Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
All the the major Italian mass market cars (Fiat, Alfa, Lancia) had 4 speeds in the '50s, some of the French did while others didn't. Of the Germans, the VW Beetle had 4 speeds, as did Borgward. Don't know about the other Germans, or when Volvo and Saab went from 3 to 4 speeds. Some British sedans (Fords and Vauxhalls) of the '50s had 3 speeds, and some had 4. British sportscars had 4, with or without overdrive. The American cars with manual transmissions were all 3 speeds. Those equipped with overdrive had 6 speeds, although overdrive first was pretty useless, so, for practical purposes, 5. However, since most people didn't use overdrive second, for the vast majority of American drivers with overdrive, they used the first 3 gears plus overdrive as a fourth gear. American automatics had 2, 3, or 4 speeds, depending on make and model.
Chevy offered fuel injection as an option in '57, and Pontiac in '58 (?), but production was low, and the systems were problematic.
I don't think MB ever used overdrive...I've never driven an OD manual in my life.
I think Chrysler had a low production FI then too, but I have never seen one in person.
In the luxury/prestige segment, Mercedes began competing seriously with Cadillac in world markets in the '50s, and made further inroads in the '60s. American cars were tough competitors in many world markets, beginning with the Model T through the '50s and early '60s, because they delivered good quality and exceptional value. We know all too well what happened after that.
And in theory, you never will. Supposedly, they were all returned to the factory and retrofitted with dual quad carbs. However, back around 2002 or 2003, Grbeck and I saw a '58 DeSoto Adventurer with fuel injection. I don't know if it was all original, or if it was a car that had been refitted with dual carbs, but then somewhere along the line, somebody else bought the components and restored it back to original.
I think there were only 12-13 Chrysler 300D's equipped with fuel injection Probably even fewer DeSoto Adventurers.
As for Pontiac, the Bonneville first offered fuel injection in 1957. It had 310 hp, from a 370 CID engine. The car was $5782, offered only as a convertible, and they sold 630 of them. In comparison, the Chrysler 300C convertible was "only" $5359, came standard with a 375 hp 392 dual quad Hemi (390 hp optional) and they made 484 convertibles (1918 of the cheaper $4929 hardtop coupe).
Chrysler's fuel injection must have been pretty expensive to design in '58, because it was applied to several different engines. In Chryslers, it was used on a 392 Hemi, where it put out 390 hp (same as the hotter of the dual quad setups for '57). In DeSotos, it was used on a 361 Wedge, where it made 355 hp. The Dodge D-500 used a 333 hp 361 wedge, and the Plymouth Fury used a 315 hp 350 Wedge.
I guess they had to make the Dodge 361 weaker than the DeSoto 361 because of DeSoto's seniority? Kind of a shame, because I'm sure it would've been a real screamer in the lighter Dodge body.
That's a '58 "Packard" sedan---actually it's a Studebaker with a few leftover Packard bits glued on it.
They even made a station wagon which is not easy on the eyes.
That wagon actually looks like it was pretty practical. By '58, most wagons were low-slung and had swoopy lines that really cut into interior volume. I wonder it it would have been able to pass the "plywood test" (4x8 sheet of plywood, flat on the floor between the wheel wells, tailgate closed). Even if it didn't, I'm sure it had a lot more interior height, that lent itself well to hauling bulky items that would be too tall to fit in most other wagons.
I've actually seen a FI 57 Pontiac before, there's one in the small town where my mother lives, of all places. It doesn't come out often, but I saw it about 10 years ago.
Yeah, I guess that was one problem. Even though these things were just thinly veiled Studebakers, they had to still put up the ruse of it being a more prestigious car, so it was priced accordingly And most likely, few buyers fell for it. The Studebaker 4-door Provincial 258 V-8 wagon stickered for $2664 in '58 while the Packard wagon, which came with a 289 V-8, was $3384.
