(first posted 2/20/2012) 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.
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.
What might have been? That would be ” Chrysler Corporation. “
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.
Packard at its peak was considered an “old money” car while Cadillac catered to the nouveau riche. One was conservative, the other flashy.
Cadillac chased the volume, which Packard had done during the Depression with the 120, 180 and the Six, keeping the company afloat while the high-end market recovered.
It never really did. Anywhere. After the war, Alfa Romeo went downmarket in Italy, Mercedes’ bread and butter was diesel taxicabs, BMW nearly lost their shirts with the “Baroque Angels” then saved them with the “Neue Klasse” that influences their product line to the present day. The French makes like Delage and Delahaye faded away, Rolls-Royce made aircraft engines, which kept them going when car volume didn’t.
Cadillac, Packard and Lincoln never made cars like the V-12’s and V-16’s of the prewar era ever again. Caddy took that half step back first with sharp styling, lots of chrome and the latest OHV V-8 engine. Packard still had quality, but looked stodgy by comparison. If given time to de-bug the ’55’s and ’56’s, though, it might have taken a bite out of Caddy volume.
But the Studebaker family wanted out of the car business and every move the company made was to diversify and not invest back into the cars. They made money off the Lark launch, but they bought STP. That got Andy Granatelli on their payroll, which he earned by souping up Studebaker’s V8. At least that was a good move. They bought Gravely tractor, so had a foot in the lawn mower market. I believe they even owned Paxton, maker of superchargers, which were then used on the R2 engine.
But if you were a banker and saw the company buying up all these subsidiaries, would you loan them money to update the car line? The banks wouldn’t, because they saw the writing on the wall.
Studebaker could have survived if they wanted to badly enough. AMC did, got a little too ambitious in the ’60’s, trying to compete with Detroit with a full product line, then bought Jeep and retreat a bit. Jeep, by the way, not only saved them, but encouraged them to put any extra money they had into it. Add Renault’s input and not only did they have three fresh Jeep lines when Chrysler came knocking, they gave Chrysler the basis for the LH sedans with the Premier and its new plant in Ontario.
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.
If Packard had said NO to crooked Studebaker, then actually made a thrifty, small car…like a Lark, they possibly could have made it into the 60s. It couldn’t be called Packard or Clipper…but obviously sold at Packard dealers…as Packard quality for the up and coming young family. With more time, Ford may have sold the 56 or 57 tooling…as the 57 was a one year orphan. Packard, for 59, 60 could have eat Lincoln alive.
Maybe my idea is silly…but, not that it would happen, a new Packard would sell…if it was well but….the American answer to Mercedes and BMW.
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 might horrify the restorers, but if I had one of these I’d integrate the dual light pods into the fenders properly. Do it the way it should have been done in the first place, as befits the Packard name.
I think your on the right track Old Pete. If this car has a future, it will likely be hot rodded or customized.
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.
Yes the Packard factory is still there abandoned and overgrown with trees brush and graffiti. Spend some time on google earth. It’s about on par with the condition on the 58 hardtop.
PS.
it’s at 5400 through 6300 Concord Street, Detroit.
or just south of I-94 and just east of GM Hamtramck.
Or this photo… sad.
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?
Go to any Studebaker club show and there is a good chance you will see a car with a bumper sticker that says “BAIL OUT STUDEBAKER”. I think somebody printed them up around the time of the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies.
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.
It was the same way with the one year only ’52 2 door hardtop roof which I think is very striking.
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’ve never understood people leaving old cars in the open with the windows down. It saddens me too.
Uhg, no like the big ’20” rims with little tires. To me the stupidest looking thing on cars today. I hate them.
I’m strangely drawn to the featured “Black Beauty.” I, too hope there was a restomod in its future. In my mind’s eye, I see it remaining a dark color, possibly navy blue with minimal chrome, but still having a Packard badge or two. This car cries out for a period engine. A genuine Packard V8 would be the holy grail, but perhaps the Studebaker V8 was still under the hood and salvageable. Lacking either of those, a 50’s 392 Hemi and Torqueflite would make a good alternate, befitting Black Beauty’s Moparish aura.
I’d remove the remaining rear fin, because I was originally drawn to Tom Klockau’s front 3/4 view, but I’d keep the headlight pods as a wink and a nod to late 50’s auto design craziness.
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.
