Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Packard Motor Company returns...sorta...

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 11:33:48 AM10/8/03
to

http://www.packardmotorcar.com/

Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
"styling":

The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.

The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.

The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.

The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.

The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.

Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.

Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
Eeeyuck!

They'll probably sell enough of them to stay in business, because there
are so many people with much more money than taste.

DS

Brent P

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:07:12 PM10/8/03
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.031008...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
>
> Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
> "styling":

Yes. Why are these things always so ugly? Some guy with a garage level
shop can make replicas of talbot logos(sp?) of the early 30's that are
beautiful and this kind of thing comes from a 'serious' effort?


> The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
> directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
> door.

Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
blues brothers.

> The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.

> The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
> popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.

So are the wheels. At least they could put on those spinner wheels that
are popular now.


> The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
> the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.

The taillamps appear to be from a more recent lincoln.


> The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
> and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.

Well at least they can be replaced with ECE units easily! :)

> Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.

If the pictures were bigger we could ID more stuff... the 'fog' lamps
look like standard rice-boy fair bought at the three stooges.

> Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
> Eeeyuck!

I'd rather have a resto-mod'd packard built from some shell they found
in a junkyard out in nevada.


Alex Rodriguez

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:18:26 PM10/8/03
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.031008...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
das...@engin.umich says...

>http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
>Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
>"styling":

Looks like Hyundai styling to me.
-------------
Alex


Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:20:39 PM10/8/03
to
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Brent P wrote:

> > http://www.packardmotorcar.com/


> >
> > The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
> > directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
> > door.
>
> Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
> blues brothers.

...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
'77 Cutlass.

DS


Alex Rodriguez

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 4:17:51 PM10/8/03
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.031008...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
das...@engin.umich says...

>...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
>'77 Cutlass.

I'm pretty sure that would be a Grand Prix.
---------------
Alex

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 7:25:21 PM10/8/03
to
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
>
> Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
> "styling":
>
> The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
> directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
> door.
>
> The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.

The overall look actually kinda reminds me of a new Jag. Not in a good
way. You're right about the olds connection - that side shape was an
olds styling cue for years. Looks better on an Olds. Trunk like looks
like that new big Hyundai. Gak.

>
> The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
> popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.

Sadly enough, I feel obligated to point out that the Excalibur was
styled by Brooks Stevens of Studebaker fame and the original Excaliburs
were built on leftover Studebaker chassis. Oh how the mighty etc.

Of course, I never did like what Stevens did to the Hawk either - took
Bob Bourke's kickass, timeless Euro-flavored design and turned it into
an old guy car.

Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.

>
> The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
> the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.
>
> The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
> and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.
>
> Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.
>
> Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
> Eeeyuck!
>
> They'll probably sell enough of them to stay in business, because there
> are so many people with much more money than taste.
>
> DS
>

For the price you could probably buy a helluva REAL Packard. I'll have
a '55 Caribbean convertible please. Already got tons o' spare
drivetrain bits for it :)

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 10:49:06 PM10/8/03
to

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

The four-door shared the Le Mans platform. (My folks had both a '75 Salon, and a
'73 Grand Am, both sedans--probably the two best looking models built on that
chassis--the Cutlass was Cameo White with a Cranberry vinyl roof and matching
velour interior. Pretty classy, it was, seriously...) By the way, wasn't _A
LOT_ of the chassis engineering incorporated in the '77 B/C/D cars based rather
heavily on the '73 A/G-body intermediates?

Back to the topic, why do those "relaunched marque" luxury cars always end up
looking like particularly poorly executed fiberglass kits? Virtually no fine
detail at all, and this design is better than most in that respect. A vulgar
product for a crass clientele, I suppose.

Instead of straining so hard to incorporate a pin-the-tail-on-the-donky hash of
retro styling details into a modern body style that it ends up looking like a
particularly bloated, elephantine parody of a current Jaguar sedan
[whew--mouthfull!], it could so _easily_ have looked so much _better_...

http://media.gm.com/events/productseminar/images/hires/X02IN_AP009.jpg

--Aardwolf.


Ennui Society

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:35:41 AM10/8/03
to
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.

I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.

Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.

Oliver

Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 1:45:31 AM10/9/03
to

Ennui Society wrote:

> Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
> pretty exotic.
>
> I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
> which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
> redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
> Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
>
> Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
> stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
> Raymond Loewy.

I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!

--Aardwolf.


Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 6:34:18 AM10/9/03
to
Aardwolf wrote:

The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...

Brent P

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 11:08:04 AM10/9/03
to
In article <MQahb.2$TS3....@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:

> The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
> luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
> a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...

