1958 Packards are not really Packards. A series of poor decisions and lack of funds resulted in an unfortunate merger with Studebaker and what may be the very first badge-engineered car. The 1957 and 1958 Packards were meant to be a stopgap model until an all-new model could be introduced, a Packard worthy of the name. Sadly, it was not to be and the ’58 ‘Packardbakers’ were the last. It was a sad ending to one of the finest luxury car makers in the United States and arguably, the world.
At the end of World War II, Packard was in good shape. Lots of lucrative war contracts had left them healthy and they were eager to begin automobile production and continue their success. They had one of the most modern looking car designs, the 1942 Clipper, and even though the 1946 and ’47 models were little changed, they were very attractive and fresh for a prewar design.
Then the ’48s came out. They basically took the ’47 and filled out the sides, resulting in a modern envelope-style body, but also looking rather, shall we say, fat.
These Packards continued through 1950 with minor changes, and included a wood-trimmed Station Sedan that is very collectible these days.
Redesigned ‘three-box’ style Packards, designed by John Reinhart, came out in ’51 and were very modern looking and stately, appropriate for a Packard. The 1951 250 Mayfair was Packard’s first hardtop and the Caribbean custom convertible was introduced in 1953. Despite the new design and features, all Packards continued to use the old straight eight, at a time when OHV V8s were all the rage. Many other medium-priced and luxury makes had V8s by this time, and Packard was caught without one.
By 1954, Packard sales had been on a downward trajectory for a few years, and although they were not in debt at the time, it was decided to merge with Studebaker Corporation. The thought was that with a broader product line and more factory space, Studebaker-Packard could cover a greater share of the market and better insulate themselves from the Big Three’s sales war of 1954. It’s a long and involved story, and many books have been written on the subject. Richard Langworth’s Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years gives a good account of it, but in a nutshell, Studebaker was using some creative accounting and Packard didn’t look hard enough at the books. The net result was Studebaker was able to go on for another twelve years or so, at Packard’s expense.
Despite all the trouble, a very heavy facelift of the 1951 bodyshell and new V8 resulted in a very attractive Packard for 1955, the Caribbeans in particular. But rushed assembly lead to very un-Packard like quality, and the resulting disaster turned off the last few loyal Packard buyers. In 1956, an agreement was reached with Curtiss-Wright to try to get the company back on solid ground. One of the conditions was the closure and sale of the Packard facility. Ultimately, the Detroit Packard factory, a hugely impressive facility that had been building cars since 1911, was shuttered in 1956 after 28,835 genuine Packards were produced for the model year. But Packard was not done yet. It may have been better if they were.
There were plans for an all-new 1957 Packard, based on the Predictor dream car. Many designs were drawn up and a running prototype was built. Sadly, funds were lacking and the whole project was unfeasible. Plan B was to purchase the tooling for the 1956 Lincoln from Ford Motor Company and restyle it into a Packard, but that fell through as well. As S-P intended to continue the Packard name, it was decided to issue a Packard based on the 1957 Studebaker President, their fanciest model at the time.
I don’t think anyone intended this to be a proper replacement for the ’55-’56 models. The ’57 was actually fairly attractive, although clearly based on a Studebaker. It was available only as a Clipper, in sedan or wagon versions.
Every ’57 Packard was equipped with a 289 V8 with McCulloch superchager, good for 275 hp, the same engine used in the Studebaker Golden Hawks. Despite the power and upgraded interiors, most people weren’t fooled, and only 4,809 were built. Then came the ’58…
The 1958 Packard was one of the busiest designs of the Fifties. Due to lack of funds, fiberglass headlight pods and fins were tacked on to the largely carryover ’57 sheetmetal. The design of the 1958 was handled by Studebaker stylist Duncan McRae. I have no idea what he was thinking.
image: boldride.com
The wildest design feature was a fin-on-a-fin rear quarter design. While the 1957 Clipper had quite a few Packard design cues, and actually used ’56 Clipper taillights, the 1958 had no resemblance whatsoever.
