(first posted 4/24/2012) In 1912, the White Star Line launched its biggest and most luxurious ocean liner ever, the R. M. S. Titanic. An engineering marvel said to be unsinkable, the ship fell victim to a perfect storm of mishaps that resulted in its sinking to the bottom of the sea with virtually no trace, one hundred years ago last week. Is there a better automotive parallel to the Titanic story than the 1955-56 Packard?
I still remember the first time that I saw a picture of one of these cars. How, I wondered, did Packard go out of business? I had seen enough Studebakers and other orphans to know that a car brand usually went away after building cars that were, somehow, a little strange. Or maybe just outside of the mainstream. Cars that failed to follow the prevailing styles and features offered by the Big Three never seemed to last long.
But the big ’56 Packard seemed to be the very picture of a modern luxury sedan in that time period. It had a modern shape, it had all of the modern styling cues. It had modern engineering. And come on – wasn’t Packard one of the oldest names in the business?
As I got older and read more, I came to realize that the 1956 Packard was not what killed Packard. Rather, a series of miscues and unfortunate events over an extended period beginning during the Second World War led to death by a thousand cuts. Or, we could say that these multiple circumstances sort of came together to form an iceberg. We can debate just when Packard hit the iceberg. But it was certainly before these final magnificent cars hit the showrooms.
Packard had been a grand old company that built things the old way – exquisitely engineered and meticulously crafted. This order stayed in place largely until WWII, with the exception of the junior models like the 120, the Six (CC here)/110 and the Clipper. But the senior cars came to be less and less of the company’s focus, particularly once George Christopher succeeded Alvin MacCauley as president in 1937. After the war, the senior cars were gone and what before the war had been the lower priced Clipper became the company’s top postwar offering (CC here).
The postwar era brought an entirely different concept to the high-end car market. Instead of huge custom crafted cars designed for James the chauffeur to manhandle through city traffic while Col. & Mrs. McBigBucks rode serenely in back, the new age was a more democratic concept designed for the wealthy driver who wanted to arrive at the Club quickly, comfortably, and with style.
While Packard and Cadillac started 1946 with some sort of rough parity, the ensuing five years could not have sent the two companies in more different directions. Cadillac’s engineers got to work on a new ohv V8, new generations of the Hydra-Matic, and styling that would entice the new captains of commerce (and more importantly, their wives) into Cadillac showrooms everywhere. Packard? Uhhh – no. Top quality and impressive engineering? Absolutely, in a high button shoe kind of way. The old prewar straight 8 was a wonderful (if old fashioned) engine, and the home-grown Ultramatic transmission was quite an accomplishment from an independent automaker.
Most have forgotten that Packard was the only independent automaker to engineer and build its own automatic, and did so years before either Ford or Chrysler accomplished the same task. The Ultramatic was classic Packard: a simple but elegant solution that involved a basic torque converter (like Buick’s Dynaflow) that locked up for its “second gear”.
By the 1948-49 models, Cadillac would begin pulling away from Packard at an ever-increasing pace. Make your choice: high style and the most up-do date engine in the industry. Or a prewar Clipper that appeared to have gained a lot of weight. My father told a story about how my grandfather bought one of these late 1940s Packards. When he got it home, my strong-willed grandmother lit into him something fierce. Dad never forgot the sound of his mother yelling “a Packard! Why in the world would you buy a Packard? Nobody drives Packards anymore!”
George Christopher left the company in 1949. His successor, Hugh Ferry, accomplished precisely one thing in his two years at the helm – he hired James Nance from Hotpoint. By the time Nance came aboard in 1952, it was probably too late to save the ship. Cadillac and Chrysler had world class engines in their cars, and Lincoln was trying to revive with a serious driver’s chassis. All Packard had to show was a new 1951 body that was stylish only when parked next to one of K. T. Keller’s Chryslers. But to Nance’s credit, he (and Forrest McFarland’s engineering department – which included a young John DeLorean) gave it a good try. And this car is the result.
The new 1955 V8 was an impressive piece of engineering, that by 1956 came either in 352 or 374 cubic inches, making it the biggest V8 in the industry. In this Patrician, the big 374 put out 290 horsepower with a single 4 barrel carb, while the Caribbean with dual quads was good for 310. These engines had some teething problems in 1955, but seem to have been sorted out by the next year, and have since proved to be close to indestructible. Not bad for what may be the shortest-lived American V8 engine since World War II.
The other big engineering news was the Torsion Level suspension. Unlike the system on the 1957 Chryslers, the Packard system involved all four wheels. It used long torsion bars that linked the front and rear of the car, and was coupled with an automatic load leveling system. Published road tests of the time heaped praise on the Torsion Level Packards, which both rode and handled better than most anything else on the road.
The Ultramatic was now the Twin Ultramatic, and offered a low gear in addition to the torque converter, making kind of a three speed unit (sort of a Powerglide with a lockup torque converter). The new transmission featured optional electric pushbutton control. There was also the new Twin Traction limited slip differential, pioneered by Packard.
In addition to new engines, new transmission and a new suspension system, Packard also began building its own bodies (necessitated by Chrysler’s purchase of Briggs Manufacturing, Packard’s old body supplier.) The need to lease the Briggs Body plant from Chrysler led to one of the few missteps with these cars. Nance determined that costs could be cut by moving all production of these vehicles to the much smaller Briggs plant. In practice, the new production line led to bottlenecks and some quality glitches in 1955, which may have come back to haunt the company the next year.
Although the 1955-56 body appeared new, it was actually a very thorough updating of the 1951 shell. While it continued to suffer from the prior car’s high beltline, the 1955-56 Dick Teague design was a modern interpretation of what a Packard was supposed to be. And a very attractive luxury sedan.
For a more in-depth treatment of the car’s development, check out this 1976 piece in Special Interest Autos magazine (here) that covers the topic thoroughly. It is fair to say that from Nance coming aboard in 1952 to the debut of the 1955 line, Packard accomplished the nearly impossible, and in record time.
This big Patrician was the top end sedan, priced right up there with the Cadillac 62. These cars were available with all the luxury features expected at the time, including air conditioning, power windows, locks, seats, and lots more. These were big, solid, well-built cars that were Packards through and through.
Which brings us back to the question of the day: if this was such a great car, why did Packard only sell about 18,000 of them? Although this nearly doubled Imperial’s 10,000 units, it was well below the 50,000 cars of a newly energized Lincoln, let alone the 154,000 Cadillacs that hit the streets.
Was the problem the Clipper? Yes, the Clipper, Packard’s downmarket little brother. Unlike the junior Packards of the 1930s, the low priced postwar Packards were nothing more than dumbed down/stripped down versions of the high end cars. Instead of being the ancestor of the modern Lexus (as had been the case before the war), Packard became the ancestor of the modern Lincoln. Prestige and snob appeal (necessary in this market) were leaking out at the bottom faster than they were being added at the top. And if not enough people desired Packards, there wasn’t much appeal to trickle down to the Clipper, even if it had become a separate brand name by 1956. Compared to the high-end Packard’s 18,000 cars, the cheaper Clipper’s 10,000 units made for an outright flop.
I have a bit of a drive to get to my mechanic, and I was making that drive a couple of weeks ago when I spied this car sitting in its driveway, minding its own business. Before this car, I can recall seeing exactly one 1956 Packard in the wild – and it was a Clipper parked on the street when I was about 12. I still remember it, because I was trying to figure out what a Clipper was. I knew that it had to be a model name, but the Packard name had been removed from the car that year. Anyway, the Patrician’s magnetic field compelled me to pull into the driveway of its owner, Mick Widmeyer, who was doing some spring garage cleaning.
I introduced myself (and Curbside Classic) and started gushing over his car. Mick was kind enough to allow these photos as we chatted. He has only owned this Patrician for less than a year and has historically not really been a Packard guy. However, he loves old cars and something about this elegant old sedan appealed to him. He tells me that a registry that tracks old Packards indicates that there are slightly more than 100 of these Patricians still in existence. So, although this car is more common than the 1958 Packardbaker that was featured recently (CC here), this is still one rare car, particularly in this condition. This appears to be a genuine original car that has racked up just over 100,000 miles in its life, and looks as nice up close as it does in the pictures. This example appears to lack the optional electric pushbuttons for the Twin Ultramatic, but in a car eligible for its own AARP card, this is probably a good thing.