The '58 Windsor wagon, which was 'downsized' that year to the shorter Dodge/DeSoto Firesweep wheelbase, started at $3616. The DeSoto Firesweep wagon started at $3266, while the Dodge 4-door wagons started as low as $2946. So yeah, in comparison, that Packard wasn't such a great deal.
As far as I know, Chrysler didn't do air suspensions in those days. Supposedly, the torsion bars and rear leaf springs just didn't lend themselves as well to it as a coil suspension. However, the torsion bar setup was marketed as "Torsion-Aire", so that might have caused some confusion.
I swear I did not doctor the images except that I brightened and sharpened the first image so you can read the license plate.
The owner of the car above must have said, “D’oh!!”
No Andre, people weren't fooled by the Packardbaker at all, nor was the media. Packard people actively disdained the car and the general public was wise to it, if perhaps apathetic in a harmless way.
I suppose a few newbies got fooled but certainly not if you "asked the man who owned one".
The two cars were as different in '58 as a Chevrolet and a Cadillac. The fit and finish, the materials, the ride, the engineering---these were not Packards. My family owned many Packards and I owned a few Studebakers, and there was a world of difference...each fulfilled its own niche.
Your car would have to be more than 'restored' to run like that one.
Klaus Ludwig at the wheel was pretty awesome.
After watching a bunch of 7+ minute 'Ring videos, it was great to watch a slower one, not to mention Klaus drive.
Indeed. Cost of actually restoring it in the early 70s is what did ours in. We had maybe five fun years with it though.
BTW - the shift lever would come out if you pulled on it. You could pop it right back in. This made for great amusement with a new person in the car,
I like the trim proportions and low beltline of those wagons, but much-prefer the '57. Of course, the Studebaker wagons cost less when new.
I think the '57's and '58's were made to give Packard-only dealers something to sell. The '56 corporate loss was $43 million. Getting rid of Packard, and with a largely unchanged Studebaker line for '57, the loss was reduced to $11 million. It jumped back up to $13 million in '58. The Packard complex on East Grand was sold for only $750,000.00. With the Lark in '59, the profit rose to $28 million. I know you mentioned 'fit and finish', but those are two words that I've never seen coupled to a positive when people talk about the last Detroit Packards. I've heard the story that James Nance was sitting in a '55 at the Auto Show and couldn't open the rear door from the inside. My dealer friend sold '56 Caribbean no. 258 (of 276) and he still tells the story of having to tow it from Cleveland to our small hometown in PA because the Doctor owner got in it and it wouldn't go in reverse...this when it was still fairly new.
http://www.extravaganzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1957-Packard-Clipper-Coun- try-Sedan-Station-Wagon.jpg
Mercury used 'extra' headlight pods, and Dodge used stacked fins too, but I detest the stacked fins on the Packardbaker!
But putting door fit aside, the materials used in the last Packards were quite good--brocades and deep pile carpeting and plenty of gleaming chrome and stainless, and the paintwork was still excellent. They didn't cheap out on the cars, and the price reflected that.
Let's face it---all Americans cars were mass-produced and slammed together on an assembly line...some were just slammed together better than others, and used better materials.
One way to judge if a car is "superior" in craftsmanship is to look in places where nobody can normally see---undercarriage, underhood, inside glove box, under the dash. That's where you see that American cars of that time were basically agriculturally built. (tough as nails, though).
As for superchargers in the 1950s, they had their problems. First off, punishingly expensive (at that time) for the owner to rebuild, since a shop couldn't do it. Also the supercharger tended to exploit any weaknesses in the engine. This is why you see a lot of oil leaks in cars from the 50s with superchargers.
Packard got into these problems because first they lost their lease on the Briggs body plant because Walter Briggs died, then Nance had to negotiate a new lease on that plant and moved final assembly into it as well. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Packard production decreased during the 1950s. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Automobile_Production_Figures (note that 100 years ago, Studebaker/EMF was in second place behind Ford.)
