V12 Packard
John Poulos
http://stude.com/packard.jpg
--
JP
Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com
My Ebay items: http://stude.com/EBAY
My For Sale page http://stude.com/sale.html
53 Custom Coupe
55 Speedster
64 R1 AT/AC GT Hawk
63 R2 GT Hawk/4 speed (keeper)
63 R1 GT Hawk/4 speed/AC
63 R2 4 speed Daytona HT
63 Avanti R3 clone
56 Golden Hawk
Sonny
story". Was this an independent effort? It sure seems to include a bunch of
styling ideas from a number of different cars, (including the MG! look at
the rear-side view!) Almost "Avantish" in the front-side fender view. Hmmmm
Sonny
"John Poulos" <ava...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D45A5E9...@erols.com...
Rkstude
Ron
Transtar60
"Rkstude" <rks...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020729165609...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Robert Kabchef
about the honesty of that photo. I understand it came from designer Paul
McKeehan and was presented BY him as an authentic picture from the early
60s. I'm sorry ...... That shop and it's contents just say '90s in TOO many
ways. This cover should'a been saved for the April issue. :P
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in CA
"Transtar60" <trans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ai4baq$1ktu$1...@news2.seidata.com...
Stdbkr1955
>about the honesty of that photo.
I too thought the same when I looked at the cover. A picture taken a few
months ago.
That looks like a mini van or suv and the spoiler on the back of the one car
says today to me also.
I see way too much Cadillac in this one.
But of course I may be wrong, I do that allot ya know.
Mickey
Home of the World Famous
Ms. Estella & Harvey The Traveling Truck
Studeski
Happy Motoring!
Studeski
Claude Chmielewski
Fillmore, Wisconsin
http://www.geocities.com/studeski_hawk
cla...@execsys.com
cla...@westbend.net
'47 M16
'62 GT Hawk
'63 Lark
'37 Plyxxxxx
John Poulos wrote:
--
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ron / Champ 6
frosted lens.....Where's the pic?
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:30:33 -0400, John Poulos <ava...@erols.com>
wrote:
Ron/Champ 6
1963 8E5 Champ (Champ 6)
1960 Lark Hardtop (Buttercup)
1988 VW Jetta (Franz.... Hanz is long gone)
1992 VW Passat (Taxi)
1995 VW Passat (Vanilla..yuk)
John Poulos
went to a lot of trouble, here's the engine:
http://stude.com/packard2.jpg
Robert Kabchef wrote:
--
John Wallis
& all, trying to pre-book orders (at around $80K per car) to get production
rolling. They even had photos of a rolling chassis, V12 & all. There was
some issue about this company (they bought the Packard Motor Car brand &
copyrights) giving some licensing grief to the Packard Club website.
Definitely not from the 60's.
"John Poulos" <ava...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D45A5E9...@erols.com...
TomB
were it was supposed to have been taken but I have never seen a "shop"
that didn't have at least a couple of pictures and calendars on the
wall, especially back in the 60's. It would have been almost
impossible to find a shop without a Ridgid calendar. And a FIRE sign
on the wall without a hose or extinguisher? And it doesn't look like
the shadow of the car is under it but, rather, between the camera and
the car. And shouldn't the back line of the shadow be straight rather
than wrinkled?
I think it's a composite of some kind. I'd like to ask Paul McKeehan
exactly where and when he got the picture.
Mike W
to be a photo? Or an artist's rendering? Looks more like the work of some
artist. I remember that several years back someone built a one of a kind
Packard. It looked an awfully lot like this. Don't remember anything about a
V12 though.
Mike W.
Packard Hawk
Sonny
Sonny
"John Poulos" <ava...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D45C28B...@erols.com...
John Poulos
factual car from what I can tell. It is very nicely done, if I had not seen
similar Photoshop work, I would have been sucked in too.
Lanny Bertram
- - lanny - -
Indy Chapter SDC
Internet Chapter SDC
JTSJ317
63V29447(soon)
"TomB" <tom9...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9ghbku879ujgp8rlk...@4ax.com...
Craig Parslow
"John Wallis" <pack...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ivj19.213361$uw.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> As I recall, someone was plugging this car about 4 years ago with a
website
> & all, trying to pre-book orders (at around $80K per car) to get
production
> rolling. They even had photos of a rolling chassis, V12 & all. There was
> some issue about this company (they bought the Packard Motor Car brand &
> copyrights) giving some licensing grief to the Packard Club website.
It is not the same car at all. The link to the 1999 Packard site is
www.packardmotorcar.com The site is still active.
Craig.
John Wallis
put one on my Xmas list!
"Craig Parslow" <stude...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:gYk19.66774$v53.3...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
BondoBill1
like a combination of a GM and a Lincoln service bay. I could swear that the
SUV in the background was a Tahoe or Escalde or something phoinied up.
I really want to know if that was an April Fools Issue gone astray. Something
so fishy about the photos it its scary.
Okay, the cover is a sham..... get a magnifying glass
CAR BEHIND rear window, cover shot there are six to eight circular clones or
rubber stamps pictue is in motion,
Name plate on SUV in backgrond is going UP HILL to the right, the left rear
fender of the car with the hood opened is either a 62 LeSabre or a 60 Ford
Fairlane with a new tailight
Three cars to the right... notice the upper part of the hood between tailights,
looks very much like a Daytona, but the gradual fill does not match the
lighting in the shop, car in right rear is most noticable with the linear fill
it blurs into red of tail light The car with the clones, is also very close to
the new Cadillac with the horizontal thrid light.
