I agree that it's surprising how cars that are so much less "substantial" than a Packard can weigh the same - or more. But, as has been correctly pointed out, the added complexity of the 2014 car includes so much electronic, safety and emissions equipment that all account for the weight penalty. I would think that a new Impala with no electronics, emissions or safety equipment and a carbureted Powerglide V6 would be a relative featherweight for a large car, and a similarly-equipped Cobalt or Aveo would probably change lanes in a brisk wind without use of the steering wheel.

As stated, the book "Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961" by Robert R. Ebert pretty well covers this topic . . . And is a very interesting book in its own right. I downloaded the e-book from Amazon and enjoyed it very much. Ebert also provides some insight into the decision to produce the 1957-1958 "Packardbakers" being proven correct (well, the 1957 anyway) based on a pure business evaluation. That is, S-P made more money with the Packard cars those years than it would have without them. The cost to produce the Packard cars those years was relatively low, and the per-car profit was the highest of any S-P product. The 1957 Packards also helped to lower the break-even point that year . . . And even though S-P still failed to meet that point, the financial picture would have been even more dismal without them.

Yes, there were grumblings from the Packard Dealers. No, they didn't like the 1957 Packard when it was unveiled to them. They asked for (and got) a station wagon version of the sedan, which was the only model initially planned. They also asked for a Packard version of the Hawk to sell, which they got in 1958. That's right, they asked for it. There was a fund set aside for settling litigation with disgruntled dealers - a paltry (even in 1957) $250,000 - and the sum of all claims never exceeded that amount. Many little insights like this appear throughout the book. For Studebaker and Packard aficionados alike, it's worth a read.

Many Packards are among the very few American automobiles that the British would consider to be a PMC (Proper Motor Car).

Yes, that's all true . . . But every so many years someone "discovers" these ersatz Packards and doesn't know what they're looking at, so it falls to the forum regulars to educate them. NBD - we've done it before, and just wait a while, we'll have to do it again.

Tootsietoy Packards are actually quite collectible . . . Unrestored, beat-up specimens are available for less than ten bucks, while mint-in-box sets including the trailer BH mentioned (as pictured below) can reach $100 or more . . . even if the box does feature a Cadillac in the artwork! I agree that the most likely subject is a 1955 Patrician. These toys were actually considered quite realistic for their time, and I have a couple in my own collection. The ones that owners have "restored" in more authentic and/or more detailed paint jobs aren't worth any more, and in most cases less. My advice is to leave it as is, unless you just want a nicer-looking conversation piece and you're not worried about value.

Attach file:

---

  (52.31 KB)

Oh, I don't know . . . The flesh-colored paint is especially becoming.

I completely agree. While I'm no authority on the Studebaker Transtar trucks of this era, I believe that the "Studebaker" tailgate lettering was, in fact, stamped and not just painted. I suppose it would be easy enough to pull a few tailgates from the stack before they were so stamped, but setting up a separate stamping operation to impress them with the "Packard" name certainly seems wasteful and unnecessary. Let's hope the Packard units were simply painted with the name. It's the only thing that makes sense at that late date in the S-P operation, but making sense wasn't always their long suit in those last desperate days.

As always, Owen Dyneto (Hey, my father used to work there in the early 1950s) has the correct and complete information. Packard truck production did indeed wind down by 1923. I only offer the obvious Studebaker-based unit above as a conversation piece. It was exported to Argentina in 1958. There is a lot of conjencture about this truck . . . Supposedly the Argentinian vendor could not sell trucks if they were branded as Studebakers, but could do so if they were branded as Packards. One story was that the vendor was a former Packard dealer who still held the rights to sell vehicles under that name, but had no license to sell Studebaker cars or trucks. So, Studebaker-Packard simply grafted Packard labels onto the existing Studebaker truck, et voila. Whether any of this is true or not, who knows? There is also some dispute over how many of these Packard 3/4-ton units were sold. Some say as many as 50 or more, others say only 2. Not a lot of hard facts out there on these units, however many there actually were. Sure would be neat to have one, though.

Here's one of my favorites:

Attach file:

---

  (47.97 KB)

My Uncle, Howard Cunningham, was a PT boat commander in the Phiilipines during World War II. He always swore by the reliability and power of those engines, and said they saved him and his crew more than once. He was a Packard man (as was my Grandfather) until 1958, when they both reluctantly switched to Cadillacs. I'm willing to bet they weren't the only ones.