Owen_Dyneto wrote:
I really couldn't make out much from the photos either. But being a one-off prototype I suppose you could expect almost anything although it was built to be a driving prototype and not an engineering prototype.

What might help understand the situation is knowning more about the timing of events. On what date did Packard abandon the front-drive plan, and on what date was engineering completed for the Twin Six? I believe both these dates are known from Packard board meeting minutes, though I don't have them handy. I've always thought the time span was very short so to find a frame design in the Twin Six that was replaced a year later with a revised (improved?) design wouldn't be all that surprising.

I sort of question your comment that the 903-906 was supposed to be a front-drive car. I had assumed that, had the front-drive come to fruition, it would have been the low-end car line, not the top-end. Just an assumption.

You seem really keen on this topic - perhaps reviewing the Packard board meeting minutes of this era would be worthwhile to you.