(EXPANDED FROM 2/26/2021)
The above-pictured car is a 1951 Packard 300 in front of an auto shop in Northern California. The faded paint and spray-painted “For Sale” sign are good metaphors for the new-for-1951 design, which had an anonymous look and decontented quality that arguably lacked the prestige of prewar Packards.
Even so, this body was modern enough that it was produced through 1956, when a financial crisis resulted in Packard closing its Detroit-based operations. For two additional years all Packards would be based upon thinly disguised Studebakers (go here for further discussion).
The 1951 Packard represented a dramatic change from the previous generation, whose curvaceous shape was based upon the once trend-setting but now dated 1941 Clipper.
1951 redesign was modern but rather generic
For 1951 Packard offered a squared-off profile that was as modern as any of its Big Three competitors. And despite some weaknesses we discuss below, the body aged better than any of its competition from other independent automakers. Yet its generic quality arguably undercut Packard’s viability.
The car’s fascia may very well have been the most massive of its time. That partly resulted from moving the headlights up to almost beltline height, but was accentuated by an enormous grille combined with unadorned sheetmetal wrapping around the sides of the fascia below the headlights.
Compare that to Cadillac’s fascia (see below), with its much lower visual center of gravity due to lower-mounted headlights and a wraparound grille.
For 1951 Packard’s classic vertical grille was discarded in favor of a horizontal look. Vertical bars in the grille’s centerpiece hinted at Packard’s past, but by 1953 those were further minimized with ribbing on a thick horizontal grille bar.
In 1954 another key Packard visual cue was discontinued — the chrome spears on the upper front fenders.
One of the biggest challenges that Packard’s postwar designers faced was how to apply its most iconic feature — a uniquely shaped radiator grille — to the much lower and wider car shapes of the 1950s.
At least some people thought Packard ran too far away from the classical look — and lobbied for a return of the radiator grille. As discussed here, the 1955 Packard Request show car was not a very satisfying response.
High-end models were more heavily differentiated
The 1951 Packards also received new nameplate nomenclature. The 300 was placed on the longer, 127-inch wheelbase shared with the top-of-line Patrician four-door sedan but offered less luxurious trim. The longer wheelbase added five inches of rear-seat legroom compared to the entry-level 200 series.
Exterior styling changes from the 200 included a wrap-around rear window. These Packards had more glass area than any other American car except for the 1951 Kaiser (Hamlin and Heinmuller, 2002).
Perhaps more noticeable is that higher-end Packards sported their own taillights. These were derisively dubbed “bull nuts” tailights, but they gave the rear end a more horizontal and dressed up look than the 200’s bland vertical lights.
Given the widespread view that Packard didn’t do enough in the postwar period to protect its luxury image, it should be noted that high- and low-end models were more greatly differentiated than the full-sized, premium-priced cars of other independent automakers.
The top-of-line models from Hudson and Nash were mainly distinguished by a longer wheelbase ahead of the cowl, which didn’t increase interior room.
The automatic transmission was problematic
The car pictured below is equipped with an automatic transmission called the Ultramatic. Packard was the only independent to develop its own in-house design. That was a costly endeavor which would later contribute to the automaker’s financial travails.
Might Packard have been better off trying to supply other automakers with automatics rather than maintaining the Ultramatic’s exclusivity? The brand didn’t do so until 1955, when it sold a V8 and Ultramatic drivetrain to American Motors for installation in their Hudson and Nash full-sized cars. That arrangement fell apart within two years.
Drive to modernize undercut Packard traditions
During the 1951 model year, Packard’s traditional cloisonné emblems were replaced with painted ones on the wheel covers (Hamlin and Heinmuller, 2002). That may have saved money but, as you can see, the paint wasn’t durable.
The cormorant had been used as a Packard hood ornament since 1932. The 1951-52 Packards were the last ones to display such a large bird. For 1953 the ornament was much shorter.
In 1955 the cormorant was so stylized that it looked almost like a jet from some angles (Hamlin and Heinmuller, 2002a). This was undoubtedly intentional given Packard’s effort to look more modern (for further discussion about the 1955 Packard go here).
The 1951 design aged fairly well despite weaknesses
Packard’s chief stylist, John Reinhart, later complained that the car’s beltline (called “high pockets”) was roughly an inch-and-a-half too high. Engineering staff “was more concerned over the cost of glass than the price of sheet metal tooling,” wrote George Hamlin and Dwight Heinmuller (2002a, p. 546).
