A few further remembrances from that day (and shortly thereafter) . . . A few of the dealership mechanics and salesmen nosed around the two cars a bit as well, until Bob Perry chased them away (and back to work!). I don't think any of them had ever heard of the Facel Vega. They didn't much care for the suicide doors either. . . . "Yeah, they look great, but wait 'till you drive over some railroad tracks". A few days after the cars were together, some of the salesmen were trying to figure out what the Facel Vega's price tag was (it was around $13,000 - even more than the Mercedes-Benz 300). At no time did anyone mention the possibility of a Packard-based Facel Vega Excellence, even though a couple of guys (including me) thought it had a distinct Packard flavor about it. One of the salesmen wondered what kind of engine it had, and the mechanics all ribbed him about not knowing a 392 Chrysler Hemi when he heard one.

Other than a few visits by Mercedes-Benz zone reps, I don't recall any further visits by M-B executives and darned few from Studebacker-Packard execs either. Of course, by 1966 Studebaker was gone. The A. Robert Perry dealership hung on into the late 1970's as a Mercedes-Benz dealer, eventually closing and now it's a video store.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

Most Packard afficianados have heard the tale of the proposal to rebadge the Facel Vega Excellence as a Packard. While Jean Daninos, father of the Facel Vega, said he was unaware of such a proposal (although he never said he would have been opposed to it), the rumor continued to surface in numerous places over the years and made it into print in some of the very few books printed on the Facel Vega. A couple of them even showed artists renderings of such a car. It was undeniably handsome, but whether or not it could ever have succeeded as a Packard is certainly a debatable point. Anyway, as the story goes, Studebaker-Packard at that point had a marketing contract with Mercedes-Benz, who supposedly did not want a competing car to their own in S-P showrooms so they discouraged the deal . . . If there ever really was one. And that was that. Or was it?

In the early 1960's I was working as a lot boy (one of my first jobs) at the local Studebaker-Packard / Mercedes-Benz dealership here in Syracuse, NY . . . A. Robert Perry Sales in the valley area. As I recall, they also sold Jeeps, in the pre-AMC days. I distinctly remember a meeting back in the new car prep area (which was rare enough, especially since that was kind of "my area", and even rarer because no one asked me to beat it). Anyway, there were a couple of VERY interesting cars side by side in the bays. One was a new Mercedes 300 "Adenauer" pillarless hardtop, which I knew was in the Mercedes-Benz line (I "gathered"a lot of dealer catalogs, which thankfully I still have). To the best of my knowledge we had never sold one new, they were well over $10,000 and pretty old-fashioned looking, although beautifully made. They always struck me as a German Rolls-Royce. Next to it was a low-slung 4-door pillarless hardtop with suicide doors and tail fins, unlike anything I had ever seen before. It had stacked headlamps, an upright grille, and red hexagons on the wheel covers. I thought for a moment that it might be a factory prototype of a new Packard, but the name was lettered across the deck lid - "Facel Vega". The interior was out of this world, leather buckets, a huge console, and yards of wood. As you can probably tell, I was properly amazed. I found out through eavesdropping (hey, it WAS my area!) that the Facel belonged to a Syracuse University professor from France, and was one of the few in the USA and maybe the only one on the East coast at the time. It was a deep maroon with a black top, and black wall tires. Not all tarted up like some of those you see at car shows today. Anyway, there were a couple of gents from Mercedes-Benz there to look it over and they had mixed reviews. They thought the styling made their 300 look very old, but the suicide doors struck them as a huge problem for body integrity and stiffness. I would have certainly agreed about the styling if they had asked me (they didn't- I was trying to stay invisible) but I thought the suicide doors were neat. As it turned out, they were right about the doors. I remember them saying that their replacement for the 300 was coming soon, and it would be everything the 300 was not and then some. This apparently was a reference to the forthcoming Grand Mercedes 600. In any case, both groups of executives (Mercedes-Benz and Studebaker-Packard) looked both cars over for most of the day, then left. The Facel Vega was driven back to its owner, who I heard got the use of a new Mercedes for the day although I don't know which model. The M-B executives took the 300 with them . . . Just as well, as I said we had never sold one. So what does all this mean?

Was there actually a plan for Studebaker-Packard to market the Facel Vega as an updated Packard? Can it be just a coincidence that those two cars came together that day to be inspected side-by-side? And most importantly, why the hell hadn't someone invented the cell phone camera 50 year earlier? I will never, never forget that day or the sight of that Facel Vega. As I said, whether it ever would have made a decent Packard or not, we'll never know. But it sure as hell impressed me at the time . . . I remember the growl of its Hemi V-8 as it wheeled out of the dealership, and that raised a few M-B executive eyebrows as well.

So who knows? What do YOU think?

That's a very pretty car.

This seems like a sounder and more sustainable business model than any merger, few of which ever worked out in the long term. Packard needed to be Packard to survive, it really isn't any more complicated than that. I agree with suggestion of styling commonality instantly recognizable top-to-bottom as a Packard, and also with the two-tiered V-8 plan.

While hindsight is nearly always 20/20, I think that the issues you raised were there for everyone to see even in 1954. You're correct, it was indeed a pivotal year. Sadly, they missed their opportunity and never caught up.

Yep, the fake, stick-on bullet holes tell you all you need to know. You can buy two sheets full of them for a few bucks. Not the way to sell a Packard, and I agree with the other posters 100%, value the car on its own merits only.

There were also a number of Studebaker Transtar-based pickups built in 1957 or 58 for export to Argentina. Something about the South American dealer having a license to import Packards, but not Studebakers. They were basically stock Transtars with a big Packard decal across the front of the hood, and also on the tailgate. Certainly not true Packard trucks by any means, but an interesting historical sidelight. Photos can be pretty easily found on the web.

I think the vertically stacked headlamps might have actually worked pretty well with the hooded 1956 Packard front fenders . . . And in our "4-Company merger" scenario, you might even have been able to use the bezel and assembly from the 1957 Nash Ambassador.

Nothing better for a company try to do "Styling on a Shoestring" than finding an acceptable update in the existing parts bin!

I took a few crude Photoshop liberties with PSW's very nice Patrician model . . . . a little less chin, a little more butt, and a little more discreet rear wheel opening. I think this design might have had some real possibilities!

<a href="http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/fyreline/?action=view?t=Packard_31-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/fyreline/Packard_31-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Yep. I like your thinking.

Under the scenario you describe, I can see a potential showdown developing between Nance and Frazer. One mitigating factor may be Joe looking towards retirement. In any case, I would love to see some drawings of those Packard-based Ambassadors and Hornets. Picking up styling cues from their respective predecessors, they might have turned out to be pretty damned fine-looking cars.

I tend to agree that Mason appears to have been a "take charge" type of guy, and while this is certainly an admirable trait in an auto executive it can be a liability when you're talking merger. Nance would have none of it - as you've pointed out (correctly, I believe) Nance was not overly enamored with "quirky" styling, and letting someone else call the shots at Packard - especially someone from a company whose cars Nance probably didn't care for all that much - just wasn't going to happen. As it turned out, Studebaker was no better a fit, especially when the true state of their finances became apparent. of course, Mason was gone by then and as for Hudson, they were already dead, they just hadn't been given a decent burial yet. Tough sledding for the independents in the mid-1950's, especially as the Big Three heated up their sales race. Too bad, some really interesting cars might have come out of any combination of them. After all, the few cars we DID end up getting from S-P were, at the very least, something a bit different. As for AMC, they did pretty well for what they had. What might a four-make merger have wrought?