1956 Packard Panther Project

Since almost no one is hot rodding Packard V-8s these days (few ever did) and information from the factory is unobtainable, I decided to use modern computer engine dyno simulation software (Dyno2000 version 3.10) to get closer to an "optimum" equipment choice for my Panther engine.

The major components that I can realistically vary (and parameters I can simulate) are these:

• Displacement: starting at 352CID and given the stock crankshaft, how much displacement can I safely achieve? Probably 374CID (+0.125") is the reasonable limit.
• Compression ratio: This will vary between 8.5:1 and 10.0:1 depending following the displacement increase and piston configuration. Today's highest octane pump gas will limit me to 10.0:1 maximum.
• Camshaft: Since I can regrind the stock cam, I can get any flat-tapped hydraulic profile that can be ground on that core. This can be anywhere from very mild (stock) to fairly wild (race-only).
• Carburetion: This will vary from 457CFM for the rebuilt Carter 4bbl on my Executive parts car to 1,000CFM if use a Caribbean 2x4bbl (single plane intake manifold with a pair of 500CFM Edelbrock Performer or equivalent carbs). Reasonable in-between values available from Edelbrock as single 4bbl (dual plane) are 600CFM and 750CFM.
• Intake manifold:The 1955-56 Caribbean 2x4 intake manifold is much higher performance than the 1x4 intake manifold. Fortunately, I obtained one for the Panther Project engine. I do not have the original Rochester 4GC carbs or "Bat Wing" air cleaner, but those are easily replaced with modern "hot rod" pieces.
• Exhaust system: I can install a totally stock dual exhaust system (not so good as you will see below) or fabricate custom headers and exhaust system (great, but time consuming and expensive).

To start with a simulation baseline, I'll assume the advertised HP & TQ of a 1956 Clipper or Executive 352CID Carter WCFB 4bbl (385CFM) with dual exhaust. We all know these numbers were "gross" values and maybe were "tweaked" for advertising purposes, but I'm only interested in RELATIVE performance.

Packard claimed these numbers:

Plugging the stock parameters into the simulation software yields:

This is -24HP & -32TQ from advertised. This difference is probably due how Packard actually dyno'd their engines and the aforemented advertising pumpup of the numbers. Whatever...This is close enough for my purposes and is my BASELINE. All subsequent changes are deltas (usually additive) from these values. The following is a summary of what the dyno simulation claimed were the delta changes.

CHANGING DISPLACEMENT from 352 CID to 374CID (simulate using dished pistons to keep the C.R. at 9.5:1 constant while increasing the displaced volume only) yields:

CHANGING COMPRESSION RATIO from 9.5:1 to 9.56:1 (actual C.R.) yields:

This is +1HP & +1TQ delta. This no doubt means that the original C.R. was probably closer to 9.1:1.

CHANGE CAMSHAFT from stock to Lazer regrind yields:

This is +23HP & -23TQ delta.

Mildly modify heads with port match, flash removal and 3-angle valve job.

This is +18HP & +5TQ delta. This shows how much the cylinder head flow can be improved with relatively minor modifications.

This is +58HP & +21TQ delta.

CHANGE STOCK EXHAUST MANIFOLDS to small tube headers (custom fabrication).
CHANGE STOCK MUFFLERS to high performance mufflers ("Flowmaster") while I'm at it yields:

This is +60HP & +56TQ delta and +162HP & +80TQ from BASELINE. This shows how bad the stock cast iron "log" exhaust manifolds and probably the mufflers are.