The sign over black car..totally wrong for the direction of light
Running under the car from left to right is a seam in the concrete, to does not
carry thru all the way under the car but just stops. Look at the blue in the
car from ahead of the rear wheel well to just behind the front wheel it is
cloned blue, you can see vertical lines or patterns
The word Packard stands out too well, and too sharp compared to the rest of the
car, the two hub caps have the same reflection, no variation and the logos are
in the exact same place.
There is no depth in the wheel wells, no suspension, no tones, no nothing
except black, the black under the rocker panel is not straight or consistant,
best one yet, rear wheel shows solid hub caps, why is reflection under car have
spoked wheel?
I also think the shadow of the prime car is in the wrong place, should be on
other side of car, if car wa lit from this side.
Thats just my opinion, I maybe right
Worlds' Largest Purveyor of Studebaker Related Garments
http://www.bondobilly.com/aindex.html
Bondobilly and his All Girl Pit Crew
Studegary
>about the honesty of that photo.
Thank you Bob. I took one look at the cover of Turning Wheels and thought that
it was a made up picture. I haven't read the article yet. Gary L.
John Poulos
with different styling. If it's a April fools type article, no one will fess up..
BondoBill1 wrote:
--
Bob Shaw
a bit in my professsion. My Bobservations are:
1) The light source seems all wrong. To have the car so visible, yet have
that big dark shadow on the camera side of thew car seems improbable to me.
Lighting the car side for clarity would wash out that shadow to a much
lighter shade. Plus there doesn't seem to be a strong light source low
enough on the back side to support the severe angle the shadow is cast.
2) The black inside the wheel wells and tires are "too" black. Doesn't seem
natural.
3) The wheels and tires look "too" perfectly round. One would expect that
from the camera lens position, presumably centered on the car, there would
be a sllght perspective to the wheels making them appear "slightly" out of
round. Admittedly, that one's pretty subjective.
4) The reflections in the two hubcaps are too similar. Yeah, they're a
little different, but not as much as it should be because they should
reflect completely different areas that exist behind the camera. For
example, the dark reflection on the lower half of the caps is reasonably
interpreted as the shadow on the floor. Well, if it is, then the rear hub
cap should reflect a shadow that is the mirror of the roof-to-trunk line not
a straight line just like the front cap.
5) Look at the shadow of the driver's side rear wheel beneath the car. It
appears as though light is shining through the wheel, such as one might
expect if it were a spoked wheel (mags, alum or wire) instead of a full
wheel hubcap.
Of course, that isn't to say that this didn't start out as a real photo that
was subsequently retouched (airbrushing before Photoshop came along) by the
company for "marketing purposes". Heck, have you ever gotten a BK Whopper
that looked anything like the picture on the menu?
in article qalbkuka1e1fnkvbu...@4ax.com, TomB at
tom9...@pacbell.net wrote on 7/29/02 6:54 PM:
>
randee
There have been a couple attempts over the years to 'resurrect' the
PAckard, usually on GM sheet metal. Certainly nothing of interest.
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
randee
think that if Turning Wheels is passing this off as some real article
that they would have touched base with somebody over at the Cormorant
for verification.....
--
randee
Bob Shaw wrote:
>ubcap.
>
> Of course, that isn't to say that this didn't start out as a real photo that
> was subsequently retouched (airbrushing before Photoshop came along) by the
> company for "marketing purposes". Heck, have you ever gotten a BK Whopper
> that looked anything like the picture on the menu?
>
> in article qalbkuka1e1fnkvbu...@4ax.com, TomB at
> tom9...@pacbell.net wrote on 7/29/02 6:54 PM:
>
> >
--
John Poulos
Packard Nation meet with a side show on the car.
randee wrote:
--
John Poulos
randee wrote:
--
T or V
pretty close to being even when you look at the car from the side? The
bumpers in the pictures are not matched very well. Just an observation, If I
was a designer I'm sure there would be an answer for it.
Crooked eye Snurdly
Malcom Gillette
On the front fender next to the cowl, you can see where the photo
has been cut, also notice the lighting striking that front fender, it stops
abruptly at the cut.
Also look underneath the car,you will see where a shadow should be but there
is a cut as well. As well as been mentioned before. The front and rear
bumper chrome.The really round wheels, the light shinning through the wheel
on the drivers side but lighting a area under the car.The SUV in the
background.Also the shadow is cast toward the viewer,but the car is brightly
lighted for all the detail, but no sign of a flash or other light source.
As noted it has the back end of a Cadillac. Unsure about roofline,
but the windshield painted in. The front reminds me of the treatment that
they used on the Pontiacs when they were making Stuz's out of them.Just my
two cents worth.
Malcom
PS the hubcaps are identical.news:qalbkuka1e1fnkvbu...@4ax.com...
> Unstretched view.............
>
>
Craig Parslow
"Malcom Gillette" <1mgil...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xFo19.82669$jq5....@news2.central.cox.net...
> As noted it has the back end of a Cadillac. Unsure about
roofline,
> but the windshield painted in. The front reminds me of the treatment that
> they used on the Pontiacs when they were making Stuz's out of them.Just my
> two cents worth.
