I have never seen one of these in person, so I was delighted to find this near showroom-new example on eBay with lots of close-up detailed photos. I like to imagine myself seeing this car gleaming on the showroom floor at a Studebaker-Packard dealer in 1958, as J.P. Cavanaugh did in this post. So if you’ve ever been curious about these last-of-all Packards, step inside with me and take a look . . .
A little background: In 1954, Studebaker and Packard merge. President James Nance goes all out and presents to the market radically new 1955 Packards, with V-8 engines, Torsion-Level Ride, and new-looking bodies. Sales rebound to a somewhat respectable 55,000 units. But in 1956, few new buyers seem interested, and sales plummet to 28,799. Studebaker is also floundering, with sales well below their break-even point. Nance fails to obtain financial backing for an all-new ’57 line of Packards. He bails, and new management decrees that 1957-58 Packards will be based on the already-existing, top-of-the-line Studebaker President Classic.
In my lifetime, I have seen exactly THREE ’58 Packards, (but no ’57s). I took the photo above at a car show in 1999. This totally restored (or mint original) car was supposedly owned by Bewitched actress Elizabeth Montgomery. The other two were a black sedan at a ’50s event called Lead East in Parsippany, NJ, and a pale pink one with a smashed-in trunk parked (not running) off Route 10 just a few miles west of the Hilton were Lead East is annually held. I have never seen the ’58 hardtop, with its attractive roofline, nor the wagons, nor the elusive Packard Hawk.
The Packard Hawk is based on the Studebaker Golden Hawk, but with Packard-inspired body trim and super-luxury interior. It is said to be the fastest non-racing Packard in history, with its supercharged 289 cubic inch Studebaker-sourced V-8.
So now, let’s take a close look at this rare bird, with all its fine plumage:
Vooooommmm! Looks like it’s soaring, even standing still. This is the iconic Robert Bourke-designed Studebaker hardtop coupe of ’53, but so much jazzier!
The glorious P A C K A R D name spelled out across the front. A golden eagle. A sporty hood scoop (fake)–the ’58 Fords (and the 53-54 Packard Caribbeans) had those too.
It looks so voluptuous in this view! Parking/directional lights above headlights with their own set of fins. The famous Packard “cusps” in the hood (going back to 1904) are retained.
From this angle it looks European.
Distinctive rear view mirror with S-P emblem.
Here we get a better look at the “outside armrests”, which appear to be plastic, and I read were inspired by the cockpits of vintage airplanes.
You like gold? We’ve got lots of it right here!
Reminds me of a ’61 Imperial from the rear. The trunk is smoothly rounded down in place of the rather awkward-looking Studebaker trunk. Twin radio antennas are a Packard thing. Has the correct grilled exhaust tips, just like the magazine ad.
Yeah, it’s got the fake spare tire bulge. I’m really not a fan of that kind of stuff, but on this car, I can accept it.
Have a look inside . . .
Tan leather interior. This is really luxurious!
Functional European racing car-type instruments. Engine-turned dash panel. Tachometer and vacuum gauge.
Supercharged!
Put a new decal on it and it becomes a Packard engine! For this car, the Stude V-8 is better than the 55-56 Packard V-8. It’s lighter, for one thing.
There’s the supercharger mounted atop the engine, with that jewelry-fine Packard badge on top. The supercharger gives faster acceleration when you floor it, but it makes some noise and can create problems. Consumer Reports stated, “It will give the mechanics a bad time.”
All this original literature comes with the car.
I promise not be promiscuous in my use of regular grade gasoline. If I owned this car, premium only!
1953-54 Caribbean-style brightwork surrounds the wheel arches. Special 14″ Packard wheelcovers with the red hexagon and five spinners.
Now if I compared this to the competing American 4-seater sporty coupes that I also like from the same era–for instance, the 1958-60 Thunderbirds, which would I choose? I’m very close to going with this Packard, and here’s why: First, the T-Birds, sharp and cool as they are, are rather common. Second, I like the looks of this Packard Hawk better than the Studebaker version with its “big schnoz” grille. Third, this is a truly unique, custom-bodied car which has a lot of flair. Most people won’t know what it is, and have never seen one. The market says that the Packard is the most desirable, according to NADA:
1958 Thunderbird: $16,600
1958 Studebaker Golden Hawk: $20,100
1958 Packard Hawk: $22,100
All prices are “Average Retail” condition. Yes, Packard leads in resale value, but it took 60 years for that to happen! “You can be certain you have made a sound investment in quality.”
