Hello... the 8 x 10 glossy B&W photo I have is similar to the first photo here. It shows a view from the north, looking over what was then Harper Avenue. My photo is from Packard Information Service and is so labeled. And my photo is dated "1946" and has an original text caption pasted on the rear from Packard.

Again, there was just no advantage for Packard to abandon all this and drag everything all the way out to WIllow Run (I know this seems like a quick trip today, but Expressway or not, it was a real trip out there from Detroit back in the 1940s-50s).

My dad was friends with boxer, Joe Louis. Joe once had a big farm out by what is now Rochester. Now, today, anybody from the Detroit area would say, "Rochester? Oh... that's just up the road! I go shopping there!" But in the 1940s-50 there were no major roads going out there and no freeways. No interstate. I well remember it was considered a day's outing just to get there and back! Today, it's nothing.

A trip to Kensington Park was a real ordeal. I remember sitting dead stopped in endless lines of overheated cars back in the early 1950s just trying to get there and back. Today? It's nothing. Get in the car, jump on the highway and zzzip! You're there! But it just wasn't like that back then.

And as I have said before my grandmother had property out in Belleville and the direction of Willow Run ...and back then it was a big deal to drive out and back from Detroit. I remember. A lot of things have changed when it comes to transportation, time to get there and effort required.

And there is still the issue of the Briggs body plant. Where were the bodies going to come from? Briggs? A short trip from Conner Avenue to EGB was going to be switched all the way out to WIllow Run in the 1940s and 50s? Or if Packard was going to set up its own body plant...? Wow.

All this is interesting to dream about-especially today. But I remember the reality of these trips. While the distance and times today seem (and now are) insignificant, it was once very different. And if we wanna talk about JJN and Packard going BK in 1956-57 from the expansions it did in fact make, that fate just would have been sooner had it tried anything as suicidal as Willow Run. The expense alone would have turned the company's pockets inside out so fast the bell would not have even been heard!

Quote:

Yes, this has been an interesting thread.

RE: has my photo been uploaded to this site... No. But I believe a similar one was posted in one of the threads. I rarely upload photos. That in itself could become a career!

RE: Cadillac and Clark... People conveniently forget that Cadillac was doing many of the very same things with their vehicle construction and their plant as Packard was. Packard had bodies trucked over from Briggs on Conner... Cadillac had bodies trucked over from Fisher Body off of Grand Blvd. Packard had multiple buildings... Cadillac had multiple buildings. But Cadillac had GM steering the big ship and ultimately, that (and some increasing commonalities with other GM makes) was the big reason everything ended up at Poletown.

As far as efficiency at Willow run and in lengthy acreage vs.multiple stories... there can probably be endless arguments for the value of each. And each have merit. Having worked in both... AND having done a stint or two on movie lots, I can assure you, I have experienced times when an elevator ride would have been far preferred over a long sojourn to the back 40 someplace (which then requires an equally-long ride back). Dropping components or even bodies through a hole in the ceiling rather than having to go on a cross-country trip over distances does have some advantages. And... Dearborn assembly (another place I spend a few months long ago) operated just fine with multiple stories. Production of Mustangs, Falcons and Rancheros was monumental in the 1960s there.

For all of the postings and musings regarding why Packard didn't buy, want or need Willow Run, I believe Packard answered this very question in a very direct way in 1946.

An 8 x 10 glossy photo I have from Packard News Service showing a view of the Packard plant from Harper Avenue in Detroit was issued in 1946. Here is part of what the caption on the rear of the photo states:

"New buildings added during Packard's war production of aircraft and marine engines, can be seen in the foreground. The total represents MORE manufacturing floor area than famed Willow Run."

There was zero reason the schlep everything from EGB all the way out to Willow Run... which would have been a colossal waste of money-even if they had it to waste.

Packard said it themselves officially... in 1946... and well before the arrival of James J. Nance. So the attitude and stance of the company regarding WIllow Run was already in place long prior to JJN's arrival.

Ahhh... hard to see whether a mirror or spotlight in the photo. But Joe indeed had a couple of Patricians in exactly this color scheme and one was almost identical condition when I last saw it many years ago. He often installed Yankee mirrors on the left front fender in this same position. Thus the thought that it might be one of his old ones...

