In addition to made up names, during the great neo-classic kit(sch)-car era, revivals of grand old marques was of course a common theme. The whole era got its start with Virgil Exner’s 1963 Stutz revival drawing for a magazine, which turned into a series of toy cars, and eventually spawned full-sized ones. Packard was not one of the original batch, but that came soon enough, and a number of Packard tribute kit(sch)-cars were available during the 70s and early 80s. This one—posted to the Cohort by William Rubano—dates to about 1981, and is obviously based on a Cadillac Coupe de Ville, the very car that was responsible for Packard’s demise.
There’s not information out there on these, except that Dean Martin owned a similar one, with the license plate “DRUNCKY”. This one is BIGTIME. Of course it is, because its owner has obviously hit the big time. I’m so jealous. Why can’t I hit the big time, and get to drive something like this?
In case you were thinking of touching this precious classic, this sign would like to disabuse you of that impulse.
Of course its sporting the cormorant hood ornament, as used on some of the senior Packards in the late 30s. And under the hood? A glorious Packard straight eight? Um, no. This was during Cadillac’s nadir when it came to engines, so if it’s a 1981, the choice was the Buick 4.1 V6, the 5.7 Diesel, or 368 V8-6-4. probably the latter, with the cylinder deactivation deactivated.
I just need to work harder, and maybe I can have a Packard too.
There seems to be a lot of Buick parts on this thing, So a Buick 6 makes sense! As bad as this is, It’s slightly better than some of the “retro” , “pimpmobiles” , Tiffanys or whatever junk permeated the era.?
That’s really nasty. Almost as bad as this Ford Crown Vic-based horror.
If you removed the grille it would look like a McDonalds hamburger:
WT* is this monstrosity!?!? And yes, minus the grille I totally see the Hamburger! HAHA
Solved my own mystery.
http://hooniverse.com/2011/08/04/hooniverse-what-the-truck-thursday-a-1992-packard-bayliff-custom-sedan/
WTF is that “junk ON the trunk ” ?
This thing makes the 1958 Packabaker seem downright beautiful.
Funny how real Packards never looked like they were sucking a lemon.
Tonyola-Unfortunately, looks better than the Lincoln
Kinda looks like an old Jeep J10? Not very aesthetically pleasing, for sure.
If that guy was that worried about his car, enough to put that sign in the window, you’d think he would park better than that. Looks like he just pulled in and never straightened it up.
He’s just inviting a door ding from the SUV driver, especially in that oh so appliance owner mentality color, who is probably not going to care about a nice(?) car parked next to him!
I don’t use the word hate very much at all, but I hate when someone parks like this.
This is why I always park at the far end of a parking lot, much to my wife’s chagrin.
Undoubtedly, this car is what can be classified as A PISSER. I think that it would best be suited thus: Uncle Louie drives his niece and her groom, Joey, from the wedding at church to the reception hall in this can.
This is a cool car. Who cares if it’s not to your taste or mine. It’s obviously owned by a car enthusiast bent on preservation of a slice of automotive history. I’m not going to criticize his or her pride and joy because I can appreciate the efforts of a fellow enthusiast. It’s unique. marvelously preserved and well cared for.
I can also appreciate the in-your-face aesthetic. “Don’t like my car? Suck on my cormorant.” It’s quite the dramatic anti-establishment statement, that we, as aficionados of odd and derelict vehicles should recognize.
I think the question is not “Should Paul drive this car?” since it’s an obvious yes.
The real question is “What hat should Paul wear while driving this car?”
I’m going with this:
Only if he has his Technicolor Dreamcoat to go along with it.
Or this:
Nice to see the 1968 Plymouth side marker lights making an appearance.
I saw this link about the various Packard “what if?” renderings including the very last ones before Dick Teague passed away. https://56packardman.com/2016/08/16/gear-head-tuesday-attempts-at-a-packard-revival-over-the-years/
No words.
“No wonder you’re so f*&#ed up.”
That’s what a close friend 15 years my junior said when I referred to myself as “A Product of the 80’s” over drinks one evening. I can’t recall the what the context of the conversation was, but that statement stuck with me.
When I see something like this it’s the first thing that comes to mind.
Pity the front end is such a mess, otherwise I like it. No need to call it a Packard though, that’s a bit sacrilegious.
The Crown Vic above actually made me burst out laughing. Surely a photoshop!
“Drunky” drove a Stutz.
He also drove a Packard like this one. He obviously had a thing for these. The Packard’s plate is spelled “DRUNCKY”.
? Where’s the photo if one of his cars smashed into a light pole ? .
-Nate
I think that *is* the photo!
