One more "yes" vote. Sure, there will always be the purists who will decry any deviation from "The Packard as Packard built it", but unless you intend to submit your car for concours judging it just makes good sense to make it enjoyable to actually drive. I think most of us would draw the line at dropping in a Chevy small-block or fitting a Station Sedan with 22" chrome spoked wheels, but even those actions would be preferable to seeing a Packard neglected, junked and eventually crushed.

You have a Packard you drive and enjoy, and that entitles you to modify it as you see fit. Looks to me like you're doing it right.

I guess I'll have to be in the minority on this issue. While I certainly appreciate an original car (and we all know the mantra, "It's only original once"), I also appreciate expertly-restored full classics such as the Pebble Beach contestants are wont to be. I think of cars like this year's winning Packard, or the Duesenberg Twenty Grand. These vehicles are more art than automobile, and I cannot begrudge their being treated as such. Yes, they are destined to spend their lives in pampered (and largely sequestered) glory, and to many auto enthusiasts that's just wrong. After all, ships may be safest in port, but that's not what ships are for. These aficionados insist that cars must be driven, or they are nothing but giant model kits. Likewise, they should not be "over-restored", although there is plenty of room for disagreement on what constitutes crossing the line. Are the owners of these gilded-lily classics strictly in pursuit of trophies, to inflate their egos and perhaps enhance the value of their cars? Sure, some are . . . But I think it would be painting with much too broad a brush to accuse every owner of a 100-point car of somehow ruining the hobby. Perhaps that word bears repeating; HOBBY. At the Pebble Beach level of competition, is there.any real connection to the "old car hobby", or have these shows transcended the local "show and shine" competitions to the point where the fact that automobiles are even on display is secondary? If that's the case, leave the cars safely home in their hermetically sealed garages and just display your checkbooks. Let that decide the winner.

No, the owners of these regal cars want the cars to be SEEN. Seen, admired, coveted, lusted after. Perhaps their reasons for doing so are best left to the psychologists - but the fact that they DO show them enables mere mortals such as we to see them. And that's worth something, isn't it? The cars may be unrealistic representations of what they were when they were new. They are nicer, cleaner, neater, better finished . . . But are they better? I can see both sides of this issue, but the fact that a few folks with a LOT more money than I have, have chosen to spend it on cars such as these, at least means that I can see both sides of the cars, too. And the front. And the back. And the underside, and yes, you probably couldn't eat off of it from the factory in the 1930's.

But here it stands, in all it's glory. And for whatever reasons, phobias or manias brought it here . . . It sure is beautiful. Thank you for bringing it.

Yes, I completely agree on the door flex issues - it would seem that some sort of fix could have been engineered. As for the 50's-style wraparound windshield, Facel Vega actually fixed that themselves in the later versions of the car (which Facel enthusiasts call "EX2" cars). The very small number of the EX2 cars built had modern-style windshields and were shorn of their tail fins. Gave the car quite a different look.

I suppose S-P could have just sold the car as a Facel Vega, but I have to think that Mercedes-Benz would not have been happy about that - and after all, they did have a marketing agreement in place with Studebaker-Packard . . . Which, let's face it, was actually just Studebaker at that point.

Packard was gone, and it wasn't coming back.

Yes, that's correct . . . the red car pictured is a Vignale-bodied Packard, no relation at all to Facel-Vega. I can see where one might think so, though.

Yes, I'm familiar with the story . . . And you're correct, it would have had much more Packard content than the proposed Facel Vega - Packard would have . . . However, it would still be a shadow of what a Packard designed and built in-house would have been. That's not to say it would have been a bad car, the '56 Lincoln was a handsome car in its own right and with some deft Packard touches it may have been a real looker. But still, at the end of the day, would the public (and automotive press) have bought it as a 'real" Packard? It would be hard not to view such a car as a stopgap at best, or an admission of defeat at worst.

Either a '56 Lincoln-based Packard or a a Facel Vega Excellence-based Packard may have succeeded in the short term, preserving a grand old name for a few more years . . . And providing future collectors with a small number of stylish and distinctive automobiles. I don't believe either one had any chance of long-term success, or of preserving the Packard name for more than a few short seasons. Would it have been worth it?