This big old Patrician makes me a little misty. Not that I ever had one, but there is something sad about an old-line maker of top quality cars going down the tubes, particularly so soon after turning out such a competitive (and compelling) big sedan. But the sad truth is that the car was too little, too late. It took every resource that Packard could muster to get back into the same ballpark as Cadillac in 1955-56, but by the time it got there, it was left with no gas in the tank as Cadillac (and Lincoln, and Imperial) cruised forward with more sophisticated and more modern offerings. Studebaker is usually cast as the villain here, but would an independent Packard have been able to finance a new line of 1957 cars on its own? The answer doesn’t really matter, because the deteriorating economy and stiffened competition of 1957-58 would surely have finished Packard off every bit as effectively.
Just like with the Titanic, there were a few artifacts that floated ashore. The name and logos would go onto a few Studebakers for a couple of years, and the Twin Traction differential would put supercharged Stude power to the pavement into the 1960s. John DeLorean would go on to a stellar career at Pontiac (although he would eventually hit an iceberg of his own.) But these were just traces of a proud old-line company that, for all practical purposes, finally sunk below the waves at the end of the 1956 model year. Fortunately, cars like this are like those few survivors on the lifeboats, and can help us remember the glory that once was Packard.
Nicely written, JPCavanaugh, and what a fine remembrance of Packard’s last independent gasp.
I owned one like this right down to the color and condition, used in 1979 in Fairborn OH — 56k miles, sold it with 72k after only one long midwest trip. Man, what a ride. Power seats, the push button locator radio, the dash had so much shine I had to squint away in the afternoon sun. I spent practically a winter sleeping in the back seat in my parents’ garage as I was taking care of my Dad’s declining Alzheimers ~ it was only safe to lock all the doors and stay out there to make sure he didn’t pick a lock and walk away in the middle of winter. I rolled the front seat all the way up and had room for a card table, my occasionally consenting GF, GShepard, a small tv and a mini-bar I can assure you. Top 5 of any car show, that Packard deep laquer paint job never failed.
I let it and the GF go after Dad went to see God. I tried to pick my life back up after I took down over 2 dozen locks on the doors but that didn’t happen until 20yr later. I lost my calling for cars, beverages, women and turned to God to get ready for a place in His parking lot. The farthest the Packard got was no rarely more than 200 mi radius. I actually did buy it from a little old lady who only had it out of her garage on weekends. Of all the cars I owned it was the heaviest, not the fastest or most maneuverable but the most Classic. Its Rocket ship hood ornament joined its place with the 63 Jag MK II, 67 XKE, 67 Mustang, 66 Chrys 300, 58 Buick Limited (V), 49 Buick Roadmaster. 58 Ford, Ford Anglia, 48 Studebaker PUp, and a couple cherry 300Ds. Wish I could put my stage 4 cancers back on the shelf, but that’s life, my friends. The best of happiness to all, God bless each and every one of you. Maybe we’ll meet up again, sometime. If you can’t stop, honk when you go by!
Back in 1965 I drove one such Packards model 1954, which for reasons I don’t know had only 20 000 miles on its odometer. I couldn’t describe it better the sensations driving it and looking at it as you did in your own words, although I took only a ride in it.
There was nothing here in Brazil where it happened and it would take a number of years for me to find out some similar sensations driving a car, what would happen in the US where I went to work in the seventies with those big full size sedans from that time. Your history is a touching one on the human side. God bless you!
I own two 1955 Packard The Four Hundred, I love these cars. I have worked on them since I bought them and they run and drive great. I still think they are the greatest looking cars from the 1950’s especially 55/56. When I drive them I have the feeling that the original Packard owners would have had, pride in the grand old name. Packard still garners great respect and people love to see these cars. I know they are the jewels of my collection, which includes a 58 Olds and 59 Pontiac.
Another great write-up, JP.
Yes, the car in question was horribly out-dated looking, and let’s face it – style helps to sell cars, especially when GM had the edge.
As a designer, I have issues with many of the elements of this car, but they all add up to the same thing – dated, stodgy, just plain OLD-looking, especially when you put a 1956 GM model next to it, not to mention Chrysler or Ford!
Packard, R.I.P.
+1. These cars were “new” when I was a kid but they certainly didn’t look it – bloated, old-fashioned, cartoonish-looking cars that few wanted. I virtually never saw a new one growing up in the midwest but within a few years they would pop up here and there on used car lots, rusted out and priced for a few hundred dollars. Few were surprised when they were reincarnated in the form of limousines by ZIL (as had earlier Packards) for the Soviet leadership, a very appropriate match. I agree, put next to 55-56 Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Imperials at the time, who would want one? Also, pretty much everyone knew that the Packard nameplate soon would be history.
Very well said Zackman.
When I see a car like this I try to imagine how it looked to its original audience. ‘Cause in hindsight it just seems…old, compared to a Cadillac or Lincoln.
Another great story JP.
I don’t think one could attach the term ‘horribly outdated looking’ – the cadillac was rather more outdated stylistically (and criticised at the time) especially with it’s heavily rounded flanks, and of course the excessively high hood line: when the ’58 Buick redid these same Caddy features the period commentary was ‘suddenly it’s 1940’ – the new bodied ’54 and up Caddies were a stylistic mess after the clean ’53 and earlier…
The ’55 and ’56 Packs were thoroughly modern at the time – IMHO where the big stumbling block was was the fact that Caddy styling had a look of continuity since the end of the war (and a V8), and the ’51 to ’54 Packs were just plain boring – they didn’t have a look of affluence about them, no good looking side treatments, no detail work, very plain interiors, and unlike the Chryslers, the old fashioned running gear didn’t make up for stodginess – the ’55 and ’56 packs were almost one hit wonders having everything right, and the sales figures showed it, being almost record levels (for Packard)- remember that at 1956 Cadillac also outsold 9 other manufacturers…
Remember too Lincoln vaccilated between trying to compete in some years for the high price field and sometimes in the mid price, which didn’t help their image continuity at all… and Imperial were always a jollied up Chrysler…
I’ve had all three and to be honest the comparisons are odious anyway – generally most high end buyers in ’56 would’ve plumbed for the known quantity (Caddy) that they knew would’ve impressed the neighbours – which seems to have been such a focus in that period with everything… DeSoto shared a similar fate – sales were down 71% in ’56 from ’55’s figure – brave people to buy something which wasn’t now a commonly sighted quantity, and switched to dodge or chrysler or the opposition,
A rather more modern parallel was how on earth did BMW overtake everybody and is now apparently the “most trusted name for quality” for anything!?!? I bet mercedes is still swimming around trying to figure that one…
While I’ve not owned or even ridden in any of the three, I agree with you that the ’55 Caddy looked, to me, more outdated than did the ’55 Packard. Too rounded, too “early 50’s” looking. And the ’55 Lincoln was also still very obviously related to the ’52 edition, though it got a very modern and attractive new body for ’56. The only place where the Packard looks old-fashiioned to my eye is the small side windows and lack of a true hardtop (which was just starting to be a factor at that point, though I’m not sure why they didn’t engineer one with the entirely new body.)
Exactly. In the late 50’s when I was seven or eight, I simply could not tell the 52-54 Packards apart from from Pontiacs of the same era. I would gather potential Packard customers would have the same thought. Also, the 55-56 cars had thicker door pillars in relation to their big 3 counterparts. With the somewhat higher beltline, it left a stodgier look than their contemporaries.
We could ponder some “what if?” here, if Packard had arrived with a V8 more earlier (1950 instead of 1955) or a more attractive design for 1948? Some ponder what if Packard had merged with Nash instead of Studebaker?
My dream scenario has always been Packard merging into Chrysler after the war. Both engineering-driven companies, each strong in a market where the other was virtually absent. Chrysler could have obtained a turnkey luxury car that may well have been more viable than starting virtually from scratch as they did with the Imperial. The Briggs sale would have been a natural complement rather than a wrenching change.
That might have been a winner. It likely would have only postponed Packard’s death until the 70s but if the build quality and engineering had stayed high on Packard’s side at least it would have given another 20 years or so of Packard production so I could possibly obtain one as a classic some day. Sigh…
Chrysler with Torsion Bar Suspension and Packard (by Chrysler) with Torsion Leveling Suspension!
And, they would have put the heat on Cadillac to maintain/improve quality!
Very fine article, Jim. It would have been an excellent match. I wonder if Nance ever considered it, he might have ended up at the top of Chrysler.
That big Packard engine with hemi heads? And Packard engineer John DeLorean might have wound up at Chrysler. Don’t you remember that sensational Dodge GTO?
