Packard Forum Index » General

Monsignor Mahoning sums it well, again. Packard was on the ropes even by 1938. Compare the 1937-38 Buicks with Packards of those years. The '37 One-Twenty was and is a terrific automobile, but a '37 Century was slightly larger, more powerful, faster, the 120's nonpareil and unseen chassis/driveline engineering notwithstanding. And the Century cost less.


It took Packard 'til the 1940 model year to ape the '38 Buick's hood louvres, and the Packards louvers were chintzy, tacky looking, the two-year earlier and now abandoned Buick's louvers were not. They look nice much sectioned on the '40 180 Darrins, but that's a moot point.

GM knew how to make body trim look rich. Packard never did, not from the 1939-on junior based cars, regardless their stellar chassis/driveline engineering. That's the sort of thing the public notices, including on late model used cars.

I remember back in the early '70s paying a plating shop to redo my '40 120's hood louvers, and thinking, these things are really junky. Crapola like those 1940 hood louvres reminded people how far Packard had fallen from the crisp, smartly tailored 1937 and earlier models Mahoning63 cites above. Those tacky 1940 hood louvers were not from the same company with the confidence to paint their grille shells in the '30s, the epitome of understatement,

class.


BTW, let's not forget that the 1932-39 Packard Twelve was originally intended as a Buick beater, even front-wheel-drive a la the "Lexus" priced Cord. It was enlarged and made rear wheel drive after the fact, so Packard could counter Cadillac's V-16.

Many historians have suggested Packard's heydey was the 1920s, despite the fine cars the '30s Twelves wound up. Again, Mahoning63 is right about GM coming on strong as the years passed.

I loved my '40 120 and there was no better road car on either side of the Atlantic. In a 1991 Road & Track Salon of the 1937-38 Delage D8-120, Raja Gargour, president of Hill & Vaughn, the restoration shop responsible for the pair of featured cars' restoration, found the Delages "....less satisfying to drive than a Packard of the same era."

But when you look at a 1940-41 old body style Packard, it looks like a Packard parody, very much a Nash/Hudson/Studebaker generic product. Too bad Packard didn't market domestically the 1940 Australian Richards, which used the Studebaker President body from the cowl back, with its sleeker, more raked windshield.
Packard sorely needed to Darrinize the entire 1940 line, and in 1939 were, as Dutch Darrin said, "So afraid of GM they couldn't see straight."

The Clipper needed to come out BEFORE, not concurrently,

or six months,

let alone an entire year AFTER GM's racy new 1940 1/2 C bodies.

The bigger question is what was Packard doing aping a two-year-old and abandoned Buick cue on both its junior and senior 1940 lines, and waiting to see what GM did next before coming back with the Clipper?

Monsignor Mahoning's right about GM having a few smart moves. Synchromesh comes immediately to mind. The V-16 may've been vindication of Packard engineering, being a straight eight with the firing impulses halved to reduce crankpin loading, but it allowed GM a more is better advertising write off for the trickle down panache it provided lesser GMobiles. And HydraMatic, allied with the C bodies, was both knockout punch and kick to Packard's backside.

As said, all Cadillacs were downsized, junior cars from 1936 on, but that's buff knowledge, didn't slow GM IN THE LEAST, because Generous Motors knew how to market. Compare Buick and Cadillac ads of the '40s with most, not all, but most of Packard's embarrassing ads. Even those for the seniors were lame, gee whiz, gosh; trying too hard, reeking of desperation.

A 1941 Buick Century four-door sedan, its advertised 165 hp closer to the truth than most other automobiles, Packard included,
with its overhead valves, Compound Carburetion/ cold air duct, 7.0:1 compression, exhaust headers and engine-turned dash a la 1936-37 Cord, was, at $1,288 base price,

three dollars less

than the $1,291 Packard One-Twenty four-door sedan.

The Buick was not only a hotter car, but looked it. The car business is all about perception, sizzle, sex, flash.

To come closer to the Buick's power meant shelling out $1,795 for a '41 One-Sixty four door sedan,

which to 99% of people on the street, looked

just like a One-Twenty. This when $3,000 would get you a decent house in a middle-class neighborhood.

