Packard Forum Index » General

With the wonders of modern graphics here's a Thanksgiving holiday what-if for 1955-57 line-up. Always thought Packard had a great chance but aside from avoiding the quality issues and a litany of other wrongdoings, they needed to lower the vehicle height and redirect the brand up. Key elements of this what-if include:

- bodies lowered 2 inches, taken out of midsection. No more chair-height seating, which would fade from American cars within a few years anyway
- front track widened 2 inches for straight-through sides that blend into the rear fenders. Effectively widens the front half of the car by 2 inches.
- frameless windows on sedan similar to '41 LeBaron Sport Brougham for body strength with sporty style
- 6" extended wheelbase limo and phaeton for unique 6-passenger response to Cadillac's 8-passenger limo
- reciprocate with Nash/AMC by purchasing its fabulous 1954 air conditioning system that became the industry standard
- drop the Clipper and focus on the $3,500 near luxury market (1955 New Yorker/Roadmaster volume: 120K) and $4,000+ luxury market (1955 Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial volume: 187K)
- $4,000+ Packard would have larger V8, torsion-level ride, interior upgrades and two-tone sides
- show the bankers mock-ups and beg them for the extra $10M to bring to production. The bankers were probably still open to the idea of a successful Packard in 1953.
- plan for volumes in the 60,000 range, split equally between the lower and higher priced models. Higher margins than Clipper would make these lower volumes profitable just like in the old days

Have also included a before/after image of the front to show the difference a 2 inch lower height and 2 inch wider body can make to proportions. Tried to work in the Panther show car theme, which I always thought had potential. The image is very rough, even a bit scary, but hopefully demonstrates the beneficial change in proportions.

Many thanks to owners of the '56 Executive that these images are based on. And as usual, all comments welcome.

Paul West

Attach file:

---

  (80.71 KB)


  (29.22 KB)


  (30.47 KB)

I think I like these better than some that were proposed. IMHO, some of the combo models or the joint production cars were ghastly and just as well they never saw light. The Predictor based ones would have been nice though.

I like these!

I think any what-if scenario ALSO has to assume that Jim Nance/Packard would have been able to persuade the banks/insurance companies/government that they would be successful and obtain the $$$$$$$$$$$$ needed....

My (and that's about all it's worth). These bodies don't "section" very well. Some rodders modified them, and at best I think the results are "OK." Also, so many of the body panels would have to be changed that I think it would've been more expensive than an "upgrade" would've been worth.

I think that the public saw the '55 models as truly new cars (which mechanically, they pretty much were) in spite of the body shell carryover that we all know was a gussied up 4-year-old design. The horizontal trim and paint on the seniors was an inspired choice for creating the illusion of a long, low design.

Personally, I think the steep sides would not have been that out-of-step with other makes for one more year. Look at the GM products for '57-- especially the ever-popular '57 Chebbie, a warmover of a warmover if there ever was one. Not that it's the same market as Packard, but still... Ford and Chrysler went whole hog for the upsized, longer and lower style for '57, but no way were Ford, Dodge and Plymouth on Packard buyers' radar.

So, the prudent thing to do, as I see it, would have been to hold off on the introduction of a hurried-up, all-new body and chassis, as was planned for '57, based on the "Black Bess" mule. Instead, do a mild upgrade of the '56 models for '57... assuring dealers they would get enough product and that QC would be vastly improved. Put Torsion-Level on all of 'em and hammer away at marketing the ride and handling.

Then for '58, introduce Predictor-styling based Senior models, like HH suggests, but on a very similar chassis and suspension as the '55-'56-'57 instead of changing the T-L too, as was planned. Why mess with a suspension design that had proven itself remarkably good out of the box, and didn't need to be upgraded after only two years. A new chassis and radically modified T-L such as the one planned for '57 was overkill, and a poor use of the R&D, engineering and tooling that went into the original Torsion-Level chassis. Why throw out such a gem and risk a possible flop that would tarnish the remarkable T-L image??

And get going quickly on some decent ADVERTISING! Nance moaned and groaned about the lousy ad campaigns and the need to change agencies from day one, but not enough happened. You can blame design and manufacturing all you want, but inadequate marketing--to customers and dealers-- contributed mightily to Packard's demise IMO. Packard had long rested on its laurels and assumed that Quality would sell itself, but that could not work in the new consumer economy.

Well I guess that's more like 3 cents worth (or 1 cent depending on how you look at it).

Well, 3 cents well spent. Glad to hear your thoughts.

My guess about the need for the '58 T-L redesign is that either the engineers thought they could do better or a lowered frame was planned for '58 to get the height down, which would have likely impacted T-L packaging.

It sounds like we are in agreement that 1955-57 should have carried the same basic design. Only major difference is the need for lowness. To me it was a way for Packard to get ahead of Cadillac, at least for 55/56. Chrysler pulled itself from the abyss because of Exner's preoccupation with this particular dimension. Caddy went low in '57 so a taller Packard would have not been as competitive that year. Lowness was the big design story of the 50s, just as streamlining and later the 3-box torpedo sedan were the major design changes of the 30s. Nance should have gone to bed each night saying: "I've got to get the height down, I've got to get the height down". As history proved, it turned out to be a big deal with consumers.

My sense is that all the important decisions were made between May 1952 when Nance arrived and mid to late 1953. That's when the 55s were locked down and Packard's fate was sealed. That's when money from the bankers was either acquired or not, lowness was dialed in or not, and when a certain amount of product indecision crept in that slowed the design process, which snow-plowed the issues and probably lead to a scramble in 1954 to launch the car, which lead to quality problems. Some of the body issues that cropped up at Conner would have probably cropped up at EGB too because they were likely rooted in a compromised or rushed design, tool and/or prototype build process. It's so important for a car CEO to know what he or she is doing on Day 1 because bad things can happen otherwise.

All in all, they did a pretty good job of masking the 1951-4 "Hi Pockets" dimensions with the 1955-56 tweaks.

I've always wondered why they didn't turn Raymond Lowey loose in the design studio...he did such a fantastic job with the 1953-55 Studebaker C&K "European Look" coupes and I assume he would have still been available after the 1954 S-P merger.

IIRC, believe it was in the Ward book it was mentioned his fees were considered some of the highest expenses in the organization and was something early on they decided they could do without. Plus they wanted an in house styling dept.

Quote:

You're quite right about the Loewy designed coupes being beautiful machines. And, yes, I'm sure he could've come up with something beautiful for Packard. Here's the BUT: his Studebaker designs from the earlier 50's were running contrary to the move toward 'fins and flash' then becoming popular amongst the auto buying public. Consequently, the Studes didn't sell particularly well. I doubt that another of his euro-inspired designs would have fared any better for Packard especially later in the decade as the excess of American car design would've then been hitting its peak.

Of course his design work for Studebaker resulted in products that sure have aged a lot better than many of Mr. Earl's later GM efforts.

Quote:

Good points....his elegantly clean 1953 Starlite design got pretty "tarted up", ending with the gauche 1958 Packard Hawk and the 1957-61 "Finned Hawks". The 1962-64 GT Hawks got more back to the original. My favorite was the 1956 Sky Hawk with the new grill but without the fins.

Quote:

I hadn't considered the financial aspect, but I can see that....the budget squeeze was definitely at play at the time.