Packard still reigns as the premium car “imported from Detroit”. I can’t stand those lowered bling Packards with dub wheels and deafening sound systems.
Alternate histories are irresistable.
While Chrysler-Packard would have been interesting (letting Studebaker die a quick death), I doubt the end result for Packard would have been much different.
What likely would have happened is, just like the Packardbakers, there would quickly have been Packards that were nothing more than rebadged Imperials. And, also just like the Packardbakers, the ‘Chrykards’ likely wouldn’t have sold any better and the Packard line would have eventually been killed off just as it was at Studebaker.
The biggest issue probably would have been quality. How would Chrysler’s absolutely horrendous build quality during the early ‘Forward Look’ years went over with the owners of premium-priced Packards (even if they did have engineering advances that trumped the products from Ford or GM)?
My ideal scenario, too. Of course, it would have saddled them with yet another aging, multi-story plant, but I’ve always thought they could have built a new Packard plant at the Utica proving grounds, alongside the engine plant Packard did build there – or maybe if the Hydra-Matic plant hadn’t burned down, they could have picked up Willow Run from K-F and turned that into a dedicated Packard facility.
Of course, KT Keller wouldn’t have improved on the ’51 stying, and by then Packards would probably have been on a tweaked Chrysler shell anyway, and looked about as dynamic as the current Imperials. But Exner’s ’55 Imperial would have made a sweet Packard.
My ideal scenario, too. Of course, it would have saddled them with yet another aging, multi-story plant,
I have looked into these issues some since my post on this thread about a year ago.
Willow Run was too big for Packard. K-F had a break even of about 400 cars/day in that plant. That’s about 100,000 cars/yr, far more than Packard was selling by then. Last time Packard hit 100K was 51, when the Reinhart body was new.
Multistory plants were not that hopelessly obsolete in the mid 50s, Dodge Main and Cadillac on Clark St were both multistory plants the same age as Packard East Grand, and they kept going until the early 80s.
Nance tried to merge with just about anyone in early 56, iirc including Chrysler. No takers.
Best scenario I can come up with is this: prior to starting merger negotiations with Nash in fall 53, Hudson approached Packard about a merger. Packard’s board wasn’t interested.
A couple things in favor of that proposal: The Hornet was already established in the mid market bracket that Nance was trying to establish the Clipper in. Hudson had it’s own body plant, which was actually slightly closer to East Grand than the Briggs plant that was supplying Packard. The word was on the street in the summer of 53 that Briggs was for sale, so Packard knew it’s body supply was in jeopardy.
So, the way I see a Packard/Hudson merger going down:
-The Hornet and Wasp are switched to the more modern Clipper body, using the distinct styling elements that were developed for the Clipper, but using the Hudson 308 six, rather than the Packard 8.
-The Clipper positioned as the Executive was in 56: a short wheelbase Packard, rather than a cheap Packard, and using the senior Packard styling elements.
-Final assembly consolidated at Packard as that plant is set up for body on frame assembly, while Hudson on Jefferson was set up for unibody.
-Body building consolidated at the Hudson body plant on Conner, and kissing goodbye to Briggs just as Briggs was bought by Chrysler
End result: Packard solves it’s body supply problem, which became immediate when Chrysler bought Briggs in the fall of 53. Production volume at East Grand is nearly doubled, which, if it didn’t get them above break even, it would at least cut the disastrous losses of 54-55. Packard would also pick up the Hudson dealers and repair parts business.
None of these synergies happened with Studebaker because the two product lines were too far apart in size and price for production to be consolidated on one platform, in one plant.
Nash-Packard would have suffered some of the same problems as Studebaker-Packard, including geographically separated facilities (Nance had discussed having Nash do stampings for Packard, but concluded that the shipping costs would make it too expensive) and quirky styling, complicated by Nash’s embrace of unitized construction. Unlike Studebaker, Nash also didn’t have a V8, either — AMC’s first post-merger V8 was apparently based on an abortive Kaiser design, engineered with the benefit of Packard’s experience. (AMC underwrote a portion of the development costs of the Packard engine and agreed to buy some for its own use in exchange for full access to Packard’s research data.)
One could argue that Nash was better managed than Studebaker, but there was also the rivalry between Nance and Romney, which had no easy answer. I imagine one or the other would eventually have gone elsewhere, but having senior leaders vying for favorite-son status probably wouldn’t have done the company any favors.
“…but there was also the rivalry between Nance and Romney”
The rivalry seems to have been between Nance, the former President of Hotpoint, and Romney’s predecessor George Mason, previously President of Kelvinator. Both hard charging men with a vison. It was Mason who first proposed that Nash, Hudson, Packard and Studebaker all merge together. Mason died suddenly in October 54, but by then the opportunity for a Nash/Packard hookup had passed.
In the “what if” department, it’s crossed my mind that it would have been a great move for Packard to move into the bomber plant at Willow Run, which Kaiser occupied in the early 50s. Packard on E Grand is about 3.5M sqft and the original bomber plant that Kaiser had was also 3.5M sqft. The difference is E Grand was nearly 50 years old with most of the buildings being 4-5 stories tall, which makes for inefficient production. Willow Run is almost all on the ground floor, the preferred layout for a modern plant.
Kaiser had the stamping plant and body shop that Packard needed when Chrysler bought Briggs, and there was plenty of extra space at Willow Run for the new V8 and transmission lines that Packard built a new plant for in Utica. The time line just doesn’t quite work out though.
Kaiser bought Willys in April 53 and immediatly started planning to move Kaiser production to the Willys plant in Toledo and vacate Willow Run. The availability of Willow Run was probably known throughout the industry within days, but, as the new Packard V8 and Ultramatic were needed by fall 54 for the 55 model year, Packard probably had already made the financial commitments for the Utica plant: some $20M for the plant, and another $27M for the equipment. Even if Packard could have shifted track from building in Utica, they probably would have regarded Willow Run as too big, because they didn’t need the body shop, or so they thought.
Chrysler bought Briggs in October 53, which put Packard in an urgent search for a body shop, but it was too late to grab Willow Run.
In August 53, the Hydramatic plant in Livonia burned down, which put GM on the hunt for a plant for immediate occupancy. Kaiser auto operations only occupied half of Willow Run, so GM leased the vacant space and started moving machinery in in a matter of weeks.
By the time Packard realised they needed a body shop in October, GM had already taken over Willow Run, for $26M. Kaiser wrapped up production there by the end of calendar 53, and Hydramatic expanded to fill the entire plant.
So Packard ended up with the new engine plant in Utica, and the too small body plant in Detroit. Then compounded the inadequate plant by moving frame and final assembly to the body plant, to save the cost of shipping bodies to E Grand, at the cost of several more million dollars. In the back of my mind is the thought that a lot of their build quality issues in 55 were the result of inexperienced body shop people, in addition to the cramped plant. Were they at Willow Run, they probably could have hired the experienced Kaiser body shop people.
There was plenty of expansion space at Willow Run. If Packard had persisted in the merger with Studebaker in 54, they could have expanded Willow Run, moved in Studebaker production and abandoned the ancient and inefficient Studebaker works in South Bend.
Its funny the criticism of the styling of this Packard, here is a wiki article on the FB Holden built by General Motor’s Holden in Australia 4 years later in 1960. A fair bit of influence, especially the headlights and C pillar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_FB
The FB/EK Holdens were following the tri5 Chev styling but years too late to be fashionable
Dang, this could have been my great-uncle Bill’s car, right down to the color. The thing just screams “older businessman with bags of money”, which, sure enough, Uncle Bill was. I must have been only five or so when I first noticed his Packard, but even at that young age I noticed what an imposing, solid, and well, Republican machine it was. Only 100 left? That’s a real pity.
During that same time period, he was also in possession of a ’48 Buick hearse that served to haul the family and piles of gear up to their summer place on a lake in Northern Ontario, so I guess Uncle Bill was front-runner for the title of most eclectic vehicles in our extended family.
@ what an imposing, solid, and well, Republican machine it was.
Although I would never put a bumper sticker on a great old car like this, an “I Like Ike” sticker would really fit this one.
Park a ’56 VW with a Stevenson sticker next to it.
Excellent article. I must be the odd man out. Never cared for Packard. Really never cared for any of the big cars.
For the year this was made I was nuts over the Chevy and the Ford.
I know. Plebian taste.
I was wondering what could’ve killed this Packard… then I found this:
If only it was that simple.
Somebody should try to do a history of the “Dreadnaught Class” American cars made from the custom coach days until the death of the “pre-Panther” Town Car.