Packard was toast. But it's not like the light suddenly went out on East Grand Avenue on New Year's Eve, 1937. Economies of scale;
tool amorization costs independents vs. megacorps;

the pricing advantage of increased rationalization spelled doom for all independents. Packard held out longer than most by whoring themselves more. This doesn't mean post '37, or post '40, or '47, or '51 Packards were bad cars.

Only that, as Monsignor Mahoning sums, the Company was increasingly living on its reputation. You can only do that so long. If, if, if, if, if.

Rolls-Royce continued to offer relatively humdrum, overrated fare after WWII because they

knew how to MARKET rationalized tripe, and 94%, varyingly, of their business was aero engines.

Clubbies we may be, but we don't serve one another with fiction, sputtering, yeah buts. Truth will out.
Let's celebrate the memorable cars Packard produced across their storied decades. Just remember, as Monsignor Mahoning suggests, to separate the hard reality from lingering aura.

To a Grand Avenue Fourth.

I've often wondered why Packard didn't follow it's war time partner's example and just sell senior cars - the clipper body would do - and really use the post war advantage Packard had with marine engines and with the RR Merlin engine that Packard made more powerful and mass producible. The Spitfire may have won the war for England but chances are it did it with a Packard "Merlin".
I read that Packard was building jet engines for the air force in the early 50's. If true they knew how to do it and the De Havilland Comet, after some "teething troubles" with square windows, provided the writing on the wall.

How about an ad with a Packard convertible in the fore ground and a Boeing 707 "Powered by Packard" in the background with the legend "Ask the man who FLIES one".

In answer to your thoughtful question, because Packard was in the '40s run by ex-GM production men, not by us wise buffs with the advantage of 70+ years hindsight.

Remember, Alvan Macauley left the Company in 1948.
I'm sure his son Ed was a nice guy to go duck hunting with, have a drink with at the Detroit Athletic Club, and played an enthusiastic jazz trombone, but it takes more than that to run a world-class company, which Packard no longer was by then.

Packard refined the R-R Merlin, but it was still a R-R design. Despite Ford in Dearborn earlier declining the Merlin contract, saying it was too complex to produce in the numbers our Allies needed, R-R, and all English subcontractors, including Ford of England, produced quintuple Packard's wartime Merlin total of 55,523, up to and including the beefier transport versions in the early '50s, which, along with the Packard versions, are the ones the idiot Reno Unlimited Air Race cowboys want.

Off the subject, but i know an internationally renowned Merlin rebuilder who today turns down Reno Air Race business, because he got sick of seeing yahoos with more money than brains blow up those fine engines for an effing trophy.

So, those ex-GMers Packard began recruiting in 1933 to teach them how to build the fine One Twenty eventually left the wrung out whore Packard had become to ex-Hotpoint pushbutton kitchen Jim Nance, who produced naught but the facelifted '51 and a much too late V-8 with a revamped Ultramatic never attuned to a V-8's torque curve,

with a pushbutton transmission.

The irony is that Packard had throughout the 1940s, the industry's finest manufacturing machine shop, not just domestically, but eclipsing Crewe, England, and i'm sure there are some historian machinists here gathered who can share the gory details confirming this.

But...

unlike Rolls-Royce, who increasingly diversified from 1935-on, and GM, an enormous holding company,

Packard did not learn how to deftly market cars.

They surely knew how in the '20s, early '30s. But being
in the '40s an entirely different company,

forgot.

GM and Rolls-Royce were also entirely different companies in the 1940s and '50s, but they remembered.

I've driven Packards and I've driven Buicks. I've worked on Packards and I've worked on Buicks. I've driven Cadillacs and I've worked on Cadillacs. I've done the same for Rolls-Royce.

Bolt for bolt, Packard is a better car than Buick. The only advantage for the pre-war Buick is that the post war motor is visually indistinguishable and so you can drop a 53 Special block into a 37 Roadmaster and have a very road worthy car.

Once you get over the noisy first gear, the 38-42 Cadillac has the Packard beat except for the drone of that undersquare V-8. But if you ever do a valve job on that Cadillac you will be cursing to the hilt after a half dozen of those cylinder head bolts bust off in that cheap GM cast iron block. Once I had to drill out a dozen of em in the car working over the fenders. Drop a 49 OHV motor into the 41 60 Special and you have a car.

