Re: 1955-57 What-If Line-Up
Posted by 55PackardGuy On 2010/11/22 16:04:35
My 
(and that's about all it's worth). These bodies don't "section" very well. Some rodders modified them, and at best I think the results are "OK." Also, so many of the body panels would have to be changed that I think it would've been more expensive than an "upgrade" would've been worth.
I think that the public saw the '55 models as truly new cars (which mechanically, they pretty much were) in spite of the body shell carryover that we all know was a gussied up 4-year-old design. The horizontal trim and paint on the seniors was an inspired choice for creating the illusion of a long, low design.
Personally, I think the steep sides would not have been that out-of-step with other makes for one more year. Look at the GM products for '57-- especially the ever-popular '57 Chebbie, a warmover of a warmover if there ever was one. Not that it's the same market as Packard, but still... Ford and Chrysler went whole hog for the upsized, longer and lower style for '57, but no way were Ford, Dodge and Plymouth on Packard buyers' radar.
So, the prudent thing to do, as I see it, would have been to hold off on the introduction of a hurried-up, all-new body and chassis, as was planned for '57, based on the "Black Bess" mule. Instead, do a mild upgrade of the '56 models for '57... assuring dealers they would get enough product and that QC would be vastly improved. Put Torsion-Level on all of 'em and hammer away at marketing the ride and handling.
Then for '58, introduce Predictor-styling based Senior models, like HH suggests, but on a very similar chassis and suspension as the '55-'56-'57 instead of changing the T-L too, as was planned. Why mess with a suspension design that had proven itself remarkably good out of the box, and didn't need to be upgraded after only two years. A new chassis and radically modified T-L such as the one planned for '57 was overkill, and a poor use of the R&D, engineering and tooling that went into the original Torsion-Level chassis. Why throw out such a gem and risk a possible flop that would tarnish the remarkable T-L image??
And get going quickly on some decent ADVERTISING! Nance moaned and groaned about the lousy ad campaigns and the need to change agencies from day one, but not enough happened. You can blame design and manufacturing all you want, but inadequate marketing--to customers and dealers-- contributed mightily to Packard's demise IMO. Packard had long rested on its laurels and assumed that Quality would sell itself, but that could not work in the new consumer economy.
Well I guess that's more like 3 cents worth (or 1 cent depending on how you look at it).
(and that's about all it's worth). These bodies don't "section" very well. Some rodders modified them, and at best I think the results are "OK." Also, so many of the body panels would have to be changed that I think it would've been more expensive than an "upgrade" would've been worth.I think that the public saw the '55 models as truly new cars (which mechanically, they pretty much were) in spite of the body shell carryover that we all know was a gussied up 4-year-old design. The horizontal trim and paint on the seniors was an inspired choice for creating the illusion of a long, low design.
Personally, I think the steep sides would not have been that out-of-step with other makes for one more year. Look at the GM products for '57-- especially the ever-popular '57 Chebbie, a warmover of a warmover if there ever was one. Not that it's the same market as Packard, but still... Ford and Chrysler went whole hog for the upsized, longer and lower style for '57, but no way were Ford, Dodge and Plymouth on Packard buyers' radar.
So, the prudent thing to do, as I see it, would have been to hold off on the introduction of a hurried-up, all-new body and chassis, as was planned for '57, based on the "Black Bess" mule. Instead, do a mild upgrade of the '56 models for '57... assuring dealers they would get enough product and that QC would be vastly improved. Put Torsion-Level on all of 'em and hammer away at marketing the ride and handling.
Then for '58, introduce Predictor-styling based Senior models, like HH suggests, but on a very similar chassis and suspension as the '55-'56-'57 instead of changing the T-L too, as was planned. Why mess with a suspension design that had proven itself remarkably good out of the box, and didn't need to be upgraded after only two years. A new chassis and radically modified T-L such as the one planned for '57 was overkill, and a poor use of the R&D, engineering and tooling that went into the original Torsion-Level chassis. Why throw out such a gem and risk a possible flop that would tarnish the remarkable T-L image??
And get going quickly on some decent ADVERTISING! Nance moaned and groaned about the lousy ad campaigns and the need to change agencies from day one, but not enough happened. You can blame design and manufacturing all you want, but inadequate marketing--to customers and dealers-- contributed mightily to Packard's demise IMO. Packard had long rested on its laurels and assumed that Quality would sell itself, but that could not work in the new consumer economy.
Well I guess that's more like 3 cents worth (or 1 cent depending on how you look at it).
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=65003