My separate comment idea got botched up. So here’s my addendum:
When the top-line model is only competing with Cadillac’s mid range (Series 62), the writing’s on the wall. Series 70/75 was in a class of its own. The erstwhile Packard class, I hasten to add.
When the top-line model is only competing with Cadillac’s mid range (Series 62), the writing’s on the wall. Series 70/75 was in a class of its own. The erstwhile Packard class, I hasten to add.
It’s great when the owners let you pour over the car’s inside and outside, probably confirming his sense of pride that he owns such a great example. The good photos compliment a great write-up.
With a quick glance, I sometimes used to mistake these old models for Mercury Montclairs of the mid-50’s. It was like the designers went from one company’s design room to another with the same ideas.
Nance’s ego was too big for Packard. The idea of spinning off the Clipper as a companion brand was just plain silly — Packard was far too small to field two brands without hopelessly lame badge engineering. Better to suck it up and admit that Packard had become a premium-priced brand much like Buick. What’s wrong with that?
Said another way, how on earth did anyone think Packard could generate sufficient sales as a luxury car brand when Lincoln couldn’t even pull it off in the early post-war period?
Nance also pushed too hard to unveil new technology that wasn’t fully cooked. Packard sales might not have tanked in 1956 if it hadn’t developed such a bad reputation for quality glitches the previous year. Many folks would rather buy boring than flawed. Nance didn’t get that — and proceeded to kill Packard in the process.
Well, my read of Nance was that he was certainly ambitious, but he was also well aware of the kind of pickle Packard was in. The decision to integrate production, for example: while it didn’t pan out well at all, it’s easy to see why he decided to do it, and he was aware that it was calculated risk. As for the stuff they had teething problems with, they couldn’t afford to wait any longer on the V8 and the Twin Traction axle problems were a supplier issue, not Packard’s doing. The Twin Ultramatic was a headache — they might have been better off buying Hydra-Matic, like Lincoln and Nash did — but from what I’ve seen the Torsion-Level suspension worked out pretty well, and it was certainly a conversation piece, which Packard needed. (The biggest problems I’ve heard about Torsion-Level were that the leveler motor could be damaged by road debris and that if you lived in a neighborhood with kids, they might run the battery down jumping up and down on the bumper to watch the system work.)
I agree that the Clipper was an odd and ultimately pointless choice. I think it was a holdover from the original plans for the Studebaker-Packard merger, which involved all-new shared body shells in three sizes, the smallest for Studebaker, the largest for Packard, with a midsize version for Clipper. Had S-P been able to come up with the money for new bodies, it might have made sense, although then the Clipper probably would have arrived just in time for the ’57 recession and ended up as S-P’s Edsel. As it was, it just became a pointless hairsplit of the Packard line — not to mention the lawsuit from Pan-Am, which was trouble S-P definitely didn’t need.
I think Nance recognized what needed to happen with Packard, but ended up not having the time or the money to do it. A lot of these things, like the Dick Teague facelift and the chrome-y restyle of the ’55-56 Studebakers, were seen as holding actions, a way to keep people interested until they could do new bodies.
Also, matching Buick in this era was a daunting proposition. Buick was #3 at this point: it sold more than 700,000 cars in 1955, outselling Cadillac by something like six to one. Other brands trying to compete in that realm were getting hammered (although admittedly they were still doing better than Packard). So, to some extent, saying, “If you can’t go after Cadillac, what’s wrong with being Buick” is comparable to saying today, “If you can’t match the S-Class Mercedes, why not build a BMW 3-Series rival?”
Ate, to the buying public it never mattered a whole lot WHY a car had multiple teething troubles. What mattered was that Uncle Harry had so many hassles with his 1955 that he swore off the brand.
Your Buick metaphor begs the question: Do you really think Packard could have generated sufficient sales if it had moved upmarket into the luxury class? Really? Look at how poorly Lincoln and Imperial sold throughout the 1950s and early-60s.
Comparing Packard’s sales to Buick’s is also beside the point. A better comparison was with DeSoto or the Chrysler brand.
Nance had zero chance of getting his grand, three-brand restyling scheme funded. It was simply too risky and expensive. He needed to dramatically scale it back, e.g., by consolidating production in one plant and sticking with two brands with more modest differentiation. That option arguably wouldn’t have allowed the Packard brand to move upmarket a whole lot.
“I agree that the Clipper was an odd and ultimately pointless choice. ”
An incident relayed in the Ward book about the fall of Packard, at one point, in 55 or 56, the Packard nameplate was removed from the Clipper models. Customers were outraged, they wanted the explicit connection to Packard, so the company relented, restored the nameplate to new production, and shipped Packard nameplates to dealers for installation on cars in stock.
Very nice write up there, JP. I enjoyed getting a little education about the Packard line. We have an Packard of some sort floating around the neighborhood, always driven by a quite elderly gentleman. I hope to run into him sometime and go over his car. This website just keeps getting better and better because of great writing like this.
Jim, you had a very wise grandma. She really encapsulated the whole Packard problem: folks looking to show their success and burnish their social status don’t buy a car that’s on a downward trajectory.
Thanks for this superb write-up. I had similar feelings as you, running into similar-vintage Packards in my youth, trying to make sense of them. Wish I head read this then!
Some period reviews point out that that perception also had a crippling effect on Packard resale values. That was a real weakness of Packard (and to some extent Lincoln and Imperial) compared to Cadillac, which was sort of the gold standard. A lot of well-to-do buyers would trade their Cadillacs every year because the residuals were so strong; to do the same with a Packard or Imperial would actually have cost more, even if the transaction prices were similar.
Cadillac resale value up to the mid-1960’s was so amazing that it was possible to demonstrate that it was cheaper to own a Cadillac and trade it in every two years than a lot of lower priced cars, even a VW. The cumulative extra depreciation losses on the other cars after a few trade-in cycles outweighed the initial acquisition cost of the first Cadillac.
After Packard ceased production the depreciation got even worse. Same thing with Studebaker. I remember a number of years ago coming across a low mileage ’62 Studebaker coupe in a salvage yard that had been taken off the road in 1968. It had suffered a minor, repairable fender bender. However, I suspect the insurance company totaled it out.
What a grand car. Nicely written. I was fortunate to have seen these driving around L.A. in their time, and one of my Cub Scout den mothers drove this exact car. I remember her picking up some of us kids at our weekly evening dance cotillion around 1958, the side marker courtesy lights on the rear doors shining so elegantly. My mom and dad momentarily considered a 1955 Packard when they bought their 1955 Oldsmobile, recalling its pre-war heritage, but were concerned that the marque was headed into oblivion at that point.
“Ask the man who owns one,” one of the great advertising slogans of the twentieth century!
Great writing JP, really flows well and the pictures are first rate, too.
It is interesting that you mention the snob appeal thing. It is something I really don’t get. Perhaps it is because where I live we are completely immersed in so called “high end” brands that the elusive “snob appeal” loses any meaning. In my case, a BMW has zero, and I mean zilch, snob appeal. The 3 series is crappy and overpriced, while the 5 and 7 are plain ugly. MB cars all look the same and don’t really do much better than anything else on the market.
When I was a kid, a new Caddy or Jaguar really meant something. Was that because they weren’t everywhere?
Just what does constitute snob appeal these days? I live in a pretty nice neighborhood and there are even pricier homes a couple of blocks away. Silicon valley million to two million dollar houses. Around my house there are a lot of engineers so the status car is the Tesla. S and E class MBZs, big Lexus, big Beemers are like Kias around here, go down to the supermarket and you’re surrounded by them. Big quad cab trucks are really popular too. I was at the Ford dealer last week and saw a new quad cab 4×4 eco boost highline F150 that was list priced at over 55k. Saw a tv commercial for an Audi A4 lease for 379.00. I was paying that for my four year loan on my 07 Mustang when it was new. I’ m just not impressed by the snob appeal of any car anymore. Maybe I’m just old.but I never wanted to impress anyone with my car.Easy financing and low buck leases have eroded the idea that a car purchase reflects anyone’s financial wherewithal.
Very nice write-up on a truly awesome car!
The Patrician you found could be the very same one I used to see parked in my old neighborhood back in Seattle in the late ’90s. I spent a lot of time studying that car from every angle.
The Packards built from ’48-’56 were among the most desirable cars ever made, IMO. Pity most people didn’t agree. The ’55 & ’56 Caribbean Convertible was the ultimate ’50s luxury car!