Quad headlights were new, as well as a two-door hardtop. While the Golden Hawk-based new-for-’58 Packard Hawk retained the 275 hp supercharged engine, the ‘regular’ Packard sedan, wagon and hardtop used a normally-aspirated 225 hp 289.
The 1958 Hawk (photo above) was the only Packard with a model name, as the other three models were just plain Packards, not a good sign. Studebaker-Packard was in really bad shape by ’58, and the recession that year made a bad situation even worse. Packard sold a total of 2,622 cars: 1,200 sedans, 675 two-door hardtops, 588 Hawks and a mere 159 station wagons.
I’m sure it didn’t help when that rare ’58 Packard owner found himself sitting next to an ultra-basic Studebaker Scotsman at a stoplight, using the same basic body as his luxury Packard. After the train wreck of 1958, Studebaker decided to go in a completely different direction and modified the ’58 body shell to become the new compact ’59 Lark. With that, the Packard name was retired, although the corporation’s name remained Studebaker-Packard until 1962. A sad ending for a great marque.
I was pleasantly surprised to find this 1958 hardtop in downtown Rock Island, sitting next to a transmission shop. It hasn’t been here long, as I pass by here often. It’s hard to get a sense of the gaudiness these cars had, as this example is missing its chrome and gold mylar side trim, and three of its four fins.
While I was taking the photos, a man driving by stopped and wanted to know what kind of car this was. It turns out that he knows the guy who owns this Packard, and hopes he gets it fixed up one of these days. We talked Studebakers and Packards for a while, then went our separate ways. I hope the owner restores this too. It’s definitely not the grandest Packard ever built, but it is the last of its kind and worthy of being preserved. Good luck finding parts though.
Makes you wonder how it would have worked had Packard followed Nash and Hudson into American Motors as George Mason (Nash’s president) wanted. Unfortunately, there was this clash of egos between the President of Packard (name escapes me at the moment) and a guy named Romney, President of American Motors. Neither was willing to be subordinate to the other.
The again, Packard had been giving away the luxury category to Cadillac (there was a time when Packard was the true luxury car, while Cadillac was a half step beneath it, in today’s terms “entry level luxury”) from the day the surrender was signed on the Missouri. In the 40′s and first half of the 50′s, Cadillac couldn’t do anything wrong, while Packard, Lincoln and Chrysler/Imperial couldn’t do anything right
Makes you wonder how it would have worked had Packard followed Nash and Hudson into American Motors as George Mason (Nash’s president) wanted.
I think that every time I see a Studebaker, Packard, Nash, Hudson, or even American Motors. What might have been?
I don’t think it would have been much better. American Motors wound up controlled by George Romney, who was thoroughly committed to smaller cars. Remember, Hudson and Nash disappeared this same time…
Packard was the philosophical opposite of these; understated but BIG. Now Romney had his finger on the pulse of American car-buyers of the era; he read the market well…HIS market. The Cadillac/Lincoln/Packard market was alien to him. And Romney was an assertive leader. The original plan, as noted, was for Studebaker and Packard to join in; but even before that happened, purchase agreements for transmissions and V8s broke through and left hard feelings.
No…I don’t think it would have worked. Packard would have disappeared; and since their plant was small and didn’t include a body line, even the production facilities wouldn’t have added much to American Motors.
They’d have gotten a V8 out of it; but with the hiring of David Potter, they got a better one, a fresh design.
Jim Nance was the president of Packard at the time.
By Romney’s own account, he and Nance didn’t get along well, which I read as both of them having basically the same ambition (i.e., succeeding George Mason in a couple of years as president of the conglomerate). Even so, Nance was still interested in a merger with Nash — much more so than Studebaker, which was not his idea — but the Packard board decided Studebaker was a safer bet, based on their higher volume, and declined to even take a meeting with Mason about it.