Does ANYONE HERE have that 1:18 scale model of a 1966 Packard that was
supposedly designed by Virgil Exner. My memories of it are a little vague,
but there was a set of four cars and I believe the series was made by
Revell. If memory serves me right, there was the Packard, Stutz, Mercer,
and Duesenberg, all designed in the sixties by the famous Chrysler designer.
I havn't seen these models, or pics of them for at 30 years or more, so
someone enlighten me!
Craig.
> >
> >
>
>
TomB
Robert Kabchef
ALL this trying to pick apart the photo is fun. But just use your
heads......
Here we have a car - wildly futuristic in styling and technology by 60s
standards - supposedly, actualy, BUILT by a car company that could barely
afford a few fresh pieces of sheet metal to "modernize" the Lark line.
They had practically ZILCH to invest in their truck line - which was
still based on chassis designed in the 40s!
They'd expended capital to develop a "sports touring" on a chassis that
dated to the early 50s. The development of which was mired such at the
beginning that it cost potential sales.
Their other "sports car" was a lingering piece from 1953 that had gotten
a new roof to be "ALL NEW".
And now we're supposed to believe they spent millions to develop a
stillborn luxury car with an aluminum V12. Can you fathom what sort of press
and excitement that V12 would've generated under the hood of an Avanti????
OR Hawk, for that matter.
Another point related to the picture ......... when have you EVER seen a
photo of a Studebaker engineering facility / garage that looked that tidy
and bright.
Sure, the odd minor detail still comes to light now and then. But
imagine the folks that HAD to have worked an this vehicle and the develpment
of it - and No ONE has ever said a thing about it since then!
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in CA
"BondoBill1" <bondo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020729213524...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Sonny
April Fools present for the group <G>
Sonny
"BondoBill1" <bondo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020729213524...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Rkstude
the Egbert driven 'new' Packard.
Relax gang, just archive stuff.
Glasses do help.
Ron
Craig Parslow
"Robert Kabchef" <stud...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zAq19.6774$SH3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> ALL this trying to pick apart the photo is fun. But just use your
> heads......
>
> Here we have a car - wildly futuristic in styling and technology by
60s
> standards - supposedly, actualy, BUILT by a car company that could barely
> afford a few fresh pieces of sheet metal to "modernize" the Lark line.
> They had practically ZILCH to invest in their truck line - which was
> still based on chassis designed in the 40s!
> They'd expended capital to develop a "sports touring" on a chassis
that
> dated to the early 50s. The development of which was mired such at the
> beginning that it cost potential sales.
> Their other "sports car" was a lingering piece from 1953 that had
gotten
> a new roof to be "ALL NEW".
> And now we're supposed to believe they spent millions to develop a
> stillborn luxury car with an aluminum V12. Can you fathom what sort of
press
> and excitement that V12 would've generated under the hood of an Avanti????
> OR Hawk, for that matter.
> Another point related to the picture ......... when have you EVER seen
a
> photo of a Studebaker engineering facility / garage that looked that tidy
> and bright.
I questioned that too when Art showed me the picture in South Bend. Every
pic I've seen of prototypes were in the engineering building which had LOTS
of windows, heavy cast iron steam radiators right below, and wooden floors.
The walls sure don't look like lath-and-plaster to me which those buildings
would have had; not to mention exposed conduit for the electrical. The only
conclusion if it is indeed a 1965 picture is that it was done in secret,
miles away from South Bend.
Craig.
Craig Parslow
Thank you. Only Exner would two-tone it in a gaudy way like that. But
erase the two toning into a single color, it looks early seventies style.
Craig.
James
tales.How many times a week do we hear that from non Stude folk while
driving about?.It is possible they were thinking of reintroducing the
Packard,but this collage of late 90's Caddilacs is about as fake as it
gets.
Transtar60
I did read the articles and everything I read in the foreword , article, and
postscript gave the impression that it was actual photos they were
presenting.
No evidence of an disclaimer hidden in the text.
Very nice article tho. I'd love to have a coupla Packard V-12's to play
with.
"Rkstude" <rks...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020730062755...@mb-mo.aol.com...
John Poulos
real cars that were actually built and driven ? I thought it was a nice "what if
?" piece as written, but was never intended to be taken as factual, but that is not
the case.
Rkstude wrote:
--
Nate Nagel
> I agree, it HAS to be a fake, but our editor might have been fooled.They sure
> went to a lot of trouble, here's the engine:
> http://stude.com/packard2.jpg
>
I realize we're discussing a big hoax here... but I can't help but ask
(since I didn't get my TW yet.) The page you've scanned seems to
indicate that this is a 90 degree V-12 (as there's some mention of
split crank throws in the text, and the cutaway looks like it has a 90
degree bank separation) why was this done? Was the engine based on an
existing engine (Packard 352 perhaps? The valve covers look similar)
or was this done to facilitate machining on existing V-8 tooling? a
"new from the ground up" engine should really have been at either 60
or 120 degrees for proper balance...
nate
(engine weenie)
Nate Nagel
> news:ivj19.213361$uw.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > As I recall, someone was plugging this car about 4 years ago with a
> website
> > & all, trying to pre-book orders (at around $80K per car) to get
> production
> > rolling. They even had photos of a rolling chassis, V12 & all. There was
> > some issue about this company (they bought the Packard Motor Car brand &
> > copyrights) giving some licensing grief to the Packard Club website.