You mean this?
Yes Roger, Thank You .
I’m old enough to have enjoyed his singing, TV shows and Movies, I miss him still .
-Nate
Ok, I have to note the Florida tag (and yes, I am from Florida) and note the NY inspection tag on the windshield from 2016, and that combination leads one to believe that this car belongs to a newly minted Flori-duh retiree. Don’t blame the natives, it’s the invasive species that are endangering the locale. We don’t normally have stuff like this, even if we grew up in the 80s. Seems that native Floridians from that era are more Cocaine Cowboy than Mafioso Don, and our tastes in cars is totally different. That also explains the parking job….
Bingo! (And I’m a NY Metro transplant to FL myself.)
If my own unscientific method of armchair stereotyping is worth a damn, I’d reckon this shot was taken within a few miles of the Broward/Palm Beach County line, on either side. Just a wild-ass-guess, but I’ve gotten pretty good at this stuff.
A company called Bayliff built these. More info here.
http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/b/bayliff/bayliff.htm
You beat me to it. Bayliff was located in Lima, Ohio, near where I grew up. C. Budd Bayliff was one of my dad’s customers at his store.
I didn’t know until years later that his company was the one building “Packards”.
I would love to borrow this car for one day. Owning something like this would get old pretty quickly, but one day driving the Pimpkard would be hilarious.
I’m really surprised no one has done a remake of “Christine” and replaced the Plymouth with one of these Packards.
The Packard is far more frightening.
I never though of Christine as a comedy…
There’s just too much detailing, to many things going on for this car to look right. The basic lines don’t look too bad, and if you removed all the extra trim bits and chrome doo-dads – nah it would still look like crap!
Built a couple of fugly hearses too…ugh. I think the hearses were Buick Riviera-based.
Dig the hole big enough to drive this hearse into so that it and the stiff can both be buried.
LOL!! Beat me to it!
The VIN plate is clearly visible in one pic above…I don’t know how to decode pre-17 digit VINs but that should tell you everything you’d care to know about the donor vehicle.
and the internet delivers-
Model and year- 1979 Deville 2 door hardtop coupe
Engine- 425 (4bbl) V-8 (last year for the 7.0 liter engine)
The customizer must have added the 1980+ roof cap, as it seems more upright than the 77-79 CdV roofline.
The big problem with all these Packard tributes is that they assume that a modern day Packard (if it still existed as a company) would never have evolved beyond 1940’s styling.
It would as if Cadillac still made cars today with pontoon fenders, upright grilles, and sealed beam headlights.
If Packard still existed today, it would be thoroughly modern, and probably look a lot like a current Jaguar or Cadillac, and nothing like these monstrosities.
Yep, You are right. This fact always “got” me with these types of “revivals”. The actual companies (if they they kept going) would obviously kept up with contemporary styling trends. OTOH, I could go with a Cadillac with pontoon fenders,stand up grille and sealed beam headlights, LOL ?. Then too these “CUV”s seem to have 1940s proportions, If Buick made one that kinda looked like a 42 Roadmaster, I might bite! PS my sister says that “CUVs” look like ugly sneakers! ?
Definitely. Possibly like a Rover 75 as well.
It was a fair bet at the height of the Brougham era. Although it was the Original Sin of the Exner/Renwal Revivals that in part led to the Brougham era…
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-drawing-and-toy-cars-that-launched-the-whole-neo-classic-brougham-era-virgil-exners-1963-stutz-revival/
This reminds me of Carol Shelby’s remark about all the Cobra clones. He said that they stopped making it because it was obsolete. If he continued producing that kind of car it would be something quite different today.
???
The featured car? Words fail me. (Picture Lurch from the Addams family saying “Uuuughh.”)
Still, seeing the various kitsch cars on CC is fun.
This makes ol’ Lurch look like a Miss Universe entrant.
A retro Packard based off a GM Car? Might as well build a classic Buick Roadmaster based on a Ford Taurus.
The poor Cormorant on the hood looks like it’s bowing it’s head in shame. The attached photo shows an attempted 1999 revival that appeals to me just a little more. At least an attempt was made to reinterpret the sleek and lovely 1941-42/1946-47 Clipper in modern form rather than just gluing a Gothic grille on a malaise-era Caddie and calling it a retro tribute. Other efforts seem to have included a bespoke power plant worthy of the name Packard. Seems like there was a serious commitment made to try to produce a quality automobile and not just another car that’s the equivalent of an Elvis-on-black-velvet painting.
