Packard Forum Index » General

The following is an exploration of what the '57s might have looked like were the previously posted '54 What-If Showroom strategy (https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11557&forum=4 ) to have been carried through. Because the effort allowed me to really get to know the '57 Program would also like to share details surmised. Your corrections and clarifications would be greatly appreciated.

All work-ups were based on a studio photo of the proposed '57 Packard 4 door hardtop shown in the first attachment below. I also relied on a studio photo of the proposed 1957 Clipper shown in the same attachment to help understand Packard's interchangeability strategy in its final form, which was somewhat different than what is shown on page 626 of Kimes. Finally, relied on the Studebaker and Clipper images on page 624 of Kimes to help further understand the interchangeability strategy. The high level of refinement of the clay models in the studio photos suggest that they represented the final form of what had been a long and circuitous process shaped by the usual design discernment along with changing market conditions, merger dynamics and on/off sources of capital.

Since I did not know specific vehicle dimensions I made two key assumptions to get the ball rolling. The first was that the Packard wheelbase was 130 inches. Kimes mentions in her book that this is what Packard had originally planned so I went with it. The second, based on study of the two studio photos, was that the Clipper and Packard rear doors were identical in width and differed only in outer panel design.

Before describing my what-if showroom would like to share with you observations about the actual '57 Program:

- Kimes book said the Clipper wheelbase was originally to be 125 inches and the Studebaker, 120 inches. The Interchangeability chart on page 626 shows the Clipper and Studebaker sharing front fenders and therefore front axle-to-firewall length (aka "hood length"). Looking at the studio photos and studying the Studebaker image on page 624 it appears that these dimensions changed as the design progressed. Packard and Clipper in final form appear to share the same front axle-to-firewall dimension and Studebaker has a significantly shorter hood length, perhaps by 5 or more inches. Also, Clipper and Studebaker's front door and resultant roof and rear legroom are 3.5 inches shorter than Packard and their rear doors, front/rear seats and roof are 3 inches closer to the rear axle. These changes result in a Clipper wheelbase of 123.5 inches and a Studebaker wheelbase of around 115 - 118.5 inches, putting it in league with Ford and Chevy. I show a Studebaker photo mod in the first attachment with a 118.5 inch wheelbase to give you an idea of what it might have looked like.

- Packard sedan's front door was to serve as the coupe door for all S/C/P models. Its length appears to have been chosen not to create a properly dimensioned coupe door (it was too short) but to position the B-pillar immediately behind the front seat to accommodate a division window for the Caribbean limousine mentioned in Kimes. Whether this limo would have used the standard Packard body and wheelbase or something longer is unknown. Given that Nance later created a Lincoln limo from the standard Lincoln body, perhaps the Packard plan was to do the same, altering the 130 inch Packard 4-door simply by creating a more private C-pillar and adding a division window.

- Studying these images plus those in Last Days in the Bunker (https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=10794&forum=4 ) it appears the Predictor-style C-pillar was to be used for all Clipper and Packard 2 and 4 door hardtop models (Studebaker hardtop C-pillar appearance is unknown). The pillared sedan (B-post) 4 door models for all three brands would use each brand's respective hardtop roof and trim its C-pillar to create a slender rearward raked style, with vent windows filling in the notched area, and its B-post was to have a narrow body insert between front and rear door window frames. I show this style in the Studebaker image approximation below.

- It is not clear whether the 3.5 inch shorter Clipper roof would have required unique tooling or simply been derived from the Packard roof, trimmed 3.5 inches at its forward edge where it connects to the top of the windshield. You'll notice on some of the clay models a curious space at the top of the windshield that is filled with chrome elements. Perhaps these were different for Packard and Clipper, each serving to compensate for the differing roof edge cross section that would have resulted from the trimming.

- Just an opinion but I think the Packard design is well executed, the Clipper is a gorpy mishmash of styling cues and the Studebaker is stubby, plump and boring. If you read my logic behind the '54 Showroom you know that I dispense with the Clipper entirely and direct all investment towards a pure Packard line-up. I don't think any Studebaker should have come from this platform, South Bend needing to stay mid-sized be they a part of S-P or unmerged.


On to the What-Ifs...

Studying the images in both attachments you can see the design progression that I created to arrive at the new Packard Eight and Custom Super Eight 4 doors.

The Packard Eight uses the same body, doors and roof as what the company had planned for the Studebaker and Clipper, the same hood length and wheelbase as the Clipper and somewhat longer rear overhang (I made it 5 inches shorter than the studio image of the Packard). I did alter one item on the roof... moved the C-pillar forward edge back 2 inches to facilitate better ingress/egress. All told I suspect this new entry Packard would have done very well in the market had it been priced in the '56 Packard Executive range. It would have had great proportions and a compactness similar to the '61 Continental. Power would have come from the proposed small block V8 introduced for '54 with displacement now up to 330 CID. This series would have been Packard's volume line and included a 6/9 passenger wagon, 4 door sedan (sans exposed body insert between front/rear door window frames) and hardtop, 2 door hardtop and convertible.

I also threw in an Express Coupe of the type S-P had planned for Studebaker. As a Packard its bed would have been trimmed in genuine wood. I included this body style for two reasons, the first being that Ionia would have had skilled wood craftsman with nothing to do, wagons industry-wide by then migrating to fake wood. The second is because I had an open space at the bottom of the Eight column! The way I see it, the body style would have cost Packard almost nothing to develop and would have (hopefully) looked good in the brochures, at the auto shows and cruising down the long driveways of wealthy ranch owners' spreads.