**Special note**: To me, these NADA prices are just theoretical starting points in a negotiation–I would offer quite a bit less, and we dicker from there.
Now the 1957-58 Packards generally get a lot of criticism: “It’s not a true Packard, but a Studebaker underneath”; “The body trim parts look tacked on”–technically, these statements are true. But I think enough time has passed so that we do not judge this as we would a “used car” but as a fascinating relic of a truly romantic time in auto history.
Let’s face it–Studebaker and Packard merged. S-P had the rights to the Packard name, and were in the business of building cars. They tried their best (with a very limited budget) to put much of the Packard luxury tradition and Packard styling cues into their Studebaker-based offerings. And if anyone knows anything about pre-war cars, the idea of a Packard speedster is not a new one.
To say “They’re not true Packards” is like saying Dodges built after the Dodge Brothers were acquired by Chrysler are not true Dodges, or Lincolns built after Ford took them over are not true Lincolns. That “Bell & Howell” or “Hamilton Beach” appliance you buy at Walmart–does it have anything to do with those original American companies? No, the names are licensed, and the products are built in Chinese factories. But they are still recognized as being that brand. Products and manufacturing are always changing.
“The Packard Hawk is the car with a regal air that immediately distinguishes its owner as a man of position. Put yourself in that position.” Well, someday I might just do that. And I salute the 588 people out of 4,500,000 who, in 1958, decided that among ALL cars offered that year, THIS was the one for them!
Luscious pictures. The interior, with real leather on seats and dashboard, would have been worth the price of admission. It has a Mercedes feel.
It’s too bad Packard didn’t follow this style on its real cars from ’51 to ’56, which had ordinary interiors. The view from the driver’s seat matters to some luxury buyers. Chrysler understood this preference. Cadillac didn’t need to understand it.
Oddly enough, the environment for these pictures makes the swollen lip look less peculiar. The expensive (and much newer) sports cars around the Hawk have the same lip.
” It has a Mercedes feel. ”
I doubt much of a tie in was happening, but from April 1957 until the death of Studebaker in 1965, Studebaker-Packard acted as the North American distribution and sales arm of Mercedes Benz. If you wanted to buy a 1958 Mercedes 300SL, you would have gone to a Studebaker dealer to buy one!
These are referred to by true Packard enthusiasts as “Packardbakers.”
I think I would choose one of these Hawks over the competing American sporty coupes simply because it has so many fascinating design details, I feel that looking at one would never get old. Though like you insinuated, maybe that’s a perception that has developed over time… in the 1950s or ’60s I might have just seen it as overdone.
Of all the details, one that really jumps out at me here are the outside armrests – I’ve never seen or noticed that on any other car before. Not really practical (assuming the material is plastic, or anything besides metal, for that matter), but really neat on a classic car.
Some of the last of the Chrysler M-Bodies had “Outside Armrests”.
And people complain of tacked-on egregiousness as well as odd proportions, discordant lines, bulges, and fakery of all kinds in today’s cars… 🙂 This one has all that and perhaps more and while I can and do certainly respect that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you absolutely nailed it with that Thunderbird, it’s what I was thinking of but not quite finding in my brain as I looked at the pix of the Packard as that T-bird too suffers from the same. The interior though is extremely nice and the color combination works as well.
All that said, it seems to be a great example of the breed and if the posted “average retail condition” prices are representative of what these in this condition go for, then that seems like a great value for a fairly unique car. It would seem that 50’s cars are declining in popularity overall (as collector/drivers) as the owner segment gets more sparse and prospective buyers have less and less of a direct personal connection to them. And conversely stuff like old VWs and Porsches of the era (though far more abundant then and still now as oldies) seem to keep going up as there is a direct visual lineage going back and creating interest even among those that owned or desired examples twenty or more years newer and had less of a direct first-hand connection to the older ones.
I vaguely remember seeing one of these just off the “square” in Madison, WI, IMhO, hideous psuedo Packards when new. I thought then, and still do, that they certainly gave the GARISH ’58 Oldsmobiles and Buicks a run for the FUGHLEE OF THE YEAR award.
The ’53 Studebaker coupe is a design classic, even the 2 door sedan looks good, but this………..gee, wonder why it did NOT $ELL??! Uh-huh. 🙁 DFO
Packard Hawk? A name like this simply reinforces what everyone already new-namely that this was simply a pimped up Studebaker. I have to admit the interior is very nice, but this vehicle simply brings to mind the unfortunate Cadillac cimarron which as everyone knows was simply a pimped up Cadillac. And that front end and toilet bowl lid on the trunk doesn’t do the vehicle any favors either. And with the ’58 Packards based on the Studebaker President, Packard dealers had to be wondering what had happened to their once proud line of vehicles.
