Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Quote:
A Chrysler-Packard Lebaron...Yikes not another FWD K-car!

Just kidding of course.

The Imperial in 1955-56 was a beautiful luxury car with a brand name with a long history going back to the early 1930s so I suspect adding another luxury brand like Packard to the Chrysler lineup would have been a case of competing against themselves unless the Imperial or Packard were moved down market in which case Chrysler was already positioned with DeSoto (already being squeezed out) and Dodge. My guess is that a merger with Nash and Hudson would have been a better fit since neither brand had a luxury car in their respective lines.

Attach file:

---

  (6.91 KB)

There were the usual number of comparisons in Motor Trend and other publications of the time, some of the comparisons have been posted here and there on this site from time to time, but perhaps someone will come along and refresh the information. I also believe there were some more current comparisons, perhaps in SIA.

My view is that Imperial and Cadillac were already in the luxury market that Packard had pretty much forfeited postwar with perhaps the exception of the 48-50 Customs. Thus all they had to do was to maintain their position, a lot cheaper than having to build up to it, and of course they had the luxury of being able to afford a low volume "loss leader" to maintain their cache. But Packard had to spend money which they didn't have a lot of to climb back into that market. It was a noble effort, the V8 Patricians and 400s were not quite a match for the Imperials and Cadillacs, but nevertheless closely approached the competition. The Caribbean convertibles were particulary well-positioned as Imperial didn't even have a convertible (except for the single one built for Keller). As far as styling pizzas goes, that's subjective but I think the Packard exceeded the Cadillac and Imperial unless you were ultra-conservative in your tastes. Packard tried to do a lot all at once, sort of a last-gasp, to quickly reenter the market that had previously forsaken; they got very close indeed even with an older body shell. The restyle of the 51-54 body shell was nothing more than spectacular. But the build quality was no longer there, and the stunning engineering achievements a bit less than totally refined. In the end, a very commendable and noble effort which I believe is one reason why we love these cars.

Anyway, that's my view.

Clipper47: LOL!

The Popular Machanics magazines are now available online in Google Books. I did a quick search and found this interesting article in the Sept.1955 issue with a Clymer road test of a 55 Custom Clipper and a survey about customer satisfaction with the 1955 Packards.http://books.google.com/books?id=Z94DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122&dq=popular+mechanics+packard&lr=#PPA118,M1. I also found a report and owner survey of the 1953 Model.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8NsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA103&dq=popular+mechanics+1953+packard&lr=

Here is an article about the 1956 line.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1N4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA268&dq=popular+mechanics+1956+packard&lr=#PPA94,M1

The 1955 Survey and road test is already available on this site.

I owned a 55 Imperial Newport hardtop in 1975-77 and a 55 Packard 400 from 77-79 and the Packard in my mind was a better car.Both cars had seen better days and the bodies and paint left much to be desired.Of course back then they were just old cars.The two cars together cost me about $500.00.The packard had a better ride, better handling and for my money, a better transmission.I got about 13 MPG on the Chrysler and 16 MPG on the Packard. I must admit that I did appreciate the electric wipers in the Chrysler.

Powerflites did have a habit of breaking reverse bands on occasion, but their ability to take the torque of large hemi engines under full throttle starts and last 100,000 miles or more was better than one could expect from a TU.

Yes, I agree about that Packard had good handling and a great ride, closest I can compare it to is a 56 New Yorker which really dipped into the turns.

I agree that Chrysler had some quality issues and rust problems in the mid to late 50's but didn't most US auto makers? It is pretty hard to fault the Chrysler engines, drivetrains or interiors though in comparison to the competition. I owned a 52 and then a 62 Chrysler so can't speak from experience on the 55-56 models but I always admired the styling of Chryslers of the era.

PackardV8, I can't remember whether I saw it in the big AQ Packard book or in The Packard Club's (PAC) "The Packard Cormorant" magazine almost 20 years ago, but I believe author George Hamlin reprinted a lot of memos between Packard president Jim Nance and his product planning guru, Roger Bremer. Nance specifically asked Bremer about the front folding armrest that was used in the Imperials, and wanted to know what it would take to get it into the Patrician. It probably would have been a part of any 1957 Detroit Packards, but alas, we'll never really know for sure.


Quote:

What you remember was in The Packard Cormorant. The several interviews that PAC officers had with Nance were recorded and later transcribed and published. I've not read thru them in a while but have been meaning to. Here's the volume numbers and page numbers of some of them:

"Nance Papers, The"
Part 1 27:2
Errata 29:34
Part 2 29:26
Part 3 31:24
Part 4 33/6
Part 5 Frederick H. Rush 42:2
Part 5 continued Frederick H. Rush 43:6
"Nance Papers: The Merger Battle Part V: Reader Opinion, 45:30

My 55 Imperial had 10 times the rust of my 55 Packard.They both were sold and existed in the same area for 20+ years?
So how is the Imperial better? Don't get me wrong. I think the th 55 Imperial grill beats Packard, but te 400's rear end is far superior.