Packard Forum Index » General

Seems to me that everyone who has a car from vintages where sidemounts were available wants and has sidemounts.

Yet when you see cars without them, the flow of lines is just much better and you get to see what the designer saw....

Back in the day were they remotely as prevalent or is there a vast business devoted to providing sidemount fenders?

I agree with you on aesthetics--sidemounts make the hood look shorter, and I will add two other points. As a mechanic I despise them to the core of my being as they make the simplest adjustment or inspection a chore. Also in my limited experience with driving the beasties, the sidemount cars never seem to ride or steer as nicely as those without.

(Edited a bit, added some further comments).

The short answer is MANY, gradually diminishing in the years between 1935 and 1942. I agree that some body styles looked very much better w/o sidemounts, see a couple of photos I've attached that I believe demonstrate that. But remember, some buyers didn't necessarily want the sidemounts but wanted a rear trunk rack for luggage and to get that in many years and body styles pre-1935 you had to take the sidemounts (with a few exceptions like the 33 and 34 club sedans). Folks who bought their cars for touring would have been far more likely to have sidemounts so they could mount a trunk; folks who bought for jaunts around the neighborhood and short day trips didn't need the trunk rack and then it became a matter of style rather than necessity. Another factor in the earlier cars was the value in having dual spares - more than 1 flat tire in a day's driving wasn't all the uncommon in the earlier days, for example look at Frank Wemple's 443 roadster (bottom photo), dual rear-mounted spares; even dualed sidemounts (both on the same side) was reasonably common in the very early years. Probably a very significant percentge of cars 34 and back had sidemounts, they began to fade with the advent to built-in trunks. Another factor in decreasing sidemount hardware was the high volume of less expensive cars and more cost-conscious buyers compared to the years when only "senior" cars were offered. The sidemounts and trunk rack on my 34 was a very expensive option, slightly more than 10% of the base vehicle cost.

IMO the more formal the body style, the better the look with sidemounts. Ross may well be right about the heavier handling of cars with sidemounts, remember that sidemount-equipped models came with heavier front springs to offset the extra weight, something I doubt is often attended to when adding sidemounts to a car which originally didn't have them. Adding sidemounts to a vehicle that didn't originally have them without making the corresponding change in front springs no doubt results in a degradation of the ride quality.

Packard's illustrators for their showroom catalogs really knew how to show the car's best lines. Look specifically at the 1934 versus 1935 showroom catalogs - in 1934 (few models with built-in trunks) most models have them, in 1935 (built-in trunks available and a more flowing body style) most didn't.

The 443 photo courtesy of the CCCA, others by this writer.

Attach file:

---

  (140.25 KB)


  (134.95 KB)

Another photo study. Look at Al Pressman's 1940 one-off by Derham - very severely formal coachwork. Even though it has a built-in trunk, who was going to buy an extraordinarily expensive and formal closed car w/o sidemounts? Picture it in your mind without them and think of the social position of the buyer and the image he wanted to convey. In this case the car was purchased new by one of the principals in the Wall Street firm of Drexel, Lambert & Burnham and he certainly wanted the car to showcase his social position and wealth.

Attach file:

---

  (20.52 KB)

Good points. I wonder if the fitment % went up on 40 - 42 cars with AC because of the lack of trunk space.

Another good point, though the # of such cars that came with A/C was quite small, under 1000 a year or so I've read.

I actually never had much trouble working around the Deluxe Equipment. On the 16th and later series the motors are so hard to get at that another obstacle doesn't much matter. However, compared to most modern contrivances even those are a breeze.

A lot of open cars were converted back in the 50's and 60's so that five wheelers are scarce. Gordon Weber had a 10th series five wheeler that was really attractive. It's in Turnquist's book. Also, the cars ride a lot better without sidemounts. When they moved that weight away from the running board it created stability problems.

However, in a collision the Deluxe Equipment was a benefit. Once on the CCCA Caravan a boat trailer got loose and broadsided a 903 Dual Cowl Phaeton. It hit the driver's side sidemount and went down the side of the car. In another case someone I knew was being shaken down by the cops and was hit by a truck. The truck hit the side mount and bounced away.

In those days, you really needed the extra spare and the option was quite popular and judging from period pictures as popular as five wheelers although I don't think sales figures exist.

The big set back today is that taking the spare off to do serious motor work risks scratching paint jobs so spares come out only as a last resort.

My 1929 633 7 Passenger Sedan has a single sidemount on the left hand side only, and a trunk rack. That is how the car was built, it is also right hand drive and sold new in Australia that way. I think the car looks better from the RHS without the sidemount.
I wonder how many single sidemounts were made?