I’d compare the relative status of Packard and Cadillac to that of Mercedes and BMW or Audi today. It wasn’t that Cadillac was entry-level (certainly not after the Sixteen and Twelve), more that it didn’t have the sort of old money cred that Packard did.
James Nance. James N. wanted to be top dog and could not see eye to eye with George Romney.
Who in the world was responsible for the styling of this…er…car? That is one of the clumsiest-designed cars I have ever seen – pillarless or not! What a sad end to a once-great brand…
Duncan McRae was in charge of Studebaker styling during those really, really bad years and he is credited with this car. Before his Studebaker time, he assisted on the 1951 Kaiser.
According to a post I found on the Studebaker Drivers Club site, McRae left Studebaker after being in charge of the initial Lark, and went to Ford where he worked on the english Cortina and Consul and the German Taunus.
It says that he retired to his native Austrailia to a sheep ranch. McRae was a fairly talented stylist, but at Studebaker, had to make do on a budget of fuzzy quarters from the waiting room couch cushions.
JP is right. For ’58, McRae had a styling budget of $1.98 for Studebaker; $0.64 for Packard. When given rotten lemons, you make horse piss.
Tragic, tragic! The Packard purchase of Studebaker (that’s what it was) has been covered endlessly, here, at TTAC and AteUpWithMotor; there’s no need to rehash it here. But the whole thing reads like a shipwreck chronology: mistake after mistake after bad move after mistake.
Packard was vulnerable. Their facilities were primative; too small a plant. They had outsourced body production to Briggs, which was being purchased by Chrysler.
They were debt-free; but they took care of that by buying Studebaker, which was swimming in red, which had uncontrolled and spiraling overhead; and fraudulent bookkeeping.
Aside from the accounting fraud, Studebaker was THE partner singularly unsuited for Packard: The plant they had, didn’t have the physical dimensions to manufacture Packard bodies! Moreover it was in South Bend – it wouldn’t have been a matter of moving machinery across town.
Expansion of the South Bend facility or construction of a new plant would have answered; but Studebaker’s debt and prospects precluded. On its own, possibly Packard could have raised the money; but Studebaker was a millstone around their neck.
So, having misstepped to this particular junction, the decision was made to use the garish Studebaker body shell to put out a badge-engineered Packard! Packard, THE symbol of understated luxury, for the elites of the elite, who had no traffic for frivolity like tailfins and grotesquely-inverted A-posts on their cars’ rooflines…
The Packard people, who should have known better, put this parody out there and expected Packard customers to BUY it! Good God…how could they NOT have known better? They’d have been better off to sue to liquidate the acquisition agreement, and then liquidate Packard to at least pay off shareholders.
But they did what they did; and while they avoided bankruptcy, the company and shareholders’ value dropped and decreased until McGraw-Edison bought what was left.
A big part of the reason for the ’57 and ’58 Packards was to avoid getting sued by the dealers, which would have probably happened had they suddenly stopped production.
Syke too, is right. Much like the “limited” runs of ’60 Edsels and ’61 DeSotos.
This is a car I would not have expected anyone to find on the street, other than in restored condition; congratulations! And an excellent write-up, if a bit depressing.
I spotted another article about the “Packarbaker”
http://bringatrailer.com/2011/08/22/bat-exclusive-supercharged-1958-packard-hawk-barn-find/
Then another “what if ?”: what if it was only Packard and Nash who merged leaving Hudson and Stubebaker alone?
There is a brown and white Hawk that hangs around the town of Fairland, Oklahoma for some reason. It has padded vinyl arm rests on the OUTSIDE of the doors.
This car is a great find. The most painful styling feature to me is the way those dual headlights are so obviously snapped around a single-headlight fender, like the cheap customizing kit it is.
If George Mason had better health, Romney wouldn’t have mattered.
All the what-ifs of S-P and AMC are lots of fun, but the sales war of ’54 was the true cause of death. AMC and even Chrysler emerged from that so damaged they never really threatened GM and Ford.
