Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
More Packard "what-ifs" - built by Peter Portugal in Eureka, CA for Carl Schneider:
56packardman.com/2017/08/15/gear-head-tuesday-peter-portugals-packards/
Posted on: 2017/8/15 20:13
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Completely agree, Steve. Seems Ferry's problem wasn't that he copied GM, it was that he did't copy them completely!
Here are a few more cars. First is 122 wb convertible. For this and the tan/red hardtop shown earlier, Packard needed to take cost and/or content out sufficient to lower the price a few hundred dollars so that they could compete in between Buick's 50 and 70. In retrospect, Ferry should have brought body production in-house for the 24th Series because it would have been more cost efficient to set up operations with the new model changeover than to do mid-cycle. And he needed to bring production in-house to take cost out and manage the flexibility needed to get some of these more labor-intensive models out efficiently and with quality. Turning to Henney was the wrong way to go for the '53 limo.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 16:49
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Will probably gets boo's but here is suggested 300 sedan on 127 wb. Only change from actual is the 200 rear fenders and taillights, which I think would have been essential to keep the Juniors separated from the Seniors.
My not very good attempt to fashion the Senior's wrapped backlight points to another historical question: where and when did Packard get the idea to do this backlight shape? I suspect they got it from the '49 Coupe DeVille that launched late in the 1949 model year, and prior to that the plan was to use the 200's backlight on the 300/400. It was probably a simple matter to trim away metal and tool the new glass in time.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 16:58
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
... and the other thing Ferry should have done was cancel the 200 Business coupe!
Packard never should have offered a business coupe. That they did was proof they no longer cared about their legacy as America's leading maker of luxury cars. I completely agree that Packard should have brought body production back in-house for the 24th Series cars. Had they done that, the fiasco that unfolded that doomed the company might have changed the outcome. What happened to Nance is proof about "the straw that broke the camel's back." It wasn't THE straw that broke the camel's back, but the total number of straws. Had just one thing that hit Nance happened differently, he might have been able to get the '57s launched despite everything else that hit Packard at once.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:00
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
<i>"here is suggested 300 sedan on 127 wb"</i>
Sorry, Paul - I just don't like those 200 rear fenders and taillights ... I think the rear fenders and taillights on the 300s/400s are more elegant. I know that many formal sedans used more steel and less glass in the "c" pillars, but I've always felt that the way it is rendered on the 200 doesn't look elegant and doesn't translate to the desired formal look on more upmarket Packard sedans. To my eye, it just doesn't work on the 200. That said, here's a treatment that (to my eye) DOES work by a man who goes by "harborindiana" on his Flickr photo stream:
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:10
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Agreed. They probably didn't sell many, probably because it would have been bad for a businessman's business to spend what what still a lot of dough for essentially a functional work tool.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:13
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Absolutely!
Ford, Chevrolet, Plymouth and Studebaker all offered "business coupes" for a lot less $$$. All Packard accomplished by offering a business coupe was to further dilute their image!
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:16
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Positioned appropriately in front of the Pillars of Power is the imposing '51 limousine.
I dialed the wheelbase back an inch to 140 because the coupe's front doors are not quite 9 inches longer than the sedan's. The body folks could probably have cut 4-1/4 inches at most from the coupe's door outers to weld to the rear doors and some of that length might have been needed for hemming. I have no work-ups for the 127 Senior convertible with long hood/deck, 300 Ionia 8-passenger station wagon on 127 wb and 140 wb Parade Phaeton derived from limo and possibly sectioned 1.5 inches. Will leave to your imagination.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:23
|
|||
|
Re: What would a traditional Packard "Senior" have looked like in 1951?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Very elegant!
I like the way you've reduced the size of the "B" pillars in several of these work ups. That was something Packard should have done - though they weren't the only ones with unnecessarily thick "B" pillars. For example, the thick "B" pillars ruin the looks of the Studebaker Starlight coupe whereas the pillarless Starliner is oh-so-beautiful.
Posted on: 2017/8/17 17:38
|
|||
|