I suspect that the difference in perception of popularity may've had something to do with dealer location and availability. We had a relatively strong dealership in my area of far west Texas and Packards were fairly well represented numerically on the roads, there. New ones became scarce after about 1953-54 but the 22nd and 23rd Series cars were fairly plentiful up through the mid to late 1960s and were still regularly being driven by little old grey-haired people and poor high-school students.

Unless there was some special strengthening in the cowl, I suspect it was quite a shaker on the road without the support of the windshield frame, kind of like the early Darrins.

I sincerely doubt that Studebaker-Packard had anything to do with the styling of this car.

White jeweled mudflaps would be a nice additional touch.

Correct, the original material was a woven welting and stapled to the skirt. Bolt in from the bottom to a welded and threaded piece above. I'm told the original bolts were sized to fit the lug wrench but can't verify.

The execution of this car is much better than the BS trying to claim a true lineage. Forget the rhetoric and look at the car.

Don't remember the discussion on this one and didn't think it official either. That's why I said thought it was nicely done compared to some of the others.

I think there was a post on here somewhere before where we all made fun of this clunker. I mean, come on! A "1956 Caribbean custom made by a former Packard designer" that has a Patrician serial number???


There's one born every minute!

Portlandon wrote:

"The "Clunker Bill" shows a lack of understanding of "sustainability." The environmental cost associated with building a new vehicle outweigh the savings associated with increasing your fuel consumption by anything but an astronomically high number (think 150%). So unless people are trading in old Suburbans for Vespas, you'll be hurting the environment more than helping it. The one benefit is the auto industry stimulus that would occur from added sales. However, it would be a one-time hit -- not a real solution to the many things that really ail the industry."

Speaking of "sustainability", consider the following:

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to, "DECREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL." Last year, 31 years later, its annual budget was $24.2 BILLIONS, it had 16,000 permanent federal employees and 100,000 private contract employees.

Have we gotten noticeably less dependent upon foreign oil?

Pretty efficient, huh?

This is the point where anyone with prior knowledge and the ability to add two and two together to get four would be slapping their foreheads and asking themselves, "What was I thinking?"

Instead, we're in the process of turning what remains of our banking industry and our auto industry over to a bunch of similarly forward-thinking bureaucrats.

I'd feel a lot better about the sustainability of the human race if we didn't just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again - all the while expecting a different result.

My Packard is sustainable as far as I'm concerned. I won't pollute the atmosphere as much with it nearly as much as the congressmen, senators, corporate executives and sustainability, "experts," flying around in their corporate jets and building plants to produce grossly overpriced merchandise that won't last until it's paid for if I drive it for another 40 years - unless we see fit to create yet another bureaucracy to, "regulate," it for, "environmental," purposes. How, "sustainable," in the overall scheme of industry and economy is another self-serving, non-productive giant bureaucracy?

Interesting concept & certainly had some thought behind it. Wonder if the Stude engine was as robust as envisioned though. Seem to recall reading that when developing the R series engines for Avanti and then Hawks etc, there was some limitations (aside from money) that they had to contend with. I believe Granatelli (or Paxton) made a few R5 engines which were bored out but the blocks had to be very carefully selected because there wasn't that much meat available.

More daydreams-

Having covered the Packard engine situation in a previous post, I would like to discuss the powertrain program for the whole of American Motors.

The engines for all makes and models would be based on the Studebaker V8. Simply because it was available from 1951 on, and at the time we are talking about it was the newest engine they had available, and the only modern OHV V8.

Fortunately the Studebaker was an excellent engine, very durable and economical if heavy. More on this later.

I have already discussed the use of the Studebaker engine as the basis for a new Packard V12.

The V8 would be used unaltered by Packard Clipper, Nash, and of course Studebaker. Hudson would also use this engine possibly in a larger form. More on this too.

The first thing to do would be to adapt this engine to all lines.

The next would be to develop a new OHV six cylinder, based on V8 components.

The idea would be to use the existing pistons, valves, bearings, etc. in a new 6 cylinder block.

This would save a lot of development time, and of course the more identical parts you make the cheaper they get.

Chevrolet used this same trick when they brought out a new six in 1963. The whole engine was based on the 283 V8 and many parts interchanged.

Another popular trick is to make various sizes of engine simply by changing the crankshaft stroke. This makes it possible to offer a choice of power plants at negligible cost.

Chrysler's slant 6 was an extreme example, the 170 cu in compact engine and the 225 long stroke full size car engine had the same pistons but the stroke differed by a full inch.



Ringing the changes on the Studebaker engine would give us a range from 168 cu in 105HP to 217 cu in and 187HP.

This would be plenty to be getting on with, and right in line with the rest of the industry. In fact it would probably be necessary to tone down the horsepower a little.

Another thing that was common in the industry was developing a new engine based on an old one. For example, Oldsmobile made their first V8 from 1949 to 1956 gradually enlarging it from 303 to 324 cu in. Then they redesigned it to a 371 for 1957 and 58, and revamped it again to a 394 that lasted from 59 to 64.

All the car companies did this. It cost money to make a new block, heads etc but they kept the same machine tools which was the big savings.

The trick here is to keep the same dimensions such as bore spacing and the distance between the crankshaft and camshaft so you don't have to tear up all your tooling.

The Studebaker block always seemed to have a lot of "meat" between the cylinders. I believe it would have been possible to redesign and enlarge this engine, to 350 cu in at least and possibly larger, depending how much room there was for a long stroke crank before you hit the camshaft.

There was a real explosion in engine sizes in the late 50s. The above mentioned Olds, the Pontiac 389, the new big block engines from Ford, Chev and Dodge in 1958, the even bigger engines from Lincoln and Chrysler going over 400 cu in.

Studebaker would have been about due for a new engine by then. Something in the 350 to 400 cu in range would have been perfect for the Hudson and high performance Studebakers like the Golden Hawk.

So there is the American Motors engine lineup for the 50s.

Existing Studebaker V8 for all cars except Rambler American , Studebaker Champion (or Lark) and senior Packards.

New Studebaker based V12 for Packard

New Studebaker based 6 for American, Champion (or Lark) and base engine for Studebaker, Rambler, Nash and Hudson.

New big V8 eventually, also Studebaker based, for Studebaker Land Cruiser (or Strato Cruiser)and Golden Hawk, Packard Clipper, Hudson Hornet, and Nash Ambassador.

This would have been in line with industry trends of the time and would have given American Motors a very competitive lineup at minimal cost.

As for transmissions the company was in good shape, with the Packard Ultramatic and the Borg Warner 3 speed used by Studebaker and Nash anyway.Hudson preferred the GM Hydramatic but that could have been remedied.

Eventually, say by the late 50s or early 60s it would have been necessary to develop a new 3 speed Ultramatic to stay competitive.

Manual transmission could have been obtained from the usual suppliers.

I believe the original material was a fabric anti squeak rather than rubber but could be in error on that. Also think it was stapled to top edge of skirt, not the fender. This is a cut from www.restorationspecialties.com showing their product. They also have a multitude of other items --clips, misc hard to find things, etc and is well worth a download of their catalog.

It sounds as if you are missing a capture nut as the holding bolt screws in from bottom into a welded nut on my car. Motor City Packards reproduces fender skirt nuts for 48-54 but one of the experts will have to tell you the differences--head size maybe-- since it isn't also mentioned for 55-6. The nice thing about a bolt as shown is the large head allows you to use the lug wrench to remove instead of looking for another wrench and SS or brass won't rust and break or tear the welded nut out when removing.

Attach file:

---

  (23.33 KB)


  (12.94 KB)