I think you meant to say pimped up Cavalier.
You’re correct, I apologize for the error.
Badge-engineering is one of those double-edged swords. It’s a cheap way to get a model into different dealerships, but it can also go a long way to killing a division.
A case in point is Plymouth. I remember when it began in earnest with the Neon. During most of the Iacocca era, the Plymouth vehicles at least got a different grille (usually an eggcrate style). But the Chrysler executives couldn’t even bother with that on the Neon (the last car Iacocca had any input on). Dodge and Plymouth Neons were, quite literally, identical except for a few badges that either said ‘Dodge’ or ‘Plymouth’. When I saw that, I knew Plymouth wasn’t much longer for the world.
S-P dealers, those who hung on long enough to sell these, had no delusions about Packard’s former glories or the corporate situation that brought these about. They’d watched the corporation struggle through the financial Waterloo of 1956, knew the decisions forced by the Curtiss-Wright management agreement weren’t always with continued auto-making as the primary objective. It was not at happy time in South Bend.
By 1958, with the S-P operating on a month-to-month basis, rushing the compact through development, it was a race against time and financial collapse. Dealers selling one more of these high margin Packard Hawks might keep that dealer afloat and on board when the Lark arrived. S-P dealer retention had been dismal and worsened as the corporation survival became shakier.
These are known as “Hurley Hawks” because a special, one-off customized Hawk was being built for Roy Hurley, President of Curtiss-Wright who was ‘management advisor’ to Harold Churchill, S-P President. Hurley had seen a Ferrari during a foray to European auto shows, wanted his Hawk to have the same look, low wide grille. Pleased with his custom, he decided they should build a production version to round out the Packard line and this was the result. Plastering the fish-mouth on the sedan, hardtop and station wagon was to give the line a familial look and ‘distinctive’ Packard identity.
Like you, I had never seen one – until January of 2020 at B/J Scottsdale.
It was far back to the west in the elongated tent structure, along the north wall and parked next to some ordinary other ’50s cars. Lighting was not good; it was not given any special display courtesy.
The Hawk was a blue/green color, kind of dark and in the dimmer lighting it was not notable. I was at B/J with a car nut friend; he had no idea what it was. I did know and explained the relationship to the similar Studebaker. Surely that is the only time I’ve stumbled across a Packard Hawk.
The shape and the very low location of the grille was (is) disconcerting.
I realize that Studebaker-Packard was a financial mess, but if they had put the Packard Predictor into production, it would have been more in-keeping with Packard’s tradition of making astounding large cars. Imagine floating down the Interstates in one of these!
Allan Lacki,
Packard had indeed created an all-new Packard [as well as Clipper & Studebaker product lines, and the Packard cars were very cutting edge, blowing away [in my opinion] Cadillac and Lincoln.
For example, I’m providing photos of what the 1957 Packard 400 2-door hardtop was to look like.
and the artist’s rendering of the same car . . .
also the 1957 Packard Patrician 4-door hardtop full scale mock-up . . .
I’ve owned about 300 Packards since 1966 when I was 14, including 2 1957 Clipper sedans, one light blue, the other black. Also had a 1958 Packard sedan in dark blue, it was fully loaded including A/C, but had terrible rust. Only had one 1958 Packard Hawk, but decided to sell it because it needed a lot, and I had too many other cars needing my attention [and dollars!]
I didn’t realize it at the time, but my light blue ’57 Clipper was likely the car featured in the company’s advertising, as it was the 3rd car built, and the first blue one. Sadly, in 1970 I ended up trading it in on a red 1966 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible. Paid $900 for the Plymouth, less $100 trade-in.
Packard actually had a running & driving prototype for the planned 1957 car line, a 4-door sedan they called “Black Bess”. I’m including a photo of Black Bess.
Here is a great chart from the styling dept at S-P, showing how the 4 product lines would be based on basic body shells, with bolt-on or welded pieces to make it a Packard, Clipper, Studebaker, or the Studebaker Express Coupe pickup truck.
Wow, that’s a terrific graphic… thanks for posting it!