Despite the high beltline, the Packard’s basic body aged fairly well because it didn’t experiment with exotic features such as Hudson’s turret-topped profile, Nash’s enclosed front wheels, Kaiser’s bubble-shaped roofline and Studebaker’s anteater snout.
One of the main weaknesses of the Packard’s basic design was that sedans had thick, body-colored door-window frames and a B-pillar that was exposed on side sheetmetal. This stood in contrast to the 1952-57 Nashes, which had thin frames and a hidden B-pillar. In addition to looking more modern, the Nash could have have come come out with a four-door hardtop without much fewer sheetmetal changes that Packard would have needed.
In addition, Packard’s body sides had old-fashioned rear-quarter bulges. These evoked the outboard rear-wheel fenders of the classical period, but as the 1950s progressed they would look increasingly out of step with the postwar shift to smooth side styling.
One 1955 design proposal fixed both of the above problems by giving the Packard a complete reskinning (Hamlin and Heinmuller, 2002a). Unfortunately, a less ambitious facelift went into production, probably because its changes were cheaper. Packard was instead investing heavily in a new V8, suspension and assembly plant. As we discuss further here, all that change would prove too much, too fast.
In the absence of major production and reliability problems, the cleverly facelifted 1955-56 Packard might have sold at profitable levels. That said, the styling of the last full-sized Packards didn’t go far enough in capturing the brand’s historic distinctiveness. This arguably contributed to Packard’s demise.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted August 1, 2019 and expanded on Feb. 26, 2021 and Sept. 18, 2023.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Hamlin, George and Dwight Heinmuller; 2002a. “All-New Contour Styling.” In Kimes, Beverly Rae, ed., pp. 544-561. Packard: A History of the Motor Car and the Company. Automobile Quarterly Publications.
- ——; 2002b. “Let the Ride Decide: The Fifty-Fifth Series 1955.” In Kimes, Beverly Rae, ed., pp. 582-601. Packard: A History of the Motor Car and the Company. Automobile Quarterly Publications.
BROCHURES & ADVERTISING:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Hudston (1953); Kaiser (1953); Nash (1953); Packard (1954, 1955); Studebaker (1953)
I was born in 1951, so I didn’t really notice cars by type until 58 or so, after Packard dried up. I didn’t see many 51 to 54 Packards, and I tended to confuse them with Pontiacs of the same vintage. I wonder if that was a sales problem?
Growing up,the last Packard that I saw on the street was a Packard Hawk. This was in 1968 and as a 13 year old car guy, I knew that this was a spin off of Studebaker’s earlier Hawk series.
In the 1950’s I think that Packard had a problem similar to Lincoln. In 1951 Lincoln brought out a series of well engineered cars that looked just like a slightly bigger Mercury. Chrysler followed in this same vein. My Dad bought an old ’52 Lincoln sedan and I thought that it was incredibly dull.
The ’55 Packards were as good looking and as stylish as a Cadillac, but they had too many problems. I think that they resembled the Lincolns as both shared a long, smooth,low silhouette. Somehow it was always the Cadillac that caught everyone’s eye. Their popularity meant that there were always buyers ready to snap up used models as soon as they became available. It seemed that everyone wanted a Caddy, new or old. Even though they were the most outrageously styled vehicles they hit their buying target, dead center.
The Cadillac was like your younger cousin that dressed too flashily,told too many stories,laughed too loud,and smoked and drank too much. But he was always the hit of the party. He was always the one that everyone anticipated showing up at the gathering. It’s a fine line to thread, sometimes too much is just too much, and sometimes it’s just enough!
Packard got the reputation as a wall flower.
I’m not all that familiar with styling cues of the 30s and 40s for the various brands. It seems though that Packard stuck with the vertical tombstone grill in various forms while other makes moved to rounder fronts bearing no relationship to the radiator. As the article states, Packard’s signifying feature did not adopt to the horizontal postwar look. In my opinion, it didn’t become acceptable looking until the 55s, and they didn’t get it really right until the Predictor.
Packard clearly “borrowed” front facia grille elements from the already defunct Hudson models. Put them side by side and there’s no doubt.
We could wonder what if Packard had bought Hydramatic transmission from GM instead of developing their own?