>
> It is not the same car at all. The link to the 1999 Packard site is
> www.packardmotorcar.com The site is still active.
>
If I may give my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for
it.... bleargh! It looks like a new Jag went on a date with a PT
Snoozer and the bastard offspring ordered a fake Packard grille from
J.C. Whitney. YUCK!
Neo-classics SUCK. The only reason the new Avanti works is because
the old one didn't have any "classic" styling cues at all.
nate
PS - a whole mess of years ago Automobile Quarterly did a contest for
young wanna-be stylists, the "theme" was... you guessed it, a V-12
Packard revival. I wonder if there's any connection to this "new"
Packard.
PPS - before you even ask, of COURSE I entered. Didn't win though. I
will say that if I remember it right my concept looked a hell of a lot
better than either of the cars under discussion, although it didn't
have near as many classic Packard cues. It actually came out looking
quite a bit like a GT Hawk, but with a convertible top and a rather
Aston-Martinish looking front end (but with aero headlights and a
slight "ship's prow.") I do remember including the vertical rear
quarter trim like the later Packard Caribbean.
ObCringe: I know that I'm going to have to see if I still have that
drawing, and it's probably going to be nowhere near as good as I
remember it.
Steve Miller
subject. They swear the top cover photo was from a 40-year-old slide.
I'll post my analysis of the photo to the NG this evening. Right now, I
got to go do some Photoshop work... I get paid for this stuff, ya know! <g>
John Poulos wrote:
> We need a Photoshop expert to pick it apart, the TW editor took it as a
>factual car from what I can tell. It is very nicely done, if I had not seen
>similar Photoshop work, I would have been sucked in too.
>
--
No refunds on menu items ordered "Hot," Very Hot," and "Thai Hot."
John Poulos
Steve Miller wrote:
--
Studegary
>the old one didn't have any "classic" styling cues at all.
The Avanti was based off the two biggest hits of the day; 1961 Lincoln
Continental and 1961 Jaguar XKE, with a little of Loewy's personal customs
thrown in. This is one of the reasons that the car was designed so rapidly.
This is not just my opinion/observation, but was supported by one of the
original Avanti design team. Gary L.
randee
reintroducing the Packard, at least I can say that two people I asked
that question in the 60's said 'No'. One was Nate Altman, who may or
may not have known what the factory was thinking in the 50's. The other
was John Duncan of SASCO, who definitely should have known......
James wrote:
>
> It's also the ultimate in "they were ahead of their time" fairy
> tales.How many times a week do we hear that from non Stude folk while
> driving about?.It is possible they were thinking of reintroducing the
> Packard,but this collage of late 90's Caddilacs is about as fake as it
> gets.
>
Rkstude
Ron
Steve Miller
___
OK -- let's start with the front cover...
Notice the repeating pattern on the side of the car. There may be other
explanations, but that usually occurs with the rubber stamp tool [in
Photoshop]. The "seams" behind the front wheel don't match the door
seams. Note the bright horizontal edge. If that were truly a seam, the
panel above would shadow it (unless the panel was not flush...). The
color on the bump-out above doesn't match. It's more blue than either
fender, which are picking up ambient light from above. Note they, and
the roof, are a warm gray.
The door handle, the bumpers, the tail light and the front brightwork
have unnatural highlights and reflected shadows. Note the particularly
crisp lines around the grille, the brightwork above the front bumper,
and on the trailing edge of the tail light. Note, too, the shadow of the
left rear wheel. Either that's a really weird reflection, or the wheel
has voids in it... Oh, sure, it was a wire wheel!
Overall, there are several little inconsistencies in the texture or
noise of the photo. The rear of the C pillar is very smooth -- save for
that chunk in the middle, which has a little noise, but nothing
approaching that of the sail panel. The front of the front fender shows
the same sort of discontinuity right above the back edge of the bumper.
Of the two pictures below, the left is obviously a rendering. (And the
hood ornament is the Cormorant.) The rear of the car just sings out
"Fleetwood!" The bumper shows the same problems as those in the upper
picture, though not quite the same shape as the upper.
Now, let's take a look at the cars in the background... Leftmost,
Fleetwood, again, though the backlight has been modified to match that
of the lower right picture. Next to it is a Seville STS. The SUV? I
think that badge once said "Escalade." Next to it, who knows? The Brooks
Stevens Lark? Well, there may have been some part of a photo of the
actual car cloned in over the back of the green house, but I couldn't
swear to it. The tail light and the rear lip of the trunk look far too
flat (and too noise free) and the perspective is wrong -- you'd actually
see less, almost profile. The two Larks? I'm seeing Oldsmobiles, with
slightly modified rooflines and fender sculpting. Again, the tail lights
are too flat and absent of highlights and reflections.
Now, perhaps all this is explained in the story... but furnace controls
and a guy who's "at least 300 years old?" Well, it was a nice dream, anyway!
Say, have you seen the Packard Hawk sport wagon? <g>
___
gp...@webtv.net
I like humor and satire as much as anyone, but I think it lowers the
previously high standards of Turning Wheels to run such an article -
clever though it was - without any sort of disclaimer. This will go down
as "gospel" just like the old saw about Roosevelt giving the prewar
Packard tooling to Stalin. The Studebaker Club has thus done Packard
and the Packard clubs a great disservice........considering that
Studebaker killed Packard, it's truly insult to injury.
jc
John Poulos
possible that the article is true ( I don't buy that) or more likely that
the editor believed it to be true. If it is either true, or he was duped, he
would not have added a disclaimer. If he learns later that it was not
factual, I'm sure we'll see a follow up story.
