Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

IMHO, although the line of the lower rear molding make it tempting to extend the lower body color forward, that area of the front fender below the parking light on on the 55-56 Caribbeans should be the middle color.

I agree completely and that's how mine was originally. However, there are those who staunchly believe it should be the bottom color; I believe some of the confusion arose from viewing the pictures of the restored Carib in the Fenster book.

Here's a photo of mine as the paint was stripped. The small section that's white was from a subsequent repaint where the MES scheme was oversprayed to SES and as the white was removed, it was blue beneath.

I apologize for going off topic from the original underhood details but the color on this little area has been a bone of contention for many years with very strong opinions on both sides.

Attach file:

---

  (90.93 KB)

Although I didn't start the thread, I don't see that we've gone that far off-topic. After all, we're still talking about the front fenders.

The color of the parking light area is an important issue, especially for Caribbeans as too many mis-restored cars have led to de facto standards - in lieu of detailed, documented, objective, judging criteria. Then, some 50 years, and counting, after the last Packard rolled off the assembly line, it gets harder to tell whether what came from the factory or a full strip or even collision replacement. Plenty of cars have been restored more than once, by now.

Yet, thanks to all the good discussion, here, we appear to be getting to the bottom of it - for the benefit of all.

BH
Therefore, everything below the masking line for the upper color on Caribbeans got sprayed in the middle color - including the parking light area. On my unrestored H/T, it appears that the factory then masked for the lower color, from the rear of the front wheel opening, and rearward. (In fact, I have found traces of Socttish Heather under the Maltese Gray on my H/T.)


I agree the evidence shows that's how it was and also in O_D's statement of staunch believers the other direction as well -- which is probably where I fall. Even though I'm in agreement with the consensus how it was apparently done originally, I think it is one of those minor overlooked details that really makes you wonder what were they thinking and why.

Mine is wrong, I know it, but I had it done that way on purpose because that glaring 1" slit of red above the bumper just didn't seem to flow right with the gray bottom. On a car with more subdued colors, maybe not as big a notice. And my apologies also for going off topic and on a rant.

HH56 -

I understand where you're coming from.

I've even seen one example of a restored Carib where the owner painted one part of the exposed parking light area in the middle color, then in the lower color below that. Perhaps if one used a line from a laser level to extend the center line of the rear lower molding, the divide might actually fall below the parking light molding, then.

Sometimes it comes down to splitting hairs. In the case of automakers it probably came down to that niggling detail of productivity - achieving the "desired" result with as few man-hours as possible.

However, as long as it's your name on the title, it's your car to do with as you please. I'm just trying to help get to the root of authencity. I didn't see any rant in your post, but only some confusion as to my initial explanantion.

Now, imagine how much discussion it will take to arrive at a complete set of agreed-upon criteria for just the 55-56 cars!

I started the thread, and no, I don't think we are off topic. Quite the opposite, we are going into a lot of detail and I have been learning a lot! Thanks!!

I just hope we don't get into personal discussions of any sort. As with anything in life, opinions may vary and more so when we are talking about the way things were done 50 years ago... and that article cited by Ross was really a great suprise and helps settle most doubts on the internal fenders, I would guess.

Thanks HH56 for the pics on the vaccumm lines. Now... from one of your pictures, another doubt surfaces. Your car has two screws on the engine block. One of them holds the vaccuum line and the other one apparently is just a screw with nothing to hold. On my car, those two screws hold the coil, while in yours, the coil is held to the firewall. I can't see any more coils in the pics as to compare, so I would like to hear more on coil placement, if possible. I included a pic of my engine bay in which you can barely see the coil, with the top facing up, held by those two screws, very near to the heater box.

Thanks,
Victor

Attach file:

---

  (177.17 KB)

The ignition coil mounts to the cowl on the Carib (2 x 4 bbl); on the single carb models it mounts to the two posts on the intake manifold. Was that your question?

This 5588 was purchased from the original owner in 1963. And does not show any signs of being repainted

Attach file:

---

  (118.99 KB)

If I am looking the same place as you, screws are both used. The front one holds the vacuum tube and the back one connects one end of the aux ground strap between the engine and body. Since your coil is in a different spot than mine, so may be the ground strap.

Attach file:

---

  (31.06 KB)

Coil: Yes... I was refering to that, and it is now clear what the engine screws are holding and that the coil itself should be in the firewall. Thanks!

Meant to encourage further conversation.

Attach file:

---

  (209.81 KB)


  (132.21 KB)


  (232.29 KB)