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

Wheelbase measurement was from the middle of the front spindle dust cap to the center of the rear axle Thus if the front wheels were not dead straight ahead, it could be off a bit. Owner will measure the other side in the same manner and the average should be the true wheelbase.

Next time I'm in the area I'll measure the doors.

Hi Dave

Thanks for following up on this interesting custom, it's one of the most intriguing mysteries we've pursued of late. Vertification of the wheelbase and rear door length will be very useful. When you have the chance to photograph it again, try to get good images of the bottom of the rear doors as well since the deterioration might have exposed the lead seams of the mated panels. If the exposed edges are visible, a dimension from the front edge will settle how much as added

If the wheelbase proves to be 149", the frame shows no stretching modification and the body and serial numbers are early 1952, here's some conjecture how this car came to be.

Henney was in negotiations with Packard in early 1952 to add long wheelbase formal sedans and limousines as adjunct to their commercial line. Management sets a 149" wheelbase as an acceptable benchmarked to exceed Cadillac 75's 147" and Chrysler Crown Imperial's 145.5". Richard Arbib is assigned the task of developing various designs, this being one of the possibilities. As parameter, management wanted to utilize as many unmodified factory stampings as possible. He replaces the Patrician front door with the standard 200 Club Sedan unit, gaining 9", covering 136", then adding 13" to the rear Patrician doors. For production, Henney has only to tool inserts for the roof and floorpan, then either set up door stretching operatons or low-volume tooling to do so. All else is standard Patrician fare.
As appealing as this prototype is when finished, it seems to fit neither the bill to compete with the Cadillac 60 Special nor the competing limousines where the preferred configuration sets the rear seat behind the door section, the space for occasional seats being unacceptably cramped in the prototype.

Arbib has also ginned up the other design which utilizes the Junior rear quarters, unique passenger compartment doors, roof and floor inserts, and standard Patrician components B-pillar forward. The configuration is more in line with the market intent so gets the nod for 1953 production.

Thoughts?

Steve

Steve, thanks for the nice words and yes, I have very thoroughly enjoyed tracking down details on this car. At one time it appeared the car no longer existed - and it turns up 20 miles from me!

Your scenario is certainly logical and suggests a review of the Packard Board Meeting Minutes as they often did mention arrangements for special cars, prototypes, and the like. I'll have a friend check the minutes from 51 and 52 and see what he might find. I'm also anxiously awaiting a review of the Derham archives. I've also just emailed the owner and asked for door length dimensions measured just at the lower edge of the beltline molding, and to peek under the rear doors for signs of door extension.

The other possibility the might muddle the waters considerably is that the two old period B&W photos that we do have are of two different cars! I'm not sure I ever posted the other period B&W, so it's enclosed and can be dated approximatly by the cars in the background. If the same car, note the addition of some 1953 trim, including the rear bumper. Though I didn't take a photo of it, the car as it now survives here in NJ does have the 1953-style trunk latch trim and of course the 53-style rear bumper, both of which can be seen in the photo below. Anyone know the person standing next to the car?

The more we learn, the more questions seem to arise.

Attach file:

---

  (17.67 KB)

"The other possibility the might muddle the waters considerably is that the two old period B&W photos that we do have are of two different cars!"

Owen, your suggestion may actually help clear the muddy water up! I have opened the images up in Paint to check key dimensions such as the door window width front versus rear and relative length of the rear door's fender bulge to the rest of the rear door. Also looked at the side trim on the front door.

My conclusion is that this latest picture that you have shown is the unrestored NJ car and sits on the limo's 149" wheelbase, and the reason the aux seats are of the more compact side-folding type rather than the limo's forward facing jump seats is that this car has the 9" longer coupe front door which locates the division window several inches further back. The aux seats must be packaged behind the division window so that the window can roll down. Lack of rear fender skirts also suggest it is the NJ car, which from the unrestored vehicle pics does not appear to have ever had them. If the front door width checks in around 48" and the rear around 49" we'll know this is a 149" wheelbase car with coupe front doors and 13" added to the rear doors. If anyone has a 300 or 400 sedan and can check the door widths, might help as we continue this fun little journey of discovery. They should be around 39" front and 36" rear.

I believe the very first image that you showed in your post is of a different car that sits on a one-off chassis of ~145" wheelbase, perhaps shortened from Henney's 156" hearse frame. The rear door's fender bulge length relative to overall rear door length suggests that 9" were added to the rear doors and no more. Other indicators include the similar front to rear door window widths. One item that appears to have been customized is the front door's side trim, which extends the full length of the door.

Hope this helps.

Owen - another curiosity is the wheel size. Are they Henney's hearse 16 inchers or standard Packard 15's? Won't tell us much but... inquiring minds would love to know!

Appears the added length of the front door is pretty much taken up by the seat frame & division stuff so essentially unusable. Any speculation why they chose to go that way instead of placing the construction behind a solid filled section between doors & used a regular sedan front door. Pure esthetics & balance or is there something functional with the wide door that I'm not seeing.

Pretty certain that they are two different cars. The rear doors on the NJ car are much longer: compare the size of the chrome stone shield to the length of the door on both cars.

Also, looking at the bottle openers: I am here to tell you it is very hard to fill the huge mounting holes for those things without a lot of warpage, so it not a project to be taken lightly. I think the NJ car just plumb never had them.

I am certainly following this with great interest. Particularly since there seem to be some of you who have better image scaling abilities than I do. The image Owen just posted, by the way, is flipped horizontally, unless that was a RHD car. Not that it makes any difference in measuring, etc. Somewhere along the way years ago the photo was printed with the negative reversed. Image programs, of course, can flip it with the push of the button.

I have hard copies of all the Packard board minutes from about 1941 to the end and I have never seen a mention of this or any of the Derham or Dietrich cars, but I will check again.

Robert Neal

Robert, save yourself the reading, the BOD meeting minutes from 1951 and 1952 have been reread by a friend/Packard historian and there is no mention of anything that might relate to this (or these) car(s).

The suggestion has been made to contact A.O. Smith about any special frame deliveries to Packard, or made and shipped to Derham. I'm advised that on one previous occasion a request to Smith for such information received a detailed response of frame shipments, engineering drawing copies, etc. I'll try to get to that tomorrow.

I own a 1954 Cavalier so I measured the door widths. They should be the same as 1951-53. They did change the shape of the rear fender front bulge but the door width should be the same. Flat edge to flat edge is 39 1/2 front door, 37 1/8 rear door.

Robert Neal