Of all the independent automakers, Packard was the company we all wish could have made it. After decades of producing some of the finest automobiles the world has ever seen, the beleaguered company was purchased by Studebaker and suffered a fate worse than death: badge engineering. If you are into unusual cars, then this 1958 Packard two door hard top for sale on craigslist out of the village of Chittenago, New York may be calling your name. While it bore a Packard name, this car was a Studebaker with a few features tacked on. With an asking price of $16,900, is this last gasp of a once great company priced correctly in today’s market? Once again, we thank faithful reader T. J. for pointing out this unusual automobile.
To be fair, Studebaker had the best of intentions for the Packard brand. The company was trying to buy time until they could create a new luxury Packard. The problem was that Studebaker wasn’t on firm financial footing at the time of the purchase. Matters only got worse from there. The company sold the sprawling Packard assembly plant and leased out the engine and transmission factory to Curtis-Wright in an attempt to shore up its finances. With little choice, the company slapped some Packard parts and a few luxury touches on existing Studebaker models, changed the badging, and sent them out the door as Packards in 1957 and 1958.
The hack job didn’t fool anyone. Packard fans called them “Packardbakers.” Dealers detested the cars so much that a number of them got rid of their dealerships. Only 4,809 cars were sold in 1957. Studebaker, now really low on funds, attempted to restyle the cars in 1958 by adding headlight pods that changed the cars from one headlight on each side to two. Garish fins were added in the rear in a vain attempt to capitalize on the big fin craze. Of course, this was the proverbial lipstick on a pig situation, and the once great nameplate slid under the waves for the last time. Studebaker would eventually go under as well.
The seller of this 1958 Packard two-door hardtop calls it the “twin fin finale” in the ad. The car packs the original 289 cubic inch V-8 engine, an automatic transmission, power steering, and clean paperwork. We do not have any details on whether the car actually runs, nor do we have any other pictures of such important areas as the engine bay and the interior. All we know beyond what you have just read is that the car shows 24,682 miles on the odometer and that it will be a “BIG DOLLAR CAR” when it is restored.
Just 675 of these cars were produced according to the owner. That is a pretty low number for a once major make, but you can surmise that the numbers are low because nobody really wanted to buy one. This car seems to be a fairly complete example despite what looks to be a Ford Ranger “Deer Hoof” rim on the driver’s front. Hopefully, someone saves this car. As much as the car is derided, it does have its place in history.
Do you think that this 1958 Packard is worth the substantial financial investment that a restoration would require? Let us know in the comments.
I’m pretty sure it was Packard that bought Studebaker.
Correct – Packard bought Studebaker, though the transaction was publicized as a merger. By any name, it was a disaster. Studebaker misrepresented its financial condition (either intentionally or through bad accounting), leaving Packard executives unexpectedly at the helm of a ship that was sinking fast. Today, that transaction would have resulted in lawsuits and criminal trials.
I’m a fan of Studebaker-Packard but this thing – ? The ugly body is bad enough but those front wheels top it all off. – Yuck!
Regardless of who owned what or who designed the car it was surly going to take the company down the toilet on looks alone. ’58 was not a good year for a lot of car designs. “Yuck” is good…
The Edsel looks all that much better compared to this morphadite!
Even displayed at an Orphan car show the poor thing would be parked in some far away corner…
Should be in a museum.
The designers of this car must have got the news that Packard was done. These always looked like they were designed after the boys downed a bottle of cheap whiskey.
“Of all the independent automakers, Packard was the company we all wish could have made it.”
Yes, and I also wish AMC was still with us today.
I’d like if Duesenberg made it.
Wither Hupmobile and wither Marmon.
I’ve never seen one of these before. I thought the Packard Hawk was, er, unusual. I’m not sure about this. It’s so ugly it’s….
Wonder what the inside looks like? And under the hood….
In 1954, all Packard needed was a powerful new V-8 engine to stay in the game. But they had a geriatric board of directors without a retirement plan. So they bought Studebaker. Bad idea.