I remember seeing that (perhaps this) car in Kirkland on a regualr basis in the mid to late 1980’s. There was a bar near the Video store I used to rent VHS stuff from in the Juanita neighborhood. I think the owner spent quite a bit of time at that bar as I saw it almost every time I went to the vid store or the Teriyaki joint next door.
The Russkies copied the exterior design pretty shamelessly to make the GAZ-13 Chaika.
All are equal, some are just more equal than others… 😛
Like the B-29’s they interned during WWll, I wish the Russkies would do something decent – like reverse-engineer a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air!
Oh, yes – make it affordable, too…
Wishing…hoping…dreaming…never happen…
I don’t know Zackman,
GAZ got pretty burned with the whole Chrysler Sebring deal.. I think there’s a better chance of Cuba pulling off a “new” 57!
To me that was even more pronounced on the ZIL 111, the Chaika was more mercury influenced. But there’s no question the Russians used Packard styling elements.
I always thought the electric push button controlled Twin – Ultramatic was standard ’56 fare and that maybe this Patrician was retro-fitted as I read the Ultramatic push button contacts (much like Edsel’s Tele-Touch drive) would prematurely wear out. Packard was struggling in ’52, started to make a noticeable comeback in ’53, kept in a holding pattern in ’54, but nosedived for ’55-’56 with the Stude merger, the Conner Avenue start-up quality problems and the reverse 1953 strategy to re-integrate closely the Clipper (save name) with Senior Packard and the spring ’56 further dilution of the Executive.
According to the specs on the back page of the 56 Packard brochure, the electric pushbutton control was standard on the Caribbean model only, and optional in the others.
The ’56 Clipper for sale near me doesn’t have the push button transmission buttons either:
My 56 Clipper did.
When my father bought his “pregnant elephant” 1950 Packard and drove it home from the factory at Detroit, you already had to be kind of an unusual guy to buy a Packard. I’m sure that this was even more the case by the time the 1955-56 cars came out.
In about 1971 I ran across a black and white 1955 400 hardtop and bought it. It was well-used but still in decent condition with no rust or body damage. The front bumper bottom was dented, a condition that seems almost endemic to these cars. The torsion-bar suspension was notable chiefly for its unobtrusiveness, delivering ride and handling qualities that didn’t seem different from other cars of the era.
A couple of quirks I noticed: there were Packard emblems all over that car, inside and out. And, the electrical system was 12-volt positive ground. I remember having quite a time once when I needed a jump-start explaining to the cabbie that the car had a positive ground. He made me attach the jumper cables.
As was typical of most of my car purchases in those years, I only had the Packard a short time. I don’t remember what came along to replace it, but something certainly did.
I’m late to the party that I hoped would happen here. I was born in ’55 and raised near Detroit. I mention that because, going forward, in 1973 I got my first job at a machine shop in Dearborn. One day I noticed an unusual 50’s-ish looking car out in the parking lot. Asking around I found out it belonged to the shipping supervisor. It was a 56 Patrician. At 18 yrs. old, in Detroit, I had no idea that Packard had made cars in to the 50’s! I became enthralled. Turned out the guy had numerous Packards including a 56 Clipper and a 41 limo. I had to have one. He found one for me – a 56 Clipper, in running, but weary shape. I drove that car when I decided to trek to CA that fall. I made it, but not without stories to tell.
I must disagree with Zackman. While most cars of this era appear “stodgy” now, these cars were beautiful, esp. the Carribeans. A short while later, setting up camp in CA, I lived across the street from a guy that had a 57 Eldorado. Nice car, but I’d take the Carribean, in spite of it’s weaknesses, in a heartbeat.
I would be curious to hear from either you or PFSM about the characteristics of the Twin Ultramatic. I read some things to the effect that the lockup torque converter really hated to do kickdown/unlock once you were at speed, and that the V8s torque characteristics did not mate as well with the lockup converter as had been the case with the old super-torquey straight 8. After reading this, I sort of imagined that driving one of these would be almost like an 80s Ford AOD, only with a lot more power in front of it. How would you describe it?
I ask because I have developed this wierd fascination with 1950s era automatics. We sort of forget that not everything always drove like a Torqueflite or a THM. So, I would love an owner’s impressions of living with the Twin Ultra.
Well, being 18 and and pretty green at mechanical stuff, I was at least smart enough to know not to push it – to kind of baby it. I can’t remember a time where I tried to kick it down at speed. That being said, my impression was that it seemed to lock up pretty early and stay there. And I don’t recall a lot of low end torque, either.
I wonder why torsion level wasn’t adopted by someone else. I’ve got a link to the third part of a series of Packard commercials where the talk about it. I didn’t realize at the time it was so special but I do remember the car rode differently than any other car I had driven to that point.
I have a 1955 400. The lockout on mine works fine up to 55 or 60 mph. Higher than that it wants to stay locked up. But…….., since I’m not in any hurry when I drive it, it’s fine. Acceleration in normal driving seems adequate. Remember, this is a 4200 lb plus car. If you really want to impress your friends with the ride, take them down a REALLY bumpy road! It floats across huge bumps like they’re not even there! jc
A very nicely written article JP. A very nice car too. I think you’re on the right track when you say Packard’s demise was due to a thousand cuts. There is no one thing to point to.
Packard went down market in the ’30s -wisely. If they had not they would not have been around when WWII broke out. There is always a lag between going down market and loosing the cache of being “premium”.
IMO, the styling of the 48-54 cars served to help the public understand that Packard was no longer premium. The 55-56 cars were nice, but it was too late. Until 55 Packards looked decidedly second rate in styling. The bathtup Packards had styling similar to that of Nash, and though no one would confuse the two, it could not have helped it’s image as a premium brand.
The merger with Stude could not have helped Packard’s image either.
The problem with competing against Buick rather than Caddy is that a small company like Packard exhausted it’s resources to get a v8 and and slushbox, so by ’55 Packard was, technologically, on par the ’49 Olds. GM had a bigger R&D budget and could spread the costs better.
I’ll throw out a what if that hasn’t been discussed yet. What if Packard had decided to be the American Rolls Royce ? It had essentially been the American RR until the junior cars of the 30s. If I’m not mistaken the vast majority of RR production in the post war period (well, up until a few years ago) was to the US market. Finely engineered hand built, if somewhat stodgey, cars would have been right up Packard’s alley.
> What if Packard had decided to be the American Rolls Royce ?
Yup. They’d already been building RR knockoffs in the War (Merlin clones), so it would make sense to continue that tradition!
I don’t know what post-War RRs had `finely engineered’ stuff. They were obsolete, outdated piles of junk, selling on the good name of a company that had lost interest or resources in the car business (finally bankrupted/nationalised in 71). They were surely well put-together, but they weren’t worth the extra price, if not for the lady on the bonnet. Similarly to Packard, RR was also steadily moving downward, but had the aero company and nostalgic buyers to prop it up for a while longer. RR used to be a force in automobile engineering, the `Best Car in The World’, but that was very long ago.
Unlike “handbuilt” luxury cars like Rolls & Packard sold, wartime aero engines like the V-1650 Merlin & V-1710 Allison were all about Fordism: built as fast & cheaply as possible, just with better materials & tighter engineering tolerances than for cars. Packard achieved that beautifully, allegedly better than Rolls themselves.
Yes. The outstanding P-51 Mustang was, for most of its production run, equipped with Rolls Royce Merlin engines built under license by Packard.
This reminds me of a Caribbean that I used to get the pleasure of catching a glimpse of once in a while when I was a plumber. It’s almost the typical “little old lady” story.
She lived in a fairly well to do neighborhood in a run down house, you could tell this place used to be pretty sweet though. She had a large greenhouse attched to the kitchen and under all the clutter inside there were Maple floors and some seriously pricey looking rugs, the furniture was not aging well but it would rival some of the stuff you’d see at Ethan-Allen even today with a good cleaning. (What I really noticed was that all the plumbing fixtures were top shelf Chicago Faucet or Standard Sanitary/American Standard from some time around 1950. I really flip over old plumbing stuff.)
One day I had to go there to replace the water heater and needed to shut the water off. I asked where the meter was and she led me to the garage.
The garage had a stunning Caribbean in Turquoise and White with a Continental kit slowly degrading (it looked like it had been “restored” at least once, Bondo bubbles and all.) next to a late 70s Mercedes coupe (280 maybe?). There was no way either car had hit the road since around 88. They both had the 1979 style Il plates and her then daily driver was an 89 Lumina sedan in the Garnet Red that I guess 78.8% of all Luminas came in.
