Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

The '56 Clipper Deluxe was available with conventional suspension as a non-cost option. Wonder if those springs would have been strong enough to carry the excess weight of the limo.

Probably not, but following standard industry practice no big deal adding a leaf or two in the rear as they did for the earlier LWB cars, and ditto for stiffer front coils. One problem was there was no Henney to make them, though Derham could have and probably a far higher cost. For a possible market of 100 cars, Packard didn't need another loss-leader and by 1956 management was pretty much full-time immersed in survival issues.

The wheelbases are correct but I'm not sure that the 156 was still built in 1954.

NB: I would have ordered mine in Naples gray with maroon upholstery

That is surely correct. It is kind of a miracle that they even pushed out the Executive amidst that turmoil in early 1956.

'54 Limo - Proof of Life:

EDIT: That could also be an Executive Sedan, as i dont see a divider.

Attach file:

---

  (117.51 KB)

IIRC the 53/54 LWB cars were 149 inch WB and the Henney Senior was 156 inches.

when to it comes to the bars, can't see why a support could not work, put it on a ball or needle bearing, in the middle of the bar,

I am buying a 56 pat, and I would make a limo out of it if I had the money, use four bars,unless new ones could be made, cut the frame rear of the cross brace, but I still have 3 cars to get going.

Esquireman - I like your limo idea. Appears to have a fixed middle section and stock rear door like the Lincoln Leyman and Peterson limos of the mid/late sixties. Use of Patrician rear roof makes it more "senior" in appearance. In B. Kimes' book, mention is made that design of a torsion level system for post-1954 limos need not have been an issue. Regarding retrofit today, am not sure how torsion twist would be effected by a 22 inch longer bar... diameter might need to be increased to compensate for the easier "twistability".

In a recent post in the General section I pondered a 54-56 line up and discussed one possible build strategy whereby Packard would continue EGB final assembly and buy or lease Conner for body building, then set up an off-line area for the limo and other special vehicles. Am not sure if they lost money on the 53-54 limos, always assumed they made money since the only new tooled parts they were suppling Henney were frame, driveshaft, suspension pieces and assorted electrical and fluid lines, all low investment bits. Because Henney pricing was several hundred dollars above Cadillac, Packard had an opportunity to make more competitive by bringing operations in-house. Shipping costs to Illinois would have gone away and the standard production line could have been used to assemble and trim parts of the vehicles. Henney built its Packard limos from scratch on its own line, which couldn't have been very efficient.

Never knew that Henney dropped Packard in '55 because of torsion level. The Kimes book says Feldmann had all sorts of things going on in his corporate world conspiring against him and that Packard volumes had not been high enough to justify what had become an apparently money-losing portion of his business. He also mis-planned the '53 Henney Packard Junior ambulance that resulted in even more losses.

Recently kicked around another type of vehicle on the limo chassis inspired by the '52 Macauley Speedster with the odd extended rear deck. That vehicle was supposed to appeal to the gentleman sportsman who needed to carry a lot of gear on his hunting and camping trips. The limo version would have carried the whole family and used the standard sedan roof as well as the rear door's curved window frames and vent windows. The trunk would have been 22 inches longer than Patrician and 27 inches longer than Clipper depending on which roof was used. An open bed utility vehicle was also possible. I don't think either would have made sense but they were both fun to ponder.

He also mis-planned the '53 Henney Packard Junior ambulance that resulted in even more losses.

Apparently the losses from the Henney Junior program were extreme. According to the Tom McPherson article on the Henney Juniors which appeared in The Professional Car (3rd quarter 2012) Henney made an error in costing the product and lost $615 on every one of the Juniors built for the U.S. Government, and $229 on the first 84 built for the civilian market. When they raised the price (which came too late) they were overpriced compared to the competition from Superior, Barnett and Economy products which were built on Pontiac Chieftan and Chrysler Windsor chassis which were extended to signifantly longer wheelbases.

Hi

Well, here's the basic body structure to build one without torsion bars, still would be a worthwhile project producing a completely unique one-off result:

http://www.onlineonlyauctions.com/cgi-bin/mnlist.cgi?mjackson20/578

Act quickly, April 6th is coming up fast......these don't turn up everyday!

With regard to how Cadillac handled their Fleetwood 75 formal cars, they were not alway updated and restyled in lockstep annually with the regular 62/60 Special models. As of 1955, Cadillac as recently as 1949 was still essentially a pre-war model with an updated engine.

The new body came in 1950, lasting through 1953, completely missing the 1948-49 styling cycle (except for one luscious one-off prototype). Even as Hydramatic became all but standard on other Cadillacs, manual transmission was still standard 75 model equipment into the early '50's.

As the years move along, for 1954-'56, 1957-58, the 75's were kept current with the others. Come 1959 and 1960, the body was still current, then from 1961-65 (yes 1965) examimation of those years reveals only the lower body styling is updated, the central body remains what was introduced in 1959 evidenced by the wrapped windshield and A-pillar. For 1965, the 75 holds over the 1964 body and styling. The 1966 75 finally catches up to the rest of the line.

For Packard, conventional suspension was going to be no real drawback for the limousine market. The long wheelbase and appropriate spring rates would have given a ride indistinguishable from Torsion-Level. If they were determined to included it, perhaps engineering could have fitted a set of shorter bars only to the rear suspension so the leveler could be included, and of course it could be advertised as so equipped.

Hope someone will save the rough '54 limousine body for just such a project.

Steve