The interior is nice, but the original Loewy design has been devolved into a caricature of the worst of 1957 styling. In an example of (partial) CC Effect, I actually saw a Studebaker on the freeway yesterday; a 1953-ish pickup. Obviously an apples-oranges comparison but very clean lines.
I’ll never forget the first time I saw one of these, and was saddened by how the Dagmars created fangs to spoil this car’s “face.”
And while it never would’ve happened, I’ve always wondered how things would’ve turned out if Ford had taken the $250 million spent to develop the Edsel, and who knows what to develop the Continental, and instead used it to buy Packard.
Ford already had Lincoln; they didn’t need Packard. Chrysler buying Packard rather than trying to break Imperial out into a separate luxury brand may have made more sense (how much more would Chrysler have had to spend to create a new line of popular SUVs in-house rather than just buying Jeep?)
By the early 50s, Packard was seen as more of a Chrysler/Buick competitor than a Cadillac competitor, but to a degree that would have been true of Lincoln also (one of the reasons why they started Continental as a division). It would perhaps have been easier for Chrysler to buy it and attempt to move it back upmarket than to try and launch Imperial as a separate brand, but by no means certain given Packard’s lack of brand equity. I think Ford would have been better off buying Hudson.
Ford buying Hudson? Spending money an a dead brand/company? They might as well have thrown the money away.
The Hudson brand would still have had some equity in the early 50s, and in exactly the market segment that Edsel was originally aimed at. Plus a dealer network. So the cost versus inventing a new brand and setting up a new dealer network might well have been favorable. I do agree Hudon’s hard assets would have had little value to Ford, but that was true with Nash as well. The public would likely have been more accepting of a Hudson made by one of the big 3 free of the independent stigma. But it is fair to say it would have ended up as much a waste of money as Edsel since the market shifted away from medium priced cars dramatically at the end of the decade.
It would have been interesting if Packard had merged with Chrysler. Imagine the hierarchy of divisions:
Imperial
Packard
Chrysler
Desoto
Dodge
Plymouth
That’s more divisions than GM!
Chrysler couldn’t even make Imperial work. So yes, another premium brand would have been a brilliant addition.
Ford did indeed have Lincoln, but that didn’t stop them from creating the ill-fated “Continental Division” to be placed above it. Until the Clipper came along, Packard had a certain old world, handcrafted reputation that I’m not sure Lincoln ever had. And up until 1950 or so, Packard sold as well as – or better than – Cadillac.
Packard’s luxury reputation was largely squandered by the early 1950’s, would have been no use to Ford as they already had Lincoln which itself was barely held as a luxury contender. What saved Lincoln more than once was the sentimental attachment the Ford brothers had to their late father Edsel’s devotion to Lincoln and the refuge it was for his creative expression.
Chrysler, on the other hand, might well have rebuilt Packard’s luxury reputation over a decade or more rather than try in vain to separate Imperial from Chrysler. But, Chrysler had no place for the lower-priced Packard models that were the majority of the sales by then. And the production facilities would have been redundant, none truly up-to-date or state-of-the-art. Heck, they leased that Connor Avenue former Briggs body plant to Packard having no need of it for Mopar production.
It made no sense for Ford or Chrysler to buy Packard. Both had trouble selling their own luxury brands, let alone a new one.
An intriguing thought is if George Mason’s early fifties vision of merging Packard, Nash, Hudson and Studebaker would have come true. A full line manufacturer with broad product offerings may have been able to compete with the Big 3. But the intricacies proved too much to overcome and Mason unexpected died.
The Packard Hawk gets a lot of grief, mostly for the catfish grille. On the actual car, it’s not so bad, but in the ads, it sure looks like the illustrators went out of their way to make it look ‘more’ like a catfish. Specifically, look at the corners that have sharper downward angles, creating a kind of Fu Manchu look.
Frankly, it’s a bit of a shame because some of the last Packard’s styling touches aren’t really all that bad. If the Studebaker stylists had just shown a little restraint (and a different name), the Packard Hawk might not have been so goofy. But it was 1958 and restraint wasn’t exactly a domestic trend, particularly on the highest trim levels.
I’d like to see a photoshopped version of the Packard Hawk that eliminated the fake hood scoop, the toilet seat, Dagmars, fender ornaments, and fins. Just those minor changes could have made a big difference.
Lose the door armrests, too. I do like your idea, though.
On the bottom of the doors I see what I think is the anchor point for the lap seat belt, I wonder if that was original or a later addition?
Thanks for a closer look at a fascinating car which is always going to rile up a whole lot of positive and negative comment.
