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

Another appearance exploration for 1953, a year which presented an incredible opportunity for Packard. As a hardtop sedan (with chromed window frames like '41 LeBaron Sport Brougham) the Cavalier would have become the flagship and priced against Sixty Special. Or this car could have been given another name like Pacific. Backlight is 1-piece because Packard needed to keep up with Cadillac. Interior would have been the same as previous 250 except for a padded I/P upper for a luxury touch.

An alternative to the car being added to the top of existing '53 line-up would have been for Packard to have made it and a hardtop sedan version of the Clipper the new sedans that replaced the 200 and 300/400. Someone - perhaps Nance in the year leading up to his officially starting, or Ferry or Teague - would have needed to question the wisdom of tooling a new windshield and making expensive roof tooling changes to make the existing tall sedans look more hardtop-like, when the squared off 250 windshield already existed and its roof tooling, if lengthened 5 inches, the perfect solution for the 127 sedan. The hardtop coupe could have benefited from a new flatter roof anyway and the Clipper sedan would have needed its own new roof, all of which Packard could have afforded at that time.

In this scramble to compete without breaking the bank, the Eights could have been converted to OHVs with aluminum heads and given as high a compression as possible, enabling the 327 to produce upwards of 220-225 HP. Nash converted its small Six to OHVs in 1956 and saw a 20% increase in power with similar compression and carburetion as the flat head it replaced. Packard probably should have converted its Eights to OHVs for '51 as stand-in for future V8.

Attach file:

---

  (76.98 KB)

With that small chrome pillar it changes the look to me in a very nice way. That's one sharp Packard!

Glad you like it, I do too! Overall height is almost an inch lower than Cavalier and Patrician and the rear glass has more rake, all of which help give it a sportier look.

Nice! Would the chrome 'pillar' between the front and rear door glass have stayed there when the windows were down? (I think Kaiser-Frazer's 4-door hardtops had a similar fixed pillar between the windows.)

Yes, benefit being greater structural rigidity.

Also, the chromed window frames would have been fixed to the doors like concurrent Nash, which means the car would have been "hardtop" in appearance only and constructed like a conventional sedan. Benefits of window frames fixed to doors with only the glass rolling down would have been better water sealing and improved interior quietness. My understanding is that Packard struggled initially with keeping Mayfair dry.

Were the chrome window frames instead fixed to the side glass like a true hardtop coupe or convertible, the B-pillar that you mentioned would have needed to be wider to allow the windows to roll down, to detriment of appearance.

This is how the Clipper might have fared. And by the way... all due respect and appreciation to the owners of the lovely cars that these work-ups are based on.

The Clipper sedan shown has the same hardtop backlight rake as Cavalier above, and per established Packard strategy also uses the same side window frames, side glass and B-pillar.

Notice that the rear window frame forward rake is a bit "stiff" compared to backlight rake. From an appearance perspective Mayfair and Cavalier above get away with it because of the distance between the two elements. On this Clipper they are closer together and therefore look a bit odd. Since Packard would have needed to tool a new roof and backlight for this would-have-been car anyway, it could have dialed in whatever backlight rake it wanted. Key was that it resulted in rear roof height that provided adequate rear headroom and good appearance. These two elements almost always fight each other in car design.

Am also showing a 2-door sedan that, by virtue of the chrome on its fixed B-pillar, makes it a Sportster right out of the gate, at least externally. The work-up uses Mayfair hardtop's front door glass, chrome surround and vent windows, which makes it more hardtop-like.

Attach file:

---

  (30.37 KB)


  (30.08 KB)

It may not seem like it now since the era of the hardtop has passed but it was the next greatest thing in those years. Every carmaker who aggressively participated by fielding pillar-less hardtops and even hardtop-styled sedans saw immediate benefits. The affect on Packard's image and sales with models like these would have returned far greater sales than ever garnered by halo models like the Caribbean, even as much as those were important too. What a shame Nance didn't recognize this opportunity before he took the helm, institute such a program immediately upon arrival.

Steve

Maybe to further save money they could have converted their straight 8's to F-heads like Willys did on the inline 4 and their own 6's. Much the same benefit as full overhead valves but allows a much larger intake valve. I believe Rolls Royce also was using F-head inline 6's at the time.

John

Am not familiar with F-Heads but if the technology delivered the power and fuel economy of OHVs then certainly it should have been looked at. Whatever they chose also needed to make good ad copy because perception was part of the battle.

Absolutely Steve, by 1953 2-door hardtops were all the rage and Packard was lagging. Nance should have made it a priority to quickly create a car that would compete with Coupe de Ville. He certainly had opportunities. I should probably start a new thread rather than offer examples here.

My parents bought a new '52 hdtp from J.P. Mooney in McKeesport Pa. They wanted my stepdad to leave it in the showroom because it drew so much attention. It was Sunset red metallic and Twilight taupe metallic with genuine dark red leather and grey nylon interior with a dark red dash.
WOTTA car!! I learned how to hotwire it when I was 14. Taught myself how to drive.

Attach file:

---

  (100.82 KB)