Studes and Packards both had better days than the Eisenhower recession they appeared in, but a fairer assessment of their designs might be to show them in a group shot with the Hudsons and Nashes of the same era. S-P cars suffered because of quality of execution rather than design . The S-P cars still had beautiful side views, beautiful instrument panels, and the fastest production Packard ever built, the Packard Hawk. When you see them today at car shows, you wonder what all the fuss was about, especially if there are a few not so beautiful ’58 Buicks and Mercurys around, neither of which had funding limitations to limit their development. Then there is the Edsel !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This 1958 Packard station wagon is featured in “Hearts in Atlantis” (2001).
Something about this coupe really attracts me, especially that red one. Saw a picture of another in a blue and cream combo.They remind me very much of “Jr. Chrysler” hardtop coupes of the era. My wish and hope for the worn out ’58 featured here is that someone would revive it as a ’57, which never existed. This would mean getting rid of the tacked on top fins (heck, one’s already missing) and reverting to the ’57’s total front end design. That would eliminate those tacked on dual headlight. I always thought the stylists did a good job of making the ’57 front end look rich and Packard-ish. Side trim would be up for grabs. I think the two could mesh somehow. I do think the ’57 trim looks classier but the ’58 looks sporty. Whichever. Just something to ponder. Also the idea of recycling this body style on the new Larks was very interesting.
The Board of Directors WERE.determined to get out of the fickle and far too competitive auto business. Lets face it, GM and Ford controlled too much of the auto market in the 50’s, and nearly put everyone else out of business trying to undercut the other. Studebaker-Packard established the Mercedes-Benz brand in the US. Before SPC, M-B was lucky if they sold a few hundred cars annually. But, what the Board really cared about was it’s non automotive division’s. Eventually these many varied division’s allowed it too exit car production while still making a profit. Yes. Ford was crazy not to buy Packard when they had the chance. Instead they brought out the Edsel. Imagine today, Ford and super luxury car Packard, instead of what is left, Ford and a impotent car brand named Lincoln which will never compete on the world stage no matter how much money they pump into it’s dead carcass.
You nailed the Ford fit. Someone around on the net is a drawing of a ’57 Lincoln based Patrician. It looks great, and would be the perfect interim car. Now, Ford wanted to expand their line from 3 marques to 5 like GM and Chrysler had. This is why in ’58 they created the new Edsel, moved Mercury up a bit (always risky) and briefly made Continental a separate marque. Now, Ford already had three bodies for 1958- Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. Now, look at the Packard Predictor. There is a lot of 1958 Ford/Edsel there. So-
Ford Fairlane Somewhat shorter Ford body.
Ford Galaxy Ford Body.
Mercury Montclair- This would replace the Edsel Pacer/Ranger, with Mercury sheet metal. Uses the Ford body.
Mercury Park Lane- Uses the Mercury body, replacing the Edsel Corsair/Citation
Packard Clipper- This uses the Mercury body, and fits the Turnpike Cruiser in the real world heirarchy. Imagine an Edsel Citation with a lot of Predictor features. Replace the horse collar with a vertical blade, keep a horizontal theme. No fins, keep some form of the Mercury or Edsel Tail lights.
Packard Patrician- Use the Continental version of the Lincoln body, the horizontal chrome panel of the traditional Patrician.
Lincoln- Use the Lincoln body, but keep it more upscale than the Patrician.
There’s a illustration of a “Packoln” or “Linckard” (or Lincard) then I saw at
http://www.1956packardpanther.com/Panther/1957Packards.html who showed what if the 1957 Packard was Lincoln bodied. It might had look better then the “Packarbaker” or “Studebakard”
If that, or anything like it, had made production, I wonder if it would have changed the public’s response to the Edsel’s grille design?
A great question. While certainly better than the Edsel, it’s unknown whether it would be good enough to sell. Frankly, I doubt it. That clearly defined, jutting chrome ‘nose’ just doesn’t look right, whether it’s narrow like this car, or a big, open horse-collar like on the Edsel, and wouldn’t look good until perfected by Bunkie Knudson at Pontiac.
Would like to be in contact with the owner of the sitting black 58′ in the photos. I need to rebuilt mine and missing parts…. Thanks for helping . Jean pierre [email protected]
Would they have done better to have maintained the same basic styling for ’58? This had always been the Packard way, rather than making wholesale changes for the sake of change, as ‘lesser cars’ did. They could have kept the rear fins as they were, spent the money saved on better integrating the extra lights up front, and rearranged the side and rear trim just enough to differentiate the new model for those who cared.
