If the 1958 Studebaker Scotsman wagon from last week was all about honest basic transportation, then its platform-mate 1958 Packard Station Wagon is all about faking it until you make it. As luck would have it, they were both conveniently parked next to each other at the auction of Studebaker collector/hoarder Ron Hackenberger last summer for easy comparison.
As readers of this site should know, after Packard and Studebaker merged in 1954, all of Packard’s pre-merger production was shut down to quickly contain costs. All models from Packard’s final two years (1957 and 58) were just tarted up Studebakers. I’ve heard it said that the ’57 and ’58 Packards were produced only fulfill franchise obligations with Packard dealerships, and that producing these warmed-over Studes was cheaper than litigation. Whether or not that is true, these final Packards certainly must have made the remaining dealers question their decision to stay with the brand.
While the Scotsman wagon started out at $1,995 ($17,600 in 2018), the 1958 Packard wagon started out at $3,384 (about $30,000 in 2018), a price difference of 70%. This got you a decent amount of standard equipment, including the “Flightomatic” automatic transmission, a 225 HP (gross) 289 cu. in. V8, and power brakes (but not power steering). Throw in a few options that we would now consider essential, like power steering ($68.86), power windows ($102.60), third-row seat ($101.68), a radio ($79.90) and air conditioning ($325) and you are easily looking at over four grand ($35,200 in 2018) for what is essentially a nicely trimmed and well-equipped Studebaker.
The 1958 Studebakers and Packards were rightly criticized for the feeble efforts to dress up their aging platform. For starters, was anyone really fooled by these stick-on tail fins? Packard’s famed “Cathedral” taillights never looked so sad as they do in this application.
Equally heinous were the clumsy “pods” used to convert the single headlight fenders to dual headlights. I’m hard-pressed to think of a more half-assed restyling job. As several commenters pointed out on the Scotsman CC, the 1958 Studebaker Scotsman was actually the only model not to receive the quad headlight pods and fake fins, which may have actually helped boost their sales (but definitely boosted their appearance).
Although it is hard to tell here, the interior accommodations of the Packard were a considerable upgrade from the Studebaker. This model is equipped with the dealer/factory-installed air conditioning system. It was the same hang-on system either way, as Studebaker lacked the resources to make a proper integrated A/C system. In any case, A/C would have marked this as being a true luxury wagon in 1958.
Studebaker’s stalwart OHV 289 cu. in. V8 does duty here as the only available engine. Note the enormous period A/C compressor.
So what we have here is a basic family vehicle, dressed up and presented as a luxury vehicle. Sound familiar? It should.
That is the basic recipe of the 1998 Cadillac Escalade.
Luxury wagons weren’t really a thing in 1958. Other than some coach-built customs and factory one-offs, Lincoln, Cadillac, and Imperial did not make wagons, even though they all had access to the tooling and bodies of lesser branded wagons and could easily have made one. The most expensive GM wagon in 1958 was the Buick Century, priced at $3,831, 0r about 13% more expensive than the Packard ($3,384). The Mercury Colony Park listed at $3,775. And a Chrysler New Yorker Town & Country went for a lofty $4,871, which was well into the luxury price bracket in 1958.
Packard did sell wagons up until 1950, but those were wood-trimmed models with astronomical prices that were aimed more for resort and country club duty than at mom and dad. These early bespoke Packard wagons also don’t quite fit the Escalade model of dressing up a model from a lesser make.
Unfortunately for Packard, the market of the late 50’s was quite different from that of the late 90’s, and the world was not quite ready to embrace a luxury family hauler. While there are a variety of socio-economic reasons for this (everything from 91% top marginal tax rate and its associated income compression to the fact that conspicuous consumption was not as celebrated then like it is now), I’m going to focus on kids. Yes, children.
Let’s make one thing abundantly clear: Children are destructive and messy, as any parent will attest. They spill things, they break things, and they get car sick. I still recall as a little boy opening an umbrella (the old school kind with a metal point) inside my Dad’s 1971 Galaxie 500 and ripping the headliner. On another occasion, I can remember getting into a “tug of war” with the power windows of the same car, raising the window while simultaneously pushing down on the glass to see who would win. It was a battle for the ages, and that window always worked a little slower thereafter.
Back in the ’50s, before being imprisoned into car seats and booster seats, children were free to roam around the cabin. And without video screens or iPods to sedate them, bored kids will get into anything they can find. Indeed, I would argue that these two innovations (safety seats and electronic entertainment) are what make the modern luxury SUV possible.
