1938 1603 --- converting side mounts to non-sidemount

[scott12180]

This is an off the wall question, but I thought I'd ask.

 

What are the chances that you could take a 1603 Packard with sidemounts and somehow change the car into a non-sidemount car?  What would it involve?  Finding new non-sidemount fenders?  And is that a tall order?   So many cars have sidemounts, but personally I dislike them enough to shy away from a car I like that has them.

 

I'm also prompted to ask because I've known people to take non-sidemount cars and convert them to accept sidemounts.  So I'm wondering if it's possible to do it the other way? 

 

Thanks

 

 

[Owen_Dyneto]

Since the cars were sold either way, of course it can be changed.  If you check the parts book you'll see that front springs and shock absorbers are also different for each version.  

[West Peterson]

Scott

I am of the same thinking as you regarding sidemounts on cars post 1937. In my opinion, they look sleeker and more streamlined, and the sidemounts are a throwback to earlier days. Since I suspect that you and I are in the minority, I suspect it shouldn't be much of a problem trading with someone who doesn't have them. It's not a big job.... unless the bolts between your fenders and side panels are rusty.. then it gets to be a bit of a chore.

[Guest BillP]

I am squarely in the non-sidemount camp. See A. MacCauley's car with the twin rear-mounted spares for a striking looking car.

[trimacar]

The sidemount wells could be removed, and the sidemount hole filled in.  It would take a talented metal man, as unlike the fairly straight curve 1937 fenders (1500 series), 1938 was the first year of the pontoon fenders.

 

I agree that sidemounts are somewhat over rated.  A lot of people like them, since they add a conversation piece to the car, but most cars look great, long and sleek, without sidemounts.  I had a '35 Pierce Arrow coupe that was a rear mounted spare, and it looked great.  Well, actually, it still does, unfortunately I don't own it now, so talk about it in past tense.......

 

I'd bet you could find someone to trade, too.....as 90% of the population probably likes sidemounts better (you know, 62% of all such percentage statistics are made up on the spot)......

[alsancle]

The difference between a 540k with rear mounted spares vs side mounted spares is about 700k so I would say the market sides with West also, at least for Mercedes.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Agree with 37 or so being a good cut off as later cars with sidemount can look a little awkward. The sr. Car is not as bad, but on the 120, for example they sit too high, and make the balanced nose look stubby.

[Guest bkazmer]

all personal opinions of course, but I think the very rounded 38-39 fenders are particularly difficult for sidemounts.  The 40-42 fenders with the fully enclosed wheels work a bit better.

It's interesting to me to see how the ads for 41-2 promote the newer look (painted headlight rims, feather ornament , running board delete) while many of Packard's clientele still ordered the older traditional version.

 

I think a mutually advantageous swap is very possible for the OP and someone out there

[West Peterson]

Yes. The fenders of 1938 and later Packards are much better suited (aesthetically) for no sidemounts. 1937 and earlier (senior cars), in my opinion, leave way too much empty space without sidemounts because the fenders are so much flatter. (Only discussing Packards here.)

All junior Packards (1935-42) look much better without sidemounts.

[tigersdad]

I'm glad this subject came up.  This is one of the reasons I just bought a 1930 Packard because it did not have the side mounts.  It seems like every car has side mounts and the ones without them are the cars that stand out!  I like the long clean lines of the Packard's.  No disruption to the eye.

 

Jay

 

Edited July 31, 2015 by tigersdad (see edit history)

[Joe Block]

I agree, I prefer the look of the 41 and 42 without sidemount the best,  It give them a European race car look.