Would this conservative facelift have bombed in the ’58 market? Or would it have been too late to make any difference for Packard?
That Packard hardtop certainly looks a lot like, and as good as, some of Chrysler’s late ’50s efforts. And it doesn’t have the hideous jut-jawed nose of the ’58 Packard Hawk.
And I really like that clean, functional dash. But I can see why it couldn’t compete with the typical late ’50s American luxury car.
Happy Motoring, Mark
A very sad end to a once very prestigious make.
IIRC Studebaker spent around a million precious development dollars on the 1957 Packards, but I see very little of it showing where it would have made the most difference – in outer body panels. A new front clip and big, bold round wheel openings trimmed in lotsa chrome a la the ’53 Packard Caribbean convertible, could have made a huge difference. It just didn’t look different enough from workaday Studebakers. Most buyers then cared less about chassis improvements and more about how their rides looked.
Lincoln made the same mistake with the Versailles, and Cadillac one-upped them with the disastrous Cimmaron.
I’m surprised that in this entire thread, there’s NO mention of the excellent book by James A. Ward, ‘The Fall Of The Packard Motor Car Company’.
He was able to interview surviving PMCC executives and others associated with the company. It’s probably the most comprehensive overview of the last days of Packard (and the decisions that were either made or not made) and what led up to those days that’s ever been published.
https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Packard-Motor-Car-Company/dp/0804731659
“The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company”. I have a copy of it. It’s a fascinating story and very well documented.
I was a kid back then – well, as pretty much anyone still alive today was.
It was obvious to me that the 1955 cars from Studebaker, Hudson, Packard (the most disguised) and Nash were redone versions of now obsolete designs. 1955 Fords and GM and Chrysler cars were actually on frames and suspensions – in modern terms platforms – from the first real postwar designs from the very late 40’s. But the bodies were all new.
Hudsons and Nashes were obviously basically late 1940’s designs. Studebakers, besides being obviously minimally facelifted 1953’s (on 1946 frames/suspensions) were narrower than the cars from the big three. Actually Studebakers were already narrower looking than the big 3 cars. They were just not competitive. And the years of not having a V8 for all these independents also added to their image of being outdated.
Fords had the old flathead V8 until 1954, but it was still a V8 and felt and sounded like a V8.
Then when the lower wider 1957 cars from Ford and Chrysler came out the Studebakers were obviously even more out of it, with fiberglas fins on 1953 bodies.
In terms of cars things were moving much faster in the 1950’s than now. I have a 26 year old GM minivan, and other than lacking a lot of computer stuff it’s as modern and actually nicer to drive than the Chrysler minivan until maybe the new Pacifica. A 26 year old car in 1955 would be from the early 1930’s and would be an antique.
For all these independent non-big three car companies, besides market forces being against them they all had stogy olde tyme management which did them in.
(I’ve read some books on this, but not the Packard book mentioned above. I’ve got it on reserve at BPL.)
Great article. In a very different alternate universe I should’ve loved to have seen Packard give Mercedes-Benz a run for their money.
Probably not the earliest example of badge engineering though – Rootes and Nuffield/BMC were already very proficient, but Rolls-Royce had been badge engineering Bentleys since the 1930s.
As well as the Hudson Rambler here in the US. Total badge engineering. At least the original AMC Nash based Hudson full size used the Hudson engine that year.
Peerless, Pierce Arrow, and Packard were once the 3P’s known to be the pinnacle of luxurious, finely crafted American automobiles especially at the time for the first World War.
Both Pierce Arrow and Packard prior to their ultimate demise and liquidations had their misfortunes to be involved with Studebaker. At least the Peerless management could see the handwriting on the wall early during the Great Depression, closed down their automotive operations and remaining in business for several decades into the future as a Carling Brewery.
Sometimes you just have to know when to accurately read your cards, fold, and leave the game with your reputation and some of your assets intact.
Changed market conditions, questionable and untimely management decisions, combined with the Studebaker Kiss of Death lead to the terminal ends of first Pierce Arrow in the late 1930’s and then later of Packard in the 1950’s.
The Pierce Arrow reputation remained high at the time of closure, though now it is generally forgotten, and remains now as a forgotten Marque. Pierce Arrow never had a “cheaper” series of cars to debase the name. At least for Pierce Arrow, its excellent V12 lived on for years afterward, built by Seagrave, and used in its fire engines.
