(EXPANDED ON 9/30/2022)
Once upon a time Robert Murray (2018) posted at Curbside Classic a photograph of his 1958 Packard two-door hardtop during restoration. The shot showed the rear fenders without the tacked-on fins. Commentator la673 (2018) suggested that the car could look better if they kept the fins off. That’s an intriguing idea because those fins were among the ugliest to come out of the late-50s.
This got me thinking: How about also removing the quad headlights? Single headlights would give more prominence to the stretched-mouth grille (not good), but it would get rid of the bizarre bug-eyed fender bulges. A net plus, I’d say.
Removing quad headlights would not be simple
Judging from the two photos below, removing the quads would not be as simple as switching out 1958 front fenders with those from the previous year. Both the hood and fender extensions would appear to need some reshaping.
The 1958 Packard’s basic design had potential — particularly with the two-door hardtop. The “fish-mouth” grille could have been quite attractive if both it and the bumper were four or five inches narrower.
The Packard was based on a Studebaker family-car body, which was only 69.5 inches wide when introduced in 1953. The 1958 Packard was almost seven inches wider. The widest part of the car was likely the front bumper, which was intended to trick viewers into believing that the Packard was standard sized.
Also see ‘The 1955 Packard’s styling was an evolutionary dead end’
Studebaker-Packard management was slower than its counterparts at American Motors in recognizing that an increasing number of car buyers did not assume that bigger = better. After the Nash-based Ambassador was switched to the compact Rambler body, AMC advertising emphasized the advantages of its smaller size.
A Studebaker-based Packard could have plausibly carved out a sustainable market niche if, like the Ambassador, it had been sold as a more efficient alternative to big luxury cars.
Packard’s side sweepspear was a big improvement
If you removed the bug-eyed headlights and tacked-on fins, the side sweepspear could have looked quite good. The basic shape was similar to Hudson’s early-50s sweepspear, but oddly enough American Motors didn’t keep it when the brand’s lineup was shifted to Nash bodies.
The 1958 Packard’s sweepspear looked better than the thick horizontal band used in 1957. The Studebaker body was too curved to impose on it the angular trim of the 1955-56 Packards.
Note that in order to add the sweepspear, the Packard needed to share the same rear-wheel cutouts as the Studebaker. In 1957 the Packard had unique rear-quarter sheetmetal with a horizontal character line that ultimately swept upward into the taillights.
The Packard could have looked like a Ferrari
I get cross-eyed whenever I look at the rear of a 1958 Packard. The outward-canting fins added to the top of the fenders clash too much with the upright taillights. That said, I would argue that the biggest problem with the 1958 Packard is still the bug-eyed headlights.
Also see ‘Could the 1956-57 Lincoln have saved a dying Packard?’
In another post I suggest a plausible alternative for the 1958 Studebaker’s bug eyes — a Jaguaresque separation of dual headlights (go here). That approach would have only worked on the Packard if the bumper was significantly reduced in size and reshaped to allow headlights to fit in the grille. That could have given the car an interesting, Ferrari-type look.
The above-shown 1958 Packard is one of the vehicles on display at the LeMay Collections at Marymount. The museum is located near Tacoma, Washington.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on June 30, 2018 and expanded on Sept. 30, 2022.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Classic Car Database; 2022. “Search for specifications.” Accessed Sept. 30.
- la673; 2018. Commentator in “QOTD: What’s Your Lust Object Car of the Day?” Curbside Classic. Posted June 29 at 4:28 p.m.
- Murray, Robert; 2018. Commentator in “QOTD: What’s Your Lust Object Car of the Day?” Curbside Classic. Posted June 29 at 3:21 p.m.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com: (Automotive History Preservation Society): Rambler Ambassador (1959)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Packard (1957)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Packard (1958)
I do not know that anything could have saved Packard after 1956. The marketplace simply did not need it with General Motors covering every conceivable market niche other than being a car not produced by G.M. Ford and Chrysler sewed up every market hole elsewhere, leaving A.M.C. and the mortally wounded Studebaker to pick up the crumbs. The world simply did not need a Packard in a Studebaker President body.
What about a Studebaker in a Packard Clipper body?
Shut down South Bend except maybe the pick-up, which would use Packard’s V8. Drop Clipper and use its body for Studebaker. Invest $5-10M to freshen the entire ’57 line and base it on hardtop roofs only. Studebaker would already have one but Packard would need one that was 5 inches longer.
Then circle back to the investors and show them that the company had greatly reduced its break-even and only needed re-tool for two instead of three brands.
It still would have been a tough road ahead as Steve has explained in other posts, but maybe they could have made it.
The fundamental problem to this plan is that Nance allowed the merger to be structured such that he became President but the Board had a Studebaker-leaning majority. Nance almost singlehandedly ruined Packard.
The ’58 Ford was almost as bad as the Studebaker and Packard when it came to tacky, ill advise facelift it got, but it seems to get a pass.
The quad headlights on the Ford are only marginally more deft than the ones on the S-P products.
Dean’s Garage recently posted a piece about the 1958 Ford that was pretty critical of its styling. I’ve been thinking about offering a counterpoint. I find the headlight treatment of the 1958 models much cleaner than the previous year’s Ford because the quad headlights were inset; for 1957 the twin headlights were so large that they had to be tacked on in an odd juxtaposition with the rest of the fascia.
Of course, that’s just my opinion; styling is subjective. What I think we can say objectively is that at least the headlight pods for the 1958 Ford actually fit into the front fenders because they were designed to do so from the outset. That was not the case with Studebaker, whose tacked-on pods look like malignant tumors.
Am with Steve on the Fords. My favorite is the ’58, then ’57, and a more distant third for the ’59. But would be tempted to put a ’57 hood on the ’58 for a cleaner look.
Wonder if those investors would have said yes to a 57 Packard Program that consisted of only one car, the 4-door hardtop at link, except with the Predictor’s hidden lamps. Two, maybe even three trim levels to span a wider price range. A $25M cost instead of $50M.
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/uploads/newbb/969_4e39772d37f3c.jpg
The problem is they no more could get 25 million than 50 million.Every potential lender could see any loan was throwing good money after bad.