Packard Forum Index » General

what ya think?

Attach file:

---

  (44.83 KB)


  (48.16 KB)

Very nice car. Like the 'smooth' look eh???? Do u plan to add the rear fender side trim at a later date???

I'm mainly into stock, but this has a nice mean, clean look to it, yet retains just enough chrome. In hat regard, I also like the semi-gloss black finish.

I suspect the front fender headlamp brows have been modified to resemble the '56 restyle, but go a bit further. I see a similar treatment at the rear. A nice bit of body work.

I'd say leave the rear quarter trim off; '55 only had a single molding aft of the courtesy light location, anyway. Rather I'd suggest installing a door molding from a '55-'56 Clipper Deluxe, which terminates earlier at the rear end and in a spear - rather than a blunt cut that was originally needed for a continuation of trim on the rear fender.

Looks like it could eat Christine for lunch.

It is a nice smooth looking car, but isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same car and have different perceptions. If I'm understanding the suggestion, Brian thinks the rear chrome should be left off or a shorter piece added, whereas I think just the opposite and have the same perception of this as the other 55's--they just weren't finished. To me, the chrome would extend all the way to tail light.

I should clarify that I would leave the rear fenders devoid of brightwork, but replace the stock 400 door molding with one from the front door of a Deluxe. Granted, coming from a four-door, that molding would be substantially shorter, but I like the tapered end.

I was always mixed about the rear fender treatment on the '55 Seniors. With a single spear, the two tones looks a bit off balance to me. To me, a '55 Patrician looks better in a monochrome scheme.

Yet, '56 looks longer and lower with both speared and ribbed trim running all the way back to the tailight.

I agree, lower & longer-- the 56 looks complete & thought out from the hooded headlights, square trunk & chrome all the way back. The 55 is nice but I always thought it looked rushed & unfinished.

For me, the 1956 models (though some claim them to be a more of a stopgap) are the ultimate evolution of Packard styling. They are better looking than so many other vehicles of the day (and there were plenty of attractive vehicles back then - more than now).

The '55 styling was no doubt pleasing when it debuted (and a great facelift of the Reinhart body), but might have made more of an impact as a '54 model year release. The camel-back deck looks a bit dated in 1955.

The lines and trim of the '56 Seniors (with the ribbed stainless) are so good that I am frequently torn between restoring the one Pat I have that was originally painted in a Dover White/Corsican Black two-tone in a monochromatic black - while retaining the black/white cloth/leather interior trim combination.

Nicely done. What do you have planned for the backup light lenses? To keep the faux-'56 look, you could go with a red hexagon above the lamps rather than the '55 "V" , although I've always liked the V.

It'd be great to see what the car looked like before the body work. I can see why you've been asking about lowering the front a bit, but why not just use the T/L to set it level with a manual switch? That way you can play with whatever stance moves you at the time.

Great question on the TL system. On this car if the car is not in a certain position, close to level, when i drive the whole car shakes tremendously. Easy? Driveline. Not the case I have had Drive Line specialties tinker with it from front to back, new grunnion, new drive line etc etc. The manual switch is good for parking it and then teetering it one way or the other while stopped is all. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.

If the u-joints are in good condition and the driveshaft is not bent or out of balance, you could simply be exceeding the limits of the driveline's geometry (angles). There's no easy solution there.