For Packard the Studebaker involvement result was worse than for Pierce Arrow, resulting in an ultimate, sad debasement of its decades long reputation and prestige prior to closure, as the car in the post describes. Not even the tooling for the Packard V8 survived the closure for a second chapter of life as did the Pierce Arrow V12.
An excellent history of Packard was written by the automotive historian Beverly Rae Kimes.
As with the 62 “full size” Dodge front end, my eyes just cannot find an angle where those fiberglass fins work.
The headlight pods may have been questionable [the bisecting side trim even moreso], but those fins !! My first instinct would have been to take them off ! Even the 58 Studebaker did them better.
In the ranking of car companies that made the worst decisions and had the most bad luck, Packard has to be near the top, and the blame can be laid squarely on one model: the Clipper. What’s odd is that the Clipper idea was not bad. It’s just the way it was done and the timing that ended up ultimately dooming Packard, no matter what they did.
Two things happened in 1941 that essentially spelled the end of Packard. The first was that a scant eight months after the Clipper was introduced, the US entered WW2 and all auto manufacturing stopped and switched over to a wartime footing. It assured that when the war ended, the Clipper’s new-for-1941 styling would be dated. But even worse was the decision by Packard management to concentrate on production of the less profitable Clipper line after the war than their more expensive cars. They thought there wouldn’t be a market for expensive, luxury cars but they were wrong, and the Clipper’s old styling meant they didn’t sell well, either.
The second really bad 1941 decision was to have Briggs Manufacturing build their car bodies to save money. This was bad from the very beginning as Briggs had underestimated how much it would cost to build the bodies so, as it turned it out, it would have been cheaper for Packard to build their own bodies in the first place. Even worse, though, is that Chrysler would buy Briggs in 1953 and leave Packard without a way to obtain car bodies. They ended up leasing a plant on Conner Ave from Chrysler for the 1955-56 cars when it would have been better to use the larger East Grand Blvd plant. But that plan wouldn’t work since there was a new 3-year contract with Curtiss-Wright to raise money which required the larger plant to be shuttered.
The bottom line is that, if not for WW2 and the Briggs body assembly deal, the Clipper might have turned out to be the hero that saved the company, rather than the goat that brought it to its knees. Without WW2 and Briggs, the Studebaker-Packard merger might never have happened.
The reason the roofline on the ’58 “Packard” and Studebaker hardtops resembles the roofline on the Mopar hardtops of that era is they share DNA: the S-P roofline was designed by Virgil Exner, Jr.
I am very late to this party but I saw an ad in CL for a 1958 Studebaker Commander Starlight coupe and was struck by the very Moparish roof. Totally different than the Studebaker roof line that went back to the 1953 models and bear no resemblance to the hardtop roofs used on Packard (pre-merger).
I either didn’t know or forgotten about the Virgil Exner connection but where did Studebaker get the funds for a new roof stamping and window glass at a time when they were tacking on fiberglass fins and headlight pods?
A ’49 rolling work of art on Hemmings: https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/packard/deluxe/1890805.html
Pic #19 shows what looks like a horizontal shock absorber (?).
This car is a highlight of craftsmanship; definitely my favorite era for the US market. Would really like to wheel this in a local parade.
Packard was doomed anyway. The only way it could have been saved as a marque was to have merged into Ford. The day of the independents was over, and was headed this way since 1930. It’s amazing AMC survived as long as it did, and without the purchase of Jeep it would have folded in the 70s.
I assume you are all familiar with the concept of the orphan car. By the 1950s, the auto buying public had seen car companies closing their doors right and left for 25 years. You could look at the declining sales figures and predict with actuarial certainty when the company would close. A new engine design or ad in LIFE magazine cost the same, whether you amortize it over 100,000 cars or 500,000. The Big 3 could ride out the poor reception of a new vehicle. The new Oldsmobile bombs? So, the customers will go buy Mercurys or Desotos and the next time of of those lays an egg we’ll sell them an Olds. These days the annual new car introduction is almost meaningless. Back then, it was a near national holiday. Car designs were usually on a 3 year cycle: 1. All new design. 2. A mild update. 3. A major update that may show hints of the all new design for next year. The independent’s stylists worked miracles on the old sheet metal but it still looked dated compared to the big 3 offerings. They simply did not have the financial resources to compete.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the folding independents is how their owners (many whom were fiercely loyal) refused to switch to a thoroughly conventional GM or Ford product as their company went out of business but, instead, continued to march to a different drummer and go to another independent. In fact, it’s been theorized that the independent cast-offs are what helped keep Chrysler afloat for many years.
