Hi Bryan, the scheme that Packard used for 1955 & 1956 VINs was the pattern XXXX-XXXX. The first grouping of four digits was the Model Number (seehttps://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/modelinfo/index.php?mode=year&id=1955&ButtonYear=Go for 1955 model descriptions) and the second group of four digits was a sequence number, beginning with 1001. Each model had its own sequence, so it's easy to identify the first Patrician (5582-1001), the first Clipper Custom Constellation (5567-1001), etc. I'm not sure why Packard started with 1001 for the sequence number instead of 0001, but there must be a long industry tradition of it. Even today, for example, GM still starts most of its VIN sequences at 100001.

Yikes! Those were pretty brutal. I didn't see anything about a person still being inside, but to be honest, I didn't really want to look that closely.

Steve, my file "keeping" is notorious, but I know I have all my past issues of TPC, I can try scanning it for you (if I can find it!). I enjoy learning about "what happened where" in the Packard facilities, so if this would help further research and understanding, then I'd be happy to help. Send me a PM (private message) to keep reminding me, and/or to give me an email address where I can send the page images directly.

Owen_Dyneto, is this the logo we would look for on our engine blocks? I saw it on a piece of Lakey Foundry letterhead, looks like a centerline mark!

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7716231@N06/14257374764/player/" width="75" height="75" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

I wonder of the 1954 sale of the foundry site was prompted by an unwillingness/inability to invest in upgrades needed to produce the V8 block, or by a cut-off from the electricity, steam, and compressed air produced by the Packard power plant <em>(I imagine that the utility tunnel from the Boulevard to the foundry was cut-off by the I-94 dig)</em>, or some combination?

Great news! When do we see pics? <img src="https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/uploads/smil3dbd4d4e4c4f2.gif" alt=" " />

Good luck and keep us posted! Love Norwegian Forest!

I heard recently that the LaFontaine dealership up your way was hiring, might be worth checking out. I know someone up there if you need an "in..."

Interesting... Had never heard that about Cadillac leasing the grounds from Packard. If they did, it wasn't because Milford was not finished. Milford pre-dated the PPG by three years, 1924 versus 1927. It's well-documented that Chrysler leased the PPG during WWII, but I hadn't seen mention of Cadillac.

Sure, JVs have been around since the beginning of the industry, but instead of current production cars, I'm talking about allowing close proximity of a competitor to the core of your advance product testing and development facility. At GM today, we don't even let all GM employees onto the Milford Proving Ground property, much less allow a competitor build adjacent to the site. We seem to have our hands full just flushing all the spy photographers out of nearby tall trees!

I think one of the benefits Packard saw at the time of the conversion Utica to engine and transmission production was that it would allow them to install the all-new machinery, virtually none of which would work on the older in-line engines, and yet would not disturb the ongoing production of engines for the 1953-1954 models.

One reason that I don't see selling Utica to GM as a viable option is that you would be giving the auto industry's 800 pound gorilla a front row seat that fronted right on your sole development and testing facility. Oops... I don't think Nance or Graves would ever let that happen.

That seems to be the popular notion, one of those canards that gets out there and then is never challenged or corrected.

This topic was covered in a recently published book called "Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961" by Robert R. Ebert.

The gist is that the notion of producing the 1957 Packard just to avoid litigation is not true.

The question of whether or not there would have been a Studebaker-based 1957 Packard was up in the air for an extended period of time, and could easily have been nixed. The three factors that played in favor of the 1957 Packard Clipper were the the low cost of the tooling alterations that were needed, the fact that Duncan McRae already had worked up such a proposal even before Nance had thrown in the towel and before Packard Detroit was closed, and finally the low break-even volume on such a car.

As a Packard Clipper, it commanded more money than the Studebaker President Classic, $3,210 versus $2,500. If the tooling cost was about $1 million (I need to double-check this figure), then the extra $700 per car would have paid off the tooling and then some, bringing in a premium of $3.4 million over the income from the equivalent number of President Classics (around 4,800 cars).

S-P wanted to survive and generate cash, and it also wanted to wait out the storm and maybe buy time until a grand Packard could be returned to the line. As we well know, that was not to be, but Churchill was quoted as saying that it would be a lot tougher to bring back the Packard marque after even just one year of hiatus, than it would be to rebuild it after this obviously junior offering. So for better or worse, depending on how you feel about the South Bend Packards, Churchill stuck up for the Packard nameplate, and gave us two more years of Packard history before realities could no longer be ignored.

The Ebert book is available on Amazon.com as either a paperback or as a Kindle electronic book. It's a very scholarly book, and I highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in Packard or Studebaker history, and who wants to look behind the scenes at the waning days of Studebaker-Packard, "America's fourth full line automaker."