Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Having now watched the durability "video" posted here yesterday (Thanks again for posting), I can't stop thinking about what it would take to have the same lighting equipment. I am looking for all sorts of opinions and answers here please.

I don't think that any additional lights add anything to the look of the front end. As a matter of opinion I think they detract from the effect of the design. But then I don't like mud flaps, curb scrapers and little balls hanging from the headlining either.

If you want to see what a 56 looks like with extra lights mounted above the bumper, look for the photo of the ex-Steinberg Caribbean HT; it may be in the Dawes or Kimes book - it's a well-known photo. You'll also find a similar photo in the Showroom section of PAC's website, click on 1956, it's about the 6th or 7th one from the top.

I do agree with Randy, I think it presents a poor appearance, detracting from the overall elegance of the frontal design, but as they say, to each his own.

I'm kind of with Randy but if you're going to add some, think something like the video -- small and unobtrusive low in that space would look much better than the typical large offering Packard had for the period. Those larger ones mounted high in front of the grill really stand out.

To be perfectly honest, I thought of taking a beat-up pair of Dagmars and replace the bullet nose with a slightly concave section which could hold a pair of running lights. These would only have been a three inch diameter light at most. I looked at the cost of having the Dagmars modified and rechromed and the cheap Randy took control again. But that was many years ago and far away.

Interesting idea. The request has something similar with the parking lights recessed that way so it would not be out in left field to do something with the dagmars--or you could even put a 51-2 parking light glass on the end to maintain the shape.

Howard, you are beginning to think like me.
Be afraid - be very afraid.