But, a good low mileage Packard is a honey on the road. One of my favorites is the 902. A good running 902 is just plain superb.

As for the Rolls, well, they just plain ran longer than anything else before they wore out. But they have to be taken care of.

As mentioned elsewhere one of the problems with Packards is the politics of some of these car clubs and collectors. I was never treated poorly by Cadillac owners, but the Packard crowd? Whew! Some of the people need psychiatry.
I knew people who had those cars soley because they liked the politics. The didn't give a hoot about even checking the oil.

Here on this site are probably the best of the Packard people. Everybody here wants some help with their cars which is what the clubs were about until the politics took over.

Over on Ebay I saw a 626 for sale. I'm going to tell you something. Drive that car 45-50 mph and it will keep going long after a 29 Cadillac has fallen apart and died.

Oh, if we're going to digress into a historical analysis of why Packard ultimately failed, I can gladly add my additional $1.98 to the discussion! First, if there's anyone out there who hasn't read James Ward's truly excellent book on the subject, "The Fall of the Packard Motor Company" it's a must read. In addition to a careful study of all the factors, it is truly well written..very engaging AND well researched, two adjectives usually not used in the same sentence in describing manufacturing obits.

Packard failed largely b/c of poor management...not a lack of talented management, mind you, but entirely too much ego. They simply believed all the advertising and marketing mythology they had cooked up for the general population, believing that no matter what, the upper echelon customer they were catering to, would always buy their product. Not so much b/c it was actually 'Superior', but b/c the image they had carefully spun over the decades would necessarily dictate it's purchase. We see the folly in that bit of narcissism with the interchangeability of the term 'Customer' for 'Carriage trade'. 'Carriage' is a quaint term for a totally outdated description of transport, PMCC focusing on something long lost, rather than contemporary and fresh.

Engineering was behind for the same reasons. Sure, there were all the 'Firsts'...I'm reminded of Packard every time I grab a (round) steering wheel or shift an 'H' manual gear box. But that was early on. They were woefully late with really necessary advances such as front brakes, IFS, and an auto box. After all, who needs that on a 'Carriage', any ways? They still looked grand parked in front of the club house.

Management was dreadful. Embarrassing. Ed Maccauley, who I personally hold responsible for the death of the company, showed his inability to lead with many decisions in the Depression, most notably his inability to figure out how to build the Light Eight at a profit (think about that for a moment, mighty Packard couldn't make a new car profitably), the appointment of his son Ed as head of styling (based on nepotism, which we know doesn't work unless you're in the religion business), and perhaps most astoundingly, his turning over the fate of the entire company to one George Christopher, who (proudly!)held the customer base in utter contempt. If Packard needed outside help, they should have hired someone on a consulting basis, not give them complete control over the company..especially to someone who had such a shocking lack of understanding of what the company (and their customers) stood for and expected. This wasn't rocket science, even in the '30's, either. In short, Maccauley blinked in the face of the Depression, showing him to be a fraud as a solid leader lacking ability and judgment to lead thru adversity. Anyone can lead when times are good, it takes true ability to do so when things get a bit rough.

Lastly, Packard failed b/c they never anticipated the end of the Depression and prepare for the future. Cadillac d/c'd the LaSalle in '40, Packard should have done the same for the 110/115 as well as the 120....models, by '40, that had outlived their usefulness. Instead, they should have retrenched into the field they dominated, renamed the 120 the Eight with Clipper styling.. and a higher price, and made Dutch's magnificent line of Victoria convertibles (2 and 4 door) as well as the Sport Sedan the basis for the standard line. Then, they could have concentrated on an auto box before the war, which would have left them in the position to reclaim the mantle of 'Boss of the Road'.

It's been said that Packard could never compete with GM on their level..and that's right. But, what's equally correct is that mighty GM couldn't compete with Packard, their entire 'Economy of scale' set up of manufacture ruled that out. Had Packard been able to recognize that an build unique, hand made cars of elegance and distinction, history might have been much kinder to PMCC.

*Steps down from soap box*

Right y'are, Dr. Cole, about this fine site being a cut above t'other Packard sites, and other club websites in general, tho', as mentioned, www.railton.org is also, like Packard Info, a refreshing anomaly, being awash with erudite, upbeat gentlemen, and like Packard Info, head and shoulders above snobbery, condescension.

