Packard Forum Index » General

Guy - I contacted BigKev. He had no issue but did suggest I get permission from the car and/or image owners, and felt that working off Packard factory photos was fine. I was able to upload the 54-56 What-Ifs the other day but am locked out again from uploading. Not sure why.

Great suggestion about jumping ahead 20 years... and interesting that you should mention this! My good friend Steve, who often comments on the forum, and I have been kicking around what-ifs for a Pierce-Arrow look-ahead, some of which I have shown on AACA's P-A site. Although I have not posted everything, have actually taken Pierce all the way into the 1980s. The 1934-48s are based on Studebakers, the 1949s-1980s are based on Chryslers. Wish I could upload images here, would love to show you a '76 Pierce-Arrow in particular.

Chrysler had torsion front suspensions from 1957 into the 1980s so they might make a great candidate for a Packard, whose rear torsion system would need to be packaged and somehow made to work with the front. As to the design/appearance potential, I can say from numerous workups that a fabulous car can be had!

Quote:

Not exactly what I had in mind. I'm talking about a "rolling chassis" from a '55 or '56, re-bodied with a newer, lower body style. The body modifications you have been showing on Fords and other cars would instead be used to "Packardise" the body only. This is somewhat a "period correct" idea as the Packard was coach built in the old days, when the running gear was the identifying part of the car, like it really still should be. Bodies are bodies, but the running gear of the V8 torsion level Packards is really special.

This is a "what-if" with possibly more potential to become an actual car. Many knock-off "Packards" have been attempted, but always with both running gear and body simply glitzed up and called a Packard. Other attempts have been made to modify Packard bodies with an eye to what could've been done with styling in the late 50's.

Using an actual Packard chassis would have the proper bona fides and also show that this chassis would have been a competitive design well into the '60s, and, with modification, a standard of the industry until today-- like the lockup torque converter automatic, and most power steering designs, have been based on Packard originals-- and Packard made the lockup converter work 25 years before a major manufacturer finally built their own-- and the majors tried hard to replicate it before then.

A lighter, lower '60s or even '70s body with those periods' additional creature comforts would make a very interesting "coach" for the Packard's more advanced suspension.

Quote:
Can't be done.

The lower-bodied cars of later decades rode on frames that didn't have a big X-member, let alone T-L equipment, in the way. Much of the floor pan in the passenger compartment of those later cars sits down, between the frame side rails, which was necessary to preserve headroom. Packard floor pans sat on top of the frame rails (and X-member).

I don't see an insurmountable problem, Brian. Using original floor pans isn't required with a rolling chassis, in which the body components contribute little if anything structurally.

I'm not talking about all cars over the "decades." Candidates would be body-on-frame models that continued to be made throughout the sixties, and even up to the '80s--for instance the full-sized Cadillac. These cars were built on chassis that were, in the case of GM at least, also used for 1/4 ton pickups. I think the differences in body height between those vehicles is a good indicator of the flexibility of various bodies that can be mounted on old-school chassis.

One would have to look at various designs and have a good idea of the specific dimensions, or be willing to do a "cut-and try" approach, to have an idea of what would work. This has been a successful approach in hot-rodding and other modifications. I've seen a 70's era Olds station wagon body affixed to 4-wheel drive pickup chassis-- for more cushy surroundings while plowing snow.

"Can't be done" is a pretty far-reaching statement, considering what has already been done, and is currently being done. Thanks for the terse assessment, though.

Quote:
Yeah, I've seen more than a few tired old RWD car bodies dropped onto a 4WD truck chassis - essentially, a brief reprieve from the junk yard. What they did was bolt the old car body and frame - minus running gear and suspension - right on top of the old truck frame, often with some sort of ladder bolted on for ingress/egress. I don't believe that's what the prospective Packard buyer would be looking for.

I've crawled over, under, and through enough vehicles - mostly GM and Packard - to know that manufacturers have often pushed the envelope, but also with mixed results.

However, I can't begin to tell you how many kustom car projects I've seen that started out with the best of intentions, but wound up being sold for scrap. The T-L chassis didn't even lend itself to Henney's work of the time.

Yet, even with a body-on-frame car of the 1960s or later that's reasonably close to the 55-56 Packard wheelbase, I stand by my statement that what you've initially proposed "can't be done" and, furthermore, never would have been considered for production on the real world.

Depending on what the next generation Packard chassis was with the modified torsion suspension, those could have had lowered floorpans. The pictures of Black Bess show the low height of the car, so customers legs would have had to go somewhere. The longer wheelbase meant longer torsion bars so the company was definitely thinking along the lines of different bars torqued for different usages. They had the 55-56 Clipper and Packard car weights and in 57 could have had Clipper, Packard, and Chassis torque bars.

The 55-56's were definitely from an earlier time when bodies sat on, not into the framework. However, the junior chassis could have been used for two seater configuration with plenty of leg space and low slung bodyworks. A fifties sixties version of the Packard Darrins could have been made for ooh and aah impact.

