Tough nut to crack.

Attach file:

---

  (28.80 KB)


  (28.18 KB)

Quote:


Here's one idea on how to integrate the classic grill. Carries over cathedral taillight theme to the front. Virgil Exner explored this type of front corner design throughout the 50s.

Couldn't fiqure out how to add the headlights in a nice way so hid them.

Opinions and suggestions always welcome. And again, many thanks to the owner!

Attach file:

---

  (28.11 KB)

Great assessment. Not sure how a vertical grill could have worked after the 1947s without being retro but am sure a good designer could have figured it out. Teague was on to something with the narrow grill motif coupled with hidden headlights although the grill seemed to protrude too much in side view. 1940 to the late 50s was a tough transition time for front styling. Always thought the 51 Hudson was a great attempt. 1951 Packard was as you said but the overall body contours and grill theme did have potential with lower height a la the Pan American; wish Packard had kept and refined the idea. Second generation Cadillac CTS is much improved over first because the designers had time to mull things over. Cadillac mulled over and sweetened the same theme all through the 40s and 50s.

The original Clipper's more classic Thirties shape, with its pinched-in body forward of the B-pillar, rear pontoons, V-windshield and tall hood might have made a great final go around for the vertical grill and front pontoons. Kind of like how the 1933 Dietrich Sport Sedan capped off Twenties styling in its final glorious form. Packard rarely did breakthrough body shapes first but it often did them best; problem is these were usually customs and semi-customs. Packard would have helped itself greatly had it mass produced the custom look with the same consistency and fervor it poured into its engineering.

Top 3Q view gives a better look at the trimmer pinched in sides and traditional front.

Attach file:

---

  (81.87 KB)

Quote:

Post-war? Pretty much. Look at Hudson. They were doing fine with the step down, carving out a nice little niche for themselves. The Big 3 weren't about to touch such a technology. In 1951 they had a little cash to spend and instead of updating the car, Barit directs it towards the Jet. And instead of making a dazzling compact, he whips up an uninspired design. He was totally responsible for that car. Nobody made him do it, he made that wrong decision all by himself. Another leader might have taken a totally different path. Now, he also did the '48 so sometimes these folks give, sometimes they taketh away. My point is that PEOPLE, not circumstances, make things happen in this industry to a great extent and always have. Why did GM take off like Secretariat in the 30s? Because of Sloan and Earl. They were a two man wrecking crew that wrought havoc on Packard and everyone else not because of their size but because of their gutsy innovative good looking products and mastery of the marketplace.

Fred - I must point to companies like Porsche, BMW, Mercedes and VW. Granted they operated from a home base outside the U.S. and sold cheaper cars there (except VW) but they came to the U.S. as small two bit players and grew globally in no small measure because of their success here. Size can be a double-edged sword over the long haul, as we have recently painfully seen in Detroit.

Bummer, couldn't get the link to bring up the video.

I know these things are easy to crank on from 50+ years out. There is just this nagging suspicion I have that Packard went down in the hands of a professional manager. Tens of thousands of us just went through 10 years of living heck at a not to be mentioned Big 1 of the 3 and can tell you it was the so called pros who caused most of the problems. They are a far cry from the entrepreneurs and car folk who built these companies and they would be just as happy running a staple company so long as their title and pay were right.

Hey, does anyone have any weight info on the 245, 282, 356, 473 or V8? This discussion about V12s might benefit from a little data. With it we might be able to do a weight walk from the Eight to a medium-large Twelve of Auburn V12 displacement.

Lincoln sold quite a few Zephyrs pre-war in part because some buyers bought into the V12 dream. But as you say, the division wasn't profitable. I'll be honest, I wouldn't go to the mattresses defending the need for a V12 at Packard. It would have been very nice indeed to have had at certain times in their history as I mentioned, but its absense was not the company's undoing. The 356 and '55 V8 were both great motors. The 1915 Twin Six did serve notice that the company was a force to be reckoned with.

I would go to the mattresses on Packard's difficulties with styling, anticipating body style trends and keeping their Seniors propped high on a pedestal. All starting in the late 30s / early 40s.

Must disagree with the longstanding argument that the Independents were doomed. AMC defied the odds and grew quite strong. That they later lost their way is not conclusive proof that their earlier success was srictly a fluke or that there were no means to keep the success going. I think these things always come down to key people in key positions at key times.

Ha ha!!! That was certainly a workout. Might you be Aaron??? Or did you just happen upon it?

Agree on the V12 comments. One thing Packard might have been able to do in the late 30s/early 40s was use the tooling and some parts from the 282 to make a V12 of about 423 CID. Ot they could have based it on the 245 I-6 to give 490 although that might have been over the top. A 423 V12 would have cranked out about 190 HP. Perfect. Put it in the new Clipper with styling along the lines previously discussed and call it a One Ninety. There's your Sixty Special fighter.

Packard's V12 packages nicely under the shorter '38 Senior's hood and seems to belong there. But beyond a few instances like that, is a V12 really necessary? Was it ever? Ford beat Ferrari's V12 with a pushrod V8. Jaguar and Aston did the same at various times with a Six. Pierce's Six was more powerful that the original Twin Six (someone please correct me if wrong). And Packard's own Super Eight had plenty of power and made for a loooong hood that added 50 HP just looking at it. The '55 V8 was also plenty big and powerful. So looking at this rationally...

Problem is, can't look at this rationally! The world would be lesser without the sound and charisma of a Ferrari V12 or the smoothness of any V12. And although that Pan American I showed would have done fine with Packard's new V8, had they put an OHC V12 under the hood it might have become the American equivalent of a Ferrari. A V12, in the right car, at the right time can create an air of mystery and specialness that can rocket a manufacturer into rarified air. My conclusion is that Packard could have gone V12 at select times to their advantage. A cost-effective and weight efficient 423 in the late 30s in a hot new torpedo sedan could have kept Cadillac at bay. And in the mid-50s perhaps an optional V12 with hints of race car technology, in a hot car with a sexy low body, could have reestablished the grand old company's exceptionalism.

Thanks for the info on the torsion suspension, very informative. If lowering proved unworkable could always modify the Clipper suspension but it sure would be nice to throw every advancement Packard had developed at this car... assuming one had the money to do such a project in the first place.

Here's a few takes on what's possible. Once again many thanks to the owner of the beautiful '53 Convertible that these images are based on.

The first is a standard convertible with the body from the door's rear edge forward sectioned 2 inches. The nice thing about this design is that it retains the original decklid, lights and grill and involves only slight modification to the rear fender. The rest of course is major surgury. The key element is the body/fender kick-up just behind the doors, giving the car's rear half some uplift and shortening the backlight when the top is up for a very sporty appearance. It's an old trick still in common use today. Fins served the same purpose. Had Packard stuck with an evolutionary design theme for 1955 and coaxed more money from the bankers they might have been able to take this approach. Not to open up a can of worms but Cadillac was very consistent from 1941 onward with their design language while Packard was more like Lincoln of that era - constantly changing. Perhaps greater continuity might have been prudent.

The second uses the Pan American theme. Car's front half is sectioned the same 2 inches relative to rear to give the beltline kick-up, then the entire body is sectioned an additional 1.5 inches. Suspension is lowered 1.5 inches too. This is my favorite.

Attach file:

---

  (92.75 KB)


  (86.26 KB)