While most enthusiasts are happy to park one classic in their garage, others are fortunate enough to accumulate a collection of desirable and historic vehicles. This 1947 Packard Clipper recently emerged from such a collection and is ready to find a new home. Its presentation is impressive, and although it doesn’t see extensive use, the seller drives it enough to keep the fluids flowing to ensure it is in excellent mechanical health. I must say a big thank you to Barn Finder T.J. for spotting the Clipper listed here on Facebook Marketplace in Longmont, Colorado. The seller set their price at $16,500 for a classic that appears to need nothing.
The Clipper joined the Packard range in 1941, although the outbreak of war the following year brought production to a halt until 1946. The updated model remained on sale until 1947, with our feature car emerging from the factory during the final production year. Its history is unclear, although the seller indicates that it has been protected as part of a private collection for over twenty years. That makes its presentation unsurprising, with the Gray paint shining intensely, and no signs of panel imperfections. The solitary underside shot reveals dry surface corrosion, but no evidence of penetrating rust. The trim and glass look exceptional for a classic of this vintage, and the whitewalls add the perfect finishing touch to a car that was viewed as one of the premier vehicles during this era.
The first thing that I noticed about this Clipper’s interior was the dash. I love Art Deco styling, whether it is on furniture or architecture. This classic carries that theme beautifully, and while I would undoubtedly enjoy driving this Packard, I would be equally happy sitting there and admiring the dash. The interior is trimmed in Gray cloth to match the exterior, and it appears to be flawless. There is no wear, physical damage, or signs of stains. The headliner isn’t discolored, and the wheel appears to be crack-free. Radios were relatively rare in cars at this time, but this Clipper scores a pushbutton unit, a clock, and a heater.
Lifting either side of this Packard’s hood reveals a 282ci flathead straight-eight engine that sends 125hp and 280 ft/lbs of torque to the road via a three-speed manual transmission. The eight shares the same characteristic found in many similar engines from this period, with the power and torque delivered low in the engine’s rev range. This made the Clipper extraordinarily flexible, capable of pulling from low speeds in high gears without protest. The seller states that this Packard has 53,700 miles showing on its odometer, but not whether they hold evidence confirming that the figure is genuine. The car doesn’t see regular use but hits the road enough to ensure that it runs and drives well. Potential buyers can consider it as a turnkey classic that sounds healthy in the seller’s embedded listing video.
Although Packard made a significant sum of money producing military equipment during World War II, it found that it was unable to compete with “The Big Three” in the following years. A merger with Studebaker didn’t help its cause, with the brand a distant memory by the end of 1959. It deserved better than to go out with a whimper, especially considering that owning a Packard was aspirational to many during the pre-war years. This 1947 Clipper is a fitting tribute to its luxury credentials, and the seller has done a wonderful job of preserving its inherent charm. It falls within the affordable category, and with the enormous amount of interior space, it would be ideal for enthusiasts with a growing family. Do you think it will find a new home, and are you tempted to make it yours?
Actually Packard didn’t make a whole lot of money in WW2. At least according to the book the Decline and Fall of Packard. The author claimed if Packard had merely closed the factory and invested cash on hand into war bonds, they would have made more money on interest than it had producing untold war materials. Still a very nice car.
I would so love to own this car. The richest man in my hometown had one almost like it. He was a pretty big turd, but that wasn’t the cars fault. We all drooled when it drove by.
This was an extremely good looking automobile. It looed good in every body style, including the limousine. The very next year, the 1948 Packard became ugly. Instead of having a new bodies like it’s competition was doing, management was too cheap to pop for an all new body design.They took this beautiful ‘47 body and made it fat. Anytime the buying public refers to your vehicle as looking pregnant, you made a horrendous styling mistake. Management decisions like this led to the demise of Packard.
This shouldn’t last long. What a beautiful bargain. No mention of overdrive?
ROGER CURT. ,in 1947 I was 15 years old and in BIG trouble read INNOCENT ON DEATH ROW. this PACKARD MAY BE MINE IF I CAN AT LEAST TALK WITH THE OWNER. i just paid off several loans …Contact bullfrogsnavy @aol.com
My dad bought a brand new Packard clipper in 47. We drove it to 1952 when he traded it on a Chev. Broke my mother’s heart. She loved the clipper.
Such a great car for reasonable money. Not highly desirable but cool.
To Dave Brown: Not Just the “pregnant elephant” for ’48-’50 — but the shortened grille gave it a nose like the face of a parakeet! Goodbye, dignity. I never understood why Packard didn’t DRESS UP their clipper for 1948-1950, because it still looked sleek and stylish in a classic sort of way: nobody accused RollsRoyce of “backward” styling! The Clipper, appearing in 1941, was ahead of its time, and could have endured well through the 1950 year: instead, they stripped it of fancy art-deco accents for 1946, then fronted a bloat-mobile which was lovely on the inside, engineered to the Hilt on the mechanics, and ugly on the outside! 1951 was one HUGE IMPROVEMENT… but by then the damage was done. I suppose that Packard post-mortems will be debated still, long after those of us who saw the classic Packards when they were new are long-gone
To Dave Brown: Not Just the “pregnant elephant” for ’48-’50 — but the shortened grille gave it a nose like the face of a parakeet! Goodbye, dignity. I never understood why Packard didn’t DRESS UP their clipper for 1948-1950, because it still looked sleek and stylish in a classic sort of way: nobody accused RollsRoyce of “backward” styling! The Clipper, appearing in 1941, was ahead of its time, and could have endured well through the 1950 year: instead, they stripped it of fancy art-deco accents for 1946, then fronted a bloat-mobile which was lovely on the inside, engineered to the Hilt on the mechanics, and ugly on the outside! 1951 was one HUGE IMPROVEMENT… but by then the damage was done. I suppose that Packard post-mortems will be debated still, long after those of us who saw the classic Packards when they were new are long-gone. I would LOVE to OWN THIS one!