On Mason’s health — well, Mason was 61 when Packard and Nash were talking about a merger. So, even if he’d been in perfect health, it’s not unlikely that he would have been thinking about retirement by ’56 or ’57, which would probably have forced the issue of who was going to succeed him.
I was old enough to remember this cluster of misadventures the first time around. I sure didn’t understand it. As a kid just starting to drive I thought Studebaker was great and Packard was a bloated slow moving dinosaur.
I always sort of felt that the mass purchasing power was going much younger and Packard lost out because of that. Of the four brands mentioned, only one, studebaker seemed to have youth appeal starting with the hawks in about 1953 or so. Only old people in my town owned the other three. Obviously this is simplistic and ignores many things that were very important. That is why 15 year olds generally don’t manage companies.
Hudson was a mid sized hot rod that lost out to brands (olds/caddie etc) that went to the ohv v8. Nash was well put together, long lasting, and economical to driv. Studebaker with their 289′s were a hoot to drive even if they were flexiflyers. Packard alone seemed to me to be hung out with the buggy whips and other anachronistic gear.
Oh to be 15 and know everything again.
“Of the four brands mentioned, only one, studebaker seemed to have youth appeal starting with the hawks in about 1953 or so. Only old people in my town owned the other three.”
Interesting – since, by Studebaker’s final demise in 1966, only blue-haired elderly church ladies were buying them. The body was grotesquely dated, brought into the times only superficially; and anyone interested in engineering would know they could get the same engine, same package on a Chevy for less money.
The tragedy of Studebaker-Packard hits home on so MANY levels…
Different decade. By 66 the mustang was 2 years on the road. The camaro was almost there. They represent the same audience that liked the hawks in the early 50′s.
In 53 which is the first year of the hawk IIRC, I was only 10 years old. Just remembering something doesn’t mean you have it right. I plead guilty to that.
I don’t really know if it’s possible for any of us to get a real grasp of what went on if we look from a 2012 persepctive. If you were a kid back then I don’t know if your perspective is really any better.
If you have ever visited a really old cemetary, you may understand this. I get the same feelings any more when I look back at the car brands that have gone on. Watching them as a kid is different from having owned and driven them. My first car was a studebaker so I probably have a soft spot in my head for it.
Well…I can relate to that. I’m partial to Jeeps of the Kaiser era for somewhat the same reasons.
The Studebaker…earlier, now I mean just a few years ago, I viewed its demise as a tragedy. Which it was; but it was more like an assisted suicide in the end. From circa 1961, the Studebaker-Packard/Studebaker/Studebaker-Worthington Board of Directors was doing EVERYTHING IT COULD to SABOTAGE their car line. The move to Canada was the first step; and it was no accident that the Avanti didn’t make it. It was part of the low comedy and skulduggery that was Studebaker engineering an exit from the auto biz without incurring any legal liabilities and franchise-termination fees.
They took ONE car; a car with limited appeal; put an unremarkable competitor’s motor in it; priced it above what competition there was. When their de facto GM, Gordon Grundy, suggested mildly that Studebaker recruit more dealers, he was sent a NastyGram from the Chairman that bordered on abuse.
Studebaker, in the end, didn’t die of natural causes – its own people murdered it. And, much as I love underdogs, I find no appeal in corporate suicide.
I was familiar with both Packards and Studebakers back then – my father had a 1950 Packard, I had a ’55 for a couple of months, and I fooled around with Studes quite a bit. I didn’t know about the motivations behind the mergers until much later, but it was always obvious that the 1957 and 1958 cars sold under the Packard name were Studebakers – very fancy Studebakers, but still Studebakers.
Here’s a video of an old man driving his old man’s 1958 Packard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7olMaYWKo
Stick on tailfins, had these guys seen a Chrysler Royal? Its quite an awkward mess no wonder it didnt sell but now well worth keeping alive just for rarity value alone.
The same thing happened to the Studebaker coupes, much to the dismay of their styling team — the tacked-on fins were added at the insistence of the marketing and sales people.
