(EXPANDED ON 9/30/2022)
Indie Auto doesn’t generally dwell on collectible cars, but a restoration of a 1958 Packard shed light on what I have found to be one of the bigger peculiarities of the postwar era.
Robert Murray (2018) posted at Curbside Classic a photograph of his 1958 Packard two-door hardtop during restoration. The shot showed the rear fenders without the tacked-on fins. Commentator la673 (2018) suggested that the car could look better if they kept the fins off. That is an intriguing idea because those fins were among the ugliest to come out of the late-50s.
This got me thinking: How about also removing the quad headlights? Judging from the two photos below, ditching the quads would not be as simple as switching out 1958 front fenders with those from the previous year. The fender extensions and perhaps the hood would appear to need at least some reshaping.
1958 Packard had some promising design ideas
Reverting to single headlights could significantly improve the 1958 Packard’s looks but it would accentuate another design problem — the grille had a stretched-mouth look.
Because the quads stuck out beyond the fenders, they were in greater alignment with the grille edges and the extra-wide bumper. In contrast, the single headlights would have been more inboard so would have made the grille look like a smiling Cheshire cat.
The tragedy here is that the front and rear end could have been reasonably attractive if a few different decisions had been made. In other words, the 1958 Packard’s design had potential — particularly with the new two-door hardtop.
The extra-wide grille and bumper may have been intended to trick people into believing that the Studebaker-based Packard was larger than it actually was. Studebaker’s family-car body was only 69.5 inches wide when introduced in 1953. However, the 1958 Packard was 76.9 inches — more than seven inches wider!
Packard’s side sweepspear was a big improvement
If you removed the bug-eyed headlights and tacked-on fins, the side sweepspear could have looked quite good. The basic shape was similar to Hudson’s early-50s sweepspear, but oddly enough American Motors didn’t keep it when the brand’s lineup was shifted to Nash bodies.
The 1958 Packard’s sweepspear looked better than the thick horizontal band used in 1957. The Studebaker body was too curved to impose on it the angular trim of the 1955-56 Packards.
Note that in order to add the sweepspear, Packard needed to share the same rear-wheel cutouts as the Studebaker. In 1957 the Packard had been given unique rear-quarter sheetmetal with a horizontal character line that ultimately swept upward into the taillights. The goal was presumably to make the car look longer, but the sculpting around the tailfin tops was decidedly awkward.
The Packard could have looked like a Ferrari
I get cross-eyed whenever I look at the rear of a 1958 Packard. The outward-canting fins added to the top of the fenders clash too much with the upright taillights. That said, I would argue that the biggest problem with the 1958 Packard is still the bug-eyed headlights.
In another post I suggest a plausible alternative for the 1958 Studebaker’s bug eyes — a Jaguaresque separation of dual headlights (go here). That approach would have only worked on the Packard if the bumper was significantly reduced in size and reshaped to allow headlights to fit in the grille. That could have given the car an interesting, Ferrari-type look.
Packard doesn’t exploit rising interest in smaller cars
I suspect that the above-mentioned styling improvements would not have substantially helped the sales of the 1958 Packard. One reason why is that Studebaker-Packard management tried to sell the car as full sized when its interior widths were more akin to a compact. The Packard was 211.8 inches long. This was the same length as a Buick Century — and only 1.2 inches narrower on the outside.
American Motors took a more promising route by betting that an growing number of car buyers did not think that bigger = better. After the Nash-based Ambassador was switched to the compact Rambler body in 1958, AMC advertising emphasized the advantages of its smaller size.
American Motors was in a stronger position to sell the Ambassador’s compactness because it was only 200 inches long — a foot shorter than the Packard. This was despite the Ambassador’s hood being stretched a rather ridiculous-looking nine inches more than standard Rambler’s. The Ambassador was also 5.6 inches narrower than a Packard. Indeed, its exterior dimensions were quite similar to a 1953 Studebaker.
Packard may have been priced too high to sell well
Another advantage the Ambassador had over the Packard was in its price spread, which ranged from $2,587 for a base four-door sedan to $3,116 for a top-end Custom four-door hardtop wagon. That was in the same general vicinity of an entry-level Pontiac or Edsel and a bit above a top-end Ford Fairlane 500.
The Ambassador’s output almost reached 6,800 units despite the the onset of a recession that tanked the sales of premium-priced cars. While that was small potatoes compared to Big Three offerings, it represented almost a doubling of sales from the previous year’s Nash-based Ambassador.
In contrast, the Packard was priced only slightly lower than a Buick Century, at $3,262 for two-door hardtop compared to $3,368 for the equivalent Century. The goal would appear to have been to keep Packard prices similar to the last of big Clipper’s top-end models in 1956.
That strategy sort-of worked in 1957. More than 4,800 downsized Packards left the factory. In addition, Robert Ebert (2013) noted that these cars were priced high enough that they generated significant profit margins for the Studebaker-Packard Corporation. Things didn’t go so well in 1958, when Packard output fell to slightly over 2,000 units.
