Rebodied Packards

[K8096]

OK, I stand corrected on the P III origins. I saw this car at Hickory Corners at an "Experience." I'm surprised the CCCA let it on the field, but come to think of it, it was parked off to the side a bit on the outside of the track. The painting was there with the car, that's where I got confused. One think you do have to give credit for on the P III coupe is the restoration of the chassis. The P III chassis is arguably the most complicated pre war chassis built, certainly more complicated than any American built car, and they did a nut & bolt restotration on it.

Edited February 15, 2011 by K8096 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Great thoughts, very helpful in sorting everything out. Highlander160's comments put a finger on an important aspect - the human element. The person today who seeks to create something special while paying homage to those who first paved the path. They make the classic car a living history.

One thing I have always seen as curious is the differing judgment passed on cars of equal quality that share the same recent history, namely that their bodies were largely built anew. In one case the new body is identical to the irretrievably damaged or aged old body. People label it "restored" and lavish high praise at the concours. New handle and head but the same axe… In another case, the new body has been changed from the original. People see it as new coachwork and perhaps don't lavish quite as much praise.

[Mahoning63]

I saw that Rolls at Meadowbrook a few years ago. The caption next to it said, or at least what I took away, that it was a 1924 Phantom I chassis that was rebodied around 1935.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[K8096]

I saw that Rolls at Meadowbrook a few years ago. The caption next to it said, or at least what I took away, that it was a 1924 Phantom I chassis that was rebodied around 1935.

I think you're thinking of the "round door" Rolls. Not the P III pictured above. Two different cars.

[K8096]

Another comment I'll make is that not all coachbuilt cars had perfect craftmanship originally either. I've seen the Duesenberg roadster in person that was built for the guy who was trying to get a pattent on the collapsable hardtop (there is a restored Auburn with this feature). The body side moulding was off of it and where the two aluminum body panels met it was very jagged and uneven. Restored, you'll never see this as a moulding covers it up, but when it was built they didn't take the time to cut the aluminum panels neatly.

[Mahoning63]

Found the round window Rolls I had seen, thanks.

Just a Car Guy: The 1925 Rolls-Royce Aerodynamic Coupe,

[Guest bkazmer]

I remember seeing the RR when it was painted gold - the black is a big improvement

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Great thoughts, very helpful in sorting everything out. Highlander160's comments put a finger on an important aspect - the human element. The person today who seeks to create something special while paying homage to those who first paved the path. They make the classic car a living history.

One thing I have always seen as curious is the differing judgment passed on cars of equal quality that share the same recent history, namely that their bodies were largely built anew. In one case the new body is identical to the irretrievably damaged or aged old body. People label it "restored" and lavish high praise at the concours. New handle and head but the same axe… In another case, the new body has been changed from the original. People see it as new coachwork and perhaps don't lavish quite as much praise.

The human element plays a big role here because auto enthusiasts value different aspects of the whole - it is a complex hobby/field of interest. Some strictly like the mechanical aspects, some strictly history, etc. I think value ultimately reflects this mixing if values, if that makes sense.

Mahoning, you mentioned that you were "working on a design" a while back - I thought, yet another way to enjoy this hobby!

I am not sure where you draw lines, as I said I guess market reflects the complexities I just outlined. A much lower rent district but I am thinking my next project just may be a "T" speedster which will be period correct, but not authentic (to stuff in the garage behind the Packard...) . If I proceed I will consider it a much better use of a decent but not so rare chassis and running gear than street rodding it. So how can I criticise someone who rebodies a closed Classic with a non authentic, modern body? It is hard to explain...

Edited February 15, 2011 by Steve_Mack_CT
clarity (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

What you said makes perfect sense. In fact, you can see a glimpse of this multitude of value systems playing out at Barrett Jackson each time a car comes to the podium. I understand your thoughts on the T too, makes sense.

