Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

Great photo from your archives. We all thank you very much!!
And I also commend you for stating that Packard's wheels were MotorWheels not K-H as some old rumors keep saying. My regular 56 steel wheels were MotorWheel also.

Thanks Randy. Packard purchased from Motor Wheel Corp. for many years, up thru 1956. The 17" wire wheels on my 34 Eight are also marked "Motor Wheel Corp" and i think I've also seen their name on a set of wooden artillery wheels from a 1932 Super Eight. At some point Kelsey-Hayes bought Motor Wheel, I forget the year but think it was about the time Packard expired.

Owen -

That image fits better with what I was thinking for the other Monte Carlo, but my fuzzy recollection is of a front 3/4 view and monochromatic paint, with vinyl covering on the rear roof - perhaps only a rendering, though.

Starting off with a hardtop body was needed to get the removable roof, but that makes no sense for the rear seat occupants.

I would have expected, rather, the front half of a hardtop married to the rear of club sedan (that is, up to the front hinge pillars), with the front sedan doors reworked to serve as rear doors - along the lines of the 5450/5451 models - and the rear closed off from the front - like a limo.

September 10, 1952 two Mayfairs are sent to Henney for conversion into the Monte Carlo showcars.

October 22, 1952 The two Monte Carlo show cars are shipped to the Packard factory from Henny.

Owen: Thanks for posting pictures of the two version of the Monte Carlo. After seeing pictures of both I prefer the looks of bathtub Monte Carlo.

John F. Shireman

I agree John, the 22nd/23rd series car puts a bit of pizzaz in a body shell pretty much devoid of same, whereas the 52/53 version is stubby, awkward, and just plain "frumpy".

John, if I may suggest, earlier in this thread you seemed to be quoting from a reference book and then perhaps added some further comments of your own. It's not possible to tell where you stopped quoting and started with your own words. It is proper and would really be helpful, and this goes for all of us, if when we quote from a reference source, we either use quotation marks or put it in italics so readers can separate our own thoughts from the material taken from a reference source. Just a suggestion to bring some better clarity to what's posted.

A few further comments on the 52/53 Monte Carlos; the cars apparently had some real structural deficiencies, lacking rigidity of body in the front. An article about Arbib relates an exchange between Packard and Henney that concludes that if Packard were to consider making 100 of them, radical re-engineering including using portions of the convertible structure would be necessary. Perhaps that's what helped kill off the idea.

For any persons out there that are interested in American concept vehicles over the last 60 years there is only one book to purchase.

American Dream Cars written by Mitchel J. Frumkin and Phil Hall. Published by Krause Publications.

John F. Shireman

Owen: From the information that I have been able to gather on the first Packard Monte Carlo, Packard showed no interest in the concept built by Henney. The car sat around Arrbib's shops at Henney for people to view who came into the shop.




John F. Shireman

From the information that I have been able to gather on the first Packard Monte Carlo, Packard showed no interest in the concept built by Henney. The car sat around Arrbib's shops at Henney for people to view who came into the shop

John, that could well be. Afterall why would Packard have any interest in it, the bathtub era was over and the new Reinhart body was on the horizon. Still, it differs from an account supposedly traceable to Arbib which states the car went to a dealer showroom for display and promptly dissappeared. We'll probably never know exactly what happened.

And apparently the structural issues which were stated to be very significant played a role in dooming the second Monte Carlo which even w/o the problems probably stood a very poor chance in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, all interesting fodder. This has proved to be an interesting thread.

It's been enjoyable backtracking through both Monte Carlos, the Balboa, the Phantom, and the earlier version, the "brown bomber". So let me ask, wasn't the Macauley Jr. creation below the first iteration of what became the brown bomber? I think so. To me, though I'm perhaps more of a prewar fan, none can match the work he did with the speedster and coupe versions he did of the early speedsters.

Or is the car (below) an Bohman & Schwartz?

Attach file:

---

  (54.84 KB)

Guscha -

You sure have studied these Forums well!

Thanks for reminding me of what I wrote. I don't where I came up with even that much detail - as so much else has occupied my mind since.

This continues to be a very interesting thread.