Hello, I believe I recognize this car as once having been in the stable of the Greatest V8 Packard Collector I ever knew...Joe Clayton. He had a couple in this color scheme and he sometimes added Yankee Pacesetter rearview mirrors to them (which this car appears to have?).

Joe lived in a Los Angeles suburb and owned many a 1955-56 Packard over the years. Many of these cars were merely shuttled off to new owners that Joe believed would take care of them. That's about all I can tell you. No idea who he sold it to or traded it to, but obviously that person was in the Air Force at one point.

Quote:

Hello. Yes, Dave Scott's Plainsman roof influenced a whole string of cars. But so did the design work of Dick MacAdam, Dick Teague and the great Bill Schmidt. Few seem to realize this today, but the Plainsman's stepped roof was actually intended to be an airscoop for the flow-through ventilation to rear seat passengers! Thus the reason for the step. And yessss, it worked. Ask me how I know.

As far as Nance taking Packard designs with him to FoMoCo... if I recall he got stuck on the Edsel project (we all know where that went-but it also had many similarities to the proposed 1957 Packards) and ultimately Lincoln-Mercury. But while JJN probably had some input and influence over at L-M, the designs for 1958-60 Lincolns and Continentals were pretty much already set by the time he arrived there. So let's not attribute this all to JJN... but instead Ford stylist-gone-Packard, Bill Schmidt. Bill had BIG influence on the Detroit 1957 Packards that never got built. AND Bill probably had serious input on the Predictor, although my friend, Tom Beaubien says that Dick MacAdam was Predictor's primary designer. Tom ought to know since he is one of two men who actually built the original Predictor scale model upon which the actual car was based!

You can read alllllllllll about the roof, design migrations (and yes, that actual term is used), and the similarities of 1958-60 Continental (not Lincoln) to Predictor in the Summer, 2008 issue of The Packard Cormorant magazine #131. This back issue is available through The Packard Club. The history of the Predictor was written in this issue by Leon Dixon.

Finally, if you look very closely at the top leading edge of the roof (above the windshield) on the 1957 Four Hundred photo shown you will see something else never mentioned, but kindred to the Plainsman. Roof vents. While I don't believe the 1957 vents were real in the proposal, there WAS talk of making them operational so that windows did not have to be rolled down for flow-through ventilation. Where would the air go once inside? Take a look at the rear view illustration of a 1957 Packard. See those black slots above the rear window? Exit vents... uh... just like at the base of the backlite window on 1964 Thunderbird. And who else was trying air vents at the top of the windshield in 1957?? Try 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser. Yesss, it had adjustable air vents at the top corners of its windshield.

Oh... and where did Dick MacAdam end up? Why... over at Chrysler, of course!

Ahhh... but Brownlie's illustration does not depict a lower roof. Only the illusion of one. Again, that would have been an engineering hard point. If you look closely at Brownlie's illustration with you notice it merely has a smaller (shorter) rear backlite window. The difference from Black Bess is that Brownlie's design adds a heavy wide band of ripply chrome at the top edge of the rear window. All Black Bess does is move the quarter window forward, delete the wide ripply band of chrome and raise the height of the backlite rear glass. It does not change the height of the roofline at all. Just a common design illusion. I am certain the dimensions with the exception of the glass height at the rear were the same.

And yessss, I know right where Dixon is... couple more exits up the freeway-if one is headed toward San Francisco.

RE: the wrap-around windshield and dogleg created by the reverse-angle A-pillar, read my comments about how the Plainsman also originally had this feature.

Quote:



Hello Dave... I actually rode in the Plansman a couple of times... and I found this car when it was claimed lost to the car world for many years. Sitting in the rear seat was not much different than sitting in the rear seat of a 1955-57 two-door Chevy Nomad or Pontiac Safari wagon. In fact, the Plainsman was better! Why? Because it had far more headroom. AND the cool flow-thru ventilation (WHICH Ford was crowing about in 1964 as if they invented it)!

