Hi

The stopgap program to utilize the '56 Lincoln body shell would still have been more Packard than Lincoln. The idea was to shortcut the major expense of complete body shell tooling while still seeking a less quantity of financing for chassis and exterior panels and trim, all in a desperate attempt to get a new 1957 Packard on the market on time. It was to be an all-Packard engineered and manufactured chassis and power train, essentially what was being developed for the completely new 1957 series. It was to be 130" wb versus the '56 Lincoln's 126", the 4" additional inches to be added to the hood length. All exterior and quarter panels and trim were to be Packard unique as well, bumpers, dashboard and interiors. Only the greenhouse might have been recognizable as to it's source, though some appliqu?s may have disguised that too.

So, it was really only the Lincoln body shell they were seeking. It could be thought of analogous to the Fisher C-body shells which were shared by Roadmasters and 62/DeVilles. True, doing so with a company outside Ford Motor Company would have been unusual though not unprecedented, as some Murray, Briggs and Hayes production bodies found their place on various chassis of pre-war independent companies.

Steve

Hi

From a memo written by Roger Bremer to James Nance, May 24, 1955,
Subject: Report and Recommendations on New Model Programs - Studebaker-Packard,
page 11 under the subject: Immediate Action Required To Accomplish Proposed Program, Item 8:

"Reactiveate a program on the V-12 engine and related prestige car lines for the 1958 models vis-?-vis the Continental and Cadillac Brougham Eldorado. (Strong rumors indicate that Lincoln is currently working on a V-12 engine)."

So, a V-12 engine was in discussion during 1955, likely the idea was sidetracked by more urgent issues......like how to stay in business.

Steve

Hi

During the brief consideration of the Facel Excellence-based Packard, it was to use leftover Packard V8's and Ultramatics that were built for service requirements. Apparently the supply was more than ample, since the projected sales numbers for Packard 'Excellences' was to be very small.

Center-opening door Lincolns: the original design iteration was developed as a next-generation Thunderbird on 113" wb for 1961, this would been during 1957-58. Concurrently, the giant unibodied '58 Lincolns and Continentals were bombing in the market and the ever-calculating Robert McNamara was itching to rid Ford Motor Company of any makes that didn't produce profits....would have gladly scuttled Lincoln. Fortunately, viewing the various concept clay mock-ups, McNamara liked the slab-sided Thunderbird design, suggested they add ten inches to the wheelbase and make it a Lincoln. In doing so, rear seat ingress and egress was still restricted and uncomfortable with forward-hinged rears doors so rear-hinged units quickly solved that problem, plus benefitting from the following cultural shift. Although rear-hinged rear doors had been old hat just a few years prior, the '51 Lincolns and Mercurys, '52 Studebakers and '54 Chrysler long-wheelbase models the last hold-outs, once they appeared on and various GM Motorama show cars including the pillar-less '53 Cadillac Orleans, '55 & '56 Eldorado Broughams and Town Car, they became regarded as very stylishly elegant......perfect for a new type of compact luxury Lincoln Continental.

As far function, the reason they perform so well is the unibody structure is extremely heavily built relative to the size of the car: 5000 lb for a 123" wb, 212" overall compared to a '61 Cadillac 62 sedan at 4660 lb, 129.5 wb, 222" overall. Regardless of whether it was a sedan or convertible, those Lincolns have a bank-vault solidity that's amazing for it's time. And they needed that 430 cid V8 to move all that weight, always at 10 mpg regardless of how they're driven (I had a '63 convertible for a while). They're not prefect in every way, but they're a darn nice rig with a wonderfully satisfying design. But also know that I'm biased for them, having fallen instantly in love with the design as an eight year old boy in November 1960 days prior to their introduction when we happened upon the new '61 models 'hidden' out back of Arkport Motors Lincoln-Edsel-Mercury. Never been so smitten with a car since.

Steve

Hi V8fan

No, the idea of a Packard V-12 return was a blue sky concept in '56, when just staying in business was in doubt.

The Continental Mark II design is all about a modern intrepretation of the long hood/short deck proportions of the original 1940-48 Lincoln Continental. No twelve cylinder was ever considered as power for that car.

The flathead V-12 used in the '36-'48 Lincoln Zephyrs and Continentals was an underdeveloped, underpowered, frankly lousy, engine. It wasn't much more than a flathead Ford V-8 with four more cylinders inserted in the middle. As such, it had all the engineering drawback of that engine in magnified form i.e. exhaust ported between the tiny cylinder bores and resulting overheating, short stroke in an era of low compression-long stroke torque monsters, poor crankcase venting. Commonly, the engine was replaced after a few years in service with a Mercury V8 service engine to keep the cars useful.

The Mark II was totally a vanity vehicle for the young Ford brother (no pun intended) then in charge of the company. It was never intended by them to be profitable, only to show the automotive world that Ford Motor Company could produce a world-class luxury car.

Steve

Hi Owen

Thanks for the nice photos, wish I could have attended, will some year. Though it's not a Packard, how about posting your photos of the Stutz Weymann Monte Carlo?

Steve

Hi

Just over the wire (60, pushing 61) but I'll throw in my two cents. When I was a kid in the early '60's, most all Packards I encountered were rusty, krusty used cars on back lines of small used car lots or in junkyards. A lot of bathtubs, Contours and a few V8's, all rundown, typical western New York cars.

But, we also got Motor Trend magazine, in the Swap 'n Sell column in the back page were Packard like nothing I was seeing. Those were pre-war Twelves and Super Eight, some with custom coachwork, and glamorous Caribbeans. That's where the curiosity and the interest to learn everything I could about Packard began.

Lesson: Never discount the old car magazine handed to a kid showing a bit of interest or refuse a ride to a young person displaying curiosity about your Packard....that's where the next generation of owners will come from!

Steve

Hi

While none of our Monday morning quarterbacking can change history, for me it is an exercise that broadens my understanding of the people and events of that time. It requires detailed study as a framework.

Working out other scenarios is a creative mental activity which allows one to involve oneself, at least vicariously, into process whereby better possible outcomes might have been wrought. It's essentially harmless, an entertainment for those of us so fascinated.

As for 'Which Packard' to save? What could have been saved was the potential, which still existed as long as the company was an ongoing business, for a revival of a Packard as it had been at it's zenith, focused as a creative, engineering enterprise producing the finest automotive products, perhaps the American Mercedes-Benz or BMW of our time. When that organization was dismantled, the thin thread of potential was extinguished.

Steve

Hi

Thanks for all your responses, though the motivation was to determine if Packard could have simplified their engine building for 1954. Simply bored all their blocks to 3 9/16, let the stroke determine the cubic inch differential. As greater horsepower and torque were all the rage, having 339 and 359 engines to advertise could have been a help to sales appeal. Clearly by the trouncing Packard took that year, they needed all the helpful features they could get to compete.

Steve

Hi

Has anyone overbored a 327 from 3 1/2 to 3 9/16, retaining the 4 1/4 stroke? It would yield a 338.9 cu in displacement. What would be the pitfalls and problems of doing this overbore? Would it yield enough performance improvement to make the effort worthwhile? Thanks!

Steve

Hi

A long, sliding loss of focus by management of the semimal core strength and philosophy that had been their guiding ethic until a failing economy caused them to seek an avenue for corporate survival. Once that was found, complacently settling for financial stability rather than design and engineering leadership as their driving ethic.

Steve