Quote:


Amen to that!

I'm not sure those chassis would have the right dimensions to be able to build a convincing Darrin. I would expect the later cars to be wider, which would wreak havoc with the proportions of the replica Darrin.

A few years ago there was a black 1948 Packard junior series sedan sitting in the back yard of a house a couple blocks up the street from me. I kept meaning to stop by and see what the story was, but I never got around to it. Eventually, a "For Sale" sign went up on the house and the car was gone.

You might want to check with Don Sommer and American Arrow. They list 1941 Packard mirrors reproduced in stainless steel, but I don't know if they are the sidemount or non-sidemount variety.

Don Sommer's American-Arrow Corp.

Ah ha! Found it! It's in the Spring 2007 issue of The Packard Cormorant!

First thing I'd suspect about Conner and its degraded condition would be that the war materiel plants may not have been built to the usual peacetime standards, and they either used substitute building materials, or were rushed to completion, or both.

The next thing I'd suspect was that in converting the plant, whether it was a substandard structure or not, Packard may have had to cut their own corners in making Conner fit their bill and to do so quickly. Things that should not have been cut may have been, and things that should not have been excavated may have been. Not to mention that the plant sat directly on top of the old stream bed and the enclosed drain that was once Conner Creek. Maybe the footings weren't the best...

No doubt that Packard didn't put any maintenance into the buildings after the conversion, and Chrysler probably didn't lift a finger after they purchased Briggs. When Packard left, they left in a hurry, so who knows what water the plant ended up getting in the basement, etc.

I need to go back and read Mr. Pushbutton's article again, as I know how dangerous it is to keep relying on my memory. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I placed that issue of The Packard Cormorant, so memory is all I have to go on at the moment.

Wasn't the Conner facility originally built as a war material plant by Briggs? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Conner wasn't all that well-built to begin with, as the war plants had to go up quick and start producing immediately. And wasn't Conner just a lease from Chrysler and not an outright purchase?

Hi Pack 120c --

Packard's Conner Avenue plant was located just south of Warren. If I recall correctly, the plant was razed in 1960, so it would have been gone before you even started to have conscious memories. I think that the big AQ Packard book intimates that the shopping center was where the plant used to be, but it was actually just south of the shopping center. I've cobbled together a map from Google Earth to help you visualize where it was.

Kevin

Attach file:

---

  (47.42 KB)

A blessed Christmas to all, and a Happy New Year as well!

And Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends too!

I always "assumed" (and we all know how dangerous that can be!) that the frames were painted in Milwaukee before shipment. That's the way they are delivered to the remaining plants that use body-on-frame construction today, and A. O. Smith would have had facilities to do that kind of volume painting of frames. Evidently Packard didn't have room to turn around in Conner without bumping into something else, so it's doubtful that they would have dedicated any space to a frame painting area. The frames in Mr. Pushbutton's photo look nice and consistently dark, too.

Kevin

John, do you happen to recall what the source was for the executive hierarchy of the three-way merged firm? I thought that Nance had maintained in his interviews that Studebaker was always part of the master merger plan, because otherwise he never would have had anything to do with Studebaker.

When you mention Abraham from Hudson in the list, I assume you're referring to A. E. Barit (i.e. Abraham Edward Barit)?

I wonder if Packard could have made a business case for a body change for 1957 without sharing some of the cost with the Studebaker line? I guess that would be a question for the Forum thread "Had They NOT Merged!"

Kevin