Sparton seat belts. Looks like original extra order?
See the pink instruction.
Sparton was an independent maker of seat belts at the time. It’s possible, though, that the belts were installed by the dealer before delivery.
And yes, the outboard belt was mounted to the door. This was not a mistake, and was thought at the time to be a feature. Sparton advertised that the belts would keep the doors from coming open in a collision. Well, yes — but wouldn’t that be at the cost of transferring whatever force was trying to pop the door open to the occupant’s body?
(I know that door-mounted belts made a later appearance on some cars, especially GM, in the late 80’s and early 90’s. However, on those cars, there were extra latch bolts that tied the door structure to the body in a couple places (and door latches overall were better than in 1958).
Studebaker-Packard began offering seat belts with the 1955 models, and yes, the outer belts were secured to the lower rear corner of the door. they also had a chrome clip towards the front of the door panel to hold the other end of the seat belt. If the user failed to clip the belt in place, it would drag on the ground once the door was opened.
I had a 1956 Packard Patrician, ordered with every option the company offered that year, including the seat belts. The buckles had a S-P logo in the center. I rarely used them because I hated the door mounted strap, as did the passengers.
SO I’m sure a buyer of a 1958 Packard [or Studebaker] could have had these installed, they were often part of the dealer parts inventory.
Just so I understand: the 1958 “full size” Packards had the dual headlamps, but the Hawks didn’t?
Having asked that, this sure seems like a car where some views are flattered by the camera, others hardly so.
By “full size” I assume you mean the four door sedans. In any case, the answer is yes. Those dual headlight pods were atrocious on the sedans, but they would have looked completely absurd on the lower, smoother and longer front end of the coupes.
A “golden eagle” on the hood? Wouldn’t that be a hawk as in Packard Hawk? Same design as the Stude Hawk emblem.
This car was originally conceived and built as a one-off for Curtiss-Wright chief Roy Hurley, who had the idea of the vintage aircraft style cockpit surround. Originally leather, I think. Putting the car into production was an afterthought.
The leather interior is from the Stude Golden Hawk 400 of the previous year.
Even if you preferred the T-Bird’s styling the perception of Packard as a soon-to-be orphan brand would have hindered 1958 sales.
The 1957 Packards were quickly thrown together by Dick Teague, who had neither the time nor money to turn an already uncompetitive Studebaker into a Packard, but did as well as could be expected to in those circumstances. A few real ’55-56 Packard parts were grafted onto the Stude body, including the gauges, taillights, badges, and hubcaps, along with some new Packard-style trim inside and out. Packard’s engineering team meanwhile brought the Twin Traction LSD over to South Bend; the supercharged Stude 289 put out the same 275hp as the Packard 352 did a year earlier.
The ’58 facelift fell to Duncan McRae, who at least had more time to come up with something new-looking. The Packard cusps on the hood were not retained on the ’57, and McRae was proud of re-introducing that styling element in the ’58s to try to instill more Packard identity. He also created what he thought was a one-off customized Hawk for Curtiss-Wright CEO Roy Hurley, who now effectively was running S-P and wanted it for his personal car. Hurley requested a Ferrari-like grille, so fiberglass was used to reshape the opening. The interior was from the top line Studebaker Hawk 400 from a year earlier. The fins were tacked onto 1953 body, and mylar inserts gave them that gold sheen. The rear decklid was just a ’53-55 “Loewy coupe” decklid with a fake spare tire cover stuck onto it. Hurley shocked McRae by ordering this pieced-together creation into production.
So, since SP was a “merger” not a buyout and by all accounts Studebaker was the bigger mess of a company, why didn’t Packard’s simply soldier on with a refresh of their newer 55-56 shell as their basis and decontent it for “all new” Studebaker models? It seems to me that would have preserved the prestige and dignity of the Packard brand and spared Studebakers of that dorky dated early 50s bodyshell until it was morphed into the Lark.
I never particularly minded the Packard Hawk though, the toilet seat is the most offensive part of it, but I think the front end compared to studebakers big formal grille is substantially more attractive, and actually more in tune with the original sleek Loewy design
Packard’s 55-56 shell was just a facelift of the 1951 body which was even older than the 1953 bodies Studebaker was stuck with. I can’t blame you for thinking they were new though, as Dick Teague’s 1955 managed to make it look almost new. Still, 1956 was the last year it could look up to date; it would be up against all-new competition in 57 from GM and Chrysler.
