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

I admit to being fond of the 54. Of the 4 years of that basic design, the minor changes made that year came together for me and particularly in the 54 Pacific which was my favorite.

I wasn't thinking of you stretching a whole 54 almost intact though--but it does look nice--just substitute the tail light and chrome fender piece treatment to your first design. IMHO the real senior tailights would look better in your 200 treatment than the chrome pods they came up with for the added tail light width needed to use the vertical fenders on a senior car. Less distraction on an otherwise clean body so to use that pod, I don't know. A 54 modified chrome piece on the vertical taillights of your original might look better--just something to dress up the tapering down of the fender. I will admit to not being too fond of the 200s lower stamped speedline. To my taste, that is distracting and out of place on a slabside body.

At any rate, might be an interesting stretched treatment with the 200 from rear glass forward but all senior from trunk lid back.

Is the 54 Patrician's rear light/chrome trim different than the 51-53 Seniors? Must apologize, need to take a closer look at these cars next opportunity. Did a quick hack of a 52 400. Wish actual mods were as easy!

One thing I have noticed is that Packard's design philosophy seemed to change from the 30s to the 50s, both in their ability to design bodies in a pure unadulterated way and in their use of chrome. As an example, consider this work-up I showed recently on the forum of a 37 1507 5-pass coupe modified to be a 1508 sedan. Full credit to Packard for the design, I just added rear doors and stretched the wheelbase. I did the mod because in those years Packard seemed to be nailing their car designs in all ways except the rear. The touring sedans were still speced out as over-cabbed limos while only the coupes were getting beautiful decklids, and never were the two being combined. The Club Sedan was the closest but still too aligned with the touring sedans. What I wanted to show was what would happen if all of Packard's best design stuff came together on their longest wheelbase. The result is a car that uses little chrome or design gimmicks to succeed and instead relies on pure form of body and a distinctive grill. To my eye this is Packard at its best and I would take it over a 37 Cadillac, Rolls, Pierce or Lincoln any day. It's OK that it doesn't have a split windshield or pontoon fenders like the competition that year, it does things the old fashioned way and succeeds wonderfully.

As the years progressed Packard seemed to focus more on compact dimensions to give the driver a more manageable car, and chrome trim rather than fully proportioned bodies for design flow. The chrome was subtle at first... the 39 Super Eight hood vent. The Clipper used more chrome, then more post-war. The bathtubs used more. Then came the 51's and finally the 55's. Poundage of chrome shot up while wheelbases, hood lengths and original Packard body and greenhouse design ideas came down. That's why I wanted to work up the 51... to get back to Packard design philosophy of yore. Packard's that got their design right first by spec'ing out the right proportions, then sculpting bodies of their own imagination with no copying of the competition. Much has been written about what happened to the Seniors and how Packard handed the luxury market to Caddy on a silver platter. To my eye Packard didn't make a proper Senior after 1939 - and it had nothing to do with the full scale migration to the Junior production line. That needed to happen. It had mostly to do with the size and shape of the Seniors. They were from 1940 on Juniors in presence. Maybe the LWB limos captured some of the magic but certainly no Packard on a 127" wheelbase could ever be a full, traditional Packard Senior. Probably not until the 60s and super low cars could such a wheelbase be proportioned for a luxury car. Just an opinion...

Attach file:

---

  (27.33 KB)


  (37.79 KB)

Another reason I'd never make a designer. The lights don't look as good as I thought. Seems like they made the back end look too short for the rest of the car or else it needs something else tweaked to make it look proportional. What would the full length vertical light and trim pieces would look like.https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=4039&cid=55

Here's a quick mod. Many thanks to the owner of the 53. Like the wheels.

Shows better view of windshield. Am even more persuaded that the "old-fashioned" 51-52 windshield flows better with the rounded body than this squared off look, similar to how the nicely shaped one piece in 37 works well with the 1508. Feel same about the Pinin Farina car. Bentley Continental of same vintage has rounded screen, works nicely. Not that the convertible windshield is ghastly, it's a nice sporty look, just different than the rounded style.

Attach file:

---

  (91.37 KB)

Here's a different perspective. Shows how the windshield ties in nicely with all the other curves in the greenhouse and body. Many thanks to Derham owner, what a car! Work-up adds 5" to hood, etc. Comparing the total length of the 200 to the 300/400, looks like Packard added 3 inches to larger cars' rear overhang. Does the frame stick out that much further and/or is the decklid unique, or is it simply a different bumper? And... does it help the design?

Also included an image I had shown on the forum some time when we last covered this topic. Represents an attempt to construct a distinctive, cohesive and contained grill of modern design (for the early 50s) but still Packard. The Chrysler Special concept has such a shape. The 30s Packard grill was also such a shape for its time, fitting the V-shaped body (in top view) perfectly. I have heard many suggest that Packard should have re-introduced that design in the 50s. Am not sure it fit the shape of the body or front clip; the 50s cars are flat-faced and need a shape that fills the space in a well-proportioned way, which means a grill opening that is much lower and wider than the 30s/40s grill. Vertical slats in such an opening might look odd, that's why I went with a cross-meshed style.

Attach file:

---

  (40.39 KB)


  (29.25 KB)

Not sure this worked out so well.

Attach file:

---

  (47.19 KB)

Perhaps this is closer to the frontal look you're working towards? Taken at the 1999 Centennial in Warren, OH. IIRC, done for Packard by Mitchell-Bentley.

Attach file:

---

  (151.11 KB)

Thanks Owen, that seems to fit nicely. To give the grill depth I tried to work in a fine mesh behind the main mesh, like the 56 Patrician. Might be looking too much like a Mercedes though. Prompted me to try a classic grill and tinker with headlight positioning. Not sure this is the way to go either. Boy, design sure ain't easy.

Attach file:

---

  (46.59 KB)

If you get a chance to examine a Clipper beside a same year senior car you will see the roof is longer. This is where they added the length to the body. The rear door is the same except the cutout for the wheelwell is smaller. I believe the trunk lid is the same although I have not measured. The rear fenders are longer and the wheelbase is longer.

A very clever way to get a senior body with more interior room at the minimum tooling cost. And since the rear fenders were different anyway why not give them a distinctive tail light treatment.

It strikes me as a more honest way to make a luxury model, by giving the customer more interior room. Contrast this to contemporary GM thinking where they added a cheap stretch out to the trunk of the Cadillac and some chrome and charged thousands of $$$ more. Or added wheelbase in front of the windshield and gave the buyer no more interior room.

The difference in the Packard bodies is subtle. You have to examine them side by side for a while to appreciate what a good job the designer did.

Exactly so, Rusty.

On the senior cars the roof behind the c-pillars is approx 5 inches deeper and the rear seat is set rearwards the same amount. The decklids are all the same size and except for latching details all 51-56 will interchange. OOps, except convertibles , which had shorter lids. The junior rear door inner panels were converted to senior by an extension spot welded on to make up for the wheel wells being 5" further back. And of course, they got a different outer skin.

Any rear door from a similar wheelbase will bolt on to any 51-56 and latch. In fact a junior door will bolt onto a senior and fit at the top, but small children could then fall out the bottom. Floor pans were extended with a strip of metal from door to door. It was all very clever and sensible and really gave the senior buyer something of worth for the extra cost. Unlike the bathtubs where no matter what you paid the legroom was not outstanding.