The Custom Super Eight 4 door hardtop corrects what I feel was a too cab-forward and short-hooded '57 Packard design. It would have included the studio photo's rear overhang (5 inches longer than the proposed Eight) and its roof would have been moved back 3 inches like the Eight. The rear doors would have been positioned identical to the studio photo but notched differently at the lower rear corner, and the front doors would be the Eight's 3.5 inch shorter version, the net result improving rear seat ingress/egress by lengthening the rear door glass 3 inches over the skimpy opening in the studio photo. Hood length would have been 5 inches longer than the Eight/studio photo and the roof would have used the studio photo's longer 3.5 inch version, for a new wheelbase of 132 inches. I don't show a pillared sedan version because am not convinced the market would have wanted it. If it had, Packard could have easily added.

The Custom Super Eight coupe and convertible would have used the Eight's body floorpan and coupe front doors mated to the Senior's longer rear overhang and hood, for a wheelbase of 128.5 inches. The 141 inch wheelbase 6 passenger executive limo, which like the '54 version would have been the Fifties version of the Formal Sedan, would have used the studio photo's long front door and common rear door (trimmed differently at bottom corner). The 154 inch 9 pass limo would have used the formal sedan doors mated to the coupe's rear quarter panels. Both the coupe and 141 limo would have distinguished themselves with a wider C-pillar with circle/vee opera window from the Predictor. The other Seniors would have had a small circle/vee and no opera window. All Junior and Senior roofs could have been derived from one common set of tools that stamped the widest C-pillar and 132 wheelbase Senior length. Trimming at the C-pillar and/or forward edge would have produced each model's roof. The 141 and 154 limos would have needed lengthened with roof inserts.

The Custom Super Eight speedster would have evolved into a more livable vehicle that cost much less to modify and carried lower pricing as a result. Its body would have been sectioned 2 inches along the foil trim, the seam covered by a now thinner piece of foil. As before, hood length and decklid would have come from the Senior, rear overhang from the Juniors and 8 inches removed from the Senior/Junior coupe body. Windshield would have been almost 2 inches shorter. One can see in this car the makings of a full production close-coupled personal coupe of the type started by the '58 Thunderbird that proved so popular in the Sixties and Seventies.

All Seniors would get the big block V8, now up to 440 CID.

As with the '54 line-up, all Juniors and Seniors would receive identical Packard styling, differing only in hood length, rear overhang, body length and C-pillar design. I show the fins even though Teague didn't want them. Not sure I do either, nor the vertical taillights. I did work up an alternative based on the '56 Clipper boomerang design, which I think was fabulous, but don't show here because it is too subjective a subject and I wanted to focus more on body styles and proportions. Certainly Packard could have changed its rear quarters to boomerang or some other design as part of a '58 or later refresh.

Would the slim protruding Predictor grill have been accepted? I used to think not but am starting to see things differently, having grown a newfound respect for the design as a result of this latest effort. I never used to like the '58 Edsel either but now see it as one of the Fifties better designs especially in short wheelbase form. These Packards would have been very much like the late Fifties FoMoCo cars in their angular design, a good thing I think, while being much more refined. Critically for volume, the standard Eight would have arguably been the stand-out entry that Packard had for so long desperately needed and might have even forced Cadillac to bring back its lower priced 61 Series.

Sorry for the long explanation. All thoughts welcome!

4/1 UPDATE: Removed body insert between front/rear doors on 4 door models, replaced Speedster's 2 inch lower windshield/header with stock windshield minus header and redesigned its convertible top to be hidden when down.

Attach file:

---

  (108.84 KB)


  (172.76 KB)

I've been a guest on Packard info for a few years now. Finally decided to join in but I'm highly computer illiterate. I been lucky enough to have my daughter and a friend help me attempt doing this.
First off I'm the one from Punxsutawney that built Black Bess II. I'm in the process now of building a 57 Detroit style 400. I also have the frame built for the 57 Clipper (not sure yet what body style). Also a 56 Clipper chassis to build my own Predictor.
I stripped out three 56 Packards and four 56 Clippers that were totally gone. I have enough running gears and parts to keep me well supplied with my endeavor. What I'm having trouble on right now is finding the time to work on any one of these. The 57 400 Project hasn't been toughed for a year now. It needs the cowl top, hood, front bumper, grille and front bumper built yet. This will finish the body in white.
I'm up to answer any questions at all on these projects but it may take awhile till I can get computer help.
I've enclosed pictures of Black Bess II, the 57 Packard project, and a life size wall painting that I use to get my body measurements. Thanks for your time.
-Denny

Attach file:

---

  (84.23 KB)


  (151.38 KB)


  (267.21 KB)


  (128.46 KB)


  (284.85 KB)


  (211.07 KB)

Welcome and thank for joining in. Very much looking forward to your future posts and photos.

Welcome aboard, Denny!

I spoke with you back in 2008, when you trucked your '57 concept chassis to the Packard show at the museum in Warren, OH. For me, getting to see that chassis up-close was the high point of the day.

I also saw your Black Bess II at Perrysburg several years prior. I heard some mixed comments about that car, but you deserve a lot of credit for work that few others could or would have attempted, themselves.

Quote:
You're not alone in that regard. Seems like I know more good people these days who are working harder for less. Progress in the hobby comes in fits and starts for many of us, but there are no deadlines here at PackardInfo.

Quote:
I think you're off to a good start with your first post, and you succesfully attached several pix.

I've no doubt that there will be plenty of relevant comments and questions in this thread, but you can also start a thread for each of your "Detroit Built" cars in our Project Blogs forum, if you wish, to report and record your progress, with text and pix - as your time permits.