Others with long experiece with all the cars you mention have said the L-head, three-main-bearing 346-ci Cadillac was
a fair engine, but often cracked at the valve seats. I follow everything you mention above, except for "....the 1938-42 Cadillac has the Packard beat..."

What am i missing in that line? I agree with you regarding 1938-39, because the 1938 Packard Eight (120) and '39 120 were declasse, less powerful cars than those two year Cadillacs;

because some of the 1938-only Packard 319-ci "Super Eights" had a rare for Packard block casting irregularity and had too much car to lug around, sharing that year's body with the husky 473-ci, 175-180 hp Twelve;

and because the '39 "Super Eight" was just the aging two-piece block/crankcase 319--a late 1920s engine-- dropped into the 120. So Cadillac had the pocket luxury car market to themselves those two years.

But other than Packard's shopworn 1938 bodies facelifted for 1940 through '42, unsure what you're getting at. T h o s e Packards had the 356 we know to be a finer engine, as did, according to Maurice Hendry, in his tome, Cadillac, Standard of the World, the engineers at Clark Street. I personally think the 1940 Cadillac Series 62 in a solid, dark color, without sidemounts, is one of the loveliest cars Cadillac ever built, the final year for that pretty, less intrusive, waterfall grille. Hell's bells, i like it more than that year's 60S, as it seems smoother, better integrated, but then Michael Lamm and Dave Holls, in their lavish A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design, suggest the '41 Clipper took some styling cues from the 1940 1/2 GM C body, which the '40 Cad Series 62 used.

Yet driving a '40 Cadillac? You may as well lock out a '40 Packard's overdrive and disconnect one of the sparkplugs, or at least, retard the timing, because the Cadillac flathead V-8 was still smooth.

As for the 1941-42 Cadillacs having the 1941-42 Packards beat, unless you're talking about from a marketing standpoint, their lower slung, muscular styling and available HydraMatic, i don't know that i follow you.
But as road cars, having the 1941-42 Packard 160/180 beat, what am i missing in your observation?

Certainly the concurrent Packards were, as you say, nut for bolt better cars than Buicks, and i've said as much on various posts here. But, as we know, Buick offered lotta sizzle and glitz for the dollar, which is the car business.

I've heard other multi-marque vets say the same thing about Rolls-Royce longevity, but like you, ALWAYS with the preface, "....But they have to be taken care of."

I wonder if many Rolls-Royces received this ongoing care merely as they were such finely crafted furniture. In other words, there was food for the soul in their well-honed elegance, wood veneer, that English motoring journalist's famed quip about R-R being "....a triumph of craftsmanship over engineering."

In other words, if a '40s Packard, or, in fairness, Cadillac, Buick, Chrysler, Hudson; any car really, had the same ongoing care and maintenance, mightn't they last as long? Maurice Hendry and other engineer/machinist/historians have pointed out that R-R never had as fine a machine shop as Cadillac's Clark Street factory, nor Packard's East Grand Avenue, nor had superior metallurgy, heat treating, etc. to the Detroit products.

BTW, a longtime friend with a '42 160 drophead has 115,000 miles since new, he buying it from the first owner in 1967, the car always maintained, garaged from new. To this day, the only major work the engine's received is a new timing chain. The car purrs, literally.
In fairness, i've heard of a Canadian Buick owner, a late '30s, '40 Century or Roadmaster, who drove in the day some astonishing mileage, perhaps 200,000+, without mishap.
I remember an owner of a '41 Lincoln Zephyr, of all things, driving mainly at speed to and fro Boston and NYC, racking up over 85,000 miles before any serious work required on his low torque "Ford and a half."

So, am wondering if R-R's reputation for longevity might simply be because more owners are inspired to better care for them?

* * *

Now, this should be a separate post, perhaps, but you mention the 902, a Packard i've always respected, and you know that this was Packard's flagship, the planned FWD Twelve only a lower rung Buick contender 'til East Grand realized they needed something to counter Cadillac's V-16.
But i've no experience with the 384-ci Packard eight. I've long wondered which, if you had to choose, was overall the best; Chrysler's 384, Pierce-Arrow's 384, or Packard's 384, all three sharing nine main bearings, the identical bore/stroke. One fellow who owned examples of all three told me decades ago that he thought the Pierce might've had slightly better manifolding, but this was just one man's opine.