Any editor has a thankless job, the only time they get this kind of
attention is when they print something controversial. No matter how it turns
out, I believe the editor thought he was providing a important bit of
history. He was just doing his job, and we are doing ours by discussing it.
gp...@webtv.net wrote:
--
Steve Miller
Ann/Art are still maintaining this is genuine, and they must have been
getting a _lot_ of mail. I just tried to apologize for any offense they
might have taken from an earlier email. The response?
"You are going to believe what you want to believe, and I'm not going to
waste any more of my time trying to convince you otherwise. But be
careful what you accuse (directly or indirectly) folks of doing, whether
it be the TW editors or the old gentleman who provided this article.
Ann"
If Bondo hadn't already used the "mea culpa" routine, I'd offer it up now!
Steve Miller
John Poulos
1. Keep quite and let history be rewritten.
2. Try and convince the editor of our position and risk being the Internet
"Bad guys" again.
If we are correct, I for one would not want a gross misrepresentation of
fact to be put forward in TW, and I don't think Art would either. I suspect
he's working as we speak to convince us of the accuracy of the article and
will end up finding the definitive answer either way. Don't think for a
minute that the leadership of SDC is not following this thread too. <g>
Just think how different this would have been in the pre-Net days, it would
be weeks before questions were asked, and communication would have been slow
and limited.
Steve Miller wrote:
--
TomB
Interesting perspective. What's really interesting to me is that I've
always thought that it was the integration of Packard that finally
killed Studebaker. What's probably closer to the truth is that
neither company, independant or merged, was going to survive against
larger, better run companies.
As for the Studebaker club doing a "great disservice" to the Packard
club, I think you're just plain wrong. Either the "Studebaker Club"
has made an honest mistake or "they" have unearthed one heck of a
story. Either way it's not going to go down as "gospel" because if it
turns out to be an error then proper retractions will be issued in the
proper publications.
I'd sure like to see the vintage clubs avoid being at each others
throats, and that includes Avanti, Studebaker, Packard, Cord, and all
the rest.
TomB
Craig Parslow
"John Poulos" <ava...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D45C28B...@erols.com...
> I agree, it HAS to be a fake, but our editor might have been fooled.They
sure
> went to a lot of trouble, here's the engine:
> http://stude.com/packard2.jpg
the Studebaker story....
Well, there's some post-South Bend stories that I've read about in at least
three different reliable sources. It involves a distribution company that
imported Toyotas and Isuzus into Canada back in the sixties, which is very
true. Story has it, is this distribution company was about to purchase the
Automotive Sales Division from Studebaker Corp. in 1965. The intent was not
really to continue making cars in Hamilton, but to apply the 'Studebaker'
name to Isuzu cars (Bellet's and Florian's) and trucks for sale in North
America as well as have an instant dealer network. The name 'Isuzu' sounded
funny to most, so they wanted a more familiar name for the product. A
couple of the sources go as far as mentioning six Studebaker-badged Isuzu
Bellets made for presentation purposes to the dealer network in 1965. The
plan was killed at the last minute before this presentation was done. I
personally have been doing a bit of research in this, as I would like to see
at least one pic of a Japenese Studebaker. I don't find that plan
far-fetched itself, but I do find the six Studebaker-badged Isuzus as going
a bit far, especially when it wasn't a 'done deal'. On the other side of
the coin, one must remember, the first Mitsubishi's imported to North
America were badged as Dodge Colts, so that's why it is also plausable as
well for these Studebaker-Isuzus to have existed.
Craig.
> Robert Kabchef wrote:
>
> > I saw a preview of this cover in South Bend. Boy, I'm AWFUL
Skeptical
> > about the honesty of that photo. I understand it came from designer Paul
> > McKeehan and was presented BY him as an authentic picture from the early
> > 60s. I'm sorry ...... That shop and it's contents just say '90s in TOO
many
> > ways. This cover should'a been saved for the April issue. :P
> >
> > --
> > StudeBob Kabchef
> > Studefarming in CA
> > "Transtar60" <trans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ai4baq$1ktu$1...@news2.seidata.com...
> > > Would have made a hecka of truck engine too(in cast iron or
aluminimum)
> > > "Rkstude" <rks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20020729165609...@mb-ma.aol.com...
> > > > I like it ! Too bad it did'nt happen.
> > > >
> > > > Ron
BondoBill1
way too contrived, aqnd combining alternator, power steering and a automatic
lithium greese injector inside the engine.
What hath God wrought?
This smells like the north side of Pier 17 on the East River... the Fulton Fish
Market.
There are no real photos in the picture, please look at my pdf file and see how
a phot reproduces.
Sonny
pretty funny, and I didn't realize that so many of our guys were Packard
guys too. Not a bad thing, great I think! Gets the juices flowing, I'm glad
to see it. Hell, I couldn't get 'em to talk about Packards just a while
back.<g>
I do think that the TW editors might feel a tad set upon right now. Bet they
have been fending off a bunch of hot e-mails! <lol> Obviously they believe
the story, but I was hoping that we could be a bit reserved and don't shoot
the messenger right now, (maybe later if it becomes apparent that this was
an April Fools thing <g>).