Here’s the elevator pitch on the car. Long after the original company folded it’s tent…
“the Packard Motor Car Company, a registered Arizona corporation, owned the rights to the Packard name for automobiles and parts. The company licensed various companies to use the Packard name and also manufactured and marketed some Packard branded parts themselves.
In 1995, Roy and Barbara Gullickson purchased the rights to the Packard name and subsequently had the company design and build a new luxury sedan hoping that it would attract support for short-run manufacturing. The enterprise was promoted on a website that described the prototype which featured an overhead-valve, fuel injected 525 cubic inch all-aluminum V12 engine. The car was shown at the Pebble Beach Concours in 2003. The prototype and company, such that it was, were put up for sale in 2008. As with the Avanti Motor Corporation around the same time, there were interested parties but no eventual takers.”
Last I heard, both remain in limbo, the last distilled remains of a once-great industrial empire, the Studebaker-Packard Corporation.
If you focus on the center section of it, it looks like a 71-72 Buick Skylark 4 door (post) sedan!
Oops forgot picture!
Yeah. Maybe a little bit, James. But then again, a “B” pillar by any other name is still a “B” pillar. 😉
By center, I mean the doors, side windows and a bit of the rear quarter and front fenders, not just the “b” pillars, and I pointed (post) so as not to confuse it with the hardtop Skylark.
I know, James. I was just being a smartass. 😉
My bad, It’s a little late in the day for me….I totally missed the Freudian paraphrase! ??
No worries, James.
Roof looks more like it was lifted from a panther Lincoln, to me. Not really too bad of an interpretation of what a modern Packard might look like, too.
I have zero info on this prototype, but the Panther Lincoln is a likely base. (The shape of the back door window kinda confirms it )The over all effect of the door shape and the buldges just “look” 71 Skylark to me. RWD/BOF is probably the best way to do a prototype without having to tool up a “clean sheet” design for anyone, let alone a “Mom & Pop” “Car manufacturer”. and in ’99 the Panther platform would have been my choice for such a project.
Nope. This car was not built on any existing platform. It was engineered from the ground up. Full time four wheel drive with four wheel independent suspension….
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/index.php/photo-gallery/
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/index.php/specifications/
Ok, Cool, naturally I was speculating. Literally, until today I had no idea this prototype existed! Given the size of the company, I would never guessed that it was a “clean sheet” design ?.
Pretty crazy, hey? Roy Gullickson must have had some REALLY deep pockets to pull this off.
???
Anyone else think this is the sort of thing Elon Musk might give a try? A super-premium, electric Packard would be advanced enough, yet still have the kind of caché to take on other über-luxury brands like Rolls-Royce, Bentley, or Maybach.
Ironically, Studebaker would be a better choice for a “classic” electric car revival as Stude was major player in electrics!
Whoa, it’s a Colonnade Packard!
HA!
??
I appreciate the effort, but it just doesn’t work for me at all.
I agree that’s it’s far from a perfect design, Paul. VERY thick and heavy looking but more coherent than the various, hilarious kitschmobiles that are the primary subject of your post.
I’m prejudiced, though. I love the style of the aforementioned ’41-’47 Clippers.
I have to disagree with the assertion that the Cadillac was Packard’s nemesis. I think the car(s) that did in Packard over a fifteen-year decline were Packard’s own OneTen and OneTwenty models during the Depression years. Once Packard diluted their reputation by making cars for the plebian masses, the writing was on the wall. Had they doubled down, resisted the mass-market move and stuck with the market above Cadillac which only the Three Ps occupied – they probably would still be around, still as a limited-production automobile with an impeccable reputation.
It’s unlikely a super-premium Packard could remain independent post NHTSA, post EPA. And since the Big-3 all have their own premium brand it’s not clear who could be Packard’s parent company.
I kinda agree, Plus, the “above Cadillac” market largely evaporated since the 30s. Even Cadillac, Lincon, Imperial all had their bodies made “in house” by 1950 instead of a portion being “custom bodied”. as well. The depression, tax rates, Who knows? but, it seemed like the “above Cadillac” market wasn’t as big in the 1950s as the low production of the Continental MkII and Eldorado Brougham seem to show (and Roller and MB sales too) That market only reappeared after the “real” Packard had left the stage.
From 1913 on, the U.S. Government started collecting annual income tax. This was to effect the Newport, R.I., and Bar Harbor, Maine super rich in a big way. Many of the super rich families accumulated so much wealth before 1913 that the income tax was just a speed bump for them. The party lasted well into the twenties, until 1929 when the stock market crashed. With one quarter of the country unemployed during the depression, being driven, as opposed to driving, an over the top luxury car took on a whole new meaning. All of the luxury makes cheapened out except for Rolls Royce. They had to. The market had changed. Packard made a lot of blunders on their own but the car that really killed Packard was Studebaker.