One important detail about styling in that era was the GM was about the only place where the styling boss was actually a vice president and officer of the corporation. At most of the other automakers, the top stylists were at the director level, which (in U.S. business ranks) means they were subordinate to some other area, usually engineering, and didn’t have the final say in a lot of things.
Consider:
1. Packard realizes what a disaster it would be to merge with Studebaker and nixes the deal.
2. Packard comes out with the 1957 Predictor and a new V8.
Would things have ultimately turned out any differently? Maybe after Studebaker went under, Loewy would have went to Packard and there would have been a Packard Avanti. But I would imagine Packard still would have went under just like Studebaker eventually did.
Any way you look at it, it just doesn’t look like either Studebaker or Packard ultimately surviving was in the cards.
Packard was, to use the vernacular, up against it. Their own plant was obsolete. They had their bodies built by Briggs, which was being purchased by Chrysler; and they had been given notice that Briggs would not be contracting future years’ orders.
They were debt free; but they were also body-assembly free and remarkably free of customers. I don’t think they had much of a choice; they had to merge with someone or liquidate.
At that hour, the only suitor on the other wall was Studebaker. Willys had gone to Kaiser; Kaiser-Frazer had given up on passenger cars entirely and with Willys, were making utility trucks. Nash and Hudson had paired off, rendered their offspring, Rambler, and were taking cyanide together.
What was Packard to do? I think they fell victim to wishful thinking. I cannot believe they were totally duped by the dummy books Studebaker showed them; but they wanted to believe.
Instead, they obtained a black hole sucking money; found there was no feasible way to continue Packard as Packard…nor, in the end, Studebaker as Studebaker. They flailed wildly; the first time they got some cash, they spent it on non-auto assets, some winners, some not…and contracted to where they became bit players in other corporate merger schemes…completely dissolved.
Great article….Interesting that Packard would join up with Studebaker in the 50′s, just as the other one the great “P’s” (Packard , Peerless and Pierce Arrow) would in the 30′s. Pierce Arrow was bought by Studebaker during the depression, but just as Packard had nothing in common with them, neither did Pierce Arrow. Pierce had a modern facility in Buffalo, designed by the same engineer as Ford’s River Rouge and Packard’s factory in Detroit. Their last hurrah, the Silver Arrow was truly a masterpiece yet sold less than a dozen.
Keep in mind, that it wasn’t really a merger – it was Packard, debt-free, buying over-leveraged, money-losing Studebaker. That should have set off all kinds of red flags, but as I said, Packard was backed into a corner.
So the hardtop is still as lumpenly awkward as the sedan I saw a couple of years ago, if not moreso on what should be a more stylish body style
The shell looks fairly solid, but with that many hard-to-find parts missing it might be better as the basis for a custom car. Wouldn’t be hard to improve on the original styling after all.
Thanks for the great piece on Packard. My great uncle used to work at the Packard plant on East Grand Boulevard. However, he always drove Plymouths. I think what is left of the plant is still there.
Interesting take with the Predictor dream(?) car. If nothing else, it managed to predict a bunch of styling miscues…The Mercury Breezeway rear window line, the 68 Poncho hood-nose strike me the most. At least it managed to avoid the oddities of the 1958 GM line.
Musing, wonder what would have happened if Packard used the V12 Merlin they built in WW II. Not sure what transmission they would have used. I can’t remember the details, but it displaced something like 1600 CI.
The Merlin V12 is not particularly well-suited for automotive use. It has been tried. Google “John Dodd Rolls Royce”. I believe it used a GM TH400 automatic.
Yeah, had my tongue firmly in cheek when writing the above. I believe the (similar) Allison V12 (1700 CI) has been used in tractor pull machines. Back in the 80s, I used to watch hydroplane boat races on ESPN and the also-ran setup was another Allison. The winners used turboshaft engines.
(Big V12s were used in land vehicles, though. I’ve seen a huge Maybach V12 from a German tank. No idea on the displacement.)