1949 116,955 (highest production ever, last new body)
1950 42, 627
1951 100,713
1952 62,921
1953 90,252
1954 31,291
1955 55,247 (new ohv V-8, major body restyle)
1956 28,835 (Packard 10,353 + Clipper 18,482)
If Packards were selling well, then Studebaker would have been dropped. Packard needed a new body (from 1949) more than Studebaker did (from 1953). From 1956-1958 Studebaker bulked up their cars to make them look bigger until 1959 when they cut the junk off and shortened them. Compare 1958 Champion to 1959 Lark (the one below is actually a 1960, but there was no difference between the two when viewed from the side).
I remember my Dad comparing his '56 Patrician with my uncle's (who was a well-known surgeon) car, who just bought a new Buick convertible, optioned out to the max, all white with red leather interior--oh man. (I loved that car!) Uncle Paul wasn't all that impressed. He thought the Buick every bit as good for the money----and I think he was right, too.
Packard interiors were beautiful---very posh in the higher line models.
I drove a '56 Carib a few years ago. Lots of power, pinky steering, through-the windshield power brakes, very clumsy car, very quiet cruiser.....a typical 50s large American sedan. I felt like I was docking the Nimitz. And of course, we all had to stand on the back bumper and play with the self-leveler.
Packards of that time were quite innovative---electronically controlled automatic transmissions, lock-up torque converter, active suspension.
A bridge too far for Packard in many ways.
The Caribbean my hometown dealer sold still survives in beautiful condition in Kernersville, NC. My dealer friend was proud to sell it as they took five or six color pictures of it on delivery day in front of their small dealership building. I have copies. The original owner traded it in a few years on a Caddy.
One of Packard's problems was that its straight 8 was so good that they did not bother to develop a modern V-8 until 1955. Since they were the last to develop sell a V-8, it should have been the best, but it wasn't. It was very heavy and made the Studebaker seem like a modern light-weight V-8 although the Stude V-8 was introduced in 1951. It also ate more gas than any other car with the possible exception of a Buick equipped with a dyna-flow transmission.
I am trying to find a road test of the 1957 StudePackard. I remember reading one where the testers were saying that although the car was really a Studebaker, the fit and finish were so much better than the earlier Packards or Studebakers. It is true than in years when Studebaker production was low, quality was high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard says:
Despite the new 1955/56 design, Cadillac still led the luxury market, followed by Lincoln, Packard and Imperial. Reliability problems with the automatic transmission and all those electrical gadgets further eroded the public's opinion of Packard. Sales were good for 1955, very good compared to 1954. 1955 was also an industry banner year. Packard's sales slid in '56 due to the fit and finish of the 55's, and mechanical issues relating to the new engineering features. These defects cost Packard millions in recalls and tarnished a newly won image just in its infancy. Along with Studebaker sales dragging Packard down, things looked more terminal than ever for SPC.
I was joking about the "TT" on the Green Monster Packard pics I posted. The post was tongue-in-cheek. When I posted it, I was planning to follow up with the image of the 1956 Packard with the 1958 license plates because I knew Mr. Shiftright would reply with "That ain't no Packard, its a 1958 Studebaker."
Considering they were on their way out, I'm surprised they went through the effort to even bother changing that crease for '58. That was probably a waste of money.
Mercury used 'extra' headlight pods, and Dodge used stacked fins too, but I detest the stacked fins on the Packardbaker!
I always thought the '57 Mercury kind of homely with the single headlights, but with those tacked-on quads, it was absolutely dreadful! Once quad headlights became standard on just about all cars for 1958, there were some companies that offered bulky quad headlight setups for '57 Chevies and Plymouths. I remember when I was a kid, seeing an ad for them in an old Popular Mechanics that my Granddad had. The ad promised that it would "make your 1957 car look identical to the new '58's!" Um, not.
