Hi

It's a 1936 Studebaker. Dictator sixes were 26,634 Series 3A with conventional front axle and 22,029 Series 4A with independent front suspension. All Dictator had a 218 c.i. straight six, 116" wheelbase

There were 7,297 President Eights, 250 c.i. straight eight, 125" wheelbase.

It's most likely a Dictator 3A, Studebaker had a very active export operation then.

Antique Studebaker enthusiast would love to have the parts if that car is being parted out, especially the prefect grille. Check The Antique Studebaker Club website.

Hope this helps.
Steve

Hello HH56, Eric and Others

Both you fellows are clearly knowledgeable about the backgrounds of each companies so we don't have the problem of erroneous affixing of blame.

Before the debacle of 1956, both companies practiced complicity in self-deception and omission when entering into the merger.

Both companies had intractable problems neither really wanted examined. Studebaker had saddled itself with high labor cost, working in antiquated buildings, resulting in a 10-12% cost disparity with competitive makes.

Packard had poor plant utilization, heavy dependence on defense contracts, poor return on it's automaking operations.

When they signed the merger agreement, each was hoping to gain more from the association rather than having to deal directly with their basic problems. Problems such as weak dealer network and stale management just added to the situation.

Once the disaster hit in 1956 and no savior would voluntarily come forward, a little arm twisting on Curtis-Wright by the Eisenhower Administration is how they got involved with the management of S-P. Make no mistake, they weren't willing participants, except that they saw the opportunity to extract S-P defense business and assets in exchange for funds to keep a portion of S-P afloat.

Bailouts, as we know them now, were unheard and would have been politically unpopular, seen as a type of socialist meddling in the economy. Politicans did get involved though because 1956 was an election year and allowing two major automakers to completely collapse would have looked bad for the Eisenhower Administration. C-W being a major defense contractor couldn't very well refuse to help in this situation.

When the question arises, which company killed which, it's most accurate to say both jointed hands and jumped willingly onto the leaky ship together. After hitting the financial disaster iceberg, as both were drowning, somehow Studebaker grabbed onto a barely floating piece of the ship being towed by C-W. Somehow they patched and righted that tub enough to keep going for a decade longer until the ship office, now with profitable diversified crafts, scuttled that last automaking tub.

Steve

Hello Gentlemen

Packard, as a corporate entity existed in name only after the Joint Agreement with Curtiss-Wright took affect. Reading minutes of board meetings from those years, it becomes clear that C-W management had oversight, input and to approve all decisions concerning operations and products. Any decisions affecting their mandate to stem the losses and salvage something of the automaking operations was definitely not made exclusively by Studebaker management.

Once S-P had survived most of 1957 and settled on the compact car program as their salvation, C-W withdrew, ending their association by the end of 1958.

Everytime I read some foolish derogatory posting on how "Studebaker killed Packard and/or Pierce-Arrow" I want to diplomatically suggest to the poster he stop advertising his ignorance and take the time to read enough history to come a complete and realistic understanding of auto history.

Steve

Hi Bill Wurts

Thanks for the detail pictures, they're helpful. I suspect the conversion was done by a professional body shop, a well-know coachbuilder is in doubt for me. There were shops in the NYC area that custom modified bodies to customer order.

Best approach would be to study the details of the way it was modified from the factory stamping, how well finished the cut edge were handled. Anything that smacks of hasty or haphazard work would suggest the work was done by other than a coachbuilder such as Derham, Brunn or Rollston/Rollson. Without exception, even when modifying factory bodies, they did a first class job of craftsmanship.

Those two knob mounted on the partition header may be retainers for the canopy support piece above the window.

Whether true coachbuilt or a nicely done job by a body shop in the period, it still is one desirable Super 8. Again, my opinion of source of this work is just that, my opinion. I defer to those more experienced and expert.

Steve

Hello Gentlemen

Of the need of a modern, one story assembly plant: the economies affected by such operations were well established by the early '50's. As an objective to be achieved by, say 1960, it should have been developed properly and built at Utica adjacent to that plant. In the meantime, keeping body production at the leased Connor Avenue plant and final assembly at East Grand might have guaranteed continuing fine quality and timely availability. Hastily shoving assembly operations into a plant only large enough for body making operations was just a mind-boggling mistake.

