Happy Easter and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
136 user(s) are online (88 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 3
Guests: 133

BigKev, bkazmer, humanpotatohybrid, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal



« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8) 9 10 11 12 »

Re: SP merger
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home

acolds
See User information
Looking at the roof the extra headroom provided by the added height may also be a design feature. The sun visors are covered by metal rather than up in air stream. Also the appearance is of a more solid look in keeping with general design of the body style. Also the steel of the roof design is less costly than the Packard casting and special windshield. Bean counters had and have lots of say in manufacturing designs unless its for government project.

Posted on: 2015/3/23 16:48
C:\Users\veron\Desktop\New folder\1956 Packard Caribbean\753.jpg
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home

Mahoning63
See User information
These vehicle heights came from this book. Probably a few errors but overall pretty accurate.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Cars-1946-1959-Every-Model/dp/0786432292/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427152918&sr=1-3&keywords=car+1946-1959

Attach file:



jpg  (92.27 KB)
2060_5510a0f59d459.jpg 1074X481 px

Posted on: 2015/3/23 18:26
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home

Mahoning63
See User information
Steve203 - good point about modern sedans inching up, Taurus/MKS being the highest, the result of a "tall sedan" project within Ford that started around 2000. Next gen MKS might come down a tick, Taurus might not get replaced. The modern 4d "coupe" has apparently taken up where the mainstream sedan left off.

Pulled a few vehicle heights from the gold source... manufacturers' original data books:

1948-54 Hudson = 60.4

1956 Packard
Patrician 4D = 62.3
Four Hundred 2D = 61.7

1956 Cadillac
60 Special 4D = 62
Sedan DV 4D = 59.6
Coupe DV 2D = 59.6

1957 Cadillac
60 Special 4D = 59.1
Sedan DV 4D = 59.1
Coupe DV 2D = 57.7

1959 Cadillac
60 Special 4D = 56.2
Sedan DV 4D = 56.2
Coupe DV 2D = 54.1

1966 Cadillac
60 Special 4D = 56.7
Sedan DV 4D = 55.6
Coupe DV 2D = 54.6

The '55-56 Patrician height was competitive with the '55-56 Cadillac but not with the hot selling '56 Sedan DeVille. The Four Hundred height was not competitve with the Coupe DeVille in these years. By 1957-58, carryover Packards would have looked noticeably tall compared to the Big 3.

Posted on: 2015/3/24 18:47
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home

58L8134
See User information
Hi Paul

That list really pulls it together; even a 59" tall Packard sedan for '55 would have set them apart, perhaps a 400 at 57.5 as well. It would have been that something extra that garnered the attention necessary to get the public to the showrooms. If a merger with Hudson and a crash project based on the Step-Down platform would have done it, its a shame no one could envision it in 1953.

Steve

Posted on: 2015/3/24 19:19
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive.
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home

Steve203
See User information
The '55-56 Patrician height was competitive with the '55-56 Cadillac but not with the hot selling '56 Sedan DeVille. The Four Hundred height was not competitve with the Coupe DeVille in these years. By 1957-58, carryover Packards would have looked noticeably tall compared to the Big 3.

Not really proposing the 51 Packard body be carried over with no changes. Proposing a new frame, to allow footwells and a flatter roof to trim height by 2" for 57-58. Then start compromising seat height and headroom around 59-60. iirc, it wasn't until the early 60s when men stopped wearing big fedoras, about the time Jack Kennedy, who I rarely see wearing a hat, was POTUS.

Harry Truman's height is variously given as 5'8" or 5'9". My dad was 5'8" and barely had enough headroom in his 64 Galaxie XL, without a hat. Harry looks to have lots of room with his fedora in that 56 Dodge.

Steve

Attach file:



jpg  (35.65 KB)
53041_5511ff82e5bb3.jpg 545X397 px

Posted on: 2015/3/24 19:23
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home

Mahoning63
See User information
I now understand what you are proposing. My feeling is that had Packard made perfect cars in 1955 and never merged with Studebaker they still would have run into a sales wall in 1956, the Sedan DeVille was that strong and Packard's own appearance that middling. I think they needed to make a bold massive move while they were still able to borrow money in late 1953.