Yes, true, But then (1913) the federal income tax really only “hit” the super rich. WW2 demands made the federal income tax hit “ordinary rich” and middle class too. By 1950 the life style “gap” was lessened more. While there was still very wealthy, Many of what today are “very rich” (Entertainers, athletes) lived rather ordinary lifestyles compared to the 1920s and today. A car line like Packard, Peerless,Peirce that couldn’t really exist in 1950-1970 America, but could in 1915-1930 and 1980-Today. There was a blip in time where the “upper middle class” and “ordinary rich” were closer. BTW, I’m not advocating a return to a 90% Income tax, (my Republican bones abhor that!) . But there was that moment when a Hollywood star would “rock” the same model car that your hometown Realtor did. That time was brief.
Without the 120, unlikely Packard would have survived until WWII defense contract could keep it going.
Major mistakes were:
Going too far down market with the Six.
Keeping the middle-priced lines their main emphasis after survival was achieved.
Never creating a fully-differentiated Senior series after 1939.
Ignoring the re-defined entry-level luxury $1,700 segment tapped first by the Cadillac 60, then the 60 Special until it was firmly in Cadillac’s grip.
Lagging in body styling trends: the three-box sedan.
Outsourcings all body-making to Briggs from 1946-’54..
Restyling the ’41 Clipper body into the ’48-’50 bathtubs, then flooding the market with them at discounts to clear overproduction.
Introducing a new generation of L-head straight eight for 1948, then dithering when the market preference was clearly demonstrated for the V8 configuration.
Changing the distributorship system to a factory zones operation that decimated the dealership network.
Fielding the ’51 Contour-Styled cars that were unprogressive, continued emphasis of the mower-price 200, seriously curtailed Senior model selections.
A board of director votes to declare dividends in 1950-51 when funding was needed for 1953 MY V8 introduction.
Hiring Hotpoint hot-shot salesman James Nance as president in 1952, who had no auto industry experience, apparently little in finance and manufacturing as well.
Total lack of due diligence in the Studebaker equities-swap buyout.
Moving complete final assembly from East Grand Boulevard into the Connor Avenue plant theretofore only the body-making operation.
Depleting working capital as income plummeted.
There are many more, but that’s some of the highlights: Demise by a thousand, self-inflicted cuts.
Hood ornament could be lethal to a wayward pedestrian.
I’d be a lot more worried about getting smacked with 2+ tons of steel going over 20 mph…
What a beautiful. I would drive it. Much nicer than a coupe Deville .
If Anthony Scaramucci was a car, he would be this “Packard”.
Who else gets “Bohemian Rhapsody” in their head at the very mention of that name! ?
Everyone? 😉
“It would as if Cadillac still made cars today with pontoon fenders, upright grilles, and sealed beam headlights.”
Uh, they don’t???
…no..they don’t.
There is nothing like good taste. And these cars are nothing like good taste.
HA!
It puts an interesting twist on the old line
“Ask the man that drives one”
I think I’d be scared to talk to the man who proudly drives this!
No need for the sign-I wouldn’t touch that with the proverbial ten-foot pole!
Pukeard. But as said before, it would be fun to drive it for a day.
It’s one of those deals, you know, those “too weird to live, too rare to die” kinda deals.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: ghastly and pretentious!
The shame of the Stutz Bearcat, Zimmers, other neo-classic ruck, these Bayliff “Packards” divert real money better spent to restore and preserve real Packards.
But, its unlikely buyers of these neo-classics even care about a real Packard, their purpose is as trappings for self-aggrandizement without the inconvenience of living with a real Classic.
I think Liberace had one of these things parked in his living room.
I think that this is a little too conservative for Liberace! ?
In keeping with my endeavors to keep Pittsburgh history (and particularly the Mon Valley and South Hills) alive…
here’s a bit from Liberace’s experience in Monroeville,PA and how it relates to the Steel City. (beyond the fact that he was Polish+Italian – a Pittsburgh blood combo,if there ever was one,!)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.tubecityonline.com/almanac/entry_2275.php&ved=0ahUKEwigq9T-i-DVAhXBOCYKHdJuBh8QFggpMAE&usg=AFQjCNHoMrlilJI9e6OKlFEIV2k0Wlyr-w
One and only one thing killed Packard, lack of capital. They were, in essence competing with Ford and GM, sitting at a poker table with good players, totally underfunded. You can discuss this mistake or that one, the truth is that eventually the size of the opponents would have crushed them. It was just a matter of which “bad hand’ would deliver the final blow.