Of Defense Contractor versus Automaker: Packard was an automaker with a strong defense contracting business that transitioned into a defense contractor with an auto making division. Defense work was notoriously difficult because of capricious changes in specifications and political whims.

It is forever to the shame of those involved in the Eisenhower Administration, specifically Defense Secretary Charles Wilson the way Packard was dismissed as a supplier, mainly for GM's benefit. While not to denigrate GM contribution to the war effort, Packard had made such yeomen contributions for a company its size, continued granting of defense work should have been treated as an obligation. Packard helped win the war, only to lose its business life in the peacetime it helped to guarantee, for shame!

Hummm, maybe what's happened to GM now is just desserts!

Steve

Hi Bill Wurts

Gadzooks! Interest Car! Whatever you do, don't let it get away! It's not everyday you have the opportunity to buy such a nicely preserved original custom bodied Packard. Yes, custom coachwork makes the value of this car much greater, whether Packard authorized or not, since it appears professionally done.

While I defer to those far more expert, I'd opine that custom work is by Derham or Brunn. They were engaged in doing semi-custom conversion work by the late '30's. Of the town cars I've seen, mostly in pictures, they retained the factory windshield stampings when opening the front section to create a town car. Again, there was no hard and fast rule to the way these companies work, just a general method of detail work for each.
Reference photos of the '41 Buick Limited Brunn town car for very similar work. For Derham's work, check out any Chrysler town car conversions in that period.

Rollston/Rollson, on the other hand, always seemed to replace the windshield structure with a flat unit with nice thin cast framing. Never say "always" I will be reminded.

If you find no cowl tags, still take a close looks, the mounting holes might still be evident. If you're lucky, even if the tags are missing, an outline of the tags may still be legible.

The CCCA Museum archive has the Derham files. It would be a long shot, but check with them too, on the odd chance they might have documentation on this car.

In the meantime, I will check the print resources I have including Hugo Pfau's Cars & Parts articles to see if this car appears in any.

West, What think you about this gem?

Please, more detailed pictures of the windshield, door and division areas will be helpful in identifying the custom coachbuilder.

Steve

Hello Gentlemen

Of the original question, Hugh Ferry was a HUGELY underrated President, both by himself and the board of directors. His direction started the correction of most all of the neglect and backslide of the Christopher years.

The board of directors should have recognized what a fine job he was doing, insisted he remain President, then hired a dynamic marketing professional such as Nance to be General Product Manager to package the products for a contemporary market.

Ferry's years of auto industry experience in areas such as finance and manufacturing and intercorporate relations would have served to help him prevent pitfalls that came from Nance's inexperience in those areas. Ferry had the judgment to avoid disasters such as the Studebaker buyout, the move to Connor Avenue and the general draining of the cash reserves.

This isn't to vilify Nance, who I've come to view as dynamic and brilliant in bringing contemporary content to the product but woefully unqualified in the financial, manufacturing and overall management of the company.

Steve

Hi Eric

Thanks for posting the update, I'm going to run a Studebaker version too for the SDC Forum guys, everyone whose used it loves it!

I understand what you mean when you say this is getting old, but short of a massive boycott by customers until Ebay management notices they're losing more money than they're gaining from these jerks listing fee, everyone is stuck with this lousy situation.

I wish another on-line auction would arise that would kick Ebay's arse!

Anyway, thanks again!
Steve

Hi

Regardless of how the Tucker convertible came to be, the handling of it's publicity with the objective of a huge auction sale price is a textbook example of hype.

What seems like more than a year we've been seeing teasers, website leads, Ebay listing with outrageous BIN, appearances at major collector car meets, now the OCW Russo and Steele spread.

And where does all this culminate? BIG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Auction SALE Price!!!!

It's an interesting workout but not at all worth what it's hyped to be worth. Sadly enough, real, historic, legitimate collector cars go begging for an appreciative owner for preservation and restoration.

Off the soapbox!

Steve

Hi Gentlemen

Reading the Design Concept posting comments made me wonder, would the new '57 Packards with a vertical grille been a marketing hit?
Your opinions pro or con and why you think so.

Steve