The express reason this type of program was distributed was simple. Packard knew it didn't have the money to develop an OHV V-8 engine at the time. So, continue with the sales pitch that inline flat head designs are superior. What else could they do?. Even Studebaker realized a modern OHV V-8 would be needed and had one in their cars by 1951. Packard waited too late for a car competing with the likes of Cadillac and Chrysler Imperial.
Buick had a straight-8 engine from 1931 to 1953. It was similar to Packard's straight-8 in many respects (Buick's version was called either the "Fireball Eight" or "Dynaflash") and had different displacements over its 22 years of production. It was used on the Series 90 (1931-35), Limited (1936-42), Special, Super, Century, Roadmaster and Estate station wagons.
From my limited exposure to the subject, it seems that straight 8s were generally smaller than V8s, with most of them displacing under 300 cubic inches. Could that have been because the crankshafts, with more length and more bends, were more prone to resonance that would ultimately snap them in half?
The longer crankshaft has more windup and needs more dampening of torsional vibration and/or needs to be heavier and stronger. Meaning more weight to handle the same engine displacement. A lot of big Buicks were about 320 cubic inches,Packard went up to at least 356 cubic inches on some of their straight eights. Most of the Buicks (there were some small straight eights) were overhead valve. While Packard had the distinction of their top of the line straight eight having 9 main bearings. I think Buick only had 5. The entire engine block might be subject to torsional twisting or "beaming" vibrations. I think most straight eights carried extra metal below the crankshaft centerline to make the block more stable vs. those vibration modes. "Deep skirt" (Some but not all V8s have that) I think some Packard engines weighed up to half a ton,the crankshaft over 100 lb. @@pcno2832
4:20 Take a close look at those crankshafts. Both appear to be cross-plane designs. I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that cross-planes give better balance. The inline appears to be a five main bearing design, same number as by Subaru four-cylinder has.
3:51 I'm sure they could have pointed to some 1948 cars that had space reserved under the hood for a straight 8, but were sold with V8s, since many carmakers used shared bodies for various engine configurations, just as most larger American cars of the 1970s had room under the hood for a straight 6 (the 1978 GM A-bodies being the first only sold with V engines). But with the next round of redesigns, the V8 allowed carmakers to pack more power under shorter hoods, even if V8s were inherently rougher than their longer predecessors. Ironically, by the late 1960s, carmakers were again putting longer hoods over engines that didn't need the space, for "retro" styling and to increase "crush space" in a crash.
In the 1990s, Ford was considering a family of power plants they called "T-Power", which used transverse-mounded inline 6 and 8 cylinder engines with power takeoff coming from a gear in the center, which fed the transverse mounted transaxle. That would have allowed the smoothness of an inline 6 or 8, without the extra hood length and crankshaft resonance problems. Of course, they never went through with it, but someday Ford, or someone else, might pick up where they left off.
Actually, the straight 8 really is the smoothest. It's negatives are it's length and it's long twistable crankshaft. Oldsmobile and Pontiac both went to huge 3 inch crank journals on their biggest engines in the late 60s. Imagine how big and heavy the journals would have to br on a straight 8 of the same size.
Claiming that rear coil springs require a torque tube and that Hotchkiss Drive allows for a better ride is just so much hype. Neither is true. Claims that the L head is better were actually accepted by many in the early 40s, but by the end of the war, it was becoming obvious that the valve in head configuration was going to win out despite it's disadvantage in noise.
Flathead superior to Overhead Valve. Right. Leaf springs superior to coils...Sure man. For a luxury brand, it's surprising to see Packard using the crude, outdated engines and suspensions featured here. By the time they updated that stuff it was too late.