For some reason (we car people can never really explain ourselves) I have an interest in exploring what-if's of marques or cars long gone. Maybe it just bugs the heck out of me that a company like Packard went under for all the wrong reasons. But I know it is more than that. Packard made cars that came about as close to perfection, for its time, as our culture and industry were capable of. And yet, it struggled and some would argue that it did so in part because of its vehicles' last 10%. An odd statement? Yep. But I and many others do see, in the clear glass of retrospect, opportunities that knocked at Packard's door. Now, there is no point in chasing after that last 10% in order to change history, that is impossible. But to achieve a level of artistry not fully achieved by Packard, or more accurately, not frequently enough achieved back in its day, well that is of some merit to me.

As a non-Packard example, there is a car I would love to do if I ever get in the chips. It speaks directly to this idea of doing new coachwork and working exclusively with what was available at the time. I always loved the grill with integrated hidden headlights on the '68 Olds Toronado and thought the north-south FWD engine/trans was a unique layout, but felt it was all somewhat hamstrung by the wide, billowing front wheel drive body. My idea is to take a '68 Camaro or Firebird convertible and make a rear-engined Toronado Speedster. it would be a 2-seater with the engine/trans relocated to the rear, the grill/hidden headlights integrated up front in a low position like the oval grill opening of a low-slung 50s/60s Ferrari or Maserati, and curvaceous decklid bulges coming out of the back seats like on the early 50s Alfa Disco Volante. A dazzling color like a deep red with maroon leather interior, a wider track, maybe lifted from the Toronado at the rear for 4-wheel independent suspension, period 15" wheels, maybe from an Olds. A Toronado steering wheel. Maybe cheat like Leno did and make 17" wheels that resemble 15"s.

With Packard and Pierce-Arrow there are many possibilities. Have posted images in previous threads. I do wonder what the club would think of such errant metal work.

[Mahoning63]

de Sakhnoffsky and especially Deitrich were masters at chasing down that last 10% for Packard.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

interesting points. I agree but also think the disadvantages of being an independent postwar with the great advances in technology played a big role, but there was also less of that "10% factor" or supercars/dream cars/image leaders if you will. Certainly there were some, but not enough of them coupled with no longer generally superior (to competitors like Cadillac for example, or even lesser makes with the advantage of pooled resources) aspects to the bread and butter lines. I think it was over when Packard was forced into mid market rather than top end, which then made your 10% a little less relavent, I think...

Look at the bright side, though, for if Packard operated solely in that 10% space (to use an annoying but fitting modern term..) like Duesenberg they would likely not have been around much after the mid thrities. I disagree with those who think the 110 - 120 started the company on the road to ruin, but that is another topic...

[Mahoning63]

Great points!!

Maybe it would be worth it to explore that 10% factor in a bit more detail because it drove some of the rebodied cars of the day and sometimes drives the passion for new coachwork today. Packard didn’t want to be a Duesenberg, they wanted to be the Ford of the luxury market. And we all know what their formula was: mass production (for a luxury car) + top engineering + high quality + lasting, well-proportioned, memorable styling + great marketing + great dealers = better pricing, a better car and a better ownership experience than the competition. In the 20s and into the 30s the formula worked brilliantly.

That 10% that I referred to, that was the styling opportunity Packard began leaving on the table as the 30s progressed. They also left some wiggle room for Cadillac with IFS for a few years but in general, they would have never thought to have left opportunity on the table with engineering. Instead, they hired the best engineering talent available, unearthed the latest 10% in R&D and quickly rolled it into their mass produced cars. But with styling, although they did a pretty darn good job on their own, folks like Dietrich saw room for improvement. To Packard’s credit, they listened to him and other outsiders and rolled some of their design ideas not just into a few one-offs but more importantly, into the 12th Series. But they didn’t roll them all in, nor did they hire these outsiders as full time employees. Meanwhile over at GM, the brass began treating designers with the same respect and importance that they treated their engineers and they encouraged the designers to push the limit and even let the designers push back and challenge them! GM aggressively went after that 10% and it bagan to pay off by the late 30s. GM, and particularly Cadillac, made fine design a habit, just as Packard had long made fine engineering a habit.

