(UPDATED FROM 7/24/2020)
The 1955 Packard Request is a good example of how “retro” styling doesn’t always work very well. This show car took too literal of an approach in trying to evoke Packard’s classic radiator grille of the 1930s. The narrow, tall and baroque grille clashed with a car otherwise dominated by horizontal and modern lines.
Out of respect for copyright, you will need to go here to look at photographs of the Request.
Part of the problem was the design’s execution, which had a tacked-on quality. The retro grille would have looked better if it didn’t extend from the top to the bottom of the front end. This split in half a high-mounted bumper. The grille would not have looked so out of place if the bumper had continued to extend across the entire front of the car.
Chrysler 300C’s retro grille worked better
A more promising approach would have been to use a grille that fit the more horizontal proportions of the 1950s American car.
The 1957 Chrysler 300C offers a useful example. The grille is tall for a 1950s car but it is still fairly horizontal. The trapezoid shape would have fit nicely on the Packard partly because, like the Chrysler, it had a forward-thrusting front.
Also note how the high-mounted bumper dips slightly around the grille’s base. This gives the grille a more imposing look without clashing with the otherwise horizontal theme of the front end.
The 300C’s grille could have worked fairly well if applied to the Packard. The biggest caveat is that the grille would have been too tall and narrow if its top was flush with a flat hood. Thus, the grille should have been lower.
Purists might insist that the top of the radiator grille needed to be flush with the hood, just like in the 1930s. I don’t think that would have been needed even for a Packard, whose most unique feature was the double arch at the top of the grille.
Falcon and Mark II offer additional ideas
A 1955 Chrysler concept car called the Falcon displays a slightly more rounded treatment of a retro grille. Using this approach would have worked somewhat better on the Packard than the 300C’s straight-edged grille.
The Continental Mark II offered an even more modern vibe. The top of the grille wasn’t that much taller than the peak of the regular 1955 Packard’s grille. What gave it a more classic look were the vertical grille bars and a trapezoid shape similar to the Chrysler 300C, albeit more subtle.
Packard’s best choice was arguably a mix of the 300C and Mark II. Of course, we benefit from the luxury of hindsight in saying that. Both cars came out after Packard’s design chief, Richard Teague, developed the Request show car.
Despite the issues raised here, the Request show car proved to be popular enough that the grille was considered for production in 1956. Teague later recalled that that the main reason it didn’t happen was because “we just ran out of time and finances” (Hamlin, 1984; p. 34).
Packard’s retro styling was better than Edsel’s
Teague would take one more crack at retro styling. The 1956 Predictor show car adopted an even more pronounced prow than the Request. In doing so he dispensed with a literal rendition of a classic grille in favor of one flavored with the sci-fi look popular in the 1950s.
The Predictor could get away with such a tall grille because the car, much like similarly styled production models proposed for 1957, had a lower and wider body than 1955-56 models.
The Predictor’s retro nose was overwrought but unique. One could even argue that it worked better than the 1958 Edsel.
By the same token, the Edsel’s nose may have looked much more “modern” than the Packard Request’s, but it was so stylized that it reminded some of a urinal rather than a classic car.
Edsel’s grille changed for practical reasons
Early designs for the Edsel grille were closer to the Predictor in their thinness. The production version was widened because engineers asked for more air intake to the car’s radiator, according to Thomas E. Bonsall (2002).
Oh, the irony that the radiator’s basic function would help ruin the Edsel’s stylistic frivolity. Whatever else you might say about the Packard Request, at least it was earnest in paying homage to the brand’s rich legacy. This gives it a certain authenticity that the Edsel lacked.
Even so, the Request is a good example of how retro styling didn’t translate well onto a 1950s car body. Perhaps because it was a hastily developed show car, the Request has a tacked-on look similar to that of a Volkswagen Beetle with one of those fake Rolls Royce grilles from J. C. Whitney. All in all, it’s a good thing that the design never made it into production.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2002. Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
- Car Styling 2.0; 2020. “1955 Packard Request.” Accessed June 12.
- Hamlin, George; 1984. “Packard’s Request.” Special Interest Autos. No. 83: pp. 32-36. Accessed July 23, 2020.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chrysler (1955, 1957); Continental (1956); Packard (1956)
The postwar era was moving rapidly from vertical to horizontal for grilles. Frankly, Packard didn’t get it right until 1955. Say, for 48 lenghten the “tombstone” to the top of the hood, eliminating the bullnose. Then for annual updates widen it and put a concave crease in the hood aligning with the grille like Vauxhall. That, or separate the tombstone from the grill proper and shrink it, eventually becoming more of a badge and ditching the bird. The 51-54 Packards were OK but a bit overdone and unfortunately resembledcontemporary GM grilles. This is where a small tombstone would work well as a badge.
The Request had promise but it show itself as being too rushed so it was not finessed in execution. I see this is how the hard lines coming off the “radiator shell” just do not mesh with the rounded forms on the rest of the nose. It needed more time with the clay modelers.
As for the Predictor. I would love to get a real inside the studio story on this. Here is a case where it demonstrates way too many different design ideas that all got thrown together. Was that Dick Teague’s direction or his appeasement to the various senior executives that each wanted something from their favorite column of choices even though they did not really belong together. Compare this to most of the same vintage GM Motorama cars where there is a consistency of vision for any one car.
The complete history of the Packard Predictor is told in Leon Dixon’s article, published in The Packard Cormorant magazine #131 (2nd Quarter 2008) and #134 (1st Quarter 2009). These are available from The Packard Club
Studebaker-Packard Styling vice-president William Schmidt assigned the design of the car to Richard Teague, who assigned it to Richard Macadam.
Did not know about Dick Macadam being part of the Packard Styling staff. He would go on to become the VP Design for Chrysler. Then pushed out by Iaccocca so he could bring in Don Delarossa from Ford; Delarossa’s claim to fame was being the drinking buddy of Gene Bordinat at Ford. Macadam had actual talent.
Schmidt, Teague and Macadam all went to Chrysler at the end of Packard and were part of the maneuverings when it appeared that Exner would not be returning from his health issue.
Love this historic detail. I’ll subscribe