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

Glad you like it. The Idea with the limo's C-pillar was to use smaller backlight than 200's to make it look more private, with added benefit of C-pillar looking better in side view, more like the image mod you attached.

Some of the images above may appear to have narrower B-pillar but I didn't touch them, just looks that way. For the limo it may be because there is 4 inches of extra glass added to front and rear doors, changing the scale between them and B-pillar. Visual trickery is partly what design is about, which is why the Seniors needed to have functionally useless long hoods and decks to prevent the voluminous bodies from dominating. The 200's were well-proportioned due to their shorter bodies.

Re post #36: I find the full radius of the rear wheel openings to be most attractive. The larger opening lightens up the appearance and gives a more sporty and/or distinguished look depending upon which body it is on. More formal in sedans and more sporty in convertibles. Just posting my preference and understand it is not for all. Thanks for reading. JWL

For what it's worth...I think your design revisions are very cool...especially the treatment of the rear wheel wells on the formal sedan...I believe that it would have sold quite well. Ernie

In its brochures for the 1949 and 1950 Sixty Special, Cadillac was very explicit in pointing out the longer dimensions compared to standard Series 62 line. Packard surely would have read these as it planned its new line. The 1949 Sixty was 226 inches long while the 1950 version was 224-7/8. The Series 62 was 214 and 215-7/8, respectively.

For 1950, Cadillac used the same roof for its 62 and Sixty sedans, the roof positioned 4 inches forward relative to rear wheels for the Sixty. This and a 9 inch longer deck and 5 inch longer rear overhang were what differentiated the cars physically. Meanwhile Buick used the Cadillac roof for its longest 50 and 70 sedans and came in two hood lengths. So there we have it: GM changed dimensions in front of and behind a common greenhouse to successfully position many of its models.

Packard chose for its 1951 300/400 a 217-3/4 length - barely longer than the Series 62 - and abandoned its short/long hood length strategy that it had used since 1924 and stayed with one deck while GM used two. Any discussion of why Packard struggled in its final years has to include the fundamentally deficient 24th Series product strategy crafted by its leadership.

Attach file:

---

  (105.65 KB)


  (70.93 KB)


  (99.31 KB)

Just had to try this one on for size, would love to build it some day. Has that classic Packard lean and hungry look of old.

Attach file:

---

  (55.63 KB)

The rendering of the red long wheelbase sedan in post #39 is almost exactly the same as the '52 Dietrich limousine Fred is restoring. Front and rear doors are lengthened and of almost equal length.

Note that lengthening the rear overhang has practical limits, there is a measurement in both front and rear called "ramp angle".
The overhang cannot be so long as to cause the bumpers to contact the ground when entering or leaving a ramp such as an inclined driveway when fully loaded. This is a basic design limitation to build a car but design sketches can violate all norms as we know.

Thanks
James From
Kanter Auto Products

I particularly like the roof. The vent wing in the rear window reminds me of that very fine '41 Packard LeBaron

Attach file:

---

  (106.70 KB)

I don't see any need for a longer hood, the straight eight meant it was plenty long enough. And the extended tail might have made sense but could they have sold enough to make a profit?

To me the big mistakes on the new for 51 body was the plain drab instrument panel. It looked like something for a pickup truck not a luxury car. The juniors should have been fancier and the seniors completely different, and even more fancy. This is not a trivial criticism. The dashboard is something the owner sees every time he gets in the car. It should make him feel good.

The other thing was the way they kept the same grille for 4 years. Who did this in the early fifties? Nobody, not if they wanted to sell cars. I know Packard was proud of their traditional look. That was the trouble, the public wasn't buying traditional looks.

I agree with the criticism of the 51 -54 design. The 51 design was contemporary but undistinguished. They look too much like other makes. The ability to facelift them is shown dramatically by the 55's.

Lots of insights here, would like to address them one at a time starting with the red Packard. I recall Fred's limo sitting on the future Executive's wheelbase. Assuming this is correct and the front doors came from a coupe, which are about 9 inches longer than the sedan, then the rear doors would need to be 13 inches longer than sedan to grow the wheelbase from 127 inches to 149 inches. If all this is the case, here's the visual comparison between the cars. Fred's car would be 239.75 inches long and have enough room for auxiliary seats. My work-up would be 235.75 inches long and strictly a 2-row vehicle, with 8 more inches of rear legroom than the Patrician vs. 22 inches for Fred's car.

Yeah, one could argue that side facing jump seats might fit in my red car similar to 138 wb prewar cars, but I think the play for Packard was to avoid direct competition with Cadillac's 3-row Series 75 and instead carve out its own space catering to post-war chauffeured executives. Records show that Nance actually saw this space back in the day and had his team scope out a modified Patrician with Dictaphone, etc.

So, are the cars below nearly identical? To my eye no, which has been the point of my entire thread, which is all about proportions.

Attach file:

---

  (95.83 KB)