Packard Forum Index » Modification Discussion

Since I've now shown the car in its original color, here's my dream post-war Packard. Sure, a more exciting car could be had, but I am into cost-efficiency too. And I love the color. Wish Packard had offered the Junior roof/Senior body combo, just about all the parts were already tooled.

Up front would remove the PACKARD block letters and swap the textured headlight surround with the Clipper's perfectly flat one, as depicted in the image mod. Runner up would be Clipper front, which would be very tempting.

In the rear, would revert back to the '54 Clipper's simple crest with key hole, and maybe get hold of a "Custom" script from the '55 Clipper and put it down low on the decklid, probably to the right.

Would definitely keep what appears to be a '54 or earlier hood ornament. No worn bar of soap on this job, instead high style and character!

On top of the roof, leather. Inside, Patrician. Underhood, same. Would need a good conditon Patrician to start with, and parts from a worn out '55/56 Four Hundred and Clipper and '54 Patrician.

Attach file:

---

  1955 Packard Senior Side Mod.png (2,783.41 KB)


  1955 Packard Senior Front Formal.jpg (930.67 KB)


  1955 Packard Senior Rear Formal.jpg (984.71 KB)

Quote:

Love it! Thank you and sorry not to have replied sooner but I was on the road tonight.

Quote:

Al (acolds), I couldn't agree with you more.

Paul (Mahoning63), thank you very much for your kindness in taking up the request by developing a limo.

Below are three general criticisms.
1) The entire vehicle body is characterized by horizontal structures. In particular, the horizontal lines of the rear wheel cover look forward to the 1970s. Given this geometry, the sloping lines of the hood and trunk lid seem to me as if the car were sagging at the front and rear.

2) The top lines of the windows are a design disaster. While the front window is higher than the side windows, the rear window is lower than the side windows. Instead of a harmonious whole, the eye is presented with three levels, untalentedly scrambled together. A few years earlier, the manufacturer still mastered these virtues.

3) The large hood emblem seems antiquated to me, rather than noble.

I think it was a powerful idea to include the Caddilac for comparison rather than staying in the Packard bubble. The Soviets (shamelessly) borrowed from both designs.

Attach file:

---

  proportions.jpg (830.47 KB)


  proportions1.jpg (1,492.88 KB)

Great observations! Those are some of the reasons that I chose to get rid of almost all the side trim. I only kept the horizontal piece coming off the front because it is part of the frontal design as it moves rearward to cover the ledge above the front wheels. And because it breaks up what is otherwise a tall body side forward of the rear fender bulge. And I went back to the '54 rear door shape because it gives the sides forward movement, whereas the '55 shape makes the rear fenders look almost as tall as the front body side. But I can see why others like what Teague came up with, because it breaks the body sides up even more, and offers other elements of visual interest.

There's a reason these cars were called Contours back in 1951. The focus was on sculpture, which I gravite towards in car design. Elwood Engle was one of its great champions.

One word in my post above was perhaps a little harsh. It's easy to criticize when you're sitting on the sofa at home and don't have to make decisions under high cost pressure in a responsible position. I would like to correct myself and quote from Wikipedia:

"The restyled Packard line for 1955 showed Teague's keen eye for detail and ability to produce significant changes based on limited budgets."

The wrap around windshield was probably a necessary reminiscence of the public taste of those years. You probably can't embed them into the vehicle design without significant body changes - and there simply wasn't enough money for that.