I LOVE this place!
--
Sonny & "Studbuster"
Packard Powered '50 Starlight Coupe
(Take the X out to e-mail me)
"BondoBill1" <bondo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020730201447...@mb-md.aol.com...
T or V
I know all that stuff, Snurdly
TomB
TomB
Fiction". <G>
>Yep, I'm with you on this one Bill, it's all Bravo Sierra! MUST be a late
>April Fools present for the group <G>
>
>Sonny
>
>"BondoBill1" <bondo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Craig Parslow
"T or V" <n9...@onet.net> wrote in message
news:ai7hs...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I know that car. Saw it often on the streets of Dearborn, 1961
Edsel(almost)
>
> I know all that stuff, Snurdly
>
one. The 1961 Edsel as we know was renamed "Comet" at the last minute by
Ford management. Apparently, many 1960/61 Comet parts have Edsel part
numbers on them.
Craig.
>
Robert Kabchef
Virgil Excess.
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in CA
"David V" <davi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:_oG19.95399$uh7.14902@sccrnsc03...
> Here's an interesting picture. This is from the alt.binaries.automobile
> pictures. (btw. they have a lot of nice Studebaker pictures up there right
> now)I've seen a similar car to this one. Also there's some similarity to
> some of Brook Stevens other stuff. Wasn't the Packard Predictor something
> like this? I know I've seen the picture in the lower left before.
>
>
>
James
David V wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting picture. This is from the alt.binaries.automobile
> pictures. (btw. they have a lot of nice Studebaker pictures up there right
> now)I've seen a similar car to this one. Also there's some similarity to
> some of Brook Stevens other stuff. Wasn't the Packard Predictor something
> like this? I know I've seen the picture in the lower left before.
>
> [Image]
James
made from 60 Fords.The Edsel was a tuna boat,Comets were redressed Falcons
James
that they had all but abandoned the luxury market after WWII to try and
get into the overcrowded mid price field is what killed them.Packard did
it to itself.Taking an elitist attitude isn't going to change the facts.
Craig Parslow
"James" <vi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D476724...@erols.com...
> There was no 61 Edsel 58,59 and 60 only and lots of fake 60 convertibles
> made from 60 Fords.The Edsel was a tuna boat,Comets were redressed Falcons
According to Ford historians, the Falcon based Comet was going to be the
1961 Edsel. Some of the part numbers on the early Comets comfirm this.
Craig.
James
was to change Ford from 3 auto divisions to 2,Ford and
M-E-L(Mercury,Edsel,Lincoln) with Edsel controlling the latter.It wasn't
poor sales that killed the big E,it was jealousy from within Ford
particularly Merc execs as they were losing sales to the Edsel and had
predicted this before the first one was built.The part numbering system
for all but Ford was M-E-L during the era,it hung around longer than Edsel.
Rkstude
Just think how much interest this would generate on the cover of a mainstream
car publication ! Hey, maybe thats an idea ?
As Dick Quinn correctly points out, It was Packard money into Studebaker. Stude
did not 'buy' Packard.
Studebaker killed Studebaker.
Ron
randee
Basically they called the shots.
--
gp...@webtv.net
in re: my contention that Stude killed Packard.....based upon these
observations:
Nance attempted to woo Vance starting in '52 but Stude wasn't
desperate enough to be interested.
Packard, although having a rotten sales year in '50 and a less than
satisfactory '52 , was in good financial condition and making a profit
most years with cash in the bank and no long term debt. big changes
were needed and Nance proceeded with introducing the new V8 (and
building a new plant in Utica to make it)....substantial redesign of the
body, tranny, torsion-level, etc. While well able to absorb those
needed costs it was then that Briggs Body was bought by Chrysler
requiring more expenditures to create body building facilities. THEN
Vance comes calling after Stude sales go in the dumpster.
Packard hired consulting companies to do a quick study and all recommend
a Packard buyout of Stude......too bad nobuddy took the trouble to find
out that Studes breakeven was around 300,000 cars a year.......they were
losing vast amounts by '54, of which Nance was unaware.
Packard bought Stude, but as the smaller of the the two companies, could
not sustain the horrendous losses ......Stude ate-up Packards resources
in record time.
Being both a Stude and Packard lover, maybe its fairer to say that Stude
killed Packard faster than if Packard had never stepped into that
bottomless pit. Much as I (like most here) like to second-guess and
dream "what if".....I always try to remember that had S&P survived, they
would have ended-up making the same kind of junk like all the others.
Would you like to have been Stude when safety regulartions came
along......how about the EPA and OSAH inspecting the factories? Would
you like to see something like a Pinto or Vega with a Stude label on
it.....or anything like Cadillac has made in the last 30 years with a
Packard label? No way, let them rest in peace.
As far as the TW article: computer graphics make anything possible, but
the entire article is so outrageous, I don't see how anyone, let alone
anyone knowledgeable, could have honestly thought it was legit.