But anyone who considered a luxury family hauler in the 1950s likely had more money than sense. The sales numbers back this up: While the Studebaker Scotsman wagon sold in the thousands, only 159 Packard Station Wagons found a home in 1958. Of course Packard was moribund in 1958, and everyone knew it.
Despite being in somewhat rougher shape than the Scotsman wagon, this Packard wagon ended up fetching $5,500. But with only 159 Packard wagons made in 1958, you are unlikely to find another one.
Like quite a number of American cars of the period, it’s so hideous it’s beautiful. I love ’em.
I remember seeing these, a wagon and a coupe, at the Johnstown auto show. Even as a seven year old, these cars didn’t look right to me.
Sixty years later I’m completely fascinated with them.
Not so sure about the car seat/luxury equation. I’ve run across a multitude of luxuriously equipped SUVs and minivans in premium trim levels festooned with car seats that are virtual rolling Petri dishes. So filthy that you’d want a hazmat suit to get inside to work on them.
I think the point being made is that the car seat contains the radius of damage.
I want to like it. I like the idea of it. But it is a bridge of sadness too far for me. No part of it matches any other part in my opinion. So no thank you…
Based on the size of the compressor, I’d bet that A/C blew ICE cold air😊😊😊
IIRC, A/C in cars did not become common till the mid 60’s; especially in the Deep South.
Correct. The first American car to have standard a/c was the 1968 AMC Ambassador.
It was optional in many long before that, but for standard fare, it was AMC.
It was optional in many long before that, but for standard fare, it was AMC.
And even then, the A/C in the Ambassador was not so well integrated as it has now been for several decades. My Aunt’s 70 Ambassador required manipulation by hand of several levers and flappers to get the cold going where desired.
The first car in the family with a/c was my grandfather’s brother’s 63 Galaxie. The Galaxie’s a/c was hung under the center of the instrument panel, just as the 58 Packard’s appears to be.
Great write up Tom!! Glad that someone saved this wonderful and limited Packard wagon!! One good thing about the CUV craze is that it is bringing more interest on station wagons. I myself have little love or interest in CUV’s. The only one’s that i like and would actually buy are any of the Cadillacs as to me they stand out from the crowd. Now an Escalade……….that is a vehicle i desire! make mine white with that dark tan interior! fully loaded of course!!
This factoid may have come up previously. The Packard cathedral taillight had a small role in the 1965 movie “the planet of vampires”. A “b” movie for sure, but visually interesting and purportedly influential to the makers of “alien” and others.
I thought only the the senior Packards from 1955 and ’56 had “cathedral” taillamps and the ’56-’57 Clipper and ’58 Packards used a different, unnamed design. Are these considered cathedral tallights too?
Whatever you call them, it is one of the few major parts used on both ’56 and ’57/’58 Packards; for the latter two years they were grafted on to the Studebaker body using fiberglass inserts.
Another set of parts used on ’55 to ’58 Packards is the gauge cluster. Like the taillights, re-using the ’56 Packard gauges served the dual purpose of using up spare parts and making the car look more like a real Packard.
The dash top on the Packardbakers is made of some material that couldn’t stand up to sunlight; nearly all of them are warped and from what I understand can’t readily be fixed, and replacement pads aren’t available.
I had never really noticed until just now that the 56 Packard used different taillights from the 56 Clipper. Different instrument faces too. The 57-58 Packards used Clipper pieces from 1956 and not Packard pieces.
I have seen several pictures that point out the dash problems you mention. Original ones sag badly with age and some restorers have just taken the pads off. I remember that the pads on 67-68 Mustangs would sag too, but those cars were popular enough that repops have been around for eons. The 57-58 Packard dash may have been one of the earliest examples of a dash pad that served as such a major part of the design. I have always been challenged by the dash designs in 56-58 Studebakers (the 58 especially, that is one of the all-time worst). This may have been one of the best inexpensive restylings on a dash I can recall seeing.
I was just at the Studebaker International meet in Tacoma and got to spend some time around two 1955 senior Packards and a 1956 Clipper. Both used the same gages as my 1958 Packard Hardtop, the senior cars just had them in a much larger instrument panel.
All 1957-58 non Hawk Packards used 1956 Clipper taillights. I’ve read their sales goal was 50,000 units for ‘56 but they built less than 19,000. Those leftovers became useful for custom car creations and apparently movie props.
The dash pad issue is something we’re trying to solve. The padding they used apparently deteriorated almost immediately, leaving a sagging piece of vinyl to cover the speedometer. I’ve seen them where they just trim the overhang off (which I think looks terrible), or split the pad in two, restuff it and stitch it back up (which looks worse). My restoration isn’t quite up to interior yet, but I’m hoping JustDashes can restore my original pad back to its former glory.