Packard had a very powerful V8, 352 cu. in. IIRC, in 1955. I remember at least two ’55 Packard hardtops terrorizing the A/S classes at drag strips in San Diego and LA – both with standard transmissions. This one, could only terrorize your bad dreams…
Agreed, David, and well-stated!
The taillights are the most valuable part of the car. It’s probably best if we only remember them.
These cars always looked to me like the caricature drawn cars from the 1950s cartoons where cars were deliberately made out of proportion .
Agree! Looks like Huckleberry Hound or Snooper and Blabber should be behind the wheel.
With the current truck/SUV craze, I often wonder what International would be like if they had carried forward to today with their truck/SUV line-up. Perhaps they would be a Range Rover competitor? On the car side, what if Packard had continued, and thrived? Would they be an American-based competitor to Mercedes or BMW, or perhaps a competitor to next-level manufacturers such as Volvo or Jaguar?
The late 50’s– in hindsight, a bizarre time for the American car industry. This Packard is a prime example.
Sorry Bob; must disagree. International did not build good vehicles, at least not from 1960 forward, especially the Scouts. They were underpowered and rusted to the ground even in the driest climates. The Scout II was just another ugly turd with the only exception being the Nissan turbo-diesel engine that was offered for a couple of years. Bad management similar to Studebaker’s; they “did themselves in.”
‘58 was a HORRIBLE year for American cars. About the only good looking cars were the Rambler and the Studebaker. Which makes it all the more amazing that this god-awful Pakard is a Studebaker. The ‘58 Buick was worse though.
I’m pretty sure that BMW and Mercedes were outselling Packard by that point, and they also had other irons in the fire such as motorcycles and aerospace. They also had a fair amount of government support. Damn, I forgot how ugly those 58s were. At least the 57s had a certain dignitas about them.
At least both companies went out as American made cars. Unlike Chrysler who is now a European car and truck maker, and G.M. who is basically a Chinese Company. Many car manufacturers were forced into mergers in the 50’s trying to stay afloat. It’s a shame about Studebaker who had been around since the covered wagon days, and Packard who had once been a mighty company building fine cars. Kaiser/Frazier was another one that just couldn’t compete, then in the mid 50’s AMC was formed through mergers that lasted mostly due to owning and building Jeeps. By the time 1960 came around the writing was on the wall and only the big three would thrive with AMC struggling along for another decade and half. Now-a-days Mexico is the worlds biggest exporter of cars and they don’t even build any themselves. No, there are no Mexican brand cars. American money pays for parts built in Asia then sent to Mexico and distributed throughout the world. By the time Americans get cars they are no longer American built cars, only assembled in American plants. It’s the world economy designed to keep third world countries afloat at American expense. Have a nice day.
God bless America
What a shame that ANY designer would think that’s pretty Looks like they just closed their eyes and put together what their hands found.
Sort of like the last gen Civic with that pre-wrecked look. Or the Hyundai Veloster. Travesties, all three
Very quick look; thought the fins looked like a Desoto?
Great minds think alike. When I first glanced at the picture I thought DeSoto.
With Virgil Exner and his family in both Chrysler and Studebaker, it’s no wonder there is some crossover in the design field. THere are also some European cars that are a tad bit like the 59 Lark.
I find it impossible for an owner of a 1956 Packard Patrician to be able to trade into a 1957 Packard and be satisfied. The 1956 is equal to a 1956 Cadillac Fleetwood.
Well stated and agree wholeheartedly, Tom! The 1956 was a REAL Packard with the gorgeous dash, great style, and innovation like the self-leveling suspension. The 1957 was a warmed-over Studebaker with extra chrome and nice taillights.
Tom, Many people agreed back then . . .
In 1972 I found a very interesting [and loaded with all options] 1956 Patrician with Caribbean trim. It belonged to a Mr, Lawson, who bought a new senior Packard sedan every year. I bought the car from him, and said something to the effect “I’m glad you kept the car all these years!”, and his reply was classic: “I wasn’t going to trade it in on a Studebaker with some Packard trim parts and taillights.”