And, back to your 1938-42 Cadillac/Packard observation, having owned a thoroughly rebuilt '40 120, i of course read much about Packard's Safe-T-fleX IFS. But i also know my '47 Super Clipper uses the same IFS as Cadillac, likely for the same reason Rolls-Royce/Bentley dropped their nut for bolt copy of Safe-T-fleX in their Silver Cloud/S-Series introduced autumn, 1955: the lowered floorpan left no room for Safe-T-fleX's long torque arms.

I've always wondered. Was Safe-T-fleX really superior to the front suspension in a Cadillac, or were Packard, R-R, and after the war, Lagonda, who used it at the rear, avoiding paying GM royalties? I've asked this question months ago on this splendid forum, but all i got was the usual buff regurgitation. I already know Austin-Healey 3000s and recent Ford pick ups use a version, but that doesn't answer the question. Too often, when we ask a simply question begging per Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am," fellows feel they must weigh in with something in the ballpark.

I've NO interest in postmortems, Monday morning quarterbacking, what might've been. ONLY learning fully what was.

Like you, i like these cars. Knowing the nitty gritty ain't gonna put me off my feed. Just the opposite.
It makes me better appreciate them.

Thank you, Dr. Cole, for any and all insight.

This is all good stuff. su9od you pot-stirrer, great comments, very thought provoking! Ditto everybody else. Jim L... "ask the man who flies one"... what a fabulous idea, such powerful imagery it would have evoked.

Too bad about the politics, so senseless and hope the new generations cool it. As for Alvan Macauley, a real conundrum. I study Packard, Pierce and the like not only out of love of the cars but to be a better car person. How can one make inroads into tomorrow's industry if one is clueless about yesteryear? With Alvan it's a tough call. He fathered the Packards that ruled the Twenties and culminated in the exceptional '37 Seniors. But he also sired the Packards that fumbled beginning in '38. I read a contemporary story written around '35-37 that quoted him as saying that pontoon fenders did nothing for aerodynamics. His comments seemed to carry bit of a 'tude. In other words, he didn't like pontoons. This might be why the '37 Seniors were some of the last hold-outs of the traditional style. I respect his taste in this and so many other matters of technology content, design, sales/service and general business leadership. But read what Steve said about him and Gubitz, how their genius ran only so deep. They knew how to do a great Twenties to mid-Thirties luxury car. They didn't know much about what to do as a follow-up. The '38 Senior front fenders look like Packard took an air pump to the '37s. That's not how to do good design! Cadillac did front pontoons better in these years. Nor were 127 inch wheelbases the makings of a proper Senior. For the new 3-box torpedo sedan wave sweeping the industry, coupled with wider bodies for 6-pass seating, such a wheelbase resulted in a plump stubby car. The C-bodies and 60 Special fall into this group and so does the Clipper. A 127 inch wheelbase in 1938-47 meant Junior all the way and it didn't matter how great the motor or interior was or how oddly long the designers tried to stick the hood's beak forward.

We get back to Packard excellence. For the Seniors they did this in part by moving the front axle forward 5 - 10 inches and stuffing a big motor underhood. In 1938 they reversed course out of cheapness and/or the industry trend of motor-forward, and ended up with Junior proportions. Check that. Senior-lite Twelves in 1938-9, then high quality Junior Super 8s from 1940 on.

Let's understand and celebrate the excellence and also applaud the affordable models that let more folks experience Packard. "Once upon a time there was a company that represented America at its best..." A must read.

Thank you, sir. I vowed after learning of this wonderful, exceeding rare site early this year, that i'd visit, yet only post the once in a blue moon tech question, as i've long since said everything i had to say.

When i approached 40 posts, i thought, that's a good cut off, downright poetic, given the '40 120 i owned years ago.
Then 50, then 100, a nice round figure and what's this, i'd magically transformed from a not too shy to talk blushing bride to hoary auld home away from Homer.

