Packard Forum Index » General

Agreed Howard. Only concern with the '57 Packard design would have been the severely protruding nature of the grill, which I think you had also mentioned in the thread about the Turnpike Cruiser-based Packard last year. Maybe in those GM Dagmar days Packard felt it needed a male symbol? :) Whatever it was thinking, having never seen these cars in the flesh we are left having to trust those who created and knew them intimately, like Schmidt when he wrote to Nance in mid-55 that the Packard design was looking very good. It should be said that this was the same guy who mucked up the early 60s Chryslers and arrogantly claimed that S-P had the best design dep't in the industry.

The basics of the '57 Packard proposal appear sound except for perhaps the severe lateral overhang, i.e. the body hanging way outboard of the wheels. The industry has since learned this to be a design no-no. At the time though it was common and accepted by the public. I would sum up the '57 Packard's prospects by saying that if Nance had learned his lesson from the '55 about quality and made this an inviolable despite what would likely have been another product development and manufacturing rush job, the cars would have done well. The fact that they would have come out a year before the Lincoln would have helped, the Lincoln looking like the one that copied while giving the 4-square theme more momentum. And as phsnkw pointed out, the Packard's basic design could have been toned down in the early Sixties to keep it in times with the competition.

The '57 Clipper concept that Schmidt's team created was, imho, the biggest risk. Just can't see any value in it. Had Nance decided to drop Clipper that year, dual his Hudson and Packard dealers and let Wasp and Hornet cover the Olds/Buick segments, which design would Hudson have used? They needed a stunner that would generate volume.

Was looking at how carefully Cadillac changed its car with each major redesign. It established a clear lineage from the early 40s on through to '57, our year in the spotlight. Contrast this with Lincoln which made abrupt changes almost every redesign. Packard was heading towards a complete departure too for '57 and am wondering if it was too much. Here's a mod to the '56 that carried over a bit more. The sides still curve in and the sidelight is the focal point. Less lateral overhang than proposed, more wheel cutout in front fender. Hidden headlights would have been a big change but perhaps worth it. Can't seem to figure out how to expose the lights in a balanced integrated way, especially the '57s larger single lights.

Attach file:

---

  (20.36 KB)


  (20.72 KB)

Don't mean to muck this strategy-focused thread up with another image work-up but wanted to throw this out there. If I had the money and derelict car just might pursue it! Image starts with 127" wb Caribbean. Height and beltline drop 1.5 inches except rear fenders, which stay carryover except for resurfaced forward edge. Windshield and doors move back 6.5 inches, firewall back 5 inches, seats lowered 1.5 inches. Carryover backlight surrounded by new rear roof section. Somewhat squared off and uplifted decklid. Grill is a shortened '40-42, tilted forward slightly, with bull nose above shaped like Predictor's. Hidden quads. Overall intent would be to fashion a grand and glamorous personal coupe with a cozy rear seat.

Attach file:

---

  (17.12 KB)

I wonder if such lamps might have cost a lot to develop, perhaps lamps giving a "stacked" effect such as those of the Facel Vega or Mercedes benz "Fintail" might have been more within Packards reach?

I think the vertically stacked headlamps might have actually worked pretty well with the hooded 1956 Packard front fenders . . . And in our "4-Company merger" scenario, you might even have been able to use the bezel and assembly from the 1957 Nash Ambassador.

Nothing better for a company try to do "Styling on a Shoestring" than finding an acceptable update in the existing parts bin!

Rough attempt at some headlamp options and a four model line-up. Would have been best to have for '55, might have been an option for '57 ilo Lincoln shell.

Attach file:

---

  (24.53 KB)


  (58.42 KB)

Muck it up all you want, Mahoning, with nifty re-styles like these. As I've re-iterated o-so-many-times, a striking upgrade to the body was all Packard really needed in '57. Heck, the '57 Chevy was just an upgraded "shoebox" going back to '54. And it didn't have an all-new torsion bar suspension. Packard's V8 was also only 2 years old, with a big upgrade in '56 seniors. The re-styled body was only 2 years old as well. Why not put some more energy into evolving it before '58, which was the first year everybody jumped on the wider, lower body bandwagon anyway.

The expense of hidden headlights would've been worth it, as it would put one of the Predictor's most striking concepts right into the mainstream. Here's where the 400 would've started eating into the Eldorado sales IMHO. A gimmick, yes, but a really good one, with a heritage going back to the revered '36 Cord.

Build it if you can!

I have an image work-up but don't want to show it because I don't know who owns the original car and it's too obvious who's it might be.

Have tried hidden lights with the '56 grill/hood and couldn't get the appearance and packaging right. Agree with you, the hiddens might have best been used for an Eldorado-competitor. Or maybe just for all the coupes, or for all the highest trimmed series for all body configurations.

I think we need to acknowledge two industry trends that helped drive '56 and '57 sales: 4 dr hardtops and lower height. Consider these sales percentages of 4d HTs as % of all 4 door models sold for that brand:

1956 Buick: 69%
1957 Buick: 70%

1956 Cadillac: 49%
1957 Cadillac: 100%

1956 Clipper & Packard: 0%

Packard's 1956 sales problems went beyond its '55 quality issues. They didn't have a 4HT.

Here's height data that I have shown before. 1957 was the first big drop for O/B/C, Chrysler Corp. and Ford/Merc. Lincoln's came in '58, GM had a second drop in '59. Packard would have been uncompetitive in 1957 had it left its height unchanged.

Attach file:

---

  (91.52 KB)

Mahoning,

I'd forget about the 4-door hardtop 'til 1958. Lower roofline was possible with the '56 Packard body. (Remember the photoshop mockup you did?) It's a matter of taking out the "roundness", the same as was done on the '56 trunk. Shave it down. They could've used Big Daddy Roth in the design shop to show them how to chop things. Even with the high beltline, this would've looked cool. Not even much headroom change, as the headliner had room to be snugged up higher.

Just some thoughts...

The main thing, Packard should never have moved lock stock and barrell to South Bend, where no one knew how to make Packard size cars.