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

Was at the Packard Proving Grounds car show last weekend, saw some nice 51-54s, compared them to a couple 30s Seniors parked nearby and tried to imagine how the later cars might have captured a bit more of the marque's former luster and presence. Here are some thoughts and a photo alteration, with much thanks to the owner of the '51 200.

Image has the 400's roof married to the 200's backlight for a nice clean, private look with no mullions. Side windows are like the '41 LeBaron Sport Brougham for a crisp, custom appearance. Body insert between the doors has been removed to reduce the number of broken surfaces along the sides. Rear fender bulge is washed away by bringing out the body forward of it, perhaps with a subtle bulge to the front and rear fenders. Finally, and importantly, added 5 inches to the hood to give the car length and proportions more in keeping with the 30s cars. Total wheelbase is now 132".

Underhood could have been either the 356 or a modern new OHV Eight or V8. Of course, an OHV V12 would have been welcome too.

As to what the front and rear design might have looked like to make the appearance as memorable as the 30s cars, am not sure. Traditional grill? Perhaps, or maybe something a bit more modern but still very distinct and classy.

All thoughts welcome!

Attach file:

---

  (67.49 KB)

A while ago on another thread I speculated on what might have happened if Packard had bought Studebaker a few years sooner.

Studebaker brought out their OHV V8 in 1951. Packard could have had a V12 based on this engine in 1952 or 53.

Comparative size and HP, Studebaker 232 cu in 120HP, Packard 348 cu in 180HP, compare to the contemporary Chrysler Hemi V8, 331 cu in 180HP and Cadillac 331 160HP.

Such a V12 would have been no longer than a straight 6, actually shorter than the 288 straight eight and the same weight or less.

I have speculated about a Packard lineup for 52 or 53 consisting of a junior or Clipper line with the 288 cu in 130hp straight eight and a senior line with the 180HP V12.

To be followed in a few years by a junior line with the Studebaker 289 220HP V8 and a senior line with 434cu in 330HP V12.

I do recall that argument, Rusty, and it was a good practical one. It would have been _____ (fill in the blank) that the master engine builder would have gotten its design from the carriage maker.

Packard probably could have cranked out their own OHV V-something for '51 or '52 had they put their mind to it, and probably on the existing assembly line with some new equipment added. Chrysler did it in '51, Lincoln in '52.

On the wall to the right of my desk is a calendar. It features reproduced advertising of a different U.S. vehicle for each month. The feature for June is the 1952 Lincoln. There are words about its new modern styling; its new OHV V-8 engine; the dual range Hydramatic automatic transmission; and, the new ball joint front suspension. No wonder Packard could no longer successfully compete. A 1952 Packard with these features would have been a great motor car. I still love those 1951-54 Packards, but just think what it could have been.

(o{I}o)

Quote:

I'm glad you said it not me.

To my mind Packard was in the swim until 1951 then fell behind. The new 51 models were up to date but not leaders, considering Cadillac and Olds Futuramic had similar bodies in 48 and OHV engines from 49.

Between 51 and 54 they should have been more aggressive in restyling the body each year and should have had an all new body in 55. In the meantime, they should have had an OHV V8 or V12 no later than 52.

Agreed. Would add that the 48-50 cars needed work too. The design has been much maligned in some quarters but is actually not a bad effort, at least in part. I saw a really nice '49 at the show last weekend and two things jumped out about the design:

1) the design works well front to C-pillar with its modern, progressive straight-through body sides, which Packard backed away from in '51. I think they should have refined the straight-through idea for '51, perhaps as shown in my image workup.

2) the design aft of the C-pillar is all wrong. Too short of an overhang, too droopy a trunk. Proportionally it just doesn't go with the sedan body. Works better with the convertible because sporty cars often fall off in the rear for a swoopy look.

Inside the Proving Grounds building were some old images of Packards, amongst other things. One rendering that struck me was of a '48 Packard Coupe. It was an advertisement for something - a part maybe, not a Packard specifically - but showed the car front and center. What was interesting was that the artist added the overhang and bustle to the decklid that was needed to bring it all into proportion. He also made it a hardtop coupe with a defined decklid rather than the production's fastback design. What this told me was that folks weren't blind to what the car needed back then. Good proportion is timeless and recognized in all times. Frankly I think this is part of the reason Packard fell off the map at the high end. They forgot how to do the simple things they always use to do, like add inches to the hood for their top-of-line models.

IMHO, that stretched look would be better balanced with the 54 senior tail light and rear end treatment instead of the vertical unadorned look. The long extra chrome across the top of rear fenders did try and hide the drop off. I read that Nance didn't care much for it, but of all the years that dual style light was used, I think that one was the classiest.

Agree that the chrome strip helped square off, and set off, the rear. Not a fan of the side by side rear lights though. Maybe Packard needed an Option C.

I think option C was the sore thumb lights, again, IMHO a step from bad to worse. I think that fender top extension was available with the vertical lights though.

Until Teague came along, I don't think Packard ever had that great a rear end treatment compared to the frontal work--always seemed to be an afterthought. Even their factory photos show very few rear views compared to side and frontal combinations.

I love the sore thumbs tail lights...... I think they are outstanding looking on the Panther. Very sporty.