I was charging about $115/hour to be there so I never really asked a lot of questions. I did find out that her husband was the original owner and it WAS used as a status symbol. I also found that she was at one time a local High School Librarian. Her husband? He published Pornographic story books out of the attic.. The Press was still there in 2008 along with the thousands of unsold “issues” dating back to the late 60s.
I need to run by that place to see if she’s still kicking.
Sorry for rambling. Sometimes a CC spurs a memory.
Now that is one hell of a story. So how does the high school librarian meet the pulp porno publisher? Better yet, how do they keep the school board from finding out?
Don’t apologize Sean, it’s a neat story. If you had photos of that Caribbean you could submit it for the next ‘Cars In Barns’ book!
Also about them story books… a time, er, capsule.
Great write up JP always a curiosity these cars for me they are very rare out here but I do see some for sale on trade me occasionally there is a Caribbean locally. Yeah White Star lauched 3 Titanic class ships but only one lasted long enough to be scrapped. Reguarding the russian Packard I heard somewhere true or not that Stalin wanted a luxury car for himself and his cronies and during lend lease negotiations a defunct Packard line of prewar origin was packed and sent across along with the arms and war gear, Does anyone know the truth to this.? ZIM limos resembled Packard for years not only the one pictured.
Bryce, this is absolutely correct. Stalin had occasionally traveled in Packards and took a shine to them. In 1942, a USSR trade delegation bought the rights to the body design as well as the actual tooling. The Russians modified it for local needs (a process doubtless familiar to Australians and New Zealanders), but at a quick glance, it’s hard to distinguish a ZIS-110 from a 1930’s Packard 180 series.
This wasn’t the first time they copied a US limo: Apparently, the Leningrad L-1 limousine was a copy of a Buick 90 (with possible authorization and even assistance from GM).
My info comes from a FANTASTIC book called “Russian Motor Vehicles: Soviet Limousines 1930-2003” by Maurice Kelly. It even has a chapter on Chinese limos! You can buy it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Motor-Vehicles-Limousines-1930-2003/dp/1845843002/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335799969&sr=1-2
And GAZ was a joint-venture with Ford, an early example of how readily capitalist corporations make deals with anti-capitalist regimes. Armand Hammer was another example; he did much to help the Bolshies during the ’20s, such as importing higher-quality pencils. One of Walter Christie’s prototype tanks (rejected by the US Army) was exported to the Soviets despite a trade embargo; this was developed into the BT series, ancestor to the T-34.
As Bryce said, great article! There has been a ’56 Packard Clipper for sale near me since January. It’s absolutely gorgeous inside and out. It’s also listed on trademe here: http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/other/packard/auction-443451946.htm
Sean’s story sounds a bit like “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” Can you imagine finding a Caribbean moldering away in someone’s garage? Hope you tried to buy it from her!
There is (or used to be a few years ago), a ’56 Caribbean two-door hardtop floating around La Jolla, CA. I would see it on occasion when I lived there, and once when I took my Mercedes in to an independent custom automotive stereo shop for some repairs, this car was sitting there being outfitted with some custom components. Heresy, I thought, but I was more interested in the Packard than I was in getting my own car fixed.
Which reminds me, in Santa Monica when I was growing up (and later on), there was a Mercedes dealer, W. I. Simonson, which was housed in the former Packard dealership on Wilshire Blvd. The letters PACKARD were still neatly arranged on the bell tower/cupola entrance to the showroom, a fitting epitaph to this grand marque, appropriately succeeded by Mercedes Benz. Sadly the building burned down in the eighties, I don’t think they ever restored this nostalgic architectural touch. Didn’t Studebaker-Packard take on early distribution rights for Mercedes-Benz in the U.S. in the mid-fifties?
They did indeed. Which is the basis of the often repeated but yet to be substantiated statement that Daimler-Benz vetoed the idea of reviving Packard with a badge engineered Facel Vega Excellence. I don’t think DB would have feared the competition, such as it would have been, and having Chrysler powered Packards would defeat the purpose. Anyone know anything more?
As posted below, my dad had a 1956 Patrician just like the example auto. Purchased from a Packard-Studebaker dealer. In 1957, That dealer started carrying Mercedes Benz, starting with (1958 models) a 190 4-dr sedan and a 190 SL (white with red interior) on the showroom floor. These were among the first Mercedes in Northern California under the factory distribution system. (Previously, an independent distributor (Hoffman) handled MB autos — but there were very few dealers. My mother bought the “second” 190 Sedan in Northern California (in “Lime Green”). I eventually learned to drive in her 190 — and it spoiled me ever after. That car eventually covered about 250,000 miles on the original gasoline (not diesel) engine … at which point it left the transmission all over an exit ramp from the freeway. A replacement transmission was installed from a wrecking yard, but “the magic was gone” and she sold the car.
I can tell you why Packard failed…check out that dash…they couldn’t spell “lighter”.
My Dad came out to the west coast in the war years (that would be the 1940’s) in a Packard. Unfortunately I don’t remember it. Earliest car I recollect was our 1952 Ford “Vic”. But all the years I was growing up, Dad would always say “ask the man who owns one” like it was a mantra or something. It was years later until I realized he was talking about Packards, not a Scriptural reference.
Pop liked Lincolns too, and I’ve had a few of those over the years, including a ’94 Cartier TC right now, but I’ve always dreamed of owning a Packard, any Packard, figuring it’d make him happy somehow. And besides, it always seemed sort of hollow to say ATMWOO if you’ve never owned one.
Yeah, they looked old but guess what? All these old cars ARE old. Yup.
Maybe Packard couldn’t spell lighter, but they probably knew there’s no possessive or contraction in 1940s. 😉
I am looking for a 1956 Packard with the pushbutton shifter. Needs to be all original, but NOT a project car please.
My 3 Cadillacs (’39 Fleetwood Limo, and two 1941 sedans) have kept me plenty busy.
Let me know if you find one…..
“I am looking for a 1956 Packard with the pushbutton shifter”
As I recall, that pushbutton shifter was the big trouble spot on the 56s.
By 56 they had gotten their arms around the build quality that was an issue in 55, and revised the new generation Ultramatic, which was troublesome in 55. But they shot themselves in the foot with the push button shifter.
The one 56 Packard I have been inside was at a restoration shop some 40 years ago. Someone had removed the pod with the pushbuttons on it. There was nothing there but a bundle of cut wires as thick as my finger. I suspect the controller had been pulled to replace a failed one in another car.
“PATRICIAN” -you just gotta love that name. Conjures up images of the upper classes of ancient Rome. Definately a vehicle for those who appreciate the better things in life, and who can afford them too. Wouldn`t it be a hoot if some econobox maker named their car “Proletariat” or “Prole”? That would have been a great name for the Yugo!
Or a Trabant.
Try “Volkswagen” on for size!
An outstanding article in every way…showing a great deal of thought and introspection. As a 56 Patrician owner, I can vouch that this offering from Studebaker-Packard was a high level luxury car in terms of engineering, fit, finish, and prestige. I have driven one of the competitors–a 56 Cadillac DeVille–and it was like driving a Mack truck compared to even a 56 Clipper. And some of the readers think that the Cadillac offered more contemporary styling–with that bloated hood?! Attached is a photo of my Maltese Gray/Naples Orange Patrician.
That is a beautiful old Packard you have there, John. A very unusual color combo (not that I see a lot of other 56 Patricians 🙂 ). Thanks for the kind words on the article. If ever there were a car that deserved to do better in the marketplace, it was this one.
My first Packard was a1953 Patrician which was a nice car but the transmission failed and I moved up to 1955 Patrician which was wonderful. Like a previous poster I drove a friend’s Cadillac and it was nothing in ride, steering, and comfort of the Packard. Mother had a ’55 Packard 400 and loved it. I wish I could get one, restore it, and drive as it was the most beautiful and distinguished car I ever had.
Interior was luxurious and I was never afraid to just jump in and take off. The ride was superior to anything I ever experienced.
My all-time favorite car. Nothing built today says luxury like this does.
Count me as a Packard fan.I’ve been interested in them since I saw Lancashire comedienne Hylda Baker in one in London in the early 60s. I love the 2 tone paint, an attractive car compared to some of the garish later 50s cars
‘spose the Clipper line could have had a Plebeian model.
I don`t know about “Plebian” for the Clipper, but the Patrician certainly lives up to its name.Great name for a car, especially if you`re a history fan.
