Packard Forum Index » General

Quote:

All the 57 Clippers, both sedans and wagons came from the factory with a blower. The eBay car has lost its somewhere down the line. In 58, only the Packard Hawk had one. I saw one 58 hardtop with one, not sure if it was a dealer install or done by a later owner.

Here's a link to that '58 Licoln/Cadillac comparison ad. Be sure to watch through the end so you can see the phenomenal math that supports the boasts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8HzUJh-MpY

The ad was doing fine until the camera panned to Lincoln's front. Those google eyes had to go! Agree the math seems fuzzy and the survey results sure didn't translate into sales. Gotta give Ford credit for going unibody though, pretty gutsy call. I think the Caddy was the better looking car that year, Earl's final refinement of a career's body of work. Like Alvan's seniors in '36.

Agreed, mostly. I still would rather have the stupid Lincoln today (I know where one sits not far from here, and it is most impressive, actually a bit intimidating, just to stand next to it.)

Yes, last time I heard, 94% + 55% came out to $149%, so some respondents must have voted for both cars.

I did not know/do not know, that the Lincoln was a unibody. I was under the impression that this was Chrysler's domain for many more years. Full-sized Ford products of the era, and many years beyond, had body-on-frame construction, in my recollection.

I think the side-by-side showing of the Lincoln and Caddy (my mistake earlier, I thought it was an Eldo) was a very good idea. The completely new styling is unmistakably cleaner. This body shell evolved and was refined in the early 60's, becoming President Kennedy's remarkable blue limousine [which still exists], and a national icon of sorts.

Notoriety, and the public's familiarity with the car, may well have caused many to forget what an important watershed its styling was. IMO, it took the rest of Detroit about 5 years to catch up enough to render the Lincoln styling "mainstream" at last.

I know what you are saying about the up close reaction, I had a similar experience with a 1960 Lincoln sedan a few years ago. Agree, it's impressive. Maybe it doesn't photograph well. But it was definitely a square bird. In fact, was built at Wixom in Michigan alongside the new '58 T-Bird in a new factory and both shared a unibody platform. Lincoln picked up the platform as a late add because T-Bird volumes weren't enough to fill the plant. Both continued the unibody until T-Bird went to BoF in 1967. The 1968 Lincoln Continental Mk III shared the BoF platform and the Lincoln sedans gave up the unibody for the 1970 model year. It is quite remarkable that the American car industry was so innovative in the late 50s and early 60s. my recollection is that the following had unibodies in the 1960s:

AMC - all
Chrysler Corp. - all (Imperial beginning in 1967)
Ford Falcon, Mustang, Fairlane (Torino until 1972)
Mercury versions of Ford
GM compacts until 1964
Lincoln Continental
Ford Thunderbird until 1967

There is a good book on Lincoln post-war out there. They say the mgmt at the time the 58s came out - and did not wow the public - concluded that Cadillac always had consistent styling while Lincoln jumped around. Once Lincoln's planners (I believe it was actually McNamara) saw Engel's mockup of a proposed 61 T-Bird they latched onto it as a Lincoln and thereafter embarked on a campaign to retain the same style. Served Lincoln quite well for over a decade. I think Packard jumped around too much post-war. When they had the same look from about 1906 to 1931 it served them quite well. Consistent styling in the 30s and into the 40s was also helpful. Then all $%^&* broke loose. :)

Interesting stuff, Mahoning. You've obviously got some breadth of automobile knowledge and good resources.

But here's one I don't get:
I was under the impression that from time immemorial, T-Birds were built in Lorraine Ohio. My '95 even had a union sticker from there on the windshield, plus I DROVE it there on a car-centric vacation. There were assembly line pics of earlier 'birds in the lobby... the plant was converted to make :sob: vans, after the '97 model year.

As far as I can tell, I think I owned one of the last truly good, mainstream T-Birds. It was a reasonably-priced car with V8, 4-wheel independent suspension and rear drive-- the only American car with that layout other than the Corvette. It was very smooth, reliable, good gas mileage, fairly peppy, handled well... what was not to like? It was hilarious the way the auto press bemoaned the "outdated" platform that they'd been ecstatic over when it debuted a few years earlier--without the V8. Makes you wonder.