Schematic below shows Hudson's seating strategy. Front and rear footwells are same level. Rear seat bottoms slope down to maintain rear headroom under sloping roof.

Realized the '54 Panther's suspension was too low for production so I increased the '55s ride height a good inch, putting it around 58.2 inches tall or 2.4 inches less than the 48-54 Hudsons. Given the abundance of headroom in those cars and how the '55 Montclair and '56 Sedan DeVille each dropped their roofs several inches, I think we're packaged and have a car that would have been competitive through 1958. New front and rear appearance in 1957 and provision for quad headlamps would have kept them looking good while displacement and power increases kept them fast.

Attach file:



jpg  (62.85 KB)
2060_5512047fbc76d.jpg 1280X507 px

Posted on: 2015/3/24 19:44
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home

Mahoning63
See User information
Raised suspension doesn't seem to hurt appearance, may even help.

Attach file:



jpg  (51.45 KB)
2060_5515cb1a3a107.jpg 568X370 px

Posted on: 2015/3/24 19:49
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home

58L8134
See User information
Hi Paul

"I think they needed to make a bold massive move....."

Your Panther-based concept looks exactly to be the package that should have greeted customers upon entering the showroom in 1955.

Consider each of the bold moves made by Cadillac over the prior two decades: the '36 60, the '38 60 Special, the '40 C-body Series 62, the full restyled '41 line with Hydramatic, the new '48 styling, the '49 OHV V8 and Coupe de Ville, the again-all-new '50 line, the '52 Series 61 deletion, the '53 Eldorado, the completely new '54 line. Every move, whether bold or subtle, like a boxer pummeling his opponent, was made to put Cadillac on top and keep it there.

By 1953, Packard, bruised and bloodied, needed an extremely bold move to grab public attention, put their cars back into consideration. Chrysler demonstrated it was possible to take their Imperial from nearly invisible back to a position of prominence with bold moves. True, they couldn't sustain the momentum over the long term, but that seems more a case of loss of management drive to further invest in completely new Imperials.

1955 was Packard's last chance to do something bold enough to put their cars back in contention in a major way. The new V8, attractive styling and Torsion-Level were bold, just not quite enough.

Steve

Posted on: 2015/3/26 8:11
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive.
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home

Packard5687
See User information
"1955 was Packard's last chance to do something bold enough to put their cars back in contention in a major way. The new V8, attractive styling and Torsion-Level were bold, just not quite enough."

Had other things gone differently, what Packard did for '55 might have been enough - the cars were very competitive. Most people thought the '55s were actually a new body, so effective was Teague's restyle of the '51 Reinhart design. But the horrible build quality out of Conner and the oil aeration problems with the V8 torpedoed what could/should have been Packard's turn-around. The decision to build the cars completely at Conner ruined any chance Packard had at gaining back its former glory.

Posted on: 2015/3/26 8:22
 Top  Print 
 


Re: SP merger
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home

58L8134
See User information
Hi

The move of complete assembly to Connor Avenue was a major nail in Packard's coffin. Whatever bright promise the '55 models held was completely scuttled by first the badly delayed January 17th 1955 introduction, then significantly worsened by the lack of availability at the dealerships of new '55's until well into the spring. Those that were available showed poor build quality. Even dealership stability and availability had become a major issue in many markets as well.

Pile onto that customer reports that the new V8 had functional problems with oil aeration/lifter noise, Twin-Ultramatics failing prematurely and a steady drumbeat of bad business news regarding Studebaker-Packard's financials.

By the time '55's of decent quality and sufficient supply became available, enthusiasm had cooled and buyers had become wary of being stuck with an orphan with little resale value. However much improved the '56 models were, buyers had to be real Packard loyalists or brave to take a chance on a new one.

Steve

Posted on: 2015/3/26 18:02
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive.
 Top  Print 
 




« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8) 9 10 11 12 »




Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved