I’ve posted quite a bit of mid-century American luxury in my recent vintage galleries. Some were even devoted exclusively to Cadillacs and Lincolns, with a few Imperials occasionally appearing. But what about Packard, that other renowned American luxury purveyor?
Well, finding those images took some doing. Not surprising, considering the brand was on its last legs through much of the ’50s, as its luxury luster eroded. Still, some photos do show up. And the folk posing by their side are quite a mix; some show upscale manners, and others laid-back attitudes.
Last, other than the 1948 convertible (third photo), most images are dated to the 1950s.
Everyone looks kinda stodgy , like the cars them selves .
-Nate
+1 on the stodgy, except for the maybe the ladies and their mint-green stripper.
Wouldn’t want to be that kid in the white slacks (#7).
+1 on the stodgy, except for the maybe the ladies and their mint-green stripper.
Wouldn’t want to be that kid in the white slacks (#7).
It was the 50s. Conformity was mandatory.
As for the white pants, I don’t know when that pic was taken, but in the mid 60s, white pants were a thing. Ever watch “I Spy”? When Cosby and Culp were dressed casually, they almost always were wearing white slacks. Heck, even I had a pair of white slacks around 65-66.
I found a couple of less stodgy-looking Packard people:
and this one:
Yeah, Steve
You gotta love those early Beach Boys album covers with all of them in their white jeans. Also all the other surf bands…
I might have had a pair of white pants back in the day, but I’m sure the knees were some other color pretty quick.
That ’56 400 Coupe is spiffy! The cars still exuded real quality even if their luxury image was increasingly shaded by Cadillac.
I was a Packard person, but decades later, with a ’56 Patrician sedan and ’56 Clipper DeLuxe (pictured: a stripper with 3 spd (no Ultratraumatic), 352-V8, and no Torsion-Level (also tending towards trouble prone). These cars suffered greatly from underdevelopment, even the V8, from a maker noted for their engines, often suffered from inadequate oiling, a problem rectified by retro-fitting an Olds 455 oil pump.
These cars suffered greatly from underdevelopment, even the V8, from a maker noted for their engines, often suffered from inadequate oiling, a problem rectified by retro-fitting an Olds 455 oil pump.
Yup. There is a film on youtube of a Packard promotional film of a 55 orbiting the high speed track at the proving grounds, for 25,000 miles. Somewhere along the line, I read that the test had to be restarted, due to the first engine failing due to the oil aeration issue.
In “Master Motor Builders”, the story is told of Packard’s attempt to sell the V8 to the Army as a truck engine. The Army’s first level durability test was running some number of hours on a dyno. Every engine Packard tried failed that test.
I found a 1956 Nash sales training film on youtube a while back. Nash had started offering the V8, and Ultramatic (which liked to smoke it’s high gear clutch) as an option on the Ambassador in 55, with the same results as Packard had with that powertrain. The 56 training film assures salesmen that all the problems with the V8 have been solved, but advises salesmen, in words to the effect “if you think your customer will go for the six, *don’t* try to upsell them to the V8:” Actually, the lemon Packard engine may have been a blessing, as it motivated Romney to start development of AMC’s own V8, which was starting production just as Packard went toes up in Detroit.
I’ve been wanting to read that book for some time.
AFAIK Packard offered no 6 cylinder cars after the Clipper Six of 1947, and those were predominantly taxicabs, though there were rumored to be a few 6 cyl taxis in ’48, I’ve never seen one. I honestly wish they’d offered a 6 cylinder up through 1956 in the Clipper series,so much that I contemplated buying a ’54 to 56 and adding the 6 (too long without mods) with 3 spd column shift… they were sturdy torquey 6s and even if a continuation of the big flathead 6 (no way could Packard have had the $ to develop an ohv 6) their big 245 cu flathead 6 lived up to Packard’s previous high quality engine maker image as much as did their small and large straight 8s, especially the huge and heavy but smooth 9 bearing 356, wow, what a motor.
>>I’ve been wanting to read that book for some time.<<
It isn't cheap. See if your public library has it, or can transfer it in. There are usually a couple copies on offer on eBay. I had my copy on eBay for a while, but didn't sell.
As for a 6 cylinder Clipper, a Steve alt history sprang from Nance's strategic plan that he never executed. Briggs was not doing Packard any favors on price or quality, so he had an ambition to bring bodybuilding back in house, but they didn't have the money. The other goal was to move the Packard brand upmarket, from where George Christopher had positioned the brand post-war, opposite Buick. But Nance did not want to lose the mid-market volume, so he tried to set up Clipper as a separate mid-market brand. That was never accepted by the market.
Reportedly, when it became apparent the Jet was a failure, Ed Barit started shopping Hudson to other companies. Packard blew him off, so he ended up merging Hudson with Nash.
Enter Plan Steve: Nance realizes that Hudson is the perfect fit. Hudson owned a body plant, and was an established mid-market brand, fulfilling both of Nance's strategic objectives, and Hudson can be bought for stock, not cash. The Packard body tooling is moved to the Hudson body plant. The Hudson assembly plant is closed, and production is consolidated at E Grand. What we know as the Clipper would, instead, be the 55 Hudson. I even measured a Hudson 308 and a Packard straight 8. The 308 is an inch or two shorter than the Packard 8, so would fit.
So your six cylinder Clipper would look about the same, but be badged as a Hudson Hornet, with a 308.
Hudson does seem like the best fit with Packard, though there would still be the question of how to share parts to take advantage of economies of scale, without either brand losing their identity as happened with both Packard and Hudson IRL. At least both of those companies were based in Detroit so distance wouldn’t complicate a merger. And who would run the merged company? Nance wanted to be top dog, as did most (all?) of the other leaders of the independents.
Packard’s E. Grand Blvd plant was becoming a bit dilapidated though and had an obsolete multi-story setup. Isn’t that why they moved to the Connor plant in MY1955?
>>la673 Posted March 12, 2024 at 7:06 PM Hudson does seem like the best fit with Packard, though there would still be the question of how to share parts to take advantage of economies of scale, without either brand losing their identity as happened with both Packard and Hudson IRL.<<
Plan Steve is to abandon the "step down" Hudson platform after 54. The cars we know as the 55 Clippers would be badged as Hudsons, using the Hudson six initially, and production would be consolidated at E Grand. Yes, E Grand was old, but so were Dodge Main (operating 1911-1980), Chrysler Jefferson (operating 1908-1990), and Cadillac on Clark St, (operating 1921-1987)
Barit took a seal on the AMC board, while Romney ran the company, so a similar arrangement could have been worked out so Nance could feed his ego by being the big dog after a merger with Hudson.
Besides gaining Hudson's body plant, and adding production volume in E Grand, Packard would pick up the Hudson dealers, the Hudson clientele, and the legacy Hudson service parts business, which would provide a considerable stream of revenue for several years.
This is one of the Clipper paint schemes Packard considered. That sweep on the side has a Hudson vibe to my eye.
An alt front end considered for the Clipper, that does not show the Packard heritage like the production front end did. That split in the grill looks like a good place to put the Hudson triangle.
Did Dick Teague work on these? The first one especially does everything to take your eye off the dated-looking rear pontoon fender, as well as the high beltline by putting thick moldings above and below the side windows. The production senior Packards also employed a don’t-look-at-the-pontoon-fender device, a Cadillac-aping vertical chrome strip with a puddle light to disguise the width disparity.
One thing I remain unclear about the ’56 Clipper: I know it finally officially became a separate marque that year, with the cars registered as Clippers rather than Packards by state motor vehicle adminitrations and such. But I also know potential buyers wanted it to say Packard and the company obliged later in the model year, adding Packard badges to the car. So were those later cars registered as Packards, or did owners still have “Clipper” as the make on their registration and insurance cards even though the cars now had Packard identification?
If you re read Steve’s comment, he was referring to Nash salesmen trying to sell customers a Nash with the standard 6 instead of the optional Packard V8 which was available in the Nash Ambassador. The comment is not about 6 cylinder Packards.
Besides reliability issues, the Packard V8s were expensive, and AMC would rather sell an engine that wasn’t outsourced. I wonder if AMC didn’t make more money selling their own inline 6s than Packard V8s; perhaps they were also worried customers would flee to another brand if they learned how much extra a V8 would cost. I’m not sure of this, but do know the AMC V8 upgrade cost less in 1957 to the customer than the Packard V8 option did in ’55-56.
>>la673 Posted March 12, 2024 at 7:13 PM Besides reliability issues, the Packard V8s were expensive, and AMC would rather sell an engine that wasn’t outsourced. <<
That gave rise to another Steve alt history. I postulated what if George Mason was sufficiently put off by Nance's price for the V8, and the insistence that it only be used with the Ultramatic, instead of the Hydramatic that Nash was using, that he sent a delegation to South Bend to see what potential the Studebaker V8 had. The first contact with Studebaker ending up with the two companies merging.
It worked out so well, that I wrote up a "History of the Studebaker Nash merger, 1954 to 1957", and saved it as a Word file. A few years later, someone posted on a FB Studebaker board, wondering how a merger with Nash would have worked out. So, I posted my 'history" of the merger.
Didn’t Packard modify the engines they sold to AMC so they’d be slightly less powerful than the same engine in a Packard? Seems petty; no wonder Romney didn’t like dealing with them.
I’m not sure if a Nash-Studebaker merger would have worked. For one, the Rambler would have made the Lark redundant, so Studebaker would have to either find a different small-car niche or else stick with bigger cars, perhaps a heavily-revamped Nash-based car. I think a joint Nash/Stude platform would have to be all-new to be accepted by both marque’s fan bases, not consolidating on an existing body/platform that would look wrong to the other brand’s owner base. In real life, Hudson buyers didn’t want Nash-based cars, and I doubt they’d want Studebaker-based cars either, nor would Stude fans want rebadged Nashes. May have also been the case with Packard-based Hudsons if that merger went through, but at least Packards were significantly more upscale than Hudson so that may have gone down better with buyers.
It worked out so well, that I wrote up a “History of the Studebaker Nash merger, 1954 to 1957”, and saved it as a Word file.
And why haven’t you submitted that to CC?
>>Paul Niedermeyer Posted March 13, 2024 at 8:47 AM
“It worked out so well, that I wrote up a “History of the Studebaker Nash merger, 1954 to 1957”, and saved it as a Word file.”
And why haven’t you submitted that to CC?<<
I'm no Hemingway. I generate alt histories for fun as winters here are dark, everything is frozen, and there is little to do, unless you like dark and frozen. Beside the Packard-Hudson and Studebaker-Nash mergers, there is a Studebaker-Packard merger that actually has synergy, and a Studebaker-Kaiser parts sharing agreement that gets very ugly. The Studebaker-Nash one is the only one that I actually wrote up tho.
If you want a couple chuckles, tell me where to e-mail the files.
>>la673 Posted March 13, 2024 at 5:18 AM
I’m not sure if a Nash-Studebaker merger would have worked. For one, the Rambler would have made the Lark redundant, so Studebaker would have to either find a different small-car niche or else stick with bigger cars, perhaps a heavily-revamped Nash-based car.<<
The alt history has a lot off facilities and product rationalization in it. Paul expressed some interest in it, so, maybe the entire thing will be posted.
Steve: send them to curbsideclassic@gmail.com
Look forward to them.
White used the Packard 245 6 cylinder in the smallest versions of the 3000 series tilt-cab trucks. Not sure when they stopped, but it may have been some years after Packard discontinued the engine in their own cars.
“if you think your customer will go for the six, *don’t* try to upsell them to the V8:”
Part of that was that Packard was charging Nash so much for their engines relative to what the market would bear in a finished car, that the cars with Nash’s own six were much more profitable.
In 1955 originally Packard sold Nash a 208hp version of the Clipper 320 V8 but after some at Nash complained it was raised to the 225 version found in the Clipper. Ironically the delayed AMC V8 that showed up later was an excellent engine, better in some ways than the under-developed Packard mill at the time. It was a rather sad way for Packard to go out given their glorious history of engine development dating back to the Col Jesse Vincent days, he of the WW I Liberty V12.
The big Kimes book on Packard is the ultimate authority on the cars, each chapter being written by experts in the particular Packard series or subject covered, 2 of whom I knew as they lived in MD as did I and met them at the big Mid-Atlantic annual Packard meet in Frederick.
I like the Packard-Hudson scenario, it was certainly appropriate as a companion car and I could see a Hudson named Clipper taking it’s place instead of the cheesy Packard-bakers, and restoring the Packard name solely to their most prestigious model once again. I could see the AMC V8 in the Clipper and a perfected 374 or larger Packard V8 in the Sr model. Packard people like to argue endlessly over the fate last 10 years of the company and how it should have been managed and potentially saved, it shows their fanatical devotion to the brand to this day.
The sometimes problematic V8, in this case the 352 in my Clipper that suffered from lifter issues.They were massive, designed to be punched out in a future that never happened to 500 cu in!
First off, Packard, regardless of high or low end, were built solid with high quality tooling and materials. Buying a Clipper got you a high quality, low cost car. It may not have been cutting edge, but it was as durable as Packard traditionally made them. Today, we erroneously imagine that Packard got sloppy and lost sales as a result, because that is what often happens. Even in 1958 – Packard was a Studebaker, but was not built like a typical Studebaker – it was built like a Packard. Those were Studebakers that were tested at a higher level. The quality control was high.
That said, due to the higher cost of contruction, Packard couldn’t compete in a market where newfangled styling gimmicks reigned. Cars were becoming disposable commodities, and Packards weren’t disposable. They were built to last.
Exactly. Well said. When you had a Packard you really had a fine car, maybe not flash but extremely well built.
Well 99% of Packardistas would disagree with the fact that the Packardbakers maintained tradtional Packard quality well, they were built on the same South Bend line and were just gussied up Presidents with a few trim and minor sheet metal changes, and a much lesser car in every way. E Grand was closed despite some designs floated for real ’57 Packards that did not come to fruition due to collapsing finances, and when the actual (fake) ’57s were unveiled the Packard dealers were furious, and the public was not fooled either as only about 4000 were sold iirc. As Richard Langworth once said, they were not Packards, but very good Studebakers. Unfortunately to the Men who had Owned One that wasn’t enough.
Love that first picture. The car looks bigger than the tiny house!
It also looks taller and narrower than the ’56 hardtop in the last photo, courtesy of one of the most effective facelifts ever by Dick Teague and his associates. In actuality the dimensions are similar.
More great images Rich! The third pic in peak Fall, is gorgeous. Worth, taking a few seconds to brighten. Nice boulder landmark in the background. Landscape very similar to my area. Reminds me of the nearby, Rock Dunder.
Rock Dunder, Southeastern Ontario.
Yes, this one is awesome! Would be interesting to know when it was actually taken.
Quite a “timeless” entry.
I don’t think Eric703 can make out this licence plate. i would guess somewhere in the US Northeast. Could be a myriad of locations.
Ha! Sadly, I can’t make out the plate. But I did try…
Sad, that many of these people, and cars remain anonymous. When there is so much, we’d love to learn about them.
That blue and white hardtop is my favorite. Unfortunately it was the last “real” Packard. The first photo shows that Packards were typical in their early 1950’s styling. They fit in with other higher line cars, just not as flashy as a Cadillac.
Ask the man-or in some cases the woman who owns one,
The lead in pic does little justice to the car or the woman. Still its a cohesive theme, photo.
But it is a rare when new convertible. I’m sure she was very sweet.
Owning a Packard was a sign of choice of quality. I remember an Armenian Genocide survivor in our church who bought a 1956 “400” similar to the blue and white one depicted which is a ’55. His was pink and white, had torsion-aire ride aa every piece of equipment offered. stunning boat. My wife’s father’s first cousin bought a 1947 Packard when that year only five were shipped to Syria, where he lived. Talk about having a notable automobile! It cost quite a bit in Syria to buy one. I still love Packards from whatever decade. I remember a 1938 at an all Packard meet that I saw in 1989 in Michigan. As it glided by, I could barely hear the engine. That was Packard build quality. Thanks for the se great photos. That first photo is funny because the lady and the car belong together.
The blue and white car is also a ’56 – the ’55 was taller in the headlamp area, had a different grille with PACKARD lettering above it, and differently positioned Dagmars. Also, the wide aluminum strip on the sides ended at the bulge around the rear wheels; extending it all the way to the back of the car helped de-emphasize the out-of-fashion rear pontoon fenders. It’s ironic that after spending so much to restyle the ’41-’47 cars to eliminate the pontoon fenders, they added them back with the all-new ’51s just in time for them to go out of style for good a few years later.
