Packard Forum Index » General

The Chrysler Torsion bars and Packard ones worked completely differently. Your discussion relates to the Chrysler design where they suspend one end of the car. Packard's longitudinal bars were what allowed the leveling since they connected the front and rear.

If sharing with Lincoln, wouldn't it seem logical that something based on the Predictor would see the light of day?

OK, if Lincoln was to be the platform for '58 maybe Nance could have just told the engineers "fit what you could, if leveling doesn't fit just go with the torsion bars... and definitely do the independent rear." Packard had to offer something that justified the extra $1,500 over the Lincoln.

Am assuming this Packard would get the new grill design that Packard Design wanted. My preference would be to see the Predictor's hidden headlights carried across the board. Never much cared for the hooded double headlight look that Packard wanted in 57/58. The hidden lights would have added coolness and mystery and helped justify that extra $1,500. Maybe the Predictor's opera windows could have been included on all C-pillars like I show in the image. What else on the Predictor was really usable? Maybe the bucket seats and center console. Ideally Packard would have convinced the investors to bankroll a completely unique coupe and convertible and duped Lincoln into letting Packard base them of the trimmer, sleeker '58 T-bird instead of the Lincoln. Bucket seats on such a car would have made perfect sense just as they did on the bird.

The other Predictor stuff like tambour roof... no. And no transaxle, which Predictor said it had but didn't. That's the kind of stuff that would have cost Packard a lot and added nothing to sales.

fit what you could, if leveling doesn't fit just go with the torsion bars...

As Packard configured it, you couldn't have just torsion bars - the leveling system was an essential element of the system or the body would just rock back and forth like a see-saw.

No argument on the merits of the Packard system. The Chrysler system has been consistently called out as offering superior ride/handling to GM and Ford through the 60s and into the 70s, not in all cases but in general. My take is that torsion bars made a big difference even without load leveling.

I agree on the suspension - I think you have to just go with Lincoln's.
The overall Predictor-based look risks looking a bit 59 Edsel

Owen - I was probably unclear... was suggesting Packard redesign their system to whatever extent necessary, even if it meant rethinking its fundamental design. The reason being that any torsion system was better than no torsion system, as demonstrated by Chrysler.

Wanted to float to the group an extension of the Packard platform sharing idea. This time the focus is Studebaker, the other basket case. Same plan... shrink the company dramatically, borrow with pride, don't cannibalize sales of the borrowed car, find a partner motivated to share.

First idea is with AMC, as early as 1958. Base the Stude on the Ambassador. Not sure this idea had a prayer. Ambassador was already pushing the Rambler platform's price ceiling, wasn't much room above it for Studebaker. The car is ugly too. And Romney and Nance...

Second is with the 1960 Valiant. This one I do think had potential. Studebaker would have become to the small car what Packard would become to the large - the cream of the crop. Valiant and Lancer sales would not have been impacted at all. Stude could have offered the 225 Slant Six rather than the 179. Torsion bars were already up front. Maybe an independent torsion rear could have been offered too.

Just like with Packard, in both plans the Studebaker facility closes, the powertrain staff gets let go and the cars roll down the same line as the cars they are based on. Packard-Studebaker might have survived on this sharing strategy well into the 70s. Maybe Chrysler would eventually have become Packard's large platform supplier once Continental sales took off in the early 70s and Imperial fizzled.

Attach file:

---

  (14.24 KB)


  (7.35 KB)


  (17.22 KB)


  (17.41 KB)

Was futzing with Imperial and Chrysler-based Packard's too. Unlike the Lincoln, both would have probably needed unique roofs. Not sure Colbert was in a sharing mood at that time, he seemed to have big plans for Imperial. Personally, of all the Packard what-ifs floated in this thread I like the New Yorker-based car the best. The windshield and Exner's overall lines are beautifully flowing. Not sure what the front end would have looked like, maybe the hidden headlight theme as proposed for the '57 Lincoln shell.

Attach file:

---

  (10.23 KB)


  (10.18 KB)


  (17.21 KB)


  (16.39 KB)


  (18.90 KB)

stop filling in those Chrysler C-pillars

the light roof is a very nice part of Exner's Forward look. Some Reynolds wrap, perhaps?

Thick C-pillar is for privacy... it's nobody's business what's happening in the back seat of a Packard. :)

Here's some foil on the NY'r based car. I had moved the backlight rearward a good 3 inches on the first NY'r work-up for Packard-caliber rear legroom and added 5 inches to the hood/wheelbase. Wanted to get away from Exner's slightly cab forward look.

The Imperial-based car also got the roof and hood lengthening. didn't bother trying your foil suggestion though, the work up is too far gone. I kept thinking about the '74 Imperial when I did it, got a few decades ahead of myself.

Attach file:

---

  (16.49 KB)

bkaz - must admit it does look good with the foil and it uses the Chrylser backlight, a cost save. The clean Chrysler door outer panels could have also worked just fine for the Packard, the money saved put towards the longer roof and shorter deckid. I think this would have been a darn good Packard rolling out the Chrysler plant, just wonder about the quality.... Packard didn't need another debacle.

I share your concerns about the Edsel grill. Packard Design would have needed to take extra care finessing the front and be ready to can the theme if it didn't come together in a clean spectacular way.