I did learn that the 1958 Packards used the 1958 Studebaker Golden Hawk horn button. The 1957s used the ship wheel design from the 1956 Clipper.
I’ve since learned that Dick Teague called the ’56-’58 Clipper taillight the “slipper”.
I have come to really like these, although I much prefer the 57. They made for poor Packards but were some of the nicest Studebakers built in the 50s. While the interiors of the 58 Stude (particular the cut-rate dash) were underwhelming, the Packard interior was very nicely trimmed as the attached picture shows.
Your pricing information shows that S-P was not trying to price these in Cadillac territory, but much lower. A Chrysler T&C with this level of equipment would probably have been $5500 or more.
I still wonder if this vehicle (with some styling fixes) might have made an attractive Studebaker President to share showrooms with Larks in 1959-60. A long wheelbase sedan, the hardtop and a 4 door wagon would have added to the range It could have given the Rambler Ambassador some competition.
our pricing information shows that S-P was not trying to price these in Cadillac territory, but much lower. A Chrysler T&C with this level of equipment would probably have been $5500 or more.
Agreed. I added that pricing information, as Tom article suggested a lack of a more complete sense of the market and pricing back then, and it reflected a commonly-held but inaccurate picture that Packard in the post war era was still strictly an uber-luxury brand like in the 1920s. That all had changed a long time ago, and Packard in the 50s was overall more like a Chrysler than Imperial. Their move into the middle of the market is precisely what helped Cadillac dominate the top end of the market.
These Packardbakers at best should be seen as a continuation (of sorts) of the Clipper brand, not the senior Packard. A 1956 Clipper started at $2,733, which was hardly in the luxury-premium bracket. It competed with cars like the Olds 88 or Buick Special. These cars should be called Clipperbakers.
That all had changed a long time ago, and Packard in the 50s was overall more like a Chrysler than Imperial.
George Christopher, President of Packard, until he was invited to go elsewhere, openly stated that he saw Packard as competing with Buick. Christopher’s disdain for the senior Packards has been pretty well documented. He probably was not at all disappointed when the senior car tooling turned up missing, or damaged, accounts vary, at the end of WWII, leaving Packard with only the mid-market Clipper, with which to resume production.
That the South Bend-built Packards were intended to compete in the mid-priced segment as a continuation of the prior Clippers can’t be emphasized enough. Nearly every article now suggest that because it was a Packard it was designed to compete with Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial, which is a widespread misconception. It was priced between with the ’56 Clipper Custom and the ’56 Packard Executive which replaced it.
An in-depth Automotive History Review article by Dr. Robert Ebert detailing the development of these cars related that under the C-W ‘duress’ under which Churchill operated, projections of between 4000 to 6000 1957 Clippers were modest sales expectation. The results were 4,809 sold. Interestingly enough, the ’57 Clippers were the highest unit profit models at $382 of all the ’57 S-P models.
Initially, ’58 Packard sales projections were extremely optimistic, because the Sales Managers felt the new styling differentiated it from the Studebakers. The market response quickly that disabused notion.
Great piece and detail shots, Tom. Your pictures really showcase the styling “fixes” required for the fins and quad headlights.
Also, I find the elongated perspective of the wagon in the ad with the red background very humorous.
That’s something I’ve always found remarkable: In the days before photography became commonplace in car ads and brochures (up to the early ’60s), the artists seemingly had no qualms about elongating or widening their drawings beyond the bounds of reality, or even sensibility, for that matter.
Those ads also had people in the cars who were either very small (and required booster seats) or had tiny heads.
This is one of the saddest cars ever. Not only is it obviously a Studebaker, but it’s obviously an old Studebaker trying desperately to look new, from the stick-on dual headlamp pods to stick-on dagmar bumpers to stick-on fins to stick-on fiberglass appendages on the fenders to meet up with the new fish-mouth grille. And the Stude it is based on already couldn’t keep up with the times, necessitating things like that ridiculous horizontal panel between the tailgate and bumper, there because they couldn’t afford to extend the top half of the wagon to meet the extended overhang added to the ’56 Stude sedans. The stick-on fins only exacerbate the problem, making the carryover-from-1953 top half of the car seem about two feet two short for the bottom half.
I don’t get why the first Escalade wasn’t met by the same hoots of derision that the ’57-’58 Packards (or the Cimarron) were.
The Studebaker-Packard merger was in 1954, not 1956.
Why wasn’t the 275hp supercharged engine used in ’57 carried over to the ’58? That would have seemed to give the Packards at least something to distinguish them.
“Why wasn’t the 275hp supercharged engine used in ’57 carried over to the ’58? That would have seemed to give the Packards at least something to distinguish them.”