Plainsman was also WAY ahead with a lot of other features:

? Reverse-facing 3rd-row rear seat. As for talking to kids riding backwards in this seat... it never seemed to be a problem for the thousands upon thousands of GM, Ford and Chrysler cars that had it in production! Our 1961 Oldsmobile had it (by the way with body built by Ionia division of Mitchell-Bentley who did 1953-54 Caribbeans). Our 1963 Chevy Impala had it. We never had any problems and frankly, the kids loved it! Only our seat and almost all other production 3rd-row seats until very recent years were not power retractable. Again... a very way ahead feature.

? POWER retractable rear seat

? Power retractable assist step plates. THESE didn't happen on production cars until years and years later and they weren't retractable! And nobody had to climb over the tail gate... for this very reason... just like on production cars that followed decades later. As the dealers used to say, entering a station wagon with rear-facing 3rd row seat and step plates was "a 2-step operation": step up on the step plate...step into the seat well. Done. The tailgate was never in the equation.

? Hidden spare stowed in the rear quarter. Now, come on... how many wagons and SUVs copied this feature even decades later?!

? Power rear tail gate (again...?)

? Power retractable tailgate backlite window (again..?)

? Built-in hinged skirts (okay GM Le Sabre had this feature first, but they yanked it off of the so-called "update" version-which is what people see today and think it is how the car looked-and then GM cut the rear wheels open in the body later. Gad!).

? Power retractable left tail light assembly with hidden gas filler (by the way, this feature was also planned to be on Packard Predictor... until Chrysler slapped a patent on it and Predictor-at the last minute-ended up leaving the filler in...the trunk!!!!). Come on... give it up for this feature huh? You KNOW it's cool!

As I said previously, the "fat, stubby" look of the Plainsman came about as a direct result of Chrysler meddling with Dave Scott's beautiful original design. Dave's design had a sweeping reverse-angle wrap-around windshield... exactly (and I do mean exactly) like Black Bess and the planned 1957 Packards. See the forward slanted line of the roof section that leads right into the parting line at the rear of the door? That same line and angle was originally on the Plainsman windshield A-pillar design. And it made the car look very sleek. So IF you would not like the dogleg on the Plainsman, you would not have liked it on the 1957 Packards and Clippers either... because it was the same design. Likewise on the 1954 Panther for that matter. Same thing. You can see how it was intended to look if you read the original history of this car written by Leon Dixon back in the 1970s for Hemmings Special-Interest Autos magazine.

Today's auction companies want to convince you that somehow Virgil Exner did all this. The auction folk are either unaware of the correct history or purposely choose to ignore it and make up their own. Either way this history published in Hemmings Special-Interest Autos magazine was the real, true story of the Plainsman and how it came to be. AND it was the first time that Dave Scott rather than Virgil Exner was credited with doing this design-in total (except for the ridiculous vent window and mangled windshield). You can find more Dave Scott designs featured on other cars and even in Esquire magazine (where some thought his work was that of Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky).

Anyway, once Chrysler turned this beautiful design by one into a design by committee and they mangled it with the huge ungainly vent window, it gave the illusion of changing the proportions of the car completely. Brownlie and others at Chrysler though this kind of wrap-around windshield "looked too GM" (they apparently never noticed it on Packard Panther). Instead of having a swept-forward streamlined look, the eye now sees a giant vertical vent window that wrecks the theme and goes with nothing on the car. No wonder it now looks odd to some.

As for Packard influence on AMC cars of following years... yesss... but that was unavoidable with one Richard Teague steering the design ship over at that company. AND if you are really observant on AMC sedans, you will note that they used identical ribbed aluminum extrusions around some of the greenhouse glass (like the doors) after Packard's demise. Just like it was used on the 1957 Detroit-built Packard designs that never made production. Look at them closely. These little extrusions are even on Black Bess aound the door glass... just like later AMC cars. Kinda makes ya go... HHhhhhmmmmmm!

Quote:

Yes, but before we start patting Bill Brownlie on the back over the greenhouse and beltline indentation on the final versions of the proposed 1957 Detroit-built Packard designs it is important to know how this stuff works.