I always wondered if that fin on the '57-59 Dodges was actually a separate piece, or just molded to look that way? Every one I've ever seen always had the chrome trim pieces outlining it, giving the illusion of it being bolted on. I thought they looked really good on the Dodges though, giving the car the illusion that it could almost take flight.
The '56 DeSoto and Chrysler wagons had fins that were just stuck on top of the old 1955 fenders, with a chrome strip at the seam. IMO they were a bit awkward looking.
No argument about that, but I liked the 1959 Mercury a lot and believe that it looked much better than the Ford of the same year. Hardtop convertible station wagon anyone???
Alas, the '59 Mercury was a victim of poor timing. The '57 Mercury wasn't a very hot seller, and considering it was an all-new, unique platform that for the first time was neither senior Ford nor Junior Lincoln, I'm sure it must have been a bit of a disappointment for Ford. One problem might have been that it was introduced at the tail end of a "size matters" era, where a 122" wheelbase was merely the point of entry for cars in this class.
But, by the time the '59 Mercury came out, the country was recovering from a recession, and smaller, cheaper cars were becoming more popular. And yet, here came a new Mercury, on 126 and 128" wheelbases, at precisely the wrong time.
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2010/02/01/hmn_feature20.html
I like this part.
Although the Studebaker shell was used, the inside of the car is distinctly Packard, and it's more than just a plush interior. In order to continue to use the Packard instrument cluster, clock and radio from 1955-'56 models, a fiberglass dash was quickly molded. Rather than paint the dash, a padded dash became standard equipment, along with brightwork finished in a golden hue.
Studebaker Packard tried very hard to make the 1957 Packard a fine car and they succeeded to a great extent, although it was not appreciated at the time. That was then, this is now. For a nice car that is reliable and low maintenance, the StudePackards are very good collectible cars.
That's a good point. I usually see a ton of 'em at the Ford show in Carlisle, but, you guessed it, they're all Skyliners!
The only detail I really don't like about the '58 Ford is the taillights. I like the round '57 taillights, but the colon-on-its-side (the punctuation mark, NOT the intestine part!) look of the '58 is just kinda clunky. I guess they were trying to give it a tie-in to the '58 Thunderbird, but at least the T-bird had round lights, and were better-designed for that style.
I said I really liked the 1958 Fords especially the Fairlane retractable hardtop. It was the best of the Ford retractables because the trunk did not look as massive. The non-retractable hardtop was the better looking car but I was amazed that they could put suck a large roof in the trunk.
Ah, come on, let's see it.
"Packards of that time were quite innovative---electronically controlled automatic transmissions, lock-up torque converter, active suspension."
Why, then, the flathead engines until the V8? My guess would be money, but I'm not sure that's right. Wasn't Packard reasonably well capitalized coming out of WWII?
Packard made a lot of money building Rolls Royce Merlin engines during World War II. The contract was going to Ford, but Henry Ford was so pro-German that he said Ford would only build them for American planes, not British. Edsel Ford tried to sooth things over, but hard feelings were created. Later Ford built other planes under license, notably the Liberator bomber. The Tucker was later built in a Dodge-Ford plant that was built for plane production during the war.
I know, this will probably create some gasps of astonishment, but the Roosevelt administration was thinking of putting Ford under Studebaker management. GM was too big and Chrysler already had too much defense work (they built most of the Sherman tanks and many trucks). That story is here. http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-They-Promised-Studebaker/dp/0804735867
There was some discussion in the Roosevelt administration about whether Packard was big enough to build all those engines, and Roosevelt (or Henry Morganthau) said, "Then make it big enough."
Their flathead 8 was a fabulous engine for its type, with tremendous torque as lemko so astutely pointed out. It was its claim to fame in fact. It was more like the Hudson flathead, a well-engineered and time-tested block--not the wheezy inefficient things that other manufacturers were using.
The '55 engine was rushed into production, to compete with Cadillac, and it had severe oiling problems with the rocker arms. It was a heavy engine, and ate gas, as others have noted, but it was swiss-watch smooth and perfect for a higher line car.
