Packard Forum Index » General

Those big GM cars looked a bit wide in the windshield for 65, not helpful to proportions to my eye.

Speaking of which, I was wrong about the GM windshields, appears there were two versions. First was for Chevy, Pontiac, Olds and Buick 40/60, second was for the rest of the Buicks and Cadillac. I think GM finally got it down to one for 58 or 59.

Had a Packard and Nash merger come about with consolidation on one platform been the result, the Pininfarina prototype for the '55 Nash shows what could have been achieved. Notwithstanding the heavy-handed frontal styling, the low height with clean surfaces was built on an Ambassador 121" wb chassis. Nash had prior experience with body sharing across unibody and BOF builds during the 1941-'48 model years. The greater flexibility of BOF for broader body style offerings, desirable in luxury segment products, could well have been accommodated.

Steve

Attach file:

---

  (56.17 KB)


  (50.31 KB)

Very interesting idea, Steve. Would have allowed Packard to offer a multitude of cars including long wheelbase limo. Unibody Pininfarina-styled Nash shown would have fed that portion of American market increasingly interested in European cars. For Hudson, perhaps unibody version based on the Nash body and dimensions, and longer-bodied BoF share with Packard to spread the cost of longer roof, deck etc. Had Mason added all new strikingly low bodies to his proposal to Packard, might have persuaded them to accept. The $14-16 million than Nance spent sprucing up the Contour could have helped pay for it.

The Pininfarina frontal design might have looked better had the headlights been hidden behind a vertical grill similar to 55 Ambassador. And the front bumper could have been integrated like the rear.

Pics of Pininfarina sedan's interior here:

hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2018/02/1955-N ... -Pinin-Farina-Speciale/3751513.html

Good Evening...It seems to me that Packard should have built only to order after the war, rather than build cars, send them to the dealers and then push the dealers to sell the cars that were sent to them. In 48,49 and 50 it seems to me that left over cars cost Packard a pot full of money.

After the body shape the lushness of the interior sells cars. It seems to me that the interiors of the 49's and 50's were less sumptuous than the 48's. In the early 50's the same things might have helped. Lee Iacoca (sp) had to make Chrysler do the same thing as they had cars left over at the end of the month that were sold to dealers at a discount, if I remember his book correctly.

An earlier V8 would have been helpful, as well, as that is what the public had been convinced was the cat's meow!

It also seems to me that listening to consultants rather then using their own collective judgement did not do them any good at all.

They should not have merged with anyone, kept their cash, stayed on East Grand Blvd, and stayed to the high end of the market. It could not have ended any worse than it did!

Nance did not seem to me to be the correct guiding light in the early/mid 50's. Can't say who should have been in charge.

Just, simply my humble opinion...Ernie in Arizona

Ernie, thanks for sharing your thoughts, which speak directly to things Packard controlled. Overproduction can really hurt profitability, best to make volume calls with a cool head. Some buyers prefer to buy off the lot immediately, so if a company wants to secure those sales it's always a challenge to figure out how many and which cars to make in advance. Of course, those who want to special order should always be catered to.

From my perspective, Nance was like any other car leader in that he had his special talents and insights and also his blindspots and faulty thinking. I believe history has shown that his desire to morph Clipper into a separate marque was, at that point in Packard's history, quite flawed, wasting time and money that could have gone into strengthening the Packard line including an entry car priced at the top end of Clipper or perhaps a nudge higher, like 56 Executive, and a competively proportioned upper range. With such a strategy, I agree that Packard could have gone it alone especially since Nash wasn't offering a winning body shell.

Nance also struggled to make timely and effective product decisions. Any merger or major body sharing deal with Nash or Hudson needed to have been cut by the first half of 1953 to give everyone sufficient time to properly prepare a new line of sleek, low 55s. As it turned out there was too much last-minute scrambling at both AMC and Packard, with negative consequences.

Looking at the Nash Pininfarina design, seems it would have been a natural as a Studebaker President body share too, perhaps using Nash's 7 inches shorter wheelbase/hood. Rambler body could have been used for Champion. Nance would have been seen as a sob in South Bend and on EGB but he could have ended all manufacturing operations except Packard and Studebaker V8 engine production.

Attach file:

---

  (84.33 KB)

Inspiration from design concepts can lead to new ways (good, bad or otherwise) of looking at things. Rear glass area closed in and length added to deck, front door and hood of '55 Nash rather than Hudson. Think it would look better with front wheels fully exposed like Hudson but I like Nash's inset headlights, preferably hidden within grill area. F/R bumpers and taillamps could have been modern looking and nicely integrated like rendering, all of this would have been at Packard's discretion. Of course, the result would be better if donor body was lowered like Pininfarina concept.

Attach file:

---

  (34.65 KB)


  (88.57 KB)