I think Packard really stopped "saying" Packard beginning with the 48-49-50 models, excepting the convertible, "station sedan" and "fastback" styles, The Rienhardt cars are fine examples of mainstream early '50s styling (in general, not my favorite period) but somehow don't distinguish themselves, except for the Caribbeans and the '54 Clipper, with the '55 rear treatment.

The '55 and '56 models were making progress toward distinction, and actually setting some styling trends in the industry (Lincoln-Mercury, Plymouth). It would have been great to see these styles evolve into cars like the concepts that started this thread, instead of being restricted to Studebaker-size offerings.

Packard had the technology... suspension, engine, transmission, comfort innovations... and could have gone anywhere with them with a new body style. Part of the problem, I think, was trying to have the technology go it alone, when people were buying chrome and flash... low and wide.

It's hard to believe that Packard would willingly pull up stakes and head for South Bend to a plant that wasn't even tooled up to make big cars. It was an impossible situation. In spite of how well or poorly the '57 and '58 cars were conceived, their size alone made them essentially non-Packards.

Am not sure when T-Bird production left Wixom but my guess is when the car was downsized in 1977. It might have been sooner though because Lincoln sales took off in the early 70s and Wixom had a capacity limit. Interesting that you mention your '95 T-bird, I have a related story. Was a product development engineer at Ford from 2000-09 and one of the first "lessons" I heard was that at the same time your T-bird was being honored by Motor Trend, the program team was grilled by the higher-ups about how the car was over-contented and over budget. The consumer got a little gift from Dearborn...

Totally agree about Packard engineering and styling. On Studebaker, wouldn't it have been easier to bring production to Detroit? Maybe the issue was Conner. Had Packard still made cars at EGB maybe the second line might have been workable.

The forum has been discussing the styling topic in another thread as well:
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6047&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=10

I think Packard styling seemed to slowly fall behind beginning in the late Thirties, not with the front appearance but with the overall vehicle proportions. Packard scrambled to catch up with the Clipper, then came the controversial '48s and beyond. I've been noodling some images over the holidays to try to come to terms with Christopher's critical decision to do the '48s. He wanted to go modern. Fabulous, a sensible strategy given the industy's post-war design renaissance. Why not make the big splash in '49 so as to coincide with Packard's golden anniversary? Doing it right would have meant both a new platform and a new modern styling theme with no half measures.

I tried to work up an alternative to the '48. Started with a '52 200 sedan, added 5 inches to make a "400" with a formal roof more in keeping with the late 40's, then stood back, took a hard look at the proportions and began cutting & pasting. Compare the images below. In the '49 proposal the cab is moved rearward 3 inches, the headlights and front fenders are lowered 2 inches, the rear fender is lifted an inch and slab sides (and a wider front track) are incorporated for the modern look that Christopher wanted, albiet more similar to the '49 Ford and '51 Frazer. Also got rid of the body insert between the front/rear doors and worked in a subtle Darrin dip to relieve the high pockets and give the sides more drama and movement. Because the hood would now have effectively been 3 inches longer the big 356 would probably have fit. A freshening in '52 could have carried Packard to '54 where they could have then lowered the car and evolved the styling a la Teague. Toggle between the images to see the changes. Also included an image of a grill design that might have worked for this would-be '49er.

Attach file:

---

  (44.78 KB)


  (44.63 KB)


  (29.36 KB)

OK, now you've got one I can't quite jump on board with. IMHO, the 56 Executive grill is way too busy and big.

The critics over the years have had disparaging things to say about the Edsel and the Packard Hawk grills such as sucking a lemon for the Edsel, or a Martha Raye mouth or a Hoover going down the road on the Hawk. Even the 51 seniors had a reference to mouth open and teeth showing. I can only imagine what they would do with that one. Whale going after a meal perhaps?

Only one??? I cringe at most of the stuff I do. :)

Point well taken. I don't know, they needed something transitional because the height was at a transitional dimension. Vertical grill worked best with taller cars, Pan American style was best for lower cars. I can see what you are saying about this being a big mouth but it also might have been fine with some 3D sculpting.

I was most concerned about the boring rear. Stacked the light higher but that didn't do much. The Mayfair's chrome applique that wrapped over the fender would have helped but more might have been needed to fend off Caddy. So long as it was tasteful in keeping with a Packard.

Only one??? I cringe at most of the stuff I do. :)


I haven't seen all your stuff and goodness knows, I'd be way down the list anyone sane would consult on style but several of those so far have been rather decent and well within consideration. IMHO, might have looked better than some that made it.