I don't think one can apply the term "craftsmanship" or "fit and finish" to any 50s or 60s American car---it's a relative term. Basically when you ordered a Cadillac you got more content and a better grade of materials than with a Chevy, Studebaker, Plymouth or any other cheap car, but you didn't necessarily get any better workmanship...you certainly got more padding and sound deadening as they price went up, and leather instead of vinyl and plusher carpets and a glitzier dashboard.
Any Mercedes or Alfa Romeo from 1955 would put them all to shame in craftsmanship, paintwork, panel fit, etc. however. Many Alfa engine parts could show in an art gallery.
This is one reason by the way, why they created the 'survivor" class at car shows...any factory original car couldn't possibly compete with the restored cars you see today. You can't judge 50s quality by today's restoration, which are miles better than anything the factory put out.
If you paid me to restore your '55 car, and I gave you exactly what the factory did in '55, you'd probably not be all that happy, because you'd see orange peel in the paint, gloppy glue in the seams, and overspray on the chassis. Also your fair share of squeaks and rattles and water leaks.
American cars of those days had three world-beating attributes--fantastic styling, lots of power and comfort, and they were for the most part as tough as nails.
But "fit and finish" was not one of them--they are pretty agricultural and in that respect the Indiependents were the least sophisticated by the mid 50s. The engine you found in a 50s American passenger car looked just like the engine in the truck that delivered it to the showroom, and probably a lot like the tractor motor in the field next door.
I was going to argue this point with you, because I remember seeing '58 Packards with superchargers and one of those was a station wagon. It could have been optional, but the 1958 Packard Hawks all had them, so why not the full size Packard? I do agree that a 57 hardtop might have been even better (if that is possible.)
For the most awesome images of a 1958 Packard I have seen on the Internet check this out. That is one beautiful car.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z17281/Packard-Series-58L.aspx
I am going to have to make a slideshow out of these images (giving credit to the photographer & owner). I can see where the Avanti got its rear window. I am in love!!!
Most of the automobile companies were.
I have read many times over, over the years, that Studebaker emerged from WWII the strongest of the independents. Besides their labor force which was paid more than Big Three workers, they spent a lot of money in the early postwar years. New '47 cars, new trucks in mid'48, OHV V8 for '51, and the '53's were actually two complete lines of cars...not a single piece of sheetmetal or glass will interchange between a two-or four-door sedan and a pillared coupe or hardtop. Packard, on the other hand, was conservative and it's '48 cars were updates of the '41's. The '51 was a new car and the '55 was a successful facelift of the '51. Packard went from '51 to '54 with nary a styling change...rather unusual in that price class..and utilized the straight eight until the '55 model year. No domestic cars could brag of great quality then, but Packard's fit-and-finish and quality decline from the early '50's to the '55's was more precipitous than most. And this from a definitive book on the merger years, "The Rise and Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company" by James Ward.
Packard should never have merged with them. They should have joined American Motors in 1954. They might still be around today, who knows? The American Lexus?
speaking of obscure cars, look what I stumbled on yesterday:
I always thought the '51 Packard redesign was pretty good looking and modern for the time, and would get even better after a few years. Even in 1956 it still looked good. I don't think too many other cars that were around in 1951 could have been successfully facelifted and still be sold as 1956 models.
Andy Granatelli has been reading the Postwar Studebaker forum, which has been discussing him, Studebakers and STP in impolite terms, so if Mr. Shiftright wakes up some morning with a horse head in his bed, he will know who sent it.
If someone who has been defending Studebakers were to send me an E-mail I would forward an E-mail from St. Andy Granatelli on three conditions (1) must be from a Studebaker fan, (2) who will not publish Andy's E-mail address, (3) after you confirm it, write back here and say it is so.
Proud owner of a 1955 Studebaker "corpse"
Anyway, let's get off Studebakers and back to topic please.
Anyone know #24163?