Yes it’s a ’56 as I stated above, note the headlight and grille differences on the ’55.
Oh I like that “red/white” duo!
Looks like Doc Brown’s car in the third pic. Beautiful.
I really know very little about Packards, but one thing that I now know is that they had some pretty mighty hood ornaments. Those things in #1 and #4 are quite something. Clearly from an age before automatic car washes.
Here’s another one – a ’25 Packard that I was driven around Detroit in. Straight 8 – magnificent car!
The various versions of the Chevy Big Block V-8 are referred to as ‘Marks’, Mark I being the first 348 and 409 engines, Mark II being the 427 ‘Mystery’ engine, Mark IV being the common 396-427-454 engines, ect.. Chevy seemed to have skipped over the ‘Mark III’ designation, but rumor was Chevy was looking to buy the tooling and transfer line of the Packard V-8 from Studebaker as they were exiting the auto manufacturing business. The Packard V-8 had 5.125″ bore centers and the tooling for that engine would have allowed Chevy to build a very large displacement V-8, most likely for truck use like the Ford Super Duty.
By the time Studebaker diversified its way out of the car business, the Packard V8 tooling was long gone. Packard invested in the new Utica plant to build the new V8 and Ultramatic starting in MY1955, but only two years later Packard was shut down in all but name, and the almost-new tooling at Utica was removed almost immediately and scrapped so the building could be reused for other purposes (some accounts have the machinery being temporarily stashed in their old, largely-vacant East Grand Blvd facility before being scrapped). Anyway this occurred in 1956 and possibly ’57, well before Studebaker shut down most of South Bend (Dec. 1963), the Studebaker engine foundry (1964), and finally bailed from the auto business altogether when their final car was built in Hamilton in March 1966.
Given that the Chevy Mark II was built in 1963, that would have had to happen almost a decade after the Packard tooling was removed (and scrapped, according to the previous commenter).
Well, the story is a rumor. Figuring the Mark II 427 came out in 1963 it was probably under development since at least 1961. The Mark IV came out in the spring on ’65. The Utica plant was cleared out and turned over to Curtiss-Wright as part of C-W’s bail-out plan for Studebaker-Packard around 1957, so I agree the timing seems to be a off. I suppose it’s possible Chevy was looking at the Packard tooling when it became available but had not referred to the project as a ‘Mark III’. The Utica plant had an interesting history, Curtiss-Wright took it over to manufacture jet engines but later sold it to Ford who used the plant to manufacture trim. It became part of Visteon before being demolished in 2012.
I only know from what I’ve read regarding the fate of the Packard V8 and Ultramatic tooling; it does seem a shame to melt it all down (or whatever was done with it) given there was certainly some demand for a ready-to-go V8 drivetrain in 1957 and later. Would AMC have bothered developing their own V8 if they knew a year later they could pick up the unneeded Packard V8 machinery for a song? Quite possible some overseas manufacturers would have been interested too. Both engine and transmission still had some teething problems but were basically sound designs.
Referring to the first picture…. With that face coming at you, the car I mean… You would be wise to not be a pedestrian in front of that multitude of deadly sharp objects.
Always liked Packard’s more than caddy’s even the 57-58 models l remember seeing a gray ’58 Packard hawk residing in an abandoned Studebaker-packard dealership in spring City/royersford, pa. Sometime in the early 90s. It had just a plain trunk, though (no continental kit). Has anyone else seen this car? Wish l had photos. Anyway l think 58 Packard’s looked better than 58tfords at least!
I like the two tone paint jobs, something sorely missing in today’s muted colors.
Also, the lady in the top photo appears to be proud of her Packard in a subdued way.
Too bad it delayed its own development in a changing market. Right after the war when it was flush with cash was the time gain market share.
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
I wonder how Packard could maintain quality when they had:
1: Very few engineers and fewer I would bet doing QC
2: stop-start production after the spring of 1952, which seems to suggest they couldn’t hold on to a stable labor force with obvious QC problems
3: Very little of the product was made in house. I think Nance said Packard was down to 35% in house content by 1952. If Boeing’s current problems are any indication, how could a tiny company like Packard maintain oversight over contractors and suppliers?
4: a general lack of money.
Seems to me buyers were making choices by the early 50s and Packard just wasn’t one the cut the mustard.