Hmm. Hmmmm. Everything BH has said seems right. On the other hand, one can do just about anything with enough money.

Guy - this car you are envisioning, we need to know more. For example, what's your target height? The '56 is 62.8" tall. A 60s/70s American sedan is around 54-56" tall. Because Packard's frame may not lend itself to a dropped floorpan in the footwell region, what are you prepared to give up in terms of headroom and seat height, recognizing that both dimensions had already been somewhat reduced by the Big 3 to get to the lower vehicle heigths in the 60s/70s.

What else can you tell us. Is there a particular car you have in mind as the donor? How much of it do you think you want to use? Are you prepared to use a 60s/70s intermediate, which might fit better to Packard's front/rear track?

A good sheetmetal shop can bend anything, it just takes time and money. Other things such as glass need to be used as-is or possibly trimmed (with great difficulty?) but can't be added to.

I think one big consideration was touched on a couple of posts back. The weight of any new body would need to be reasonably close to what was designed into the bar system.

I'd think there would not be much leeway before it gets too far out of range to adjust with the different length links & not much else is available. Even Packard had to issue stronger bars with additional twist when they couldn't keep up with added weight. The problem would be just as bad if a more modern body which might be made out of different or thinner steel couldn't move the bars down into mid range.

Body weight is a tough statistic to get. It depends on factors beyond the sheet metal, including the interior, floor pan, trunk floor, engine weight, etc. If one were rich enough and skilled enough to put this plan into action, I think the most probable first modification would be to shorten the Packard frame to accommodate the shorter trunks of other popular bodies. There seems to be no other reasonable chassis modification due to the full-length torsion bars. The wheelbase, whether junior or senior, would be set in stone,

Moving up from there, I think the body could sit lower on the frame with the aid of new body mounts attached at a lower point. HOWEVER, it's good to remember that the lower edges of the Packard body, rocker panels that is, are NOT responsible for the "highpockets" look, the beltline is just too high. Even the greenhouse is quite low. This look is getting popular again BTW, witness the popularity of the Chrysler bodies of recent years--High beltline, low roofline,

Since it's really the height of the doors and fenders that give the height problem, a body that is "shorter" in these dimensions may even be able to utilize the current body mounting height. Of course, unibodies are out. The floor pan of the Packard could probably be used as is, replacing the rockers with those of the donor body.

Keeping the current greenhouse would be cool, but wouldn't look right with the rounded roof. There is enough of a "dome" shape to the roof that it could be modified by flattening, leaving an attractive square edge along each side. Some windshield modification in the form of a cut-down would probably be needed. Sacrifice to headroom possibly an inch or so, but lowering the seat by the same amount would offset that, or the headliner could be modified as well.

Seats would probably need to be replaced, as cutting down seat height seems a bit more work than it's worth. They could be as much as an inch or more lower and probably still give reasonable hip position. As they are, you're practically sitting in a living room chair. If visibility and steering location are a problem, opt for a new tilt column (it's been done).

Hood clearance may be a problem with the standard air cleaner, but a lower profile design could do the trick. Also, radiator may need to be shortened or replaced with a different style (not too tricky).

I'd prefer to find a donor body that looks good, and lends itself to Packard type mods, such as cathedral style tail lights and a central Packard style grill. One that comes to mind is a late 70's Lincoln Contininental-- but having no data on frame style, wheel base or width, I don't know. A full sized '60s Buick Electra might be just the ticket, but the "slider" ground-hugging effects of these cars required a split driveshaft.

Weight issues are the other factor to consider, as mentioned. I always thought a lighter body might improve "spring" rate, stiffening the ride a bit but maintaining flatter corners. It would be interesting if someone had some stats on running a lightened '55 or '56. Otherwise, it could turn into a "cut and try" exercise of modifying donor body weights.

In any case, this car's Packard identity is more important than its donor's identity, which should be as difficult to determine as possible IMO. It would be a piece-by-piece project that would need to have flexible standards to evolve into whatever it would become. Computer modeling could help take a lot of the guesswork out, but of course, that's money too.

The interior is such a plus for this car that I'd have to recommend leaving it alone as much as possible. Lower seats, but correctly proportioned with high quality materials, steering wheel based on the clean Clipper style, instrument panel pretty much as-is, original pieces used wherever possible.

I think it's a great early retirement project for someone who sold out a successful dotcom.

P.S. One thing that would help discussion is good dimensional drawings or photos of top, bottom and sides of the Packard chassis.

Here's a thought Guy. Pick a donar car with a greenhouse that looks too high for its body. Such cars can mainly be found in the early 60s. One that comes to mind is the 61-66 T-Bird. The reason I suggest this is that because the body (in the case of the T-Bird a unibody) would be placed on top of the Packard frame, unique lower body cladding would need be created to cover up the frame and would need to meld with the rest of the body, effectively raising the overall body height to proportions appropriate for the greenhouse. 1960-63 Ford sedans come to mind as well. Also GM sedans of this period. Only drawback to all except the bird is that they still have straight side glass, which might date them.