I’ve owned several 1956 Packards, both Patricians and Clippers, and I’ve also owned 2 1957 Packard Clippers. While the Clippers were quite reliable and fast [with the Supercharged Golden Hawk engine] there was really no comparison. And the buying public knew it. Most 1957 Clipper buyers would have bought a Studebaker President Classic if the Packard was not available. These buyers knew they were getting a Studebaker, not a Packard.
Thought the Studebaker Starlight coupe, upon which this car is based, was a pretty car.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=KxxpmSR9&id=51562FE69DCED4B423A0DB30AE2C8280FB2F0E34&thid=OIP.KxxpmSR9Q3m5gNU1iqdvzgHaEm&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi.pinimg.com%2f736x%2f36%2f21%2f12%2f362112658e26d3f1c1cc0525b4903323.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.2b1c6999247d4379b980d5358aa76fce%3frik%3dNA4v%252b4CCLK4w2w%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0%26sres%3d1%26sresct%3d1%26srh%3d799%26srw%3d1288&exph=457&expw=736&q=studebaker+starlight+coupe+1958&simid=608013025649168878&FORM=IRPRST&ck=008A31450D892918101FF177151140B6&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Bob_in_TN: Congratulations, Bob, I guess it was your modesty that prevented you from telling us you’d been appointed to the Volkswagen board?
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/vw-resurrecting-scout-as-an-electric-american-truck
Lately it seems every 1957 and 1958 Packard-branded car featured on Barn-Finds tells the tale of Studebaker buying Packard, when it has been proven time and again to be incorrect. As mentioned above, Packard bought Studebaker, however it was advertised as a merger.
In 1953-54 Packard had somewhere around 6 million Dollars in the bank and had large [profitable] defense contracts. Studebaker on the other hand, was losing money on every car sold, but had been keeping 2 sets of books. Packard, in it’s haste to close the deal, failed to have Studebaker’s corporate finances verified by a 3rd party.
To learn about the facts, I suggest reading the best book on the subject: Beverly Rae Kimes book on Packard and the Packard Motor Car Company.
This is sort of like the BS claim that the Chevette was the replacement for the Vega.
Another site claims that as well. But they are two different size and price classes here.
Chevette replaced nothing. Vega: absorbed into Monza [they shared a platform]. Monza replaced by the Cavalier [H body to J-Body]. Chevette superseded by Sprint and Metro.
GM had never sold a car of that size in the US, but people still persist in suggesting that the Chevette was the Vega’s replacement. It never was nor was it intended to be.
No one thought that at the time. No magazine suggested it.
So, yes, Bill, I get the aggravation.
Automotive history has become like a game of “Telephone”.
As a young accountant in the auto industry during this time period I remember being told that Packard experimented with 3 V 8 engine protypes and Chevrolet experimented on close to 400 V 8 protypes.
In the mid to late 60’s, Soviet VIPs rode in Zhill limos. I remember reading that the company purchased Packard molds and thes cars clearly resembled Packards of that era. Can anyone verify this? Thanks
Dan baker
I remember reading about that in Motor Trend back in the ’60s when I was a kid, that the dies were sold off and Russia bought them
The ’50s Russian Zil sure looks like the ’55-’56 Packard.
And earlier models were very striking replicas of Packard’s ’40s products.
Dan,
As both the former owner of a pre-WW2 Packard 180 limousine, and someone who had the opportunity to closely examine several ZIS 110 and the armored 115 version, I can tell you the body dies were NEVER shipped to Russia.
Without getting into too much detail here, in 1942 the Soviet Union purchased 2 new Packard 180 model 2008 limousines for Stalin’s use. Upon the war’s end, he told the management of the ZIS [later ZIL] factory to make the new ZIS like the Packard, but with various changes that include an additional 15 degrees rake to the windshield, remove the running boards & sidemount tires, install more modern bumpers, and create the trunk area to resemble the 1941-42 Cadillac limousines.
