Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Quote:

ON THE CAR THAT WE HAVE THE GRILLE AND GRILLE SURROUND SHEET METAL ARE FROM A 38 V-12, SHORTENED. OVERLAID ON THE 55 HOOD ARE THE TWO PANELS FROM THE SAME 38 V-12

THANKS
JAMES

Here is a little bit of history on the car that Fred and Dan own:

In 1955 Packard built a show car, the "Request" in response to the many people requests for the traditional Packard pre war grille. A devoted Packard owner from West Orange NJ tried to buy the car and was rebutted. So he bought a new 55 Packard 400 with air conditioning and so he built his own Request.

Full radiused wheel well openings with 55 Imperial moldings, top hood section and grille from a 38 Packard V-12, and as well as other items used to create his car. To lift the heavy hood an electrical mechanism was installed It was his everyday car for years and even won trophies in custom car shows.

Just to keep photo credits in order, the picture of the Kanter car posted previously in this thread by 58L8134 was taken by this writer. Here's another taken on the same occasion which shows some of the fabrication work on the hood, again photo by this writer.

Attach file:

---

  (176.68 KB)

Quote:


Ahhh... while I realize that these online "forums" are seen by many as places to have endless arguments, ongoing debates, guessing and supposition, I have neither guessed, nor used someone's web photos to determine what was on the Packard Request. I simply attempted to impart some facts-which I am often reluctant to do for this very reason.

As I have stated-and as impossible as this may seem to people on an internet "forum" in 2015, I had dear friends who actually built the car with their own hands for Packard. I was there. I saw the car when it was brand new... right where I could touch it and look at it up close-and not at a car show. I held the medallion in question in my own hands.

I also had friends who did the first cosmetic restoration on the Request. This is not conjecture, nor is it guessing. I was there when they did it and I have my own photos of me personally standing with the car when it was completed. I even supplied some of the parts for the restoration. So there is nothing here to debate or guess about or go over somebody's web photos to prove.

Here are MY photos...



As for the automotive meaning of "stock" versus "pilot pre-production" you are welcome to adhere to whatever definition you choose to make up and believe. But having spent my life as a professional in the auto industry and having been around my share of pre-production pilot cars, bodies-in-white and other such stuff... and having held membership in SAE... AND having coined some terms used in the industry, I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

And the differences between "stock" and "pilot pre-production" may or may not be subtle-but whatever those differences may be... they were/ARE still differences-as in not the same.

And there was never any mention of "hastily cobbled-up mule"... which is a statement no where included in what I have said. However, since we've now gone there, an engineering "mule" is hardly a pilot pre-production body. So again we are talking apples and oranges here. Nobody said that one was the other.

You can bolt the front clip of a 1956 Packard to a 1955 Clipper... but so what? You can bolt the front clip of a 1955 Pontiac onto a 1955 Chevy but so what? A 1955 Ford station wagon body is basically the same as a 1956 Mercury station wagon body. But what does any of this prove in terms of the Request and the body used to build it?? Nothing.

In American automotive jargon "stock" means (or used to mean) as in production stock... as in dealer or W-D or factory inventory. It does not mean anything that merely looks like stock. I realize the term has become wildly perverted over the years... but this is what happens with terminologies get twisted to mean whatever someone or some group decides they want them to mean. All of which is why nobody knows what the ding-dong is being said by the auction companies when they proudly tell you on TV that "this beautiful classic has been..." "restified"..."resto-modded"..."resto-rodded"..."tributed" or any of the other mumbo-jumbo being used today to describe things. But it is what it is.

But whatever anyone, anywhere chooses to call it, the Request body was not stock. It was a pilot pre-production body done so early that the fittings and tail light assemblies had yet to go into regular production and thus had to be hand-made. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Attach file:

---

  (90.33 KB)


  (115.45 KB)

No real mysteries about the origins of the Request, it started life as 5587-1003 and obviously built before final tooling was available for such things as the tail light assemblies. The car has been quite thoroughly photo-documented over most of it's lifespan.

Well maybe this is a stupid question, but did 5587-1001 & 1002 exist? And if so what happened to them?

A good question, and I don't know the answer. Well, I take it back - maybe there is a little mystery to the origins of the Request. I do have a copy of the June 1, 1954 interoffice instruction from D. H. Adams outlining the numbering systems to be instituted for the "experimental" (pre-production) and production 1955 models. For the to-be 1955 400 it gives the pre-production models as having vehicle numbers in the 5587-101 to 5587-999 range, with production vehicles commencing at 1001. Possibly the early date of that memo and the late timing of the final details threw that a bit askew - there was certainly plenty of chaos in bringing out the 55th Series. It's also possible the Request was renumbered as it was completed, maybe Leeedy can shed some light on this.

Also perhaps of significance is that the Request does not have a theft-proof number and there are a very small number of other 1955 Packards similarly w/o those numbers, 5582-1001 and 5588-1035 among them. One guess, these (and perhaps the Request) started life as pre-production units and were found unnecessary for that purpose and the bodies redirected with appropriate vehicle numbers for "regular" production.

One other interesting thing about that document is that it also listed a "standard" 1955 Packard convertible in addition to the Caribbean, just as was done in 1954.