z11 single intake

SS425HP

SS425HP

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
Richard, the historical stuff is VERY interesting. I'm sure we all look to your posts on NASCAR stuff. I saw very little about NASCAR up here in those early years. It's neat hearing about that stuff with you and Tommy posting. A lot of that I never knew or heard of.

As for the back seat in a 58 convertible, which is what I had, they were small. The top mechanism took a lot of room. Not very conducive for what you are implying!!!
The front seat was a lot wider!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, they were bench seats, not buckets.
 
M

MK IISS

Guest
Don McPherson

Mark:

Don McPherson had been involved with the design of the Chevy small-block and was assistant staff engineer at the time of the Mk IV engine project. He convinced the GM executive committee of the need to replace the 409 engine with a new design.

"I had the job of selling the corporation on the fact that Mr. Cole's engine, the W-engine from engineering staff, was no good and had to be replaced by the Mark engine. I had to go before the engineering staff and executive committee down-town, including the president and chairman of GM, at the GM building and sell this thing. We pretty much stated the facts as to the breathing problems on the W and with surface-to-volume in the combustion chamber. The thing made engineering sense and everyone bought it. It took about half an hour."

Don McPherson

Pretty harsh words about the W-engine but I believe when he said "no good" he was referring to it's inability to dominate in NASCAR racing and win the the Daytona 500 which was the primary goal.

As for me, I'm going to continue to believe the Mk II was a new casting even though it has carry-overs from the W-engine. Dick Keinath and others said it was a new casting....who am I to say it wasn't. Plus I had the opportunity to see the two engines side by side for a comparison. I have no problem with people believing otherwise.
 
oil4kids

oil4kids

Well Known Member
It could be that Don was no fan of the W motor since he was also working on newer bigger displacement Y and X versions of the small block.

Ed Cole was the wind behind most of the sails in the engineering department.

If you remember back a few messages that I had suggested that Pauls article was wrong about the blood line.

as dream team lawyer Johnnie Cochran would say,

"If the crank fits, you must acquit"
 
M

MK IISS

Guest
Mark:

"If the crank fits, you must aquit."
I like that one....however unlike the OJ jury I ain't gonna... and I said why.

You know... many of the Chevy engineers were down on the W engine...not just Don McPherson. I believe this is why they labeled it a "Truck Engine" even though, as we all know, the 348 was designed to be a dual purpose car/truck engine from the get go. In transcripts of interviews with the engineers who designed the Mk II, I noticed that these guys stressed the point that Mr. Duntov was not allowed to have anything to do with the new engine...that is the Mk II. I could be wrong but I got the feeling there was some "bad blood" between Duntov's engineering group and the others. He may have been privately getting the blame for the W engine's shortcomings. I believe there was also some jealousy and maybe even some bigotry involved.
 
M

MK IISS

Guest
Mk III

"The Mk III never got off the drawing board. The reason it was assigned a number was Chevrolet was going to buy the Packard V-8 tooling when Packard went belly up. Chevrolet was going to buy the transfer equipment for tooling the machine line to build that engine and was going to redesign it, and assigned the designation Mk III, but it didn't last long."

Bill Howell, Chevrolet Engineer
 
oil4kids

oil4kids

Well Known Member
To be honest Richard if the MArk III was a Packard V8, V12, and 16 engines were ahead of there time

in fact 3 Packard V12 engines powered the famous Elco PT109 that John F Kennedy made famous
You know Packard was asked by the British goverment to redefine the engine and make it practical for American mass-production. The process required a complete set of new drawings which Packard prepared under the direction of Jesse Vincent. The Rolls Royce drawings from which Packard worked lacked details and specifications and were not in the third angle projection as is the American practice. The Rolls Royce drawings also omitted tolerances which Packard had to develop from an actual engine. It became a matter of taking an actual engine apart and going backwards to develop the needed drawings and specifications. Packard, under the direction of William H. Graves, chief metallurgist for the company, also had to develop the foundry specifications for the Packard-made engine. The war effort was one of Packard's finest hours and included the development of a marine engine used to power PT Boats and the Merlin aircraft engine used in the P-40. Prior to the development of the Packard Merlin engine the P- 40 used the inferior GM developed Allison engine.