All I know is, if they had built either one of them, I would want one today!

Quote:

Yes, I quite agree. As nice as it may have looked, the Facel Vega-based car wouldn't really be a Packard . . . any more than the scheme to use the 1956 Lincoln as a basis for a "new" Packard would have been. Sure, it looked great . . . but was it a Packard? No.

Wow - if your aim was not to disparage the Duesenberg you certainly took a pretty good shot at it. You are of course entitled to your own opinion. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Duesenberg. I would take one in a minute (if I could afford it, which I cannot) and enjoy it for what it is. I fear that Duesenberg aficianados wouldn't care for me either, as I would drive the HELL out of that beast. After all, ships are safest in port, but that's not what ships are for. Anyway, it's all good. We can't all like the same things.

I hear frequent similar arguments about how another of my all-time favorite cars, the Lamborghini Miura, was "not so great". Sure, there were faster, more comfortable cars available . . . but they weren't Miuras. Again, to each their own.

Packards were all about refinement, and in my opinion they did that better than anyone. It's such a shame that they don't exist today . . . but I suppose in today's culture they wouldn't be successful anyway. That was then, and this is now. So anyway, what motor are we going to drop into that Facel-Packard?

I still can't help but think that a Packardized Facel Vega Excellence with the big Packard V-8, Ultramatic, and those suicide doors would have been, in the final analysis, a stylish and elegant service department nightmare. Why not throw in the torsion-bar suspension as well? Might as well go for broke, emphasis on "broke". Further, Elwood Engel's Ford Thunderbird proposal that was upgraded to become the 1961 Lincoln Continental would have made the Facel-Packard (as nice as it looked) appear hopelessly dated by comparison. Facing the new Lincoln in the public eye, Cadillac shed its fins year by year as quickly as possible while Chrysler turned to (guess who?) Elwood Engel to make their 1964 Imperial a handsome car in the Lincoln mold. By comparison, the Facel Vega Excellence, even shorn of its wrap-around windshield and tail fins in the last few cars, was plainly a product of the late 50's. No way it could ever compete. At the end of the day, walking away . . . Running, maybe . . . From this project was the correct decision for all concerned. More's the pity for those of us who would have loved to see the car made anyway. Reality has a way of focusing your attention wonderfully.

I agree that the 1937 Packard Twelve, while a wonderful machine, is a bit Brobdignagian in execution. I'll stick with my dreamt-of Super 8. Don't be quite so quick to disparage the Duesenberg Model J, though. I have been blessed with the opportunity to drive two of these cars at different times in my life, and they are very, very impressive indeed. Bear in mind that ALL Duesenberg Model J's are really 1929's, and were bodied later over the years. In the context of 1929 automobiles, it's performance envelope was astonishing. They drive like a 1970's pickup truck with a big-block V-8 - which sounds bad until you are reminded once again that this was a car designed and built in the late 1920's. No, they are NOTHING like a Packard, be it in 1929 or 1937. There is nothing at all refined about a Duesenberg . . . But they are truly worth the ridiculous prices collectors pay for them. Again, just my opinion.

The last "big" classic I drove was a 1923 Ahrens-Fox Model P-S-4 fire engine with a Fox-built straight six of well over 1000 cubic inches driving a 1300-gallon per minute front-mounted piston pump. It was like riding on the outside of a World War 1 fighter plane. Fun, though.

According to Wikipedia (now THERE's an unimpeachable source!):
"The new Continental's most recognized trademark, front-opening rear "suicide doors", was a purely practical decision. The new Continental rode on a wheelbase of 123 inches and the doors were hinged from the rear to ease ingress and egress. When the Lincoln engineers were examining the back seats that styling had made up, the engineers kept hitting the rear doors with their feet. Hinging the doors from the rear solved the problem."