When i hit 120 recently, i swore "that's it." But i'm occasionally whelmed by the thoughtfulness, and field of vision, encountered on Packard Info's forums. All the more so as over at the 1941 Cadillac Club of America and even a certain other site celebrating East Grand, there seem to be a reluctance of members to air dirty laundry, let it all hang out, full disclosure to the extent we freely do here, and thank you again, Chancellor Kev.

Thankfully, there are enough folk here gathered able to appreciate the reality of Packard, without the boosterism of many clubs, where members feverishly fan myth and legend to inflate their rolling nest eggs. As mentioned, the upbeat folk at www.railton.org are a notable exception, likely as they're having too much fun with their survivors.

Onward. May've mentioned, but a friend took his nice, solid, original '38 Twelve victoria to a NYC area CCCA meet in 1959. No sooner had he parked and his bride deplaned, when a couple noses in the air sorts sauntered over and pooh poohed his car because it wasn't a 1933-34 Packard, with the more elegant clamshell fenders.
But i agree, as does my friend, who owned an earlier Packard 745 phaeton. The pontoon fenders were not elegant. Even those on my '40 lacked the dash Buick retained in their pontoons, their funky external trunk hinges and other Generous Motors touches notwithstanding.

However, i disagree about 127" wheelbases being too short for senior cars. In fact, i considered, decades ago, before i bought my '47 Super, buying a black, as it happened, '47 Deluxe Eight on the 120" wheelbase. It was and is a wonderfully sized car. The seven inches may've been taken entirely from the hood and front fenders, but there was nothing snubnosed about it. As i mentioned here coupla months ago, this is the same wheelbase as the postwar R-R Silver Dawn/Bentley R-Type. But with just a trace of upscaling, certainly losing those bulky postwar bumper extensions or "fender shields," in Packard parlance,
and that heavy, needless postwar front license plate bracket, as i did on my '47 Super,

AND

some magazine advertising of the caliber Packard used throughout the '20s, early '30s,

well, Packard would've had something. That easy elegance, on a nimble 120" wb, 3,500-odd lb. shipping weight, 225 ft. lbs. torque with overdrive. That's all anyone needs, and i would've been happy.

My '47 Super is on the same 127" wb as the postwar R-R Silver Wraith. It's a big car, larger than what i'm usually drawn to, but i like the 1941-47 Clipper lines on the two shorter wheelbases. You couldn't pay me to own a Clipper limo, tho' i gather Packard had to offer such monstrosity for the corporate/hire car market, requisite in the luxe biz.

Similarly, there's nothing "sport" about a 138" wheelbase, whether it's a 1940-41 One-Eighty 1807 Darrin "Sport" Sedan, or '41 LeBaron "Sport" Brougham. No more than there's anything "sport" about a SUV. Sorry, but a sports car means two seats, floorshift-- and not an automatic, even today-- and nimble, whether coupe or roadster. That's it.

But Packard was around to sell cars, as was Chevrolet, when they, also, in 1940 or '41, marketed a "sport sedan."

Now, the big '30s Packards on 134" and 139" wheelbases
were horses of a different color. They were also from a more innocent and technologically less advanced era, when size meant power and prestige. Those bumper weights weren't there for eye candy.

Respectfully, suggesting a generous 127" wb wasn't suitable for seniors from 1939-47 (your preceding post)flies in the face of reality. NO ONE was still producing firetrucks in that era. Such outsized Classics were already consigned to the back rows of used car lots. No one wanted them, until a few young fellows started the CCCA in 1952, and Packard Automobile Classics (PAC) in 1953, and even then they remained second tier collectibles until the early '70s.


Over the years, i've had people of a certain age, old enough to readily think of automobiles as computers when they hear the word PACKARD, ask if my '47 Super was

"....one of those big Jaguar sedans from the '50s?"

"....a custom-bodied Bentley?"

"....a Buick?"

"....a Cadillac?"

One 30-something happening dude asked, with great awe and reverence, on seeing only the rear end of my fender skirted barouche,

"....is that one of those James Dean Mercuries?"

And once, a fellow clearly old enough to remember when such were new, on seeing only the front end, asked,

"....What is that, a '40 LaSalle?"