In 1944 - Packard's war record was unequalled. More than 50,000 Merlin aircraft engines and more than 4,000 marine engines had been made. The engines are known for their reliability and quality. The feat is unmatched by any other manufacturer.

Actually the Mark III/Packard would have been more like a caddy engine in low cost production car which I guess does not make any sense

You could see why they stuck with the 409 or mystery design

But the bigger question is why did Packard go under?
 
Tom Kochtanek

Tom Kochtanek

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 13
Maybe...

Mark asks: "But the bigger question is why did Packard go under?"

Although they were (Packard was) able to survive the Depression Era, they must have gotten hit hard after WWII, in compeition with the growing influences of GM, Ford and Chrysler. Maybe fit and finish wasn't prized during that period, at least enough to attract enough buyers to keep them afloat. I think the early 1950s might have been tough environment to compete in. Then there was that move to "merge" with Studebaker....

Best,
TomK

P.S. Richard, I kinda like that historical information, but I understand what you mean when you speak of Fran's contributions. I even miss parts of those contentious discussions, until they got a bit personal...
 
dq409

dq409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
oil4kids said:
Somthing is really wrong here


how could a company make so many great engine combinations and far advanced mind you, not still be around today??????????

http://www.enginehistory.org/packard1.htm
Click to expand...

I think Tom hit it on the head !!

In the 50`s a lot of car companies bit the dust !!
Look at all the car companies that merged tring to stay alive in the 50`s.
Not that these companies made bad cars ,I think if you look at the styling they were stuck with the old bulky look and some of them down right were stinky !!
Although a few were ahead of their time like the Stude Commander most were at best marginal in the styling department.

I don`t think they could compete with the styling of GM and F**D.,,JMO,,dq
 
oil4kids

oil4kids

Well Known Member
the last time i was at the Studebaker museum in South Bend Indiana they had some advanced styling cars that never went into production for reasons unknown- I will say the Avanti was one of boldest designs of the time and i guess thats why so many tried to keep it alive even when Studebaker went bust, even Thomas Edison purchased the 2nd electric car they built

They also have Pres Lincolns Carriage there


http://www.studebakermuseum.org/photogallery/virtualtour.asp




Richard---that engine website is awesome

http://www.enginehistory.org/packard1.htm

it makes this chevy stuff look like a homework project
 
real61ss

real61ss

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 8
"Ramblers had GREAT seats."

That statement brings back memories!!!!!! In 1962, My only car was a '59 Corvette, but my Dad bought a new 1962 Rambler, I used to borrow it to go on dates. It was 6 clyinder, got really good gas milage, there was some other reason that I liked it.....hmmmm .........can't remember what it was now:brow

Oh, yeah, the seats, that's what it was
 
M

MK IISS

Guest
Ya know, Mark, part of Packard's problem may have been their car's engine. As you know the American public fell in love with the V-8. Packard was the last major car company to have a modern overhead valve V-8.....1955 I believe. All the other luxury/more expensive cars had a V-8. Buick in '53, Old-Cadillac in '49, Chrysler/Desoto in '51 and '52, Lincoln..forever. Even Studebaker had a V-8 in 1951. By the time Packard came out with their V-8 it was too late. Sales had fallen off so much... they were loosing $...bigtime.

Based on Packard's history of developing great engines.... some of the best engines in the world, they certainly had the technology and ability to design a V-8 for their cars long before they did. They just didn't do it.
 
M

MK IISS

Guest
Rambler seats.

When I said "Ramblers had GREAT seats" I wondered who would be the first to comment. Of course it was Tommy.
 
R

rwagon57

 
Supporting Member 1
Rambler Seats

MK IISS said:
When I said "Ramblers had GREAT seats" I wondered who would be the first to comment. Of course it was Tommy.
Click to expand...

My 1st high school car was a '63 Rambler Ambassador, and one father sent me away when I showed up in it to take his daughter out. I never did get to go out with her:roll
 
dq409

dq409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
MK IISS said:
Ramblers had GREAT seats.
Click to expand...

Richard,,, These other Rambler wannabees beat me to the computer !!!!:takethat

Just remember,,,,, I liked the seats so well in high school that I owned many ramblers over the years and STILL own one today !!:D

I even concieved my first child in one !!!:D :eek: :D


Those poor shocks,,,,,,dq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top