Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Jim Nance spoke at length on these matters some years after he left Ford (Lincoln-Mercury, wasn't it?) and you fellows have prompted me to go back and find and read those interviews. I'll chime in again if I find anything that points in different directions.

If Packard would have merged with Nash there would have been three divisions to the AMC.

1. Packard Motor Car
2. Nash Motors
3. Kelvintor Division

John F. Shireman

GTO: To answer your question about great Packard's here is a picture of what I consided to be a great Packard. I tend to like the great Packard's of the 30's.

John F. Shireman

Attach file:

---

  (98.39 KB)

OH YES, John!
Great Packards! Thanks for the picture. It brings me back to your topic. I have been sitting here smiling at that gorgeous auto w/o really knowing what to say.

I know SO little about the Packards of the 1930s and 20s, but the lines, the openness, the sheer craftmanship. Such a beauty, such an art from.

The old Packards were not built for 'Commuting', as we do today. We get in a car to go from here to there. We build cities in such a way that we HAVE TO go from here to there in order to shop, to work, to do whatever.

These cars were for made for TOURING. The joy of experiencing the ride, the road, the air, the open country. The cars were open, side curtains were afterthoughts. As a kid after WWII, I still remember adventures like, "Sunday afternoon ride," or a "joy ride." You might see friends, or go to visit family. Unlike Gilligan 3-Hour-Tour in the Minnow, we always made it back home!

My 41 Clipper is listed as a 'Touring Sedan.' Perhaps that is just old term brought forward like 'robe ropes' or 'windshields.' I do still enjoy 'crusin' for a joy ride. Others enjoy it too. Had a guy in a pickup ahead of me as I pulled up to a red light. He jumped out of the driver's door smiling. Gave me a thumbs-up. Pulled out his cell phone and took a picture of my Packard. Then pulled on through the green light. That's my Great Packard!

DanL

Quote:

Than Packard would have been defeated the purpose of merging. Nash wanted the well established and plentiful dealerships that Hudson had to offer. George Romney has stated that it was the quantitiy of Hudson Dealerships that allowed the future '57 Rambler to really gain the audience it needed. Without the infrastructure of the Hudson sales divisions AMC would have withered and died out within 3 years. This is something that Packard could not have offered Nash.

I think if Packard had merged sooner with another company between 1949-51 things would have been different.

Your right about the Great Packards. They can't be topped. I like them better than the Duesenberg & Cords. Packard was really something Special.

I must agree with GTO on 56. They were very innovative mechanically and yet not overly flashy. If you compare the styling of 56 Packard over similar era Caddy (with that dickey looking tailight that wouldn't die in the early 50's) you would have to say Packard was classy and stylish, ...not at all gaudy.

Thanks Mal for giving the 56 a plug, I drive my 400 anywhere now that the reliability is back into it. That is pretty good for a 50yr plus car.

But then look at the classy pic of 10th series John contributed. The 10th and 11th series were briliantly conservative but oh so classy. Or the 41, 42 180's. - magnificant lines, Or the sweetness of the 36-39 Coupes. Or the transition from drum lighted 4th series 8's into the style of 6, 7, 8 series - truly beautiful machinery emerging.

You might be getting the picture, I am not just a 56 lover GTO - they are all great in their own right and time!

Best regards

I admire all Packards but especially like all the brass-era cars for the magnificence and imposing character, the first generation Twin Sixes for the engineering ingenuity, the 1st thru 8th series senior Eights for sheer majesty, the 9th thru 11th Series for the ultimate expression of that "classic appearance", and the 41-42s for the great combination of great near-classic styling and wonderful road manners. I originally wasn't much of a fan of the V8 era but have changed my mind (since owning one); yes they're flashy (but not gaudy) but that was a sign of the times, compare to a 56 DeSoto or tri-color Dodge for example. If there is one specific Packard that really does nothing for me, it's the Pullman-bodied 1st series single sixes, they were plain as white bread, awkward-looking, and had a lot to be humble about. But Packard recognized that and took great steps with the next series which ultimately lead to the great era of the Single Eights.

Here is what I consider another great Packard from the 30's.
Along with the convertible sedan this another one of my favorite early 30's body styles the Convertible Victoria
built by Waterhouse.


John F. Shireman

Attach file:

---

  (39.63 KB)

John, are you sure that's by Waterhouse? Here's what I think is the same car, photo taken by myself at the ame Ashville PAC National. I noted the body on this car was by Proux and would like to know if I got it wrong. I've sent an inquiry to two of CCCA's authorities to see what they say. I particularly enjoyed the little road lights in the bumper ends.

I believe the adjacent 34 Eight was Bob Woolfit's car, do you know?

EDIT: Good memory, John. The experts have been heard from, it's a Waterhouse. I will correct my picture of this car that I posted on this site some time back. PS - I see that my earlier error has already been corrected, thanks Jim Pearsall. Jim also notes in his correction that the Woodlites are not original to the car, but the bumper with lights is shown in the Packard accessory catalog 1928 to 30.

What a terrific car.

Attach file:

---

  (76.01 KB)

I'm told this is the same car after it's 1957 restoration. Photo at the Larz Anderson museum in Brookline, Mass. by unknown photographer.

Attach file:

---

  (80.13 KB)