A ’58 Packard coupe was the very first collector car that I seriously considered buying. This was in around 1983 and at that time $925 actually would have gotten me a running and complete example plus a parts car. The good one wasn’t in terrible shape but it did have enough in the way of tinworm issues to scare me off. Good thing I suppose, as I am sure a ’58 Packard does not make a good first project car ever.
Nice find! It is rough but still existing.
Those headlight housing are made of fiberglass and just bolted on to the 57 style body.
I’ve actually managed to see one of the remaining ’58 wagons:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/616045871/in/photostream/
Someone may ask “Why didn’t Studebaker get a Gov’t bail out?”
Well, as stated, the Conglomorate that owned Studey [and STP oil] wanted out of the car business. it wasn’t a case of a Corporation going “belly up” or even bankrupt. They pulled plug on Packard and then finally Studes.
Maybe Packard would have been better off going to Chrysler or Ford?
What an amazing find. I do not believe that I have ever seen one of these (of any body style) out in the wild. I enjoyed the piece very much.
I have always been fascinated by this body style. I always thought that this would have been a much better looking car on the old long wheelbase Land Cruiser frame (that I believe was used on the Hawks). As it was, this one always looked a bit stubby. Still, I thought it looked more modern than the Hawks did in 1958.
One thing has always mystified me: Studebaker must have spent a ton of money (by the standards of Studebaker in the late 50s, anyway) on that new for 1958 hardtop roof body. It got used for exactly one year (1958) on exactly 2 cars (this one and the Stude President Starlight). So, as many ways as Studebaker managed to use and re-use everything they ever did, why was there never a single re-use of this body? Almost everyone was still selling those thin-pillar hardtops into 1961 or 62, so why didn’t this car become the Lark hardtop? A question for the ages.
It used Stude’s then longest wheelbase – the 120.5″ President Classic wheelbase of ’56-’58.
Strangely enough, I don’t hate it. Maybe I should, I don’t know. That particular car would be a great candidate for a resto-mod.
I remain a fan of this car. You have to remember, I have no contemporary memory of these cars, they had all rusted away in my part of the midwest by the time I was born (1962). However, there are no sins on this car that other carmakers didn’t do on their own models. Need a taller tailfin? Weld one on, just like Ma Mopar. Upgrade to quad headlights? Add a pod like FoMoCo did in 1958.
I thoroughly wish I had the money to take this car and make a decent resto mod out of it. Mr. Snell beat me to it, but I see a car that sans badges, would drive semi knowledgeable motorhead nuts trying to figure out what it is. While this car may not be as plug and play as a Tri-Five Chevy, but I’m sure some LT or LS motor and autobox would slide right into engine bay, and since we’re not going for a true restoration, everything is open to interpretation.
Truly, a little MMing going on here, but imagine the possibilities…
Resto modded…
I do not like restomods — as a rule, but I like this one!
Our example is a very sad one indeed— It depresses me to see a car in the elements sans any windowwork…. sad how the weather is tearing up what little must remain of this vehicle.
I had the Studebaker version-a 1958 President hardtop coupe. It was white and lavender and had dealer installed under-the -dashboard air conditioning. Paid 300.00 for it in 1969, from a neighbor who took good care of it. His wife hated it, so it had to go. He bought a `69 Chrysler New Yorker, and the wife liked it better.
This was the second car I owned-the first one was a 1960 Mercury Comet two door, a stripper with practically nothing except a radio.
A rather unusual car for an eighteen year old to have, but I did get good use out of it for four years. Everywhere I went, people would ask me “what kind of car is that”.Car handled good, got decent mileage {in 45 cents-per-gallon gas days}, and the air made it a comfortable ride in the hot New York summers. It was stolen right in front of my house in 1974. Miss it!
Great story. You have me laughing, because you may have owned the only 58 Studebaker that anyone ever stole, certainly up to 1974.
Seriously, what a great car. I would have loved it too.