But, 'umbly, i've never had anyone suggest or even noisily think, that my '47 Super, or, in fairness, a friend's deep, bottle green '39 Cadillac 60S on a similar wheelbase, looked "....plump stubby."

Sink me, my '47's but a mere inch shy of 18 feet overall length.

How much more car do you want? Few people wanted, and want, to drive a schoolbus or firetruck. If you can't get elegance on a generous 127", driver-friendly wheelbase,
you're in the wrong business. That's ten (10) feet, seven (7) inches between wheel centers.

That is sufficient, thank you.

Talbot-Lago managed sleek, closed luxury on only 104 inches of wheelbase. Railton offered bespoke saloons on-- like the 1942-47 Packard Clippers and postwar Rolls-Royce/Bentley-- both 120- and 127-inch wheelbases.
It comes down to whether you want a luxurious road car, or elegant firetruck.
Perhaps some of us like the 1941-47 Packard Clipper not just for its superior driveability over the handsome '30s firetrucks, but because Darrin's themes reek of internationalism, one of those rare cars that can look bespoke from the factory line.

Anyone can make a car half a block long look elegant. Now try it in a realistic size that will find buyers.

Finally, as also mentioned coupla months ago here, so much of Packard's Macbeth tragedy might've been avoided had they learnt to make their exterior trim richer looking, a la GM, and more adroitly marketed their cars as town and country, personal/family, whatever phrase you like, much as R-R/Bentley unloaded their increasingly rationalized, assembled, overrated, postwar boutique 120/127" wb product, entirely avoiding this moronic junior/senior nonsense,

just sell the blinking cars, as GM then, BMW and Mercedes today with their 3-, 5-, 7-Series, C-, E-, S-Class.

But now i've crossed the line into postmortems, which i detest, have NO use for.

Keep posting, you are doing just fine! Great suggestion on dropping the Junior/Senior distinction.

OK, you mentioned "sport" and it reminded me of what I always felt the 1942 One Eighty Clipper seemed to represent: a modern 1930 Speedster series. Compact, sporty and fast (relative terms, mind you). I guess the question is, at least with regard to this thread's search for that which is exceptional in a Packard: was the high end Clipper exceptional overall? Was it in the same league as Packard Seniors of 10 years prior? Same league as the Speedster series? Hmmm.

The 1942-49 Cadillac 60 Specdial had a 6 inch longer wheelbase and was 8 - 13 inches longer overall than concurrent Packard 127" wb cars. The Clipper for the most part had dimensions similar to or less than the Cadillac Series 62 in these years and was also similar to the 1938-41 Cadillac 60S.

For 1942-47, Cadillac used that extra length in the 60 Special to make rear legroom of traditional touring sedan space (I think the roof came from the 63 touring sedan). For 1948-49, Cadillac used the extra length for a long decklid (the roof was more or less the same as the 62 sedan). I think Packard would have been well served to develop a Senior Clipper on a 133 inch wheelbase, the extra length used entirely to move the front wheels forward. With it, a raked grill (abandoned in 1940) but styled like the '40 though much wider. Clean sides sans faux running boards like Dutch wanted and a chrome stone guard on the rear fenders, and no flow through front fenders. Stick with distinct pontoons up front that end ahead of the front doors. The rear decklid would have still been a bit abrupt but for a torpedo sedan I think it would have worked.

Wish I could spend more time around a Clipper.

When I say 38-42 Cadillac had Packard beat, that includes the V-16. I never said I liked the Cadillac V-8, but having driven both cars I have to say that the Cadillac is more robust overall. Once I did some work on a very low mileage 41 180 and on the road it was a absolute dream save the column shifter and dealer converted power windows.

Now I also worked on one of those Lebaron Sport Sedans with the hydraulic windows. I've never heard of any regulators fitting those cars so if I had to choose between the Lebaron and the 41 Sixty Special I'd take the Cadillac. I can always put a 49 OHV engine in the 60 Special, but there is nothing you can do about the Packard windows.

Once on the CCCA caravan somebody's power windows broke and then one of their kids threw up in the car because of the heat. I rest my case.

I like the performance of the 356 Super 8. I've driven those things thousands of miles, but as they age they really do lose a lot. The last time I drove a 60 Special I was very impressed with how well the car was holding up. Everything was just plain working better.