Perhaps one reason the Packard wasn’t priced as low as an Ambassador was that the top-end Studebaker President had similar prices at $2,639 for a four-door sedan to $2,695 for a two-door hardtop. That nameplate’s output for 1958 was roughly 4,700 units, which was less than half the roughly 11,600 units from the previous year.
Might the Packard have sold better if it had been priced similarly to the President and essentially replaced that Studebaker series?
That would have necessitated some decontenting, but if the Packard had kept its more conventional dashboard it might have met with more buyer acceptance than Studebaker’s weird “cyclops-eye” ribbon speedometer
Toward a death with dignity?
In short, the 1958 Packard had problems that transcended its weird styling. Overly bulky exterior dimensions and an ambitious price tag may have been the kiss of death during a recession.
A more attractive, smaller and cheaper car might not have saved the Packard brand, but it might have gone out with greater dignity.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on June 30, 2018 and expanded on Sept. 30, 2022 and May 6, 2025. Prices and specifications from Classic Car Database (2022) and Flory (2009).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Classic Car Database; 2022. “Search for specifications.” Accessed Sept. 30.
- Ebert, Robert R.; 2013. Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961. McFarland & Company, London.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
- la673; 2018. Commentator in “QOTD: What’s Your Lust Object Car of the Day?” Curbside Classic. Posted June 29 at 4:28 p.m.
- Murray, Robert; 2018. Commentator in “QOTD: What’s Your Lust Object Car of the Day?” Curbside Classic. Posted June 29 at 3:21 p.m.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Rambler Ambassador (1959)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Packard (1957)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Packard (1958); Rambler Ambassador (1958); Studebaker (1958)
I do not know that anything could have saved Packard after 1956. The marketplace simply did not need it with General Motors covering every conceivable market niche other than being a car not produced by G.M. Ford and Chrysler sewed up every market hole elsewhere, leaving A.M.C. and the mortally wounded Studebaker to pick up the crumbs. The world simply did not need a Packard in a Studebaker President body.
What about a Studebaker in a Packard Clipper body?
Shut down South Bend except maybe the pick-up, which would use Packard’s V8. Drop Clipper and use its body for Studebaker. Invest $5-10M to freshen the entire ’57 line and base it on hardtop roofs only. Studebaker would already have one but Packard would need one that was 5 inches longer.
Then circle back to the investors and show them that the company had greatly reduced its break-even and only needed re-tool for two instead of three brands.
It still would have been a tough road ahead as Steve has explained in other posts, but maybe they could have made it.
The fundamental problem to this plan is that Nance allowed the merger to be structured such that he became President but the Board had a Studebaker-leaning majority. Nance almost singlehandedly ruined Packard.
The ’58 Ford was almost as bad as the Studebaker and Packard when it came to tacky, ill advise facelift it got, but it seems to get a pass.
The quad headlights on the Ford are only marginally more deft than the ones on the S-P products.
Dean’s Garage recently posted a piece about the 1958 Ford that was pretty critical of its styling. I’ve been thinking about offering a counterpoint. I find the headlight treatment of the 1958 models much cleaner than the previous year’s Ford because the quad headlights were inset; for 1957 the twin headlights were so large that they had to be tacked on in an odd juxtaposition with the rest of the fascia.
Of course, that’s just my opinion; styling is subjective. What I think we can say objectively is that at least the headlight pods for the 1958 Ford actually fit into the front fenders because they were designed to do so from the outset. That was not the case with Studebaker, whose tacked-on pods look like malignant tumors.
Am with Steve on the Fords. My favorite is the ’58, then ’57, and a more distant third for the ’59. But would be tempted to put a ’57 hood on the ’58 for a cleaner look.
Wonder if those investors would have said yes to a 57 Packard Program that consisted of only one car, the 4-door hardtop at link, except with the Predictor’s hidden lamps. Two, maybe even three trim levels to span a wider price range. A $25M cost instead of $50M.
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/uploads/newbb/969_4e39772d37f3c.jpg
The problem is they no more could get 25 million than 50 million.Every potential lender could see any loan was throwing good money after bad.
By 1958 Packard was already DOA. Their last year of sales tanked. The what if in me wonders if AMC, Studebaker and Packard had somehow managed to merge in the early 50s how’d they faired? AMC/rambler could have been the small car leader, Studebaker competing vs Ford, Pontiac and Dodge with Packard becoming an elite line positioned above Lincoln and Imperial. If nothing else the reimagined company would have better positioned to acquire raw goods at lower prices, had some short of platform sharing with perhaps up to 4 frames and 80% unique bodies plus lower wage costs.
Back to the 58s. I get the same bass fish open mouth vibe from the 58 Packards front end as I do from the 2022 through 2025 Hyundai passenger car line.
Robert Ebert noted that Studebaker-Packard’s breakeven-point estimates were somewhat lower when it kept high-end models like the Packard (or even the President) because the profit per car was meaningfully higher than with just lower-priced Studebakers. So if Packard production had been high enough in 1958 the board might have kept the car around for at least another year.