As most people would do when an absolute dictator tells you to create a copy, they literally did exactly that, only modifying it to suit Stalin’s specific requirements. The ZIS 110/115 cars were basically a copy of the 1942 Packard 180 limo, right down to the mechanicals, with only minor changes. Another major change was the use of metric hardware and specifications.
In my research I have determined that the ZIS factory DID actually purchase small amounts of genuine Packard parts, either from subcontractors or from PMCC, using ‘straw buyers’. With yearly production figures never exceeding 25 cars, it made sense to buy existing USA made parts rather than tool up for such low production runs. For example, on the 3 ZIS cars I’ve examined, all had an original Philco AM radio that had a replacement dial with Cyrillic labels.
From my research into these cars, I believe I have discovered how the claim the ZIS was built from Packard dies came about: An early men’s magazine called MAN published an article [with photos] of a captured ZIS 110 limousine from the Korean war. The article was published in 1952. The vehicle was said to have been a senior general’s car for the north Korean army. The article [I believe it was authored by Tom McCahill, but can’t be sure 100%*] claimed the ZIS was made from scrap dies donated to the Russians under the Lend-Lease program. We know today this was not correct.
*I had an original 1952 Man magazine with the article inside, but it was destroyed in my great fire of 1995, so I’m going by my own memory as to who write the article.
Simply fascinating, Bill; thank you! I was under the impression also that they had purchased old stamping dies from Packard into the ’50s, as the Chaika limos also resembled 1950’s Packards.
John,
I briefly owned a Chaika Gaz 13 7-passenger sedan. Bought it in England but discovered it was still too new to import to the USA. But during my brief ownership I was able to discover there were quite a few USA made parts; under the hood were many MoPaR items like the Bendix power brake unit and master cylinder, and the generator/power steering combination. The nuts & bolts on the power steering were SAE, not metric! The engine and trans were of GAZ design.
The Chaika power window switches were in fact the exact ones as used in the 1955-56 Packards, right down to the part number cast into the chrome switch assembly. The instruments were also from the 1955-56 Packard Clipper line, the Russians probably picked up barrels of them in Detroit [at scrap prices] after Packard relocated to South Bend.
The Russian auto company car was very much like a 1956 Patrician. The selling to Russia and Japan was almost nothing. There was this attatude of protecting what we were manufacturing. I am sure Russia purchased a Packard and the used it as a protype. We would buy Japanese cars and take measurements of every component. Never did we talk about.
Studebaker would have been better served both style-wise and monetarily if they had left the additional fins off the Packard.
There was a large enough difference from the Studebaker, the tail lights that were there followed the style established by the ’55-56-57 Packard.
As they are, as hard as I try, my eyes cannot make sense out of that look.
Like ’62 Dodge or ’61 DeSoto front ends, they make my brain short out.
But they’re so bloody freaky, how can one resist.
Then again, I live on the Isle of Misfit Cars, so….
Vega and Chevette were GM products out of the Lordstown, Ohio facility. The Vegas were sometimes shipped by rail with the cars standing on end within the railcar. This Lordstown plant had the fastest moving assembly line in the world. It produced 104 cars each hour off each line.
In the 60’s GM and Ford were very competitive between each other and there were no friendly socializing either. For a while I worked for Cummings and would park my Buick at the Ford experiential building on Rotunda Drive in Dearborn. Can you believe, Ford complained back to Cummings about this Buick. I was asked to buy a Ford product. I agreed to buy one when I was given a 50% discount on a 90 day upper level exec car. There was little air for the small companies to breathe or survive.
I’m going to go against the grain here. I always champion the underdog, I like it.
It is so unusual with its tacked on duel headlight pods. Those fins are outrageous. Packard always did design taillights that customizers always used them, especially on Mercury’s.
This front-end reminds me of a catfish. Despite all the tacky add ons I personally think it’s a pretty cool car.
But I’m weird.
I would own one. Just for the rear end.