I agree with you completely about the need for the 120 and would argue that Packard took too long to get their Seniors on that line. It should have all come together in ’37 or ’38. In that respect, and setting aside all the other arguments against the 115 such as the gardener pulling up to the manor house in one (did gardeners really make that much money?), I would argue that the 115 subverted Packard’s competitiveness because it consumed resources that could have gotten those Seniors on the Junior line sooner and perhaps with more exploratory design. Packard's decision to do the 115 was akin to if they had followed up the 1921 Six not with an improved Six and a long-hooded flagship Eight but with an even cheaper, stubbier Four while keeping the outdated Twin Six in production through the mid 20s.

On the post-war cars I guess what I was suggesting was that Packard needed to have by then made it a habit of mass producing finely executed visual designs. Instead, by 1951 they seem to have fallen lax with their engineering habit too.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

good points. As far as post war, I think the Clipper design was quite good for the "warm-over" era 46-7. The mainstream of post war design was actually envelope bodies. The GM designs with their rear fenders were the less progressive anomaly. I've never been keen on the 51 restyle, it's not bad just undistinguished

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Maybe it would be worth it to explore that 10% factor in a bit more detail because it drove some of the rebodied cars of the day and sometimes drives the passion for new coachwork today. Packard didn’t want to be a Duesenberg, they wanted to be the Ford of the luxury market. And we all know what their formula was: mass production (for a luxury car) + top engineering + high quality + lasting, well-proportioned, memorable styling + great marketing + great dealers = better pricing, a better car and a better ownership experience than the competition. In the 20s and into the 30s the formula worked brilliantly.

Agree, the 10% factor needs exploration and we still have a lot of winter left. (nice to see this section of the forum really active recently!)

The formula you describe certainly seems to be working today, no? Think of the popular luxury makes - of course, mass production is the only way to stay in business today. A small volume, hand built car would lag so far behind in technology unless it was a very special niche (like a Morgan) forget it, several have tried and it did not fly.

Guys, a few years ago I saw where some guy had tried to revive the Packard name - he actually made the cover of a couple business magazines but was never heard from again (that did not surprise me though..) . I thought he had bought the name but I understand PAC supposedly owns all the trademarks? Any history on that? If there is interest maybe we need a new thread for that or Mahoning63's 10%??

[Mahoning63]

Don't want to flood the thread with ficticious cars but here is a thought I put together for a fellow Packard enthusiast. Imagery of the idea just expressed, and this 135" wheelbase car doesn't have the height taken down like the 60 Special, which was even more opportunity.

Many thanks to the owner of the '39 120.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

bkazmer I agree, the '51 redesign was recognized by the industry I think, but by then Packard was in the thick of a lot of popular redesigns, rather than standing above the rest as it seems to me was the case prewar. (no offense to postwar and '51 up owners, a Carribean or even nice early 50s convertible is still a dreamcar to me!)

BTW - your corrected me on a detail on a reference made to Audis in general section, are you a dealer by chance, or an Audi fan? Just curious, sometimes people who like the same old cars like the same new cars!

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Mahoning was born a few decades too late!! We could be collecting some of his designs!

[Mahoning63]

Thanks Steve. Will give you a hint of how I do it... I cheat! The real masters came up with all these ideas 75 years ago and it is easy to look back.

[Mahoning63]

Roy Gullickson was the gentleman who made an attempt beginning in the late 90s. Got as far as a prototype V12 sedan. Last I heard, he was trying to sell the car and company for around $2M, maybe less now.

[alsancle]

Maybe it's my computer but the image was hard to see. I've updated the contrast & brightness and it's better now - at least for me.

[Mahoning63]

Thanks for adjusting it. The image I uploaded is impossible to read unless you click on it, then click again to make it show up on its own page, then click again to enlarge it. Then it's nice and big.

Steve - I like the idea of a what-if thread. Only concern is that the subject has been explored for a fair number of cars (many of which were floated by me) at the Packard Info forum. Curious what others think.

Discussion around a new Packard campany, or Roy's effort specifically, could be interesting indeed. Am probably not going too far out on a limb by suggesting that some of the last 10 years worth of forum arguments about Packard's demise and, by extension, inprobablility of current success, might resurface.