? Most production automobiles are designed with engineering "hard points" already set in place... prior to designers sitting down and putting pen to paper. For instance, the greenhouse size, shape, dimensions of the glass, etc. Even what may seem to be a design/styling feature like the beltline indentation with the rear upsweep MAY be the result of an engineering hard point. For instance to increase body rigidity or reduce "drumming" in sheet metal panels. So we really don't know how, why or where this feature originated...Richard Teague, Bill Schmidt, Bill Brownlie, or an engineer someplace.

? We do not know when these illustrations were actually made...before, after or during the time when the indent and greenhouse may already have been suggested or even set as hard points. Thus, even if the issues of the greenhouse and beltline indentation were purely for styling (and they probably were not) there is no way-especially at this late date and not knowing more details-to determine precisely who or what influenced who or what.

? Finally, I happen to know personally that Bill Brownlie was not at all fond of "doglegs" created by reverse-sweep, wrap-around windshields (which the illustrations in question so obviously have). Bill told me this very thing when I interviewed him in the 1970s for a story on Dave Scott's (NOT Virgil Exner's) Plymouth Plainsman. The first thing that came out is that he and others at Chrysler resented the original reverse-sweep wrap-around shape of the Plainsman windshield-which was just like the proposed 1957 Packard and like the Packard Panther, etc.etc.etc. So? They tampered with poor Dave's design and the net result was a hideous, huge vertical vent window installed on the actual car built at Ghia. Just ruined a perfectly harmonious design and made it look fat rather than sleek by changing the locus of the eye to the vertical. The entire design perspective was changed just from tampering with the windshield. So why would Bill be promoting design that he claimed he disliked? Unless it was already set as a hard point!

Anyway, offered for what it is worth...

Quote:

Again, as I said in an earlier post, there are many mistaken ideas regarding the Belmont. And the Chrysler Concept Cars book has a few serious mistakes and omissions in there. Putting this all on Bill Prance is not accurate either. And again, as I stated previously, there is a Packard connection.

As far as the Granada is concerned, Creative and M-B only worked with what they were handed. It is not as if they styled the car... at least with the exception of somebody, somewhere along the way adding chopped-off Panther/Clipper tail lights onto the Granada... and that's another story for another time.

Finally, the presumption that the Panthers were a reaction to the release of GM's Corvette is mistaken. If anything, it was just the reverse. GM was just one of the first major car makers out of the box with one, but while others were working on the same ideas at the same time. Everybody from backyard mechanics to major car companies was working on a fiberglass sports car in the very early 1950s. There wasn't a car magazine published at the time that wasn't buzzing about fiberglass bodies.

Again, as I have stated earlier, Packard was already working on making a fiberglass (or what they initially called "plastic") car well before the war. George Walker and John Reinhart were two of the designers working on this project. This is well documented by at least 1941. By the postwar period, the work resumed, but not on any urgent basis. It is my belief that Jim Nance simply switched the priority on fiberglass to "urgent" as of his beginning with Packard. AND, I also believe that Nance rejected the existing designs that he was first shown and this created the stage (and the urgency) for the Panthers to be designed and built. Nance was not a man who liked to sit around and suck cigars while musing forever ad nauseum about doing something. He shared a philosophy with Earle C. Anthony whose slogan was "...if an idea is worthwhile, don't just sit around talking about it...DO IT! If not, forget it." Despite all of the nasty barbs over the years aimed at Nance... he wasted little time getting into action on what he thought (or was advised) were worthwhile ideas.

Of course, the 1954-1/2 Panthers with the 1955 cathedral tail lights were only basically cosmetic changes. The engines were still non-supercharged straight 8s. The exhaust was routed out of one port of the dual exhaust ports on the rear bumper. The other was a dummy outlet. This information and more was also covered 30 years ago in the original Spring, 1984 issue of The Packard Cormorant magazine history of the Packard Panthers written by Leon Dixon.

The only functional/engineering changes with these cars that were obvious was the addition of a hood scoop and other changes intended to assist in cooling since these cars were quickly discovered to have a tendency to overheat during normal driving-which these latter two Panthers experienced most. Both also had "wind wings" originally added to the A-pillar with the Mitchell version eventually having an actual quarter/vent style window added. But no V8.