I aways saw the avanti as step on the road to pony cars like the
mustang, f-bodies, etc.... Actually the car would have fit right into an
early 1980s product line up.

Ennui Society

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:35:22 PM10/8/03
to
Ah, got it.

About the Avanti, the owners switched different chassis over the years
as well as doing some cosmetic works that move Avanti further and
further away from its originality. Even stretching the Avanti at a
customer's request called LSC in 1980s. Then convertible. Then horrible
four-door Avanti. The latest F-body Avanti was a final straw.

Think of Porsche 911 excellent example of evolution whilst retaining its
original concept and design.

Oliver

Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 6:20:03 PM10/9/03
to

Nate Nagel wrote:

But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)

--Aardwolf.

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 6:56:14 PM10/9/03
to

The problem with that statement is that is probably how a lot of other
people viewed the Avanti as well... when it was introduced in 1963 it
has a sticker of somewhere around $4K - I'm sure you can imagine what
would have happened to Avanti sales after the Mustang was introduced
(for much less...) had Studebaker kept the doors open that long.
Granted, it had a larger engine than the 'stang, the kickass fiberglas
body, and an optional supercharger, but when you could get a Mustang
'vert with a V-8 and 4-speed for less than a non-supercharged Avanti,
the numbers didn't add up.

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 9, 2003, 7:04:32 PM10/9/03
to
Ennui Society wrote:

> Ah, got it.
>
> About the Avanti, the owners switched different chassis over the years
> as well as doing some cosmetic works that move Avanti further and
> further away from its originality. Even stretching the Avanti at a
> customer's request called LSC in 1980s. Then convertible. Then horrible
> four-door Avanti. The latest F-body Avanti was a final straw.
>
> Think of Porsche 911 excellent example of evolution whilst retaining its
> original concept and design.
>
> Oliver

I spent some time talking to Mike Kelly at the Chicago Auto Show in
February and supposedly Chuck Beck (yeah, that Chuck Beck) was involved
to some extent in the design of a replacement, proprietary chassis for
the "next" Avanti. That's all I know; both Mike and Chuck were very
friendly but still very closed-mouthed about their plans. (of course,
that makes sense - who wants to go divulging all their secret plots to
one of those crazy Stude club guys?) Of course, that was 9 mos. ago and
the XUV still isn't in production yet, which I was told was the first
order of business.

I did get a pic of me and Chuck in front of his 904 replica though :)
(yeah, I can still get mildly starstruck...) The Beck Lister was
awesome looking too...

nate

Ennui Society

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 10:11:09 PM10/8/03
to
Hello,

Oh, does that mean the next incarnation of Avanti is possibly more
closer to original concept and execution albeit the modern technology?

Oliver

Nate Nagel wrote:

[snip]

> I spent some time talking to Mike Kelly at the Chicago Auto Show in
> February and supposedly Chuck Beck (yeah, that Chuck Beck) was involved
> to some extent in the design of a replacement, proprietary chassis for
> the "next" Avanti. That's all I know; both Mike and Chuck were very
> friendly but still very closed-mouthed about their plans. (of course,
> that makes sense - who wants to go divulging all their secret plots to
> one of those crazy Stude club guys?) Of course, that was 9 mos. ago and
> the XUV still isn't in production yet, which I was told was the first
> order of business.

[snip]

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 8:06:46 AM10/10/03
to
Oliver,

You now know 99% of what I gleaned from talking to those two. It did
sound like it was going to be a little more capable performance wise
than the F-Body, but that's it. Since the XUV fiasco, Mike et. cie.
have been much more quiet.

I did get my first publishing credit though - as the XUV was unveiled
at the Chicago show and I was there Friday night and had pictures
emailed to my friend with a web site before dinner, they were some of
the first widely available pics of the XUV on the web and they were
actually used by an Estonian auto magazine. I have a copy; I can't
read it :/

nate

Ennui Society <o...@none.net> wrote in message news:<voc5e0c...@corp.supernews.com>...

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 8:10:48 AM10/10/03
to
Aardwolf <se1a...@itis.com> wrote in message news:<3F85DF13...@itis.com>...

Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
:P)

Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
I suspect those people of lacking souls)

> --either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
> concerned.)
>

I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
for leather seats.

nate

Classic Car Fair

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 10:50:31 AM10/10/03
to


The real Avanti is a spunky looking thing:
http://motormarket.orcon.net.nz/1963studebakeravanti.htm

C.R. Krieger

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 5:01:51 PM10/10/03
to
Nate Nagel <njn...@hornytoad.net> wrote in message news:<D11hb.34$Ou1.1...@news.abs.net>...