[Guest bkazmer]

SteveM I'm not a dealer, but my last daily driver requirement list was 2+2 convertible, Michigan winters, low mileage used so I do have an Audi. It would be improved greatly by being 300 lbs lighter.

And I too would love a 53 Caribbean!

[Restorer32]

Reminds me of this '39 Rollson Chauffeur Driven Coupe.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Mahoning, some of us are creatures of habit, I have been trying to be active on the PAC forum, still getting it's legs and as good as Packard Info is, I usually stick with this forum when I do have time to get online, habit I guess... My point being it may be a worthwhile thread.

On a new Packard company, I am not so sure. Unless you are marketing to a very limited group interested in a "new vintage car" - like a Morgan, and are buying that, IMHO a start up luxury brand would be challenged enough to compete with Honda, let alone Audi, MB or any of the others out there. I bet there is more than 2 million in the development of the restraint system in my A-4 and that is what this guy wants for the whole company? More likely just whatever claim to ownership he has and some outdated plans. Now if someone was to open up a modern day custom design shop and peddle their talents to the big guys to help them wiht those 10% cars....

bkazmer sounds like you found yourself a great "daily driver" in good weather!

Edited February 16, 2011 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

We collect because of these great old largely individual and handbuilt cars, I mean who ever heard of a "Chauffeur Driven Coupe" today!!

[Guest bkazmer]

Gullickson's prototype was based on a GM truck chassis, I believe. Attempt at silk purse from a sow's ear in that regard. A more promising route was the Cumberford Martinique, which was a Delage or Darracq look on a BMW chassis. These routes are like the "assembled cars" of long ago. The catch is tooling for a low volume body and the safety (and emissions) certification as pointed out. Doing these to Packard quality without a six figure price tag is difficult

[Mahoning63]

It did seem as if he tried for too much, too soon. Even Packard started with a humble 2-seat runabout. Maybe that could work again, a Packard Electric.

If the goal was to go for the big luxury sedan right out of the gate, one approach might be to create a CAD model or some good renderings of a modern Packard that is based on a major OEM's existing platform, then approach them with the idea of bringing Packard under their unbrella as an ultra luxury brand. VW, BMW and M-B already have such brands but others don't. Perhaps Fiat-Chrysler using the Maserati Quattroporte platform, or Toyota using the largest Lexus platform. Honda seems like a logical target too, the Acura brand never really took off in the higher end and Honda has major operations right outside of Columbus, Ohio. Not too far from either Detroit or... Warren, OH.

I tried the semi-custom route to spur the OEMs on that 10%. Made a prototype crossover sedan out of a Caddy SRX, ran head first into the Christophers that still seem to run each OEM. Not the best way to have spent my precious savings.

[Guest bkazmer]

using an existing lux chassis still requires safety testing but does eliminate emissions (that's why Lotus switched the US Elise to a Toyota engine).

Consider your examples, though: Rolls-Royce, Maybach, Phaeton - do you really want to sell a board on doing that? The Bentley may be the best job. You're also in 6 figure territiry. The Quattroporte platform may work (with second generation dual clutch paddles), but that's another sales underperformer now. You could make the case it needs a restyle anyway (too much Buick in it). A big sedan for North America though is more likely to be badged Imperial (there was a prototype done on the 300 chassis)

I don't see any of the Japanese-HQ companies being interested - no history tie-in, they do their own nameplates. (and Marysville is "near" almost nothing!)

Ford may be the best prospect. They could position Packard above Lincoln, unless tey want to call it Continental. But they are pretty happy with having sold off their luxury brands.

[Mahoning63]

New thread posted on chasing after that last 10%. Thanks Steve for encouraging, let's see if any interest.

Agree that Packard had a chance to exploit the envelope body post-war. They seemed to falter more on execution than intent.

[Guest bkazmer]

The execution issue with the bathtubs was that reusing the Clipper center section meant that the body through the doors was noticeably wider than the greenhouse. On the convertible it's not so noticeable - Design Award.

[Mahoning63]

Great observation.

The shorter, sloping decklid also seemed to work better on the convertible than the sedan.