I called about this car when it first appeared on Facebook marketplace a few weeks ago. The guy wanted $19,500 for it then. It does not have a front seat or gas tank. He said it ran on gas in the carb but who knows. Spray painted bumpers, no interior or under the hood photos tell a story and this one has yet to be told. I would be in for around 3K max. These cars are repairable with many studebaker parts but paint, body, chrome and interior would run you into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is a nearly finished one on marketplace at around 26 that, in my opinion is still too expensive. Best of luck to the buyer.
Are my eyes deceiving me or is that a 58 Chrysler tail light assembly on the driver’s side????
Wayne,
I used to sell Packard parts. Both taillight assemblies are 1957/58 Packard. They are essentially the same as used on the 1956 Detroit Packard Clippers, except that because the ’56 assemblies were installed from inside the trunk, and the ’57/58 assemblies had to be installed with studs accessed thru the fender area, they are different. Because it wasn’t possible to reach the top stud in the ’57/58 versions, they created a tapered hole at the top point of the chrome assembly to take a sheet metal screw from the outside.
Probably 40 years ago I was at the World of Wheels custom car show in Washington DC, when I spotted a 1959 Mercury with the Clipper taillights, but one was a ’56, the other was the later version. When I mentioned this to the car’s owner, he said he had never known the reason why they were different. He took my card and contacted me about buying a good ’56 taillight assembly so the 2 would match!
Reminds me of the car Homer Simpson designed for his brother’s car company.
Another good one, Bill, regarding Chaikas, etc. Most people wouldn’t have a clue about what we’re speaking, so I appreciate your insight very much!
The Packard and Studebaker merger was promoted as a merger of equals. Under the hood, it was Studebaker grabbing onto Packard’s cash. The Packardbaker 2 door is a very rare car indeed. The Studebaker version is equally rare. No uglier than some of the Detroit iron of this era.
The price is a tad high as the paint looks fairly dull so likely the rest of the car’s condition follows. Given the rarity it’s the kind of car that could be a crowd stopper. I’ve seen one in yellow and white – absolutely gorgeous!
Now let’s mock the last Mercurys.
Take those awful twin headlight pods off, and lose those ridiculous fins stuck on top of the rear quarters and show off those beautiful ’56 Packard taillights.
Those Virgil Exner fins were the very thing that caused the design studio under Harley Earl to go on a design spree when Harley was out of town. Those fins were spotted in the Mopar lot in Detroit in 1956. THe 58 style was thrown out and the fins were in.
You guys are right, I was working in Russia In July of ’76 for three months and I saw these cars that I thought were a Packard. I wish I could have got a picture of them but you had to watch what pictures you took. My boss and I got picked up one time for taking pictures.
Also Ike I think that was a ’57 Dodge tailfin not a Desoto.
Did anyone notice the chrome on this car, it all looks like it is painted silver?
“If you think you hate it now, wait ’til you drive it.”
I’m going to agree with Angel Cadillac Diva, I like it. Why look like all the others at a Coffee and Cars. Be different.
Packards were cool and classy in the 30’s and 40’s. Fifties not so much and wet under in 56 I believe.
Price dropped $3000, motivated or desperate seller?
I remember those twin headlights and that nose from some early movie – Lucas or Spielberg, I can’t remember – and I always wondered what it was. The car is seen in the film in a stand-in next to a railway track. Because I’ve never seen a car like that in a sales ad.
Except for the double lamps at the front, it looks good. Not like the masses back then, just a little different.
I don’t know if the Russians bought or copied Packard, but I have a contact there who can tell me shure. Russians build the best military aircraft Sukhoi or Kazan Helicopter and offroad vehicles like YPAN 3IL or Kama3 so I don’t think they had to make such a car from foreign parts. I remember the Russians as reliable and fair trading partners – not like “the West” which leaves scorched earth everywhere behind. (A bunch of crooks.)
The last 3 hand made Zil for the victory day parade:
https://youtu.be/cHRX_6rBs6M
Mitch,
A quick primer on the ZIS/Packard question.