Anyone who knew engines at that time knew that while the V8 was probably the wave of thevfuture, for rock solid reliability, engine life and for strong BROAD torque curve the Flatheads were superior...why? Because flathead at the time had better flame control characteristics in the combustion process than OHV engines of the time. Anyone who's parents or family actually OWNED a 50's Packard know the great performance a good flathead could have
How come the flathead Hudson Hornet won the race 3/4s of the time to Oldsmobile's 88 V-8 with simiiliar # of cubic inchesand overhead valves or Chrysler Hemi or Cadillac V8 with overhead valves in Nascar and AAA from 1951 through 54.Also try overloading rear coil springs and compare to overloaded leaf springs.
The flathead straight eight had the advantage over the V8 and OHV designs from 1923 to 1949. Then new developments in high octane fuels and manufacturing methods swung the advantage to the OHV V8. Packard was slow to keep up with the times and that was their downfall.
@@MatsCarVideosno they were just broke they coudent affored a v8 engine design untill later and it dident help they chose to spend the monny they had on a transmission when other smaller car makers like Hudson and nash used Cadillac GM hydromatic transmissions
The engineering was so bad even by 1948 standards that the video had to include two warnings not to "argue" about the engineering. To claim that a flathead was superior to overhead valves was asinine.
@@MatsCarVideos The Ford flathead six developed 90 bhp same as the flathead V8 but had 15% more torque. So you paid more money for an engine that delivered less. So that dispeneses with the straight engine vs V8 argument. Side valve vs OHV. With the fuels then in use the flathead was less prone to pinking and overheating and as for power I have a 1954 Packard Patrician straight eight with the 359 allied to a Clipper manual transmission. No GM car can match it. I also have a 1940 Buick Super Eight straight eight and a 1952 Buick Roadmaster straight eight here in the UK 🇬🇧
The flathead had the advantages of simplicity, silence, and low cost over the OHV. And the ohv had little or no advantage in power or efficiency unless the compression ratio was 8:1 or more. This did not take place until high octane leaded gas became widely available in the mid fifties. Here is an example of what I mean. In 1949 two american luxury cars brought out new V8 engines. The Cadillac OHV and the Lincoln flathead. The Cadillac was 331 cu in and 160HP, the Lincoln was 337 cu in and 155HP. Practically the same in size and displacement and a negligible difference in horsepower. Both had 7.5:1 compression and ran on 70 octane gas. But in a few years Cadillac increased compression to 10:1, ran on 100 octane gas and developed 250HP. The flathead could not compete because it is impossible to get such high compression without choking off breathing. The highest compression flathead engine was the 1954 Packard at 8.4:1 and they had to do every trick in the book to get it that high. By the mid fifties regular gas was 85 octane and the cheapest Ford and Chev sixes had compression that high. Luxury cars and performance cars which demanded high test gas were much higher, and had more powerful and more efficient engines.
@@mrdanforth3744 It's not just compression. Flatheads have inherent inefficiencies. The first is that both the intake and exhaust must travel further, and up over and down into the cylinder. This greatly reduces flow both in and out and creates more mixing of exhaust and intake gases. The second inherent flaw is the exhaust heats up the block rather than being dumped out of the head. This also heats up the fuel reducing efficiency and power. With overhead valves the intake comes in from the middle and exhausts to the sides. The flow is straight from the valve both into and out of the cylinder. The best flow is from hemi heads where the valves are angled to allow greater valve size. The spark plug is also placed at the center rather than the side of the head which allows for an even distribution of the pressure wave across the piston. From a physics standpoint a straight line of flow is much more efficient than flow mixing around at angles in a large chamber. The ratings were largely due to auto insurance costs. The 49 Cadillac and Oldsmobile were the first modern mass-produced overhead valve V8s and would blow the doors off anything else on the streets at the time.
!["สนธิ" ห่วงมีขบวนการปกป้อง "ทนายตั้ม" : [THE MESSAGE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2GQNp3EoMc0/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes, an OHV V8 is a better design, but Packard build some of the best engines in the world.