I would imagine that cost would have been the big reason, and that the few folks buying Packard sedans may not have cared. Perhaps Robert Murray will chime in here – ask the man who owns one. 🙂
“Why wasn’t the 275hp supercharged engine used in ’57 carried over to the ’58? That would have seemed to give the Packards at least something to distinguish them.”
My first suspicion would be because of the high failure rate of the McCulloch supercharger. When the Granatellis bought the supercharger business from McCulloch, they went through several design changes before they reached a reasonable level of reliability.
One example I read of how McCulloch built the superchargers was that the ball bearings needed to be matched within a very tight tolerance, to work properly. The bearing vendor shipped the bearings to McCulloch in little boxes containing carefully matched sets. The McCulloch people would tear open the little boxes and toss all the bearings into a bin for the production line, undoing the careful matching that the vendor had done.
I can’t find anything online, in books, or original literature that shows the supercharger being available, even as an option, on non Hawk 1958 Packards (where it was standard).
I guess the better question is why a supercharger was standard on the 1957 Packards to begin with. True, they used them on the ‘57 Studebaker Golden Hawk so they could advertise no loss in horsepower from the 1956 GH that used the Packard engine. But those McCulloch units were difficult to maintain and were really problematic if not in perfect condition. That doesn’t sound like the kind of feature that would appeal at all to the Packard buyer of the late 50s, so I’m not surprised it was dropped for 1958. Maybe they also tried to differentiate the new for 1958 Packard Hawk from the “standard” cars.
Here’s the maintenance page for the supercharger in the 1958 Packard manual:
The ’57 Clippers received the supercharger so they could match the 275 hp advertised for the ’56 Clippers. By the advent of the ’58 models, advertised horsepower other than for the Packard Hawk was deemed a non-issue to potential Packard buyers. Warranty problems with the supercharger may have weighed on the decision as well.
I’m pretty sure the first Escalade WAS met with hoots of derision. Certainly from me – and I owned a large “luxury” SUV at the time. I remember a colleague bought one and I was shocked to see brake drums through the rear wheels. I mean yeah, it’s a Tahoe, but rear drums on a $50K vehicle in the year 2000??!!
You could get an Escalade with swing out barn doors on the back, just like a plumbers van. What was even worse was that one of them said Escalade with a Cadillac emblem on it.
I own number21. She’s Orange and white. I think 159 were produced so that left 40 unsold? I also believe there are about twenty still left. I’ve found two for sale other than mine recently at marple collection auction but that’s it. I know they are out there. Please send in your pics
Fact: any car inhabited by children on a regular basis will have at least one pound of Cheerios ground into various surfaces inside.
Perhaps the main reason I never had kids, and always purchased coupes.
Selfish… perhaps, but I’m happy with the decision.
Being forced to drive a minivan was not a option.
Now yesterday’s ’61 Chevy Wagon in Impala (Kingswood?) guise… I could see myself driving that now. ;o)
That story checks out. I can also validate that a pound is a LOT of Cheerios.
Or Goldfish crackers. We are finding goldfish in our “new” Caravan after it was cleaned and detailed.
I would guess that whoever paid $5500 for this car is a Studebaker collector. A true Packard collector wouldn’t go near it.
There used to be an auto repair shop in Leavenworth-I think it was originally a Studebaker dealership- they had a ’58 President in what must have been the show room-I stopped and looked at it one day; with the fairings on the front fenders to accomodate an extra pair of headlights and those add on tail fins it was one ugly car. That “PackardBaker” is just if not more ugly, a sad ending for what had once been a great automobile company.
That is some quality fluff there where the front seat used to be. I’m sure the rodents of Ohio will miss all this free building material.
I’d love to see this restored, in all it’s glorious ugliness.
Clarification:
Packard cathedral taillights to the left.
Clipper boomerang taillights to the right.
The Clipper taillights were a favorite of customizers back in the 1950s! (Not to mention Studebaker’s ersatz Packards).
I am a wagon guy, and this Packardbaker would be a very rare and unique old car to own, however it would not be me that would own it.
I’d much rather own this one!
Despite all the valid criticisms, I like the ’58 Packards–especially because I like anything from 55-62 which has that ’50s gorpy “swish” to it. The 57-58 Stude/Packards are actually better looking than many of the hideous “true” Packard proposals (which were shown in a previous CC entry) that appear to have been designed by Herman Munster! Had they built the Predictor, well, that’s another story!