>
> Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
> made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
> that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.

Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
--
C.R. Krieger
P.S.: Ever see a Packard Daytona? Now *that's* a good-looking concept
car!

Brent P

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 5:46:44 PM10/10/03
to
In article <a8a578a8.0310...@posting.google.com>, C.R. Krieger wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njn...@hornytoad.net> wrote in message news:<D11hb.34$Ou1.1...@news.abs.net>...
>>
>> Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
>> made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
>> that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
>
> Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
> hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
> bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
> worst-looking Packards ever.


I think this is what they may have been going for:
http://icbooks.homestead.com/files/36.05packard.jpg


C.R. Krieger

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 11:03:21 PM10/10/03
to
tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<8NFhb.256860$mp.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...

No; I said a '48 and I *meant* a '48:

http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg

See?
--
C.R. Krieger
The Ultimate Automotive Fashion Arbiter

Brent P

unread,
Oct 10, 2003, 11:32:20 PM10/10/03
to
In article <a8a578a8.0310...@posting.google.com>, C.R. Krieger wrote:
> tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<8NFhb.256860$mp.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
>> In article <a8a578a8.0310...@posting.google.com>, C.R. Krieger wrote:
>> > Nate Nagel <njn...@hornytoad.net> wrote in message news:<D11hb.34$Ou1.1...@news.abs.net>...
>> >>
>> >> Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
>> >> made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
>> >> that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
>> >
>> > Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
>> > hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
>> > bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
>> > worst-looking Packards ever.
>>
>>
>> I think this is what they may have been going for:
>> http://icbooks.homestead.com/files/36.05packard.jpg

> No; I said a '48 and I *meant* a '48:

I know I can read. I offered my opinon. I simply find the '42 has more
of the styling elements they are trying to replicate, including a
vertical grille.

> http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg

> See?

Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48. But with only a
beltline contour on the side I went looking for a similiar car with
front and rear contours. I found the '42. Both cars together have just
about everything they tried to incorporate.


C.R. Krieger

unread,
Oct 11, 2003, 8:31:36 PM10/11/03
to
tetraet...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<8RKhb.534597$Oz4.433163@rwcrnsc54>...

> In article <a8a578a8.0310...@posting.google.com>, C.R. Krieger wrote:
>
> > No; I said a '48 and I *meant* a '48:
>
> I know I can read. I offered my opinon.

I know. I wasn't being nasty; just emphatic.

> > http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg
>
> > See?
>
> Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48.

"1948 Packard picture". Worked for me.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em m'dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields

Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 11, 2003, 8:50:10 PM10/11/03
to
C.R. Krieger wrote:

I respectfully disagree, I think the "bathtubs" were the worst looking
Packards. Either way, styling did suffer for PAckard in the 40s.

Brent P

unread,
Oct 11, 2003, 10:43:24 PM10/11/03
to
In article <a8a578a8.03101...@posting.google.com>, C.R. Krieger wrote:

>> Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48.

> "1948 Packard picture". Worked for me.

I used '1948 packard' in the image search tool....


Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 11:49:35 PM10/13/03
to

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Aardwolf <se1a...@itis.com> wrote in message news:<3F85DF13...@itis.com>...

> > But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
> > sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
> > Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
> > pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
> > ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
> > Hawks
>
> Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
> :P)

Oh yeah?? Well... Well... So what if I do?

>
> Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
> I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
> I suspect those people of lacking souls)
>
> > --either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
> > concerned.)
> >
>
> I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
> dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
> out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
> there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
> for leather seats.

Actually, as an overall styling job, I think I'd have to say the '55 four-doors are my favorites.
Speedster nose and all.
The '54s are really clean, but I just like that chrome-loop saber jet grille. Too bad none of the
later sedans had Hawk
styling, gaudier though it was.

As for leather--all I can say is "Not in Wisconsin". Definitely better than vinyl, nice look and
smell, but what I really like
is a nice, stiff, heavy duty German-style velour. Moderates seasonal temperature extremes and has
a slight sort of
velcro effect to help keep the occupant from sliding around in the seat.

--Aardwolf.


Nate Nagel

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 6:41:52 AM10/14/03
to
Aardwolf wrote:

If you're serious, drop me a line off group. I have a line on a real
nice '55 Prez 4-door that would make an excellent beater driver or
fairly easy resto. As you will discover if you take me up on it though,
rechroming a '55 is *not* cheap.

0 new messages