Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

To get back to the 56's. I wrote a letter to the Rolls-Royce Owners Club (RROC) that argued that the 1956 Patrician was the finest production sedan of the year, technologically heads and shoulders above the 1956 Rolls-Royce. For some reason they never published it. Looks are always in the eye of the beholder, but I find my Patrician to be truly beautiful compared to Cadillac and Lincoln. On the subject of the merger, it is well documented that Studebaker carefully masked their financial condition. They claimed that their break even point was 100,000 cars, when it was actually about 200,000. Packard did not need to lie to Studebaker since they were the buyers. What I have never understood is why Packard hired a consultant firm to analyze Studebaker. If they had sent a team of their own engineers, accountants, etc. they would have quickly seen that Studebaker (despite good engineering and design) was an anchor that would sink Packard (or Nash/Kelvinator for that matter). I have always thought that Studebaker bribed the consultants for a good report.

I think Packard & Studebaker were equally deceiving eachother. Both wanted to get something from eachother, both were willing to deceive & manipulate to get it, and in the morning when it was all over, One didn't look so handsome, and the other one was all rouge & blush.

This is how my brother met his first wife. This is also how it ended. Pretty much in this order.

Chuck: i think it would have been very hard for any person at the RROC to defend the 56 Rolls Royce as being a better car engineering wise than the 56 Packard. It could however be said that the 56 Rolls Royce might have been a better quality auto as it was mostly hand built.

How ever as to the finest production sedan of the year in the world for 1956,it has would have been the 1956 Citroen DS19.


John F. Shireman

I love Citroens, having owned a CX in the early 80's. Still the DS-19/21 did not have the power, AT or luxurious appointments of the 56 Packard. For sheer engineering nobody came close to Citroen.

Don't get me wrong, I like the 55/56 Packards very much and that's the reaon I own one. But one area where they certainly can't be called luxurious, or even come close to a R-R or even many lesser cars, is the area of seat comfort. Those zig-zag springs just don't cut it, and don't hold up well either. Sit in one of the individually adjustable Marshall coil spring seats of a 48-50 Custom and you'll know what I mean. But still they were an admirable effort and a very fine car.

Owen.I know what you say about the Custom Eights is true as I own one, but I must say that my 56 Patrician is just as good. When I drive that car, I feel like I am sitting on my living room couch. Maybe it is because the suspension is superior.Then again,I could have a terrible living room couch.

Owen: I believe that in 1948 Packard had three different kind of seat springs that were offered depending upon which model you owned.


John F. Shireman

Yes John, you're right about different seat springs in different models, but I specifically referenced the Custom 8 seat springs.

Yeah. The Zig-Zags or sometimes called "no-sag" springs really cheapen a car seat. I've never liked them. Most cars since the mid 50's have them. The drivers seat in my Exec IS sagging. MY 88 BOTTOM of the line Ranger has the No-Sags.

One thing i have never understood is why Packard did not offer a FRONT seat Centre arm rest at least in the Sr's.????? The door arm rests are small too. The steering wheel needs to move closer toward the driver about 2 or 3 more inches. It's too close to the brake and gas pedal. I kind'a feel like that Donut Pusher looks while driving. Of course that's an exageration but makes the point.

MOSTLY i find the 56 Exec a most comfortable car. But improvements in the above complaints would greatly add to the comfort already afforded in the car.

A question for you all: How were the '55 and '56 Packards viewed by the Automotive press back in their day? Are there any comparison tests from the era comparing the Packard to the Caddy? I would be very interested to read them.

The last big Packards are fascinating cars, but the Cadillacs and Imperials give me the impression of being opulent and luxurious in a more substantive way. Just look at things like the interior door panels and appiontments. Is my impression correct? I think the fact that the Packard was based on an older body, sort of shows through.

Also: who were the buyers for the '55 and '56 senior Packards? Old time Packard owners or people switching from other makes? Any info on this?

Something to chew on: IMHO the best bet for Packard would have been if it had merged with Chrysler.

The Imperial should have been positioned as the top-of-the-line Chrysler competeing with the Roadmaster... and the Packard as Chrysler Corporation's luxury brand competing directly with Cadillac.

The Imperial name was so imbedded in the public's mind as a deluxe Chrysler, I think they would have done well to take over and develop the Packard brand: imagine... the Packard Lebaron.