. Of course, it would bolt right on, and some have done it, and probably some dealers did it, too.

In fact, Frank owns a 56 Golden Hawk with dual-quad intake and manual O/D. He put a video of it on You Tube, which you can view here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_h2HiquxWs

He's also posted some other 56 Golden Hawk videos, including an authenticity guide, which should show up on "related videos" if you look at the one above.