The 57 Chrysler’s certainly made it look dated, but Packard wasn’t alone in that, I think it had two more years left in it with a true sheetmetal change(not just fins and pods screwed into old sheetmetal that Studebaker found acceptable) and hold up next to GMs and Ford’s of 57-58.
Now what happens in 1959 when GM rolls out their longer lower wider Chrysler aping designs, how the 58 recession would hit them probably spells their doom regardless, but I can’t help but think a true Packard joined with a Packard based Studebaker wouldn’t have been nearly as egregious of a sin to packard faithful and might have actually signaled a degree of turnaround for Studebaker buyers. The 55-56 Packard refresh was remarkably contemporary for those years, but that 53 Studebaker “sedan” body never didn’t look awkward and out of step(until the lark).
The way things actually played out it seems not like a merger of Packard and Studebaker to save both companies but rather a takeover and immediate liquidation of Packard to financially smooth the corporations exit from the car business and diversify into other industries.
Given their sales numbers, I assume that S/P really needed to consolidate and close one of the two legacy factory sites. Both complexes were getting to be outdated, but I believe Studebaker in South Bend was smaller, so probably could make a profit with smaller production numbers.
I still think if only one factory and brand could be saved, it should have Packard. A luxury car can be profitable at low volumes due to higher markups and less price sensitivity amongst buyers. Packard could profitably sell 80-90,000 cars per year. Even though there are cost disadvantages to not being able to share parts with a volume brand as with Cadillac or Lincoln, perspective Packard buyers may well be willing to pay slightly more (say, $1,000 in 2021 dollars) if they like the car better. This would mostly not be true for Studebaker buyers who would defect to Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth (or maybe AMC or imports) if the Stude cost $1,000 more. There just wasn’t an easy way to profitably sell low-end cars in small numbers.
Ia673,
Not only was the ’55-’56 body a continuation of the 1951-54 body, but it actually dates back to the original 1941 Clipper body. It is possible to set in place a 1941 Clipper rear door, into the rear door opening on a 1956 Clipper. It fits the roof line perfectly, but the wheel arch area is different. [I’ve done it to prove it could be done]
“…why didn’t Packard’s simply soldier on with a refresh of their newer 55-56 shell as their basis and decontent it for ‘all new’ Studebaker models?”
Because at that point Packard barely the ability to build its own bodies, let alone also do it for Studebaker. When Chrysler bought Briggs Maufacturing in 1952 (or 1953?), it notified Packard it would soon stop supplying Packard with bodies. Packard scrambled, leased Chrysler’s Connor Avenue plant and started building its own bodies again. But the plant was woefully undersized, which had an adverse effect on both output and quality.
“why didn’t Packard’s simply soldier on with a refresh of their newer 55-56 shell ”
The combined company was a disastrous example of anti-synergy. Studebaker had a fully integrated production operation in South Bend but was without the ability to build the larger Packards without substantial re-working. Packard, meanwhile, had made do with facilities that were too small for profitable volume and could not swallow manufacturing Studes too.
The Packard V8 was too big and heavy for the small Studebakers (whose own V8 was already overweight for its displacement)
There was not enough volume to keep Packard’s Detroit and Studebaker’s South Bend operations open, and the pieces just didn’t fit together in a way that allowed producing both lines.
“Anti-synergy” is a great way to put it. There were too many dissimilarities between Studebaker and Packard to realize any advantages of a merger. Compounding this is that both companies had come to relative dead ends in terms of both product and production facilities.
Still another thing that must’ve hampered any possible benefits of a merger is the 225 miles between Detroit and South Bend. Even if the plants had been more up to date, the cost of shipping engines, bodies, and other components between the two plants likely would’ve cut deeply into Studebaker-Packard’s margins, which were precariously thin when compared to those of the Big Three.
Nice homage to a very rare beast. Curious how a re-worked Studebaker Hawk becomes “the most original car on the American road” More like the most cobbled up one. But I do rather like it for its eccentricities and that wonderful interior.
The hood scoop may have been fake, but it was undoubtedly needed to clear the supercharger and carb. And it’s a minor point, but those traditional instruments weren’t exactly European in inspiration, as American sporty cars and classic cars of an earlier period all used them too.
The 3 row wagon has double chamber tires instead of a spare. I’ve never heard of those. Guess they didn’t catch on.
Are you sure you’re not remembering Rambler 3-seat wagons? They had the “Captive Air” tires by Goodyear, and no spare.