I saw this car (granted, not a wagon) in person. It was owned by Elizabeth Montgomery of “Bewitched” fame who bought it new and owned it until 1987. I thought it was a beautiful car! When it drives past you, the fins dominate! The dash, unlike a contemporary Cadillac, Oldsmobile, or Buick Roadmaster is rather understated, almost European, and sort of elegant with its gold Packard numerals. The 289 V-8 is supposedly an excellent engine; Borg-Warner is probably a better trans than Ultramatic, and Studebaker ride/handling was improved in ’58.
The styling applied to the wagon doesn’t seem to come off as well, but with the sedans and hardtop, I think there’s a lot to like despite their shortcomings. Since compacts were “in”, these should have been marketed as “Compact Luxury”.
Correction: She didn’t buy it new.
https://www.lodinews.com/opinion/columnists/steve_hansen/article_6f1110ba-e5e2-5839-a411-5c5606ed29bd.html
Back…
In the interest of historical accuracy, please correct the number built to 159 station wagons. This has been researched and verified by the production orders in the SNM. Additionally of the Studebaker sedan/wagon-based cars: 1,200 sedans, 675 hardtops. For the K-Body hardtop Packard Hawk: 588.
A very enjoyable read! My knowledge of these cars isn’t so strong, but now I see the many parallels with many of today’s luxury SUVs.
Those headlight pods are something else. Even Checker created new front fenders with smoothly integrated quad headlights.
I think it was in the book about Harold Churchill that the decision to make the Packardbaker was discussed. Studebaker considered moving the existing Packard tooling to South Bend, but the Packard body was 6″ wider than the Studebaker’s and would not fit through the existing paint booths and ovens in South Bend. Modifying the booths and ovens would run into the millions. At $3.5M, creating the Packardbaker was cheaper.
A member of the Studebaker page on FB has been posting a treasure of factory pix over the last few weeks, including this view, showing how narrow the Building 84 paint booths were. No wonder Studebaker never followed the trend to wider cars in the 50s,
Duncan McRae, styling chief during these precarious years, was charged with making the 1958 lines look new. Much (mis-) direction was coming from the Sales/Marketing people insisting they have quad headlights and tail fins. Given the shoe-string budget, the ungainly pods and tacked-on fins were the best they could afford. Mr. McRae’s job was an unenviable one then.
There wasn’t any easy way to make a credible Lincoln, Cadillac, or Imperial wagon in 1958. All three marques had unique bodies that weren’t compatible with a lesser brand’s wagon shell. The Buick wagon was on the junior Buick platform, which wasn’t compatible with the C body.
I’ve always thought the 1957 Packard was a real beauty, unlike the disaster ’58. Remember passing a black sedan on my way home from jr. high school each day. The guy who owned it had an office in my city’s municipal building. In 1963 or so the tail lights where donated to a shoebox Ford for a custom job and replaced with generic round ones. Last time I remember seeing this car on the street was the day JFK was killed and we got dismissed early from school. Sometime thereafter, it got scrapped and my brother somehow acquired the “Clipper” script. Still have it in my basement along with our other souvenirs.
The 57 Packard sedan is a handsome car IMO. It isn’t much of a Packard but it’s a beautiful Studebaker.
This wagon is now on Craigslist:
https://newlondon.craigslist.org/ctd/d/deep-river-1958-packard-wagon-of-149/7390620371.html
You’re mathematics are wrong on the price comparison, you might want someone to double check your calculations in the future. For a 40% increase in price, you got the following, V8 engine, upgraded and different interior including a totally different dash board. Packard styling and trim on the outside……..People today pay extra for a label on their shirt, why isn’t it hard to understand a price increase on a car with a Medium priced name, Packard warranted the increase in price? It’s the same concept, it worked then, it works now. If you didn’t want to spend the money, you’d get the lower priced rubber floor 6 cylinder manual transmission, card board door panel Scotsman. (and painted poverty caps)
I bought the 1958 packard wagon it now does run and drive decent rebuilt the carb changed fluids had wheels redone and new tires. New exhaust It’s so ugly I love it came with new glass trying to find a good front seat not sure if other packard models will fit. The floors and frame are real good for the year. Hope to be driving it this summer while doing restoration
Back in 1984, I was recently married (more than a year or so), when I was approached by a local Boston Beacon Hill dealer about his cars. He owned a 1956 Buick Century station wagon and a 1958 Packard Station Wagon. He used both station wagons to deliver antiques around Boston. Anyway, he had decided to reduce his “fleet” and offered me the Packard wagon at a very reasonable price. I wanted it badly but with a young family, I just couldn’t afford the purchase. The car was in near perfect shape with just one defect: the speedometer gauge vibrated due to a bad cable. He told me that I could easily solve the problem by installing a Studebaker speedometer cable which was in much greater supply than the equivalent Packard component.