Studebaker could hardly make payroll.....if they couldn't afford new
back fenders for the '64 Lark, I doubt if they would be building
prototype Packard 12s..........if Sherwood Egbert was so devoted to
reviving Packard, why have Packard removed from the corporate name as
an "anachronism"........would you put a young stylist in charge of such
a program.........as fascinating as the artwork was, it's obviously
phoney - if you fall for most of it, the pic of the prototype V12 (that
Packard, Detroit, WAS working on) with the new aircleaner drawn over it
is the kicker......and on and on. Fun reading, but so obvious......but
this story will be around forever along with Ford building Stude's
engines, Avantis made in Canada, etc., etc.
Turning Wheels was undoubtedly one of the finest club
magazines........the standard has been substantially lowered.
jc
Sam Roberts
> along......how about the EPA and OSAH inspecting the factories? Would
That is one of the bigger reasons that many people overlook. Corporations
then, and now, use years ahead planning to get a feel for market conditions,
and IMHO even if Studebaker had been selling 300,000 units a year, they were
not going to invest in the safety, and EPA, mandates they knew were coming
down the pike!
Sam
Bob Shaw
they were going to be the first to offer a 3-door model?
--
Bob Shaw
60 Hawk, 39 Champ, 40 Champ from the land o'10,000 potholes
in article 407gku038rpfc0oct...@4ax.com, TomB at
tom9...@pacbell.net wrote on 7/31/02 12:22 PM:
> Just another thought.
>
> The passenger side shows an absolutely straight line across the tops
> of the doors. On the drivers side it looks fine but it seems to
> disappear in the drivers side back seat.
>
> I'm just doing this from pictures on the NG since I haven't received
> TW yet. Hopefully I'll be able to see better with an "original"
>
>
John Poulos
treatments on the same car before.
Bob Shaw wrote:
--
Billslark
mentioned in this thread. I know this is like people still fighting the Civil
War (!), and I've heard this often from a longtime friend who is into V8
Packards, but do these people consider:
1) Yes, Packard had more cash on hand--way more--than Studebaker at the time
of the merger. My understanding is that Studebaker did some fancy almost-2002
style accounting (!) to come up with a breakeven point that was unrealistic.
Shame on Studebaker for this. But I do think one reason Stude had less cash on
hand, besides the apparently overpaid workforce compared to the competition,
was that Stude certainly spent more in the postwar, pre-merger years than
Packard, on product. New '47 cars, '49 trucks, OHV V8 in '51, really two new
lines of cars in '53. Packard's postwar cars were reskinned for '48 and were
new in '51, but even the '55 was a reskinned '51, as handsome as they were.
2) James Ward's Packard book is the best (most unbiased) I've ever read on the
merger years. Was Studebaker responsible for Packard moving to the Conner
plant? Cramped, and quality was terrible, even by the word of Packard people.
Not just fit and finish, but mechanical problems with the Ultramatic, V8, and
torsion-level from what I have heard from dealers. This hurt customer
confidence--and we all know that's about the worst thing that can happen.
3) Packard's sales in '56 took a percentage nosedive from '55, twice as badly
as did Studebaker's (and theirs were nothing to write home about!). Ward's
book states that in either Jan or Feb '56, dealer orders for Packard were only
400 cars, compared to Studebaker's 6,000. I believe it was Feb. '56 that
Packard's Conner plant only built 200 cars.
4) Some Packard folks like to knock Studebaker quality, but Ward notes that to
handle water leak problems in their early '50's hardtops, Packard's fix was
actually to produce upholstery that didn't show water damage as bad--as opposed
to fixing the cause!
5) With an almost unchanged product line, S-P's losses were down in '57 to $11
million, from $43 million--a 75% drop, on reduced sales. Due to proceeds from
the sale of East Grand Boulevard properties? Don't count on it--that brought
in just $750,000 in proceeds from what I've read in more than one place. What
does this loss reduction truly mean?
Not to set off sparks, but I hear the "Studebaker Killed Packard" line thrown
around so casually, I had to put my two cents in.
BTW, Ward does not claim that the merger killed Packard, but was part of
numerous things that did the company in . But he does admit that it was
Packard's 1956 decline that threw the company into "Roy Hurley's grasping
hands".
Bill
Sam Roberts
merger with Studebaker if they were so flush themselves! Maybe Packard
"morphed" into Enron, or Worldcom, but that is whole nother story.
Sam
"Billslark" <bill...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731151228...@mb-mj.aol.com...
Nathan Nagel
and the other 4-door
nate
Rkstude
Ron
randee
basically calling the shots. Altho there was some hope at Stude in '57
that a 'big' Packard might emerge, the losses that year pretty much
killed what hope there was. AFAIR there were no plans at Packard
Detroit to bring back an auto V12, they were still working on updates
for the V8, which in itself was a hurried product, as well as dealing
with teething problems on transmissions, limited slip differentials, and
the torsion bar suspension. There was however a commercial V12 still in
production for marine service I believe.
gp...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Being both a Stude and Packard lover, maybe its fairer to say that Stude
> killed Packard faster than if Packard had never stepped into that
> bottomless pit. Much as I (like most here) like to second-guess and
> dream "what if".....I always try to remember that had S&P survived, th
> As far as the TW article: computer graphics make anything possible, but
> the entire article is so outrageous, I don't see how anyone, let alone
> anyone knowledgeable, could have honestly thought it was legit.