I would have thought it would go without saying that any Facel-Packard would not be likely to use a Chrysler-sourced engine . . . Which begs the question, what V8 might it have used? The Excellence I saw had the 1958-spec 392 Hemi, which had about 380 horsepower in Chrysler 300D trim but was rated at 360 horses in the Excellence. I don't think that Facel ever moved up to the Chrysler 413, which was not a Hemi design but was still rated at 380 horses in 300E trim. They did use the 355-horsepower Chrysler 383 in their later cars. What did Studebaker-Packard have available at the time? The 1956 374 cubic inch Caribbean-spec Packard V-8 had 310 horsepower and that was about as good as it got. Studebaker's highest- output V-8 would likely have been the rare R3 supercharged 304.5 cubic inch job used in a few Avantis, but that wasn't really available until late 1963. It made 335 horsepower. None of these seem like an equivalent replacement for the Chrysler V-8. I wonder what S-P's plan was, if in fact a Facel-Packard was ever really considered? It seems to me that a car of this stature (not to mention size and weight - at 4230 pounds the Excellence was no lightweight!) would require at least 350 horsepower and commensurate torque , and Studebaker-Packard simply had no engine that fit that bill.

What motor would YOU have put in it . . . Or would you have tried to cut a deal with Chrysler to continue to supply their big V-8 for the car? Do you think they would do so? Fascinating question.

I have never owned a complete Packard on my own - at least not yet - although I have been part-owner of a couple over the years as they were fixed up and resold. The quality of construction always impressed me. My "dream Packard" would be a 1937 Super 8 Touring Sedan. I would love to have said a Twelve in the same body style, but that's a little over the top. A Super 8 will do just fine, thank you. For my money there was no finer 1937 automobile produced anywhere in the world. I have driven a few examples of the '37 Super 8, and most of its competitors as well. The Packard wins, hands down. Just my opinion, of course.

There's been a lot of lively discussion over the years - and continuing to this day - regarding whether or not the lower priced 120 damaged Packard's reputation, if it "saved" the company (at least temporarily), or if it just postponed the inevitable. Obviously Packard felt the need to build it, and it did sell decently. su8overdrive makes a good point that it's difficult for a premium automaker to successfully reach downscale. Who wants a "cheap" Rolls-Royce? Also witness Cadillac's debacle with the unlamented Cimarron in the 1980's.

It really was a remarkable pairing for Mercedes-Benz to select Studebaker-Packard as their American marketing arm. Certainly they realized that GM, Ford and Chrysler were not realistic partners as long as they had Cadillacs, Lincolns and Imperials to sell. That only left the independents as an avenue to a pre-existing dealer and service base . . . And Studebaker-Packard definitely made more sense than AMC. Studebaker, with their Lark and Hawk featuring pseudo-Mercedes grille styling, and at least the memory of Packard quality, may have made the showrooms and service bays of the nation's S-P dealers the most appealing option available to Mercedes.

Some of the discussion in more recent years surrounding any potential Facel Vega Excellence-based Packard revival has centered around how (and how much) the Facel would need to be changed to perform its new role. Some have recommended the inclusion of the cathedral taillights, or some snazzy side trim and/or two-tone paint schemes. It's pretty much a given that the classic Packard grille would be required, but that actually looked very nice in the different artist's renderings I have seen. In my own opinion, and much to my own disappointment, I would have to suggest that the Excellence body would have to be re-engineered to feature conventional doors instead of the suicide-style that, while they were a stylish tour de force, represented a real Achille's heel as far as body stiffness and integrity were concerned. I've also been somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned the already established precedent of U.S. automakers "going overseas" for their ultra-luxury cars . . . Witness the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham (Pininfarina) and the Chrysler Crown Imperial limousines (Ghia). It didn't really represent all that much of a stretch for a French Packard to appear. Even the $13,000 price tag of the Facel Vega Excellence was right in line with the Italian-bodied Eldorado Brougham . . . Although it was never profitable for GM and who knows what a Facel-based Packard (called, perhaps, the Parisian?) would have ended up costing? In any case, I can't see the car selling in any kind of numbers that would justify the cost of producing it.

Which is a shame, because I would have definitely wanted one then, and even more so today. She would have been a tragic beauty, doomed from the start, but the heart wants what it wants.