The express reason this type of program was distributed was simple. Packard knew it didn't have the money to develop an OHV V-8 engine at the time. So, continue with the sales pitch that inline flat head designs are superior. What else could they do?. Even Studebaker realized a modern OHV V-8 would be needed and had one in their cars by 1951. Packard waited too late for a car competing with the likes of Cadillac and Chrysler Imperial.
You are absolutely correct.
Agree.
Buick had a straight-8 engine from 1931 to 1953. It was similar to Packard's straight-8 in many respects (Buick's version was called either the "Fireball Eight" or "Dynaflash") and had different displacements over its 22 years of production. It was used on the Series 90 (1931-35), Limited (1936-42), Special, Super, Century, Roadmaster and Estate station wagons.
From my limited exposure to the subject, it seems that straight 8s were generally smaller than V8s, with most of them displacing under 300 cubic inches. Could that have been because the crankshafts, with more length and more bends, were more prone to resonance that would ultimately snap them in half?
The longer crankshaft has more windup and needs more dampening of torsional vibration and/or needs to be heavier and stronger. Meaning more weight to handle the same engine displacement.
A lot of big Buicks were about 320 cubic inches,Packard went up to at least 356 cubic inches on some of their straight eights. Most of the Buicks (there were some small straight eights) were overhead valve. While Packard had the distinction of their top of the line straight eight having 9 main bearings. I think Buick only had 5.
The entire engine block might be subject to torsional twisting or "beaming" vibrations. I think most straight eights carried extra metal below the crankshaft centerline to make the block more stable vs. those vibration modes. "Deep skirt" (Some but not all V8s have that)
I think some Packard engines weighed up to half a ton,the crankshaft over 100 lb. @@pcno2832
The Buick Straight 8 is not similar in any way to the Packard Straight 8.
The Buick engines were always OHV,
4:20 Take a close look at those crankshafts. Both appear to be cross-plane designs.
I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that cross-planes give better balance.
The inline appears to be a five main bearing design, same number as by Subaru four-cylinder has.
3:51 I'm sure they could have pointed to some 1948 cars that had space reserved under the hood for a straight 8, but were sold with V8s, since many carmakers used shared bodies for various engine configurations, just as most larger American cars of the 1970s had room under the hood for a straight 6 (the 1978 GM A-bodies being the first only sold with V engines). But with the next round of redesigns, the V8 allowed carmakers to pack more power under shorter hoods, even if V8s were inherently rougher than their longer predecessors. Ironically, by the late 1960s, carmakers were again putting longer hoods over engines that didn't need the space, for "retro" styling and to increase "crush space" in a crash.
13:54-14:02 - that other car - Oldsmobile (to the best of my knowledge).
In the 1990s, Ford was considering a family of power plants they called "T-Power", which used transverse-mounded inline 6 and 8 cylinder engines with power takeoff coming from a gear in the center, which fed the transverse mounted transaxle. That would have allowed the smoothness of an inline 6 or 8, without the extra hood length and crankshaft resonance problems. Of course, they never went through with it, but someday Ford, or someone else, might pick up where they left off.
Actually, the straight 8 really is the smoothest. It's negatives are it's length and it's long twistable crankshaft. Oldsmobile and Pontiac both went to huge 3 inch crank journals on their biggest engines in the late 60s. Imagine how big and heavy the journals would have to br on a straight 8 of the same size.
Say no more! Let's go back to leaf springs and L head engines!
Claiming that rear coil springs require a torque tube and that Hotchkiss Drive allows for a better ride is just so much hype. Neither is true. Claims that the L head is better were actually accepted by many in the early 40s, but by the end of the war, it was becoming obvious that the valve in head configuration was going to win out despite it's disadvantage in noise.
Flathead superior to Overhead Valve. Right. Leaf springs superior to coils...Sure man.
For a luxury brand, it's surprising to see Packard using the crude, outdated engines and suspensions featured here. By the time they updated that stuff it was too late.