FWIW…”The Last Independent” is an interesting read chronicling Nash/American Motors and the decision(s) that led to its demise.
The first Studabaker introduced in 1946 didn’t change that much until 1966 despite new styling and radical designs.
This car looks better without the stick-on tail fin added in 1958 (on top of another tail fin that was already on the ’57). And then there’s that new, one-year-only hardtop roof which I find quite attractive and helps the car look like something other than a 1953 holdover. Lots of work and money for a design used on only a few thousand cars (both Studebakers and Packards) for one year. They couldn’t base the hardtop on a convertible, because there was no Studebaker convertible in this generation until 1960. Does anyone know if these new ’58 hardtop doors interchange with the ’59-62 Lark hardtops, which have very different rear and rear-side windows? If so, at least they salvaged some of their investment in the ’58 hardtop.
I don’t know what the stylists were thinking up front. The fish-mouthed look doesn’t resemble anything previously made by Packard, despite a new-for-’58 hood that included the traditional Packard scallops and was not shared with Studebaker. The dagmars and headlamp pods don’t help any.
A few real Packard/Clipper parts from the ’55 or ’56 models made it into this car, including the “slipper” taillamps (Dick Teague’s term, not to be confused with the “cathedral” taillamps on senior Packards), wheel covers, gauges, and the Twin Traction limited-slip differential.
I’m digging into the memory banks here, but I think the doors, windshield, cowl, and floorpans are pretty close between the 1958 hardtops and 1959-60 Lark hardtops. The roofline of the sedans basically carried over, and sedan rear glass was likely the same. The floors and roof stampings were different between 1957 and ’58, with the latter being about an inch lower; the front fender vents were also lost at this time.
1961-62 Larks actually changed roof, cowl, windshield, and rear glass… I can’t remember about the doors. Interior ventilation also moved from ducts to the front of the car on 1958-60 (ala 1957 Chevy) to a grille at the base of the windshield. The one holdout was the long wheelbase 1961 Lark Cruiser, which hung on to the earlier roofline with wraparound rear window.
Tl;dr- The only big casualty was the 1958 J-body (sedan based hardtop) roof stamping, rear window, and associated trim.
It’s kind of surprising how many of these fairly low production cars from Studebaker-Packard’s lowest years have survived. Being a Studebaker fan certainly helps, but even then… I have actually encountered 1957 Packards in both sedan and wagon, 1958 Packards in every flavor offered, ’58 President and Commander hardtops. It’s so interesting that cars that weren’t even respected when new, and probably dropped in status to become back lot bottom feeders before Eisenhower left office, have somehow found people who cared enough to keep them from going completely extinct. That said, this guy looked to be in the parts car realm when it was posted 11 years ago. One wonders what happened to it…
And as far as styling goes, erm… the only part that was a whiff-‘n’-miss to me was the quad pods up front. Other manufacturers did some goofy stuff with their headlamps around this time, too, but this one looks a bit too tacked on and bugged out. I don’t mind the hood and grille, and actually like the befinned fin look out back. I do wish they’d have put all of the cars on the longer 120.5 inch wheelbase, though.
A long way to fall, but they’re far from being the first badge engineered car. Wolseley cars were badge engineered Morris cars from 1936, though the company had been bought privately by William Morris nine years earlier. The name lived on another 39 years before being discontinued in 1975.
Even in the U.S., the ’50s had already brought us the ’55 Hudson and the Sears Allstate years before the Packardbaker made its debut.
Don’t forget the first generation Kaiser/Frazer, not to mention the Meteors, Monarchs from the Great White North.
The Hash was definitely built off the Nash platform but sported different sheetmetal and at least in the first year, Hudson drivetrains. So it was as different from a Nash as a Pontiac was to a Chevy.
Problem was, it was completely different from the last step-down Hudson and a family resemblance to the Nash was still visible. And they competed in the same market segment. American Motors wisely put the two brands to rest in favor of one – Rambler.
Why would they call it a Station Sedan? Looks just like a Station Wagon to me.