During WW2 Stalin was provided with a pair of 1942 Packard 180 limousines. He liked them so much that after the was was over, he ordered his engineers to produce a car like the Packard but with various changes. Those included a more raked back windshield, no sidemount tires or running boards, and a back trunk and roof area similar to the post-war Cadillac limousine. There were some mechanical differences, including an adjustable oil pump pressure device for extreme cold running conditions. And all the measurements and specifications were metric. Most of the ZIS 110 thru 115 limousines, ambulances and a few hearses were hand built in the ZIS factory, and contain what I estimate to be about 90 percent Soviet content.
From the 3 ZIS cars I’ve had the pleasure of examining in great detail, I have identified quite a few small parts that were clearly of US design and supplied by Packard’s subcontractors. As ZIS cars were very low production, it made sense for the ZIS factory to buy certain Packard parts in small batches, rather than modify or tool up for such small production needs. A perfect example is the radio in the dash board. 1 of the cars has the Packard Philco radio in place, and it had the original Philco serial number plate on the back panel. The other 2 showed evidence of the serial number plates, now missing. All the factory needed to do was change out the radio dial plate to one with Cyrillic letters/numbers. Same thing with the King-Seely dash gauges.
The intake and exhaust manifolds are large castings. The 3 ZIS manifold sets I saw had grinding marks where the casting number would have been on a Packard. Plus, the post-war Packard 356 had a vacuum port on the intake manifold, to supply vacuum to both the windshield wiper motor, and the accessory “Electromatic clutch”. The ZIS cars had the same port, plugged with A SAE threaded plug in brass, as no ZIS ever had a vacuum wiper or automatic clutch. The logical conclusion is these manifolds were
manufactured in Detroit.
So yes, The Soviets did COPY the Packard, but with changes. And NO, they did not use old body dies from Packard.
Dave Holls, the former GM Director of Design, wrote a wonderful article [for AACA I seem to recall] comparing the ZIS and Packard limousines, and basically said the same as I mention here.
Ty
Seems Stalin had a good taste as he had not taken one from the big 3
Later they changed the engine for the GAZ 13 from originally used
straight-8 to an own engineered all aluminium V8. (335 c.i. 441 Nm)
The Russians did it like with the Lada where they altered everything
from FIAT. What brings us here to the final question: ‘why
should we change something what is good’ like a Packard? Nope
As longer i observe and study this cars as more im fascinated.
Mitch,
The ZIS/ZIL factory and the GAZ factory made separate lines of cars. The GAZ 13 [Chaika] was an upgrade from the older GAZ 12 that was reminiscent of a late 1940s Buick. The GAZ 12 was powered by [I am told] a GAZ-based 6-cylinder truck engine, not a straight-8.
I am familiar with both cars, as I have worked on a GAZ 12 here in America, and I’ve owned a 1975 GAZ 13 that I bought in England in 1988. While the GAZ 12 cars were loosely based on American body and trim designs, as far as I can determine [based on discussions I have had with a former GAZ factory manager], the GAZ 12 was 100% Soviet designed & manufactured.
The GAZ 13 I had was mostly Soviet, but at least in my car, had numerous USA made parts. I confirmed the Power window controls and the instruments were based on 1955/56 Packard parts*, and many engine ancillary items like the generator and power steering pump were directly out of the MoPaR parts bins. And yes, the GAZ 13 does have an all-new alloy V8. While a few western news sources suggested the new V8 was the former 1955-56 Packard V8, this is incorrect. It’s 100% NOT the Packard V8. I mention this only so others don’t continue to make this claim [not suggesting you made the claim!]
*When Packard suddenly shut down the Detroit facilities, many subcontractors were left with hundreds of small parts like the power window controls and dash instruments, as they had expected Packard to continue using them for at least a few years longer. These surplus parts ended up in a large Detroit salvage company’s inventory by the barrel full. So it was very easy for a foreign car manufacturer to buy bulk spare parts cheaply.