I think they were in denial
Anyone who knew engines at that time knew that while the V8 was probably the wave of thevfuture, for rock solid reliability, engine life and for strong BROAD torque curve the Flatheads were superior...why? Because flathead at the time had better flame control characteristics in the combustion process than OHV engines of the time.
Anyone who's parents or family actually OWNED a 50's Packard know the great performance a good flathead could have
How come the flathead Hudson Hornet won the race 3/4s of the time to Oldsmobile's 88 V-8 with simiiliar # of cubic inchesand overhead valves or Chrysler Hemi or Cadillac V8 with overhead valves in Nascar and AAA from 1951 through 54.Also try overloading rear coil springs and compare to overloaded leaf springs.
The flathead straight eight had the advantage over the V8 and OHV designs from 1923 to 1949. Then new developments in high octane fuels and manufacturing methods swung the advantage to the OHV V8. Packard was slow to keep up with the times and that was their downfall.
@@MatsCarVideosno they were just broke they coudent affored a v8 engine design untill later and it dident help they chose to spend the monny they had on a transmission when other smaller car makers like Hudson and nash used Cadillac GM hydromatic transmissions
L-head superiority. 🤣🤣
Like the other , " Best Car in the World " , change got em . Too much arrogance !
The engineering was so bad even by 1948 standards that the video had to include two warnings not to "argue" about the engineering. To claim that a flathead was superior to overhead valves was asinine.
There’s a reason why we aren’t all driving in flatheads today…
@@MatsCarVideos The Ford flathead six developed 90 bhp same as the flathead V8 but had 15% more torque. So you paid more money for an engine that delivered less. So that dispeneses with the straight engine vs V8 argument. Side valve vs OHV. With the fuels then in use the flathead was less prone to pinking and overheating and as for power I have a 1954 Packard Patrician straight eight with the 359 allied to a Clipper manual transmission. No GM car can match it. I also have a 1940 Buick Super Eight straight eight and a 1952 Buick Roadmaster straight eight here in the UK 🇬🇧
The flathead had the advantages of simplicity, silence, and low cost over the OHV. And the ohv had little or no advantage in power or efficiency unless the compression ratio was 8:1 or more. This did not take place until high octane leaded gas became widely available in the mid fifties.
Here is an example of what I mean. In 1949 two american luxury cars brought out new V8 engines. The Cadillac OHV and the Lincoln flathead. The Cadillac was 331 cu in and 160HP, the Lincoln was 337 cu in and 155HP. Practically the same in size and displacement and a negligible difference in horsepower. Both had 7.5:1 compression and ran on 70 octane gas.
But in a few years Cadillac increased compression to 10:1, ran on 100 octane gas and developed 250HP. The flathead could not compete because it is impossible to get such high compression without choking off breathing.
The highest compression flathead engine was the 1954 Packard at 8.4:1 and they had to do every trick in the book to get it that high. By the mid fifties regular gas was 85 octane and the cheapest Ford and Chev sixes had compression that high. Luxury cars and performance cars which demanded high test gas were much higher, and had more powerful and more efficient engines.
@@mrdanforth3744 It's not just compression. Flatheads have inherent inefficiencies. The first is that both the intake and exhaust must travel further, and up over and down into the cylinder. This greatly reduces flow both in and out and creates more mixing of exhaust and intake gases. The second inherent flaw is the exhaust heats up the block rather than being dumped out of the head. This also heats up the fuel reducing efficiency and power. With overhead valves the intake comes in from the middle and exhausts to the sides. The flow is straight from the valve both into and out of the cylinder. The best flow is from hemi heads where the valves are angled to allow greater valve size. The spark plug is also placed at the center rather than the side of the head which allows for an even distribution of the pressure wave across the piston. From a physics standpoint a straight line of flow is much more efficient than flow mixing around at angles in a large chamber. The ratings were largely due to auto insurance costs. The 49 Cadillac and Oldsmobile were the first modern mass-produced overhead valve V8s and would blow the doors off anything else on the streets at the time.