So basically they’re run-flats. Work differently than modern ones though – there was an “inner spare”, sort of a tire within a tire, with separate inflation valves for the inner bladder and outer section. If the tire got a flat, the inner part would remain inflated and could be driven 100 miles. No TPMS back then so maybe this was better than the modern approach? What was the disadvantage?
This is anecdotal, but years before he died my dad told me that he had these tires on one of his cars. Aside from the added expense and hassle when mounting them, he mentioned some issues with the sidewall valves: They weren’t as reliable as Schrader valves, nor were they as convenient when the time came to check air pressure.
advert:
Elizabeth Montgomery could presumably have afforded any car she wanted, and she bought a Packardbaker?
Those cars were more of a travesty than the Hashes. It would have been better to put the brand out of its misery.
You hear all sorts of stories about unlikely previous owners at car shows. The current owners may be sincere, but rarely can anything be proven.
Mike Lamm of Special Interest Autos wrote years ago about buying a Sixties Cadillac convertible and being told that the original owner was Victor Sen Yeung, the actor who played Hop Sing, the Chinese cook, on Bonanza. He wrote a letter to Sen Yeung enclosing some pictures of the car and asking if he had any recollections of it. Eventually, he got a letter back simply saying: “The lady is mistaken as I’ve never owned a Cadillac car in my life.”
Lamm notes the oddity of the story: He had only been told about “Hop Sing’s” purported ownership after he’d completed the purchase, so it wasn’t a made up selling point. And why lie about such an obscure celebrity, anyway? But things get garbled and then endlessly repeated as fact in the old car hobby, as we all know.
I found a more detailed history of the car. Elizabeth Montgomery was NOT the original owner; apparently she and her husband bought it in the 1980s. But supposedly it is the last Packard ever sold NEW, being bought by a Mr. Oberkamper at J & B Motors in Turlock, CA in Feb. 1959:
https://www.lodinews.com/opinion/columnists/steve_hansen/article_6f1110ba-e5e2-5839-a411-5c5606ed29bd.html
Actually, the last Packard sold with the certificate of origin paperwork, from a Studebaker-Packard dealer, was a 1956 Caribbean convertible. It was sold [I think] in 1974, when Clayton Motors, a still operating S-P dealership in central New Jersey, was sold off at auction, as a result of the death of the company’s owner, Bruce Clayton.
Mr. Clayton was a rather “interesting” person, and never closed the dealership’s doors, the workers continuing to service Studebaker and Packard cars until his passing. He even had a couple of brand new 1966 Studebakers sitting on the lot, but the Caribbean was kept inside at all times, and still had the matching brown sidewall tires it came with from the factory. [Not brown from age, Packard had arranged with the tire supplier to offer tires with color sidewalls to match the paint on the car. If my memory is right, they were supplied by Goodyear]
My best friend and I visited Clayton Motors in the summer of 1972, looking for Packard stuff. We both tried to buy various items, from junked Packards on the back lot, to a N.O.S. S-P complete underdash air conditioner set-up, but the prices were way too high. He would only sell the A/C if I bought one of the new 1966 Studebakers, and they would install it.
I will never forget that beautiful Caribbean sitting there, covered in dust, having not been driven for more than a decade. Somewhere I still have some color Polaroid photos of Clayton Motors. As for the Caribbean, last I heard it was still in the mid-Atlantic area.
I recall reading, I think, in “Motor Trend” or the like, back when these came out that it was so sad that the grand old name of Packard had fallen so low. It was presented as a pitiful end to an aristocratic nameplate.
What a beautiful car. My only beef is the front end is over styled by 20% and those bullets look like fangs. Other than that it appears top notch quality.
I always thought the front clip of these cars looked like a catfish and the toilet seat on the trunk deck: who was first with it? Lowey or Exner?
I get a chuckle over the warnings about premium fuel. Seems the aversion to it goes back a long way in North America.
Back when I was 15 in 1975, a neighbor had someone visit them several times who drove one of these. Me and my car nut buddies actually knew what it was (only 588 produced iirc). Unfortunately, it was a real beater…
I found this one in a museum. The bumper dagmars on the front appear to be a bit more blunted than the ones in your front photo.
I don’t know what the “TT” badging represents.
Closer view
I believe it’s “Twin-Traction”. The pink ’58 sedan I referenced in this post also had that on the trunk, and it took me a couple of decades to figure out what it meant. I thought “TT” was some dealer’s name plaque.