Long after it had been “designed for the wealthy driver who wanted to arrive at the Club quickly, comfortably, and with style” it became a cheap used car. During the Riot on Sunset Strip days of the Sixties, a friend of mine drove us to Canter’s Deli in his ten-year-old Clipper. There was a space open right by the front door, my friend stopped the car, said, “Park it, I’ll get us a table,” and he jumped out. I barely knew how to drive but managed to park in one smooth reversing move. This was the easiest big car to park I’ve ever been in.
Excellent article.
One of the more notable CCs that I saw on my vacation this summer was a ’55-’56 Packard in the interstate in the Kansas City metro area. It was a fairly grizzled car, with a fairly grizzled driver, and the 100 degree heat had to be miserable for both.
But, I could still see some positives, the car was very complete with apparently all of its trim intact, it tracked well, seemed stable on its suspension, and was keeping up with traffic. The rear windows were open, while the fronts were mostly closed – a sign that it was possibly a power window car and they were being used to make the best of a situation where if the car had factory AC, it was not currently working.
These are beautiful old cars, and I’ve studied them quite a lot. Looking at this article today, I had an odd revelation – the 1951 Packard shown seems almost more modern to me than the ’55-56. The ’51’s simpler trim, shorter body and a stance that is not shy about its height is more similar to today’s cars then the ’56 with its pretension of longer, lower and wider styling.
Living in a different continent and in a different era I know almost nothing about 1950s American cars but I felt the same: to my eyes, the 51 looks better than the 56. It’s cleaner, more elegant.
automotive history tells us that when word gets out that the cars are causing the owners
trouble word gets out! and sales take a dump. this happened to 57 plyms,55 buicks,
57 fords and the bad reports on the 55 packard were the last things shaky packard
could take .
Is this the only example of the word ‘The’ used in a scripted automotive nameplate?
The 2-door hardtop or convertible counterpart was “The Four Hundred”. The “the” always struck me as odd.
The only other example I can think of was Pontiac’s “The Judge” and that was more of a trim/equipment package for the GTO.
In the late 19th century, the term “Four Hundred” referred to the most notable members of the hereditary, “old money” elite of New York Society. This list was supposedly compiled by Caroline Astor, the society leader of the day.
“The Four Hundred” became a shorthand way of referring to the very elite of New York Society, which, in those days, was the elite of the American society as a whole, at least when it came to overall wealth and influence.
Packard was obviously playing on that reference when it chose the name for its hardtop, and specifically referred to it as The Four Hundred.
Prior to World War II, many members of The Four Hundred were undoubtedly chauffeured about in Packards.
I’ve never seen a Patrician in the metal, but several years ago I saw a similar-vintage Clipper at a used car lot in Toronto that specialized in old cars. There was also an old bullet-nosed Studebaker coupe, an early ’60’s Gran Turismo Hawk, a 1960 Valiant, and an early ’50’s Chevy Suburban. The Patrician is a wonderful old car, and I’d take it over a Lincoln or Cadillac of that era. I’ve always liked Packards, but for me the one to have would be a prewar senior Packard.
Lots of 1956 factory/prototype photos on eBay at the moment:
Nice article & comments .
-Nate
A couple corrections and enlargements: Max Gilman who had began with the company truck sales division in 1919 was brought in to spearhead the 120 development in 1934, became general manager and vice president. He was described as “that hard-boiled New York guy” very unlike the typical reserved, gentlemanly Packard manager.
George Christopher was lured out of retirement after successfully running GM production for both Buick and Pontiac. Also of the temperament like Gilman, the pair ramrodded the 120 to success, regarded the Senior lines as costly distractions.
With the success of the 120 and companion Sixes, no significant follow-up unique Senior line was created after 1935. The Senior models were rationalized onto the Junior platform by 1940, poorly differentiated though significantly higher priced, the distinction gone.
Alvan Macauley elevated Gilman to company President in 1939, became Board Chairman himself. Christopher continued pushing production, now had defense materiel added to his responsibility.
Then the fateful accident: in 1942 Gilman drove his convertible into an open manhole, was badly injured along with his passenger, the wife of another executive. Such indiscretion wasn’t tolerated in the management of a proper company, Macauley requested and received Gilman’s resignation. Christopher was then elevated to company president, where he stayed until his single-minded focus on production without regard to sales demand finally reached a critical showdown in late 1949 and his dismissal.
In terms of product, loss of the volume luxury segment took place in the latter years of the 1930’s. With the price re-alignments of all segments, the entry-level luxury car adjusted down to $1,700 from $2,300. Cadillac re-defined and exploited that sweet spot with their 1936 Series 60, augmented it with the 1938 60 Special, drew it all together with the 1940 Series 62. Packard fielded no equivalent line until their 1939 Super 8. By 1941, Cadillac had wrestled the volume luxury car crown from Packard, never to look back. Subsequent model and feature developments simply cemented an unassailable position which only crumbled in the 1980’s.
Packard history is varied, fascinated and tragic, a worthwhile in-depth exploration for all automotive history enthusiasts.
It’s interesting that many people blame the 120 for “ruining” Packard, but it was a lot more complicated than that. The real problem was that, as the market for custom-bodied V-12 and V-16 cars evaporated throughout the 1930s, it also put downward pressure on prices in the luxury segment. Cadillac hit the target with the 1936 Series 60, as you note, and Packard never effectively countered that move.
In the postwar years, people focus on Cadillac versus Packard, but what really hurt Packard in the critical year of 1954 was the debut of new Buicks and Oldsmobiles. Packard, by the early 1950s, sold more medium-price cars than true luxury cars.
The 1954 Packard looked out-of-date and old-fashioned next to that year’s Buicks and Oldsmobiles with their wraparound windshields and “dipped” beltlines. And Packard was still offering its straight eight against the overhead valve, high-compression V-8s from Buick and Oldsmobile.
If it weren’t for the 120, Packard would have been dead before 1940 just like Pierce Arrow. In the 30’s the rules to the game changed. Pierce Arrow didn’t change with the times. They died. Packard adapted to survive. In the end the lack of a corporate sponsor couldn’t compensate for those who had one.
In 1956 this was a beautiful, powerful, modern, advanced, luxury car. Arguably equal to (or better than) a Cadillac 62, and superior to Imperial and Lincoln. The only problem was that it was a Packard. As JP has expertly reported, the Packard name had suffered badly by 1956, beset by a myriad of issues whose cumulative weight would soon crush the company. The buying public sensed this and didn’t want to be saddled with a brand with a shaky future, no matter how good its cars were. A diminishing dealer network didn’t help and luxury buyers took the safe route with Cadillac.
Regarding the Ultramatic, the push buttons were an extra cost option, except on the Caribbean. The featured car has the correct column selector when the push buttons weren’t ordered.
Well, now you’ve come to the right guy. I bought my first car at the relatively late age of 20, and it was a 15-year-old Packard Patrician. I became intimate with these wonderful machines, as the first thing I did was pull the engine and rebuild it. I have a pic or two at home from that time that I will attach to this thread, and may do a COAL… it’s a great story, and it is relatable to the sad ending of a great marque.
I am fascinated by the range of reactions to the style of this car. I can tell you that at the time it came out, it was considered to be as modern looking as anything Detroit offered, if not more so. The high beltline that people object to was still the norm as late as 1955, when this update was introduced. I was just a kindergartener, but already saddled with this motorhead thing, and I was smitten by the Packards. The frenched headlights they sported (along with Plymouth) were copied by customizers for years afterward, and the big arched tail lights hovering over twin exhaust ports in the bumpers were mesmerizing to a child looking them straight in the face.
In the 5,000 lb. class, my Patrician was a great driver’s car. The torsion bars kept it on the road and there was no wallowing to speak of over bumps or excessive leaning in the curves (this said from a 1970s American sensibility). And there was a mercury switch that would wind it up to level by way of a second pair of half length torsion bars if the rear end had to carry the weight of a full trunk or a large capitalist.
Even now, I look back at these cars with admiration. I understand those who prefer the earlier version… it has a stateliness that these cars lack, (which applies to the acre of straight 8 under the hood as well as the body) but they seem, to me, to have just enough of the jet age to represent their era well.
I, for one, would love to read a COAL about one of these. You certainly would have stood out in 1970-71.
I’ll try to get it done, J.P.
