Re: 1955-57 What-If Line-Up

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2010/11/22 21:47:44

Well, 3 cents well spent. Glad to hear your thoughts.

My guess about the need for the '58 T-L redesign is that either the engineers thought they could do better or a lowered frame was planned for '58 to get the height down, which would have likely impacted T-L packaging.

It sounds like we are in agreement that 1955-57 should have carried the same basic design. Only major difference is the need for lowness. To me it was a way for Packard to get ahead of Cadillac, at least for 55/56. Chrysler pulled itself from the abyss because of Exner's preoccupation with this particular dimension. Caddy went low in '57 so a taller Packard would have not been as competitive that year. Lowness was the big design story of the 50s, just as streamlining and later the 3-box torpedo sedan were the major design changes of the 30s. Nance should have gone to bed each night saying: "I've got to get the height down, I've got to get the height down". As history proved, it turned out to be a big deal with consumers.

My sense is that all the important decisions were made between May 1952 when Nance arrived and mid to late 1953. That's when the 55s were locked down and Packard's fate was sealed. That's when money from the bankers was either acquired or not, lowness was dialed in or not, and when a certain amount of product indecision crept in that slowed the design process, which snow-plowed the issues and probably lead to a scramble in 1954 to launch the car, which lead to quality problems. Some of the body issues that cropped up at Conner would have probably cropped up at EGB too because they were likely rooted in a compromised or rushed design, tool and/or prototype build process. It's so important for a car CEO to know what he or she is doing on Day 1 because bad things can happen otherwise.