Poindexter is right – Twin Traction was the S-P name for what everyone eventually called Positraction (Chevrolet’s name for the tech it licensed from S-P). It was introduced by Packard in 1956 and remained an option on Studebakers up to the end (at least the end in the US, I’m not sure about Canadian production those last couple of years.)
Actually, Twin-Traction was the official name for the limited slip differential, first offered on Packards for 956, then starting in 1957, Studebakers. It was the product of The Dana Corporation, and Dana supplied Packard with their rear axle assemblies.
Once S-P no longer had an exclusive rights to the LSD axle, Dana was free to offer it to GM, Ford and MoPaR, and of course, they did!
File too large – reposting
Looks fantastic in red!
Very nice article Poindexter on a seldom-seen car. I have to agree though with dman that although the interior is quite nice, especially the dashboard, the original 1953 coupe design was the finest in terms of exterior styling.
The obligatory annual face lift of bygone decades seldom improved on the looks of the original. This 1958 Golden Hawk is right up there with other failed evolutions like the 1966 to 1970 uglification of the brilliant original Oldsmobile Toronado and 2nd-generation Buick Riviera.
Is that a fish or a car?
The best thing about driving it is that you can’t see the outside. Just as well the dashboard is stylish.
I think I have seen one a long time ago in Aussie someone had several Stude coupes in pieces near where I used to winter one ran and drove but there was one that was partly stripped all the front sheetmetal was off it and the chassis was twisted from a crash but the boot/trunklid was still there and it had the toilet seat pressing so the remains could have begun as a Packard badged car the gold fins and the padded window sills look familiar too but its impossible to go back and check that whole area got developed and the cars disappeared.
I believe that I have seen only one, which was the car at the Studebaker Museum. It is a beautifully restored car painted that metallic gray with the tan leather, and is really stunning in person. It is one car that looks better in person than in photos, I think.
Here is the car
Was the Hawk the only modern car that seats 3 in front but only 2 in the rear?
Have any of you sat in the back of a Hawk? The rear seat footwells are crazy on this car, as seen in some of these pics. The inboard foot gets a deep well but the outboard foot is at door opening level. I can’t imagine it’s comfortable to have each foot on a different level. Or can you fit both feet in that narrow inboard footwell?
I think one of the the twin Packard antennas was a fake, as opposed to being part of a diversity antenna of the type more widely used a few decades later that selected the stronger of two signals.
It needs a hook sticking through the front and out the front fender ahead of the tire.
Growing up in Hillside NJ in the 70’s one of these was still in use. Only time I‘ve seen one in person. Color was most likely Jewel Beige with old collision damage poking through cracked paint on the left fender and hood. Really looked cobbles together to my young eyes.
I was just going on 17 when these appeared, and was already in mourning for Packard. I did like the Studebaker Hawks okay, both the early ones and Brooks Stevens’ formal-top GT, but my only word for this “Packard” was Hideous. Still is. Not sure which I’ve hated worse, the overblown body lengthening or the ghastly 4-headlight pods. I’d much rather have even a Lark than one of these.
Those outside ‘armrests’on the doors certainly are UNIQUE.
Packard was a separate manufacturer, and by these last years, they were not. They were a Studebaker for Packard dealers. So, they aren’t a Packard.
That said, the front end of this car is not a Packard either. If you never saw this car, and imagined what a Packard Sports car would look like – it wouldn’t look anything like this. Packard had a luxurious look and this car doesn’t have it. The front end is all wrong for a Packard. The same with all the 1958 Packard line. Those 1958s did not look like a Packard.
The interior doesn’t look like a Packard either. It didn’t even look like Studebaker even tried to copy the style of a Packard interior.
Imagine if Studebaker was lifted up to using a Packard – not the other way around. It would have raised Studebaker’s image. Instead, Packard drops down to using Studebaker vehicles which cheapened the brand and didn’t help Studebaker either. Instead of shooting up, Studebaker/Packard shot down.
Finally, I had my car being worked on at the Ford dealer, and someone asked me if I could guess what collector car was underneath the cloth tarp parked carefully in the garage. I took on look at the shape, and that catfish grille opening was obvious even under the tarp. Sure enough, it was a 58 Packard Hawk. A beautiful car. It was very nice for the dealer to reveal it to me.
“The Most Original Car on the American Road”
Except for all the thousands of Studebaker cars from 1953 onward, right?
Why is the American “kitsch” of the late 50’s past so stunning in light of the ubiquitous soul-dead global automotive design of the present?