I just stumbled across this article… Wonderful. My dad purchased a ’56 Patrician new … and the example here could be its clone (same color, etc.) My memories of the car include it being the very first car I drove (at age 13) on a back road in Idaho while we were on a fishing trip. The car was amazingly heavy, but had a lot of get up and go with the 290 HP V8. The torsion bar suspension made for a decent ride (for the period) but the load leveler was a bit weird … it “groaned” (the electric motor running) when it adjusted to weight added. One time a fat lady (guest) got in the car, and was quite annoyed at the noises the car made to adjust to her weight!
My dad was a big man (6’4″ 250 lbs) and he’d been a Chrysler owner for the several previous years. But he didn’t like the lower “modern” new models, where you “sit on the floor” … that’s when he got the Packard. (He tended to get new cars every couple of years.)
Sadly, while returning from that fishing trip, 26 miles east of Lovelock, Nevada, a water hose burst … we were towed into town … and after 2 days, it was determined that the crankshaft was bent after a cylinder seized from overheating. (We were flying down the road at the time of the incident.) We returned home on a Greyhound while the car was shipped back to our SF Bay Area home. However, the way the car had been tied down, which caused a serious sag in the body — essentially the car was a total loss at that point. (My dad was going to have a new engine installed, as he liked the car so well, especially compared to the competition of the period.)
He ended up getting a 1960 Studebaker Lark (!!!) as a replacement — with a 259 cu in V8. One of the first “pocket rocket” cars…
Designing and putting that big V8 into production was VERY expensive. I wonder what would have happened if Packard had gone in different direction.
An after-market company made an overhead valve conversion kit for the model A Ford thereby indicating that converting an engine from L head to OHV is not horribly expensive. At least two manufacturers converted their L head sixes to OHV. Suppose that Packard, instead of making an entirely new engine, had converted their L head straight 8 into a twin overhead cam engine with 4 valves per cylinder? That would have been far less expensive than designing the V8. Also, with the OHC and 4 valves per cylinder, it would have produced at least as much power as the V8. An advertising campaign could have convinced the public that it was better than the V8. At the time, Jaguar, with its twin overhead camshafts, enjoyed considerable prestige, a fact on which Packard could have capitalized to convince prospective buyers that pushrods and rocker arms were inferior.
The 2-speed Ultramatic was no match for the 4-speed Hydramatic or the 3-speed automatics which were available. With the $$ saved by not making the V8, Packard could have introduced a 3-speed Ultramatic which would have considerably improved performance. Then, Packard would, by a wide margin, have performed better than any other American car, a fact which would have been confirmed by the same publicity method they used for the V8, i.e., proving that it could average more than 100 mph for 25,000 miles.
The L-Head Packard straight-8 was a long-stroke/small bore design, those dimensions carried over from pre-war Packard practice. It would have required considerable tooling investment as well as a considerably longer engine to get to the square or oversquare dimensions of the V8’s, which would have been necessary to get the thing to rev like the V8’s and therefore be power-competitive.
In addition to being long, the Packard straight-8 was heavy, another disadvantage – they would have probably had to have gone to an aluminum block, something they had some pre-war experience with (the earlier Packard straight-8’s had a separate aluminum crankcase, and the Packard-built Merlin had an aluminum block), but would have added extra expense Fitting a twin-cam setup and getting hydraulic lifters working would have also been a problem – valve adjustments were something Jaguar owners were prepared to live with, but perhaps not prospective Packard owners comparing the Packard to the Cadillac. As well, the Packard engine being long-stroke was relatively tall, so there may have been issues fitting the twin-cam setup under the hood, though of course if they changed the bore-stroke ratio to a more modern value that issue may have lessened.
The real key to Packard regaining prestige would have been if the Patrician and other “senior” Packard were made available with a V-12 version of the Packard V8, something they were working on but never put into production. Then the “Junior” Packards, e.g. the Clipper, would have had the V-8. This was the direction they were headed, they just ran out of time.
As for the Packard V8 being “the shortest-lived American V8 engine since World War II”, that record has since been broken by the Cadillac Blackwing 4.2L DOHC twin-turbo V8, which reportedly cost $16 million to design and build and lasted less than a year, with only about 800 cars so equipped. The car it was built for, a top of the line sedan called CT8 or Escala, never made it to production due to the large sedan market cratering, leaving the slow-selling CT6 as the only recipient but that was cancelled earlier than planned too. Apparently the engine wouldn’t work in the Escalade, was too big for Cadillac’s other vehicles, and Caddy is moving away from gasoline engines anyway, so it takes the crown from Packard as the shortest-lived postwar V8.
Anyway, the 1956 Packards are fantastic, full of innovations like the world’s first limited-slip differential, electronic pushbutton transmission with anti-theft disconnect (another first), side marker lamps, the magical auto-level, anti-squat, anti-dive Torsion-Level suspension, and the most powerful V8 in the field. And then there was Dick Teague’s spectacular facelift which made the 1951 bodies look completely up to date inside and out (especially the 2 door hardtop and convertible; a 4 door hardtop would have been nice but wasn’t to be). What a contrast to the disastrous 1948 facelift that left the cars still looking very much like the prewar 1941 design it was, only pudgier.
Poor Packard, now even its shortest-run V8 legacy may be toppled.
So… does anyone know definitively what actually became of the engine line?
As in, “Yah, I had just dragged all of that beautiful brand new heavy #@€ outside to cut it up, and then a Chaika pulled up and some Russian dude wearing a trench coat stepped out…” lol
As is typical, the Packard CC story is another good reread. But it all boils down to the same scenario as any of the remaining independents: they were all destined to fail, even under the best of circumstances and management decisions. Economies of scale cannot be denied and the Big 3 were going to ultimately win in any event. The independents’ mistakes, no matter how well-intentioned, simply hastened the inevitable.
Studebaker catches hell for letting Packard die in lieu of the Lark, but it was really the only path. Of course, Studebaker didn’t help matters any by dumping whatever money they had left from the merger and Lark sales into the ill-fated Avanti when they could have spent substantially less (and made more) by, instead, putting the good-looking Sceptre PLC concept into production before the Buick Riviera hit showrooms.
But, by then, the Studebaker board was no longer interested in buidling cars, and was focused on winding down the auto company in the least litigious manner. It’s just a shame they took the once proud Packard luxury brand down with them in the process.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/concept-classic-studebaker-sceptre-the-thunderbird-from-south-bend/
Flash forward 9 years after this was written, and the Cadillac Blackwing V8 is now the shortest lived American V8. Can anyone even quantify how long it was on the market?
I saw one of these in a museum a number of years ago. Very nice car.
file size error
That’s a 1955 Caribbean; the ’56 model looks similar but actually got lots of tweaks and improvements. A revised front end had smaller, lower headlamp surrounds, an eggcrate grille with a larger section of it in the bumper, and dagmars moved further to the edge, all of which helped make the car look a bit lower and wider. The engine was larger and more powerful and the transmission was tweaked. The pushbutton shifter and reversible leather/cloth seat cushions were new.
Though a big fan of 50’s/60’s Cadillac vehicles, the 1956 Senior Packard’s was far more contemporary and fresh-looking car than the Cadillac of that year. Ditto for the driving and riding experience. The latter pertains to how they rode and drove when they were young enough to be in their original form. Few today have a clue of how the suspension, engine and transmission are supposed to perform. Cannot even bare to watch the you-tube videos of today. Between the HD shocks, droning exhaust systems, sluggish engines and crap rattling around in the trunk, I cannot imagine anyone wanting one, even for free. These cars cannot be treated like a “normal” vehicle, in order to deliver the magic that prevailed, before they were tainted, by those that never experienced one of these cars early on. I own all sorts of cars, including a vintage Cadillac, owned for 56 years. Current luxury German vehicle too. To this day, nothing has totally surpassed our beloved 1956 Model 400. Knowing how they ran when new, it’s so night & day superior, to anything on you-tube, that no comparison can be made. Zero rattles, no droning exhaust, an engine that’s so “eager” that the car feels like it weighs about a ton less than it does. At any speed, just planted to the ground, without any apprehension associated with driving a near 70-year-old vehicle. Yes, I love 56 Cadillac’s, but it looks and feels like a much older car, though I do enjoy them. Public reaction to the Packard, especially from the young, is something to behold. I feel bad for the families of the creators of this car, that the Packard is so poorly represented today. A mechanically-conventional 56 Cadillac, is the far better choice in 2023. There is nothing unusual to understand, to make it run the way it was designed. For those (very few) of us that understand the Packard, it is a magical, magnificent machine. Literally, in disbelief, every one of the thousands of times we’ve operated the car!