> Studebaker could hardly make payroll.....if they couldn't afford new
> back fenders for the '64 Lark, I doubt if they would be building
> prototype Packard 12s..........if Sherwood Egbert was so devoted to
> reviving Packard, why have Packard removed from the corporate name as
> an "anachronism"........would you put a young stylist in charge of such
> a program.........as fascinating as the artwork was, it's obviously
> phoney - if you fall for most of it, the pic of the prototype V12 (that
> Packard, Detroit, WAS working on) with the new aircleaner drawn over it
> is
--
randee
that book pretty much echoes the sentiments in the AQ book on Packard -
an excellent book, altho never updated or reprinted AFAIK.
--
randee
to have a tough time making it, unless they went they way of a small
bespoke manufacturer again like some of the European firms.
--
Craig Parslow
"randee" <ran...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:3D48B26C...@zianet.com...
> Remember than in the critical '56-58 time period Curtiss-Wright was
> basically calling the shots. Altho there was some hope at Stude in '57
> that a 'big' Packard might emerge, the losses that year pretty much
> killed what hope there was. AFAIR there were no plans at Packard
> Detroit to bring back an auto V12,
According to Prototypes That Never Were by Consumer Guide, there WAS a plan
for a V12. It quotes Richard Stout, a former Packard Product Planning
member saying it would have used V8 tooling to save money. He goes on to
say how it would have been a in-step firing engine, similar to a Buick V6.
It would have been based on the Clipper 320 cubic inch engine which would
have made 480 cubic inches in V12 form. Its anyone's guess if one was ever
made, though. One thoery is, if one was indeed made back at the old plant
in Detroit, could it have been the same block as presented in the article
with that new air cleaner? I havn't got my August TW yet, so I have no idea
on its contents other than what I see here on the n/g.
Craig.
Nate Nagel
> "randee" <ran...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:3D48B26C...@zianet.com...
> > Remember than in the critical '56-58 time period Curtiss-Wright was
> > basically calling the shots. Altho there was some hope at Stude in '57
> > that a 'big' Packard might emerge, the losses that year pretty much
> > killed what hope there was. AFAIR there were no plans at Packard
> > Detroit to bring back an auto V12,
>
> According to Prototypes That Never Were by Consumer Guide, there WAS a plan
> for a V12. It quotes Richard Stout, a former Packard Product Planning
> member saying it would have used V8 tooling to save money. He goes on to
> say how it would have been a in-step firing engine, similar to a Buick V6.
> It would have been based on the Clipper 320 cubic inch engine which would
> have made 480 cubic inches in V12 form. Its anyone's guess if one was ever
> made, though. One thoery is, if one was indeed made back at the old plant
> in Detroit, could it have been the same block as presented in the article
> with that new air cleaner? I havn't got my August TW yet, so I have no idea
> on its contents other than what I see here on the n/g.
>
> Craig.
Dang, I wish I had all my books so I could look up that article. That
jives pretty well with the TW article - it was indeed to be based on
the Packard V-8 according to that article but there was no
displacement specified. The picture in the article does look an awful
lot like a "stretched" 352 (same basic engine as a 320. Makes sense
that they would use the smaller displacement engine with an aluminum
block - maybe 320 bore size with the 352 water jackets would be
logical.)
The whole thing about the split throw, 90 degree design kind of set of
my BS detector when I read the TW article... but it does match up to
your comments... Geez, could that thing actually be real? (the rear
end styling is *so* late-80's Caddy though...)
I guess the thing that I find interesting (and I mean that in a "can
that be for real?) way is that the car in the article is presented in
such a way that it seems to anticipate just about every good design
trend that happened years or decades later - the instrument panel is
very modern, as is the rear end styling... the intake layout is
essentially a direct copy of the "red ram" which I suppose could have
happened... Now I'm having my doubts. I am certain that the cover
pic is a fake... but perhaps the concept is real?
nate
randee
him once, long after he retired, but in our general conversation I asked
him if they ever thought of another 12 (this after some chitchat about a
400"+ motor for the '57's). His comment AFAIR was to the effect that
there always has to be talk about future possibilities, but no funding
was ever put towards such a project. He thought it a dead idea anyway
since hoods were getting shorter. He said he doubted Studebaker ever
thought about it since they they had no capacity for a large car. I
know he told me something about the commercial engines, but I've long
since forgotten the points he made. Kinda wish now I'd had a few more
conversations with him. I presume he has long since passed away as he
must have been well into his 70's when I met him.
--
Steve Miller
"Cars That Never Were." Great book, and thank's for the citation. Think
we need to read that side-by-side with the TW article... [was] long
forgotten along with the rest of the program when Nance failed to obtain
financing [for the 1957 model year]."
Paul
> You basically concur with me, the thing is phony. way too ahead of its
time,
> way too contrived, aqnd combining alternator, power steering
Generator and power steering pump was one unit on some high end British cars
like Bentley and Roll Royce. In addition, chassis lubrication was automatic
from a reservoir on the firewall on the 1956 Bentley Saloon.
Didn't the early Ford Thunderbird mount the power steering pump on the back
of the generator?
> and a automatic
> lithium greese injector inside the engine.
>
>
> What hath God wrought?
>
> This smells like the north side of Pier 17 on the East River... the Fulton
Fish
> Market.
> There are no real photos in the picture, please look at my pdf file and
see how
> a phot reproduces.
Mike W
Mike W.
Packard Hawk
randee
oiling, including Rolls, Packard, Duesie, Pierce perhaps, others.
--