To Dave Brown: Not Just the “pregnant elephant” for ’48-’50 — but the shortened grille gave it a nose like the face of a parakeet! Goodbye, dignity. I never understood why Packard didn’t DRESS UP their clipper for 1948-1950, because it still looked sleek and stylish in a classic sort of way: nobody accused RollsRoyce of “backward” styling! The Clipper, appearing in 1941, was ahead of its time, and could have endured well through the 1950 year: instead, they stripped it of fancy art-deco accents for 1946, then fronted a bloat-mobile which was lovely on the inside, engineered to the Hilt on the mechanics, and ugly on the outside! 1951 was one HUGE IMPROVEMENT… but by then the damage was done. I suppose that Packard post-mortems will be debated still, long after those of us who saw the classic Packards when they were new are long-gone. I would LOVE to OWN THIS one!
To Dave Brown: Not Just the “pregnant elephant” for ’48-’50 — but the shortened grille gave it a nose like the face of a parakeet! Goodbye, dignity. I never understood why Packard didn’t DRESS UP their clipper for 1948-1950, because it still looked sleek and stylish in a classic sort of way: nobody accused RollsRoyce of “backward” styling! The Clipper, appearing in 1941, was ahead of its time, and could have endured well through the 1950 year: instead, they stripped it of fancy art-deco accents for 1946, then fronted a bloat-mobile which was lovely on the inside, engineered to the Hilt on the mechanics, and ugly on the outside! 1951 was one HUGE IMPROVEMENT… but by then the damage was done. I suppose that Packard post-mortems will be debated still, long after those of us who saw the classic Packards when they were new are long-gone. I would LOVE to OWN THIS one!
Looks to be a model 2103, a Senior Packard with a straight 8. The model 2106 very similar but with a 356CID 8 and the headliner lines would be from front to back not side to side as in this gray one. Both the 2103 and 2106 are considered full classics and owner and car would be welcome to join the National Classic Cars of America club or CCCA. Comments on the 47 vs 48 are so correct. Was a sellers market and Packard could have sold these clipper styled models for 48 and scratched the Pregnant model. I wish their designs had kept a taller vertical grill incorporating it into modern 50s styling. What they came up with in 51 no good imo. They did a Packard Predictor one off just like that and should have used it for production cars in early to mid 50s. I have a 47 2106 club sedan with overdrive. Wonderful car, always ready to go for drives or for show. The LeBaron design is timeless and beautiful. Packard was squeezed by other car manufacturers for steel limiting production. They were using the kind of muscle that drove out other competitors in 50s, ultimately Packard, Studebaker Nash Hudson and Kaiser/Frazer.
To Henry Hopkins: I disagree on the 1951 grille, and here is why. Whereas we NOW see the tall grille as “classic”; by 1951, it simply marked a car as “old” — a death-nell for new car sales after 1949. Americans then wanted NEW, MODERN — and the wide and low look was the way to go. Thank Harley Earl and the 1938 Buick Y-Job concept car, for that! Packard at least incorporated that classic Packard line into the top of their 1951 grille, setting it off instantly as a PACKARD. Beyond the styling-mistake of 1948-1950; Packard’s OTHER major error, was in keeping the Depression-survival strategy of a “senior” and “junior” Packard. The Clipper had been introduced as a streamlined and almost “tomorrow” car, both upscale and sporty — AND FAST for 1941! Re-introducing that nameplate for a more junior-yet Packard, with a Packard front, plain-Jane awkward side trim, and REALLY plain rear, was a HUGE mistake! Ford could have their “Customline” and Chevrolet their “Two-Ten” — but they were “low-priced” makes, to begin with! If Packard wanted to front a car more in tune with capturing some of the Mercury, DeSoto, and Oldsmobile market, they should have made it more distinctive and had nicer tail-lamps and a different front than the regular Packard, then found an completely new name for it, as a different make entirely, with “by Packard” under the new name. That way, Packard quality could have reached a more “everyman-middle” market, without cheapening the Packard brand. If they were going to survive, their premier sterling reputation was what they had — and they compromised it, regrettably. After the demise of Premier and Pierce-Arrow, Packard was THE aspirational American automobile: Cadillac could not compete — and Packard ceded that market to Cadillac, by trying to be something between Buick and Oldsmobile after the War. Packard had been a better car than a RollsRoyce — and they should have focused on that market. By the time they realised that and again went after the top of the market in 1955, it was too late. Packard QUALITY never wavered in the 1946-1954 years — but they should have had more elegant dashoard-styling and other “cues” that would cause the person considering one to instantly know that this was no ordinary car. Exquisite hand-detailing — such as a genuine deep-varnished burl-wood dashboard frame, would have instantly told the story that Packard needed to tell. But they instead cheapened the hubcaps and came off like any other upper-middle Detroit product, losing all claim to exclusivity. In a time when folks still had thought of Packard as THE VERY BEST, their going downmarket utterly wrecked their reason for being. It also bespoke an automobile company desperate for more sales and lowered costs — which made prospective buyers shy away from a car that might be in the throes of dying. Recessions in 1952, and then especially again in 1954, certainly did not help Packard’s woes.
I understand Mr. Reed didn’t purposely repeat his post so many times, and opinions are subjective. When someone calls the 22nd series ugly, may as well kick me and grandpa right in the gut. 1st, Packard was indeed flush with cash after the war, and I often wondered why my grandfather didn’t buy a 21st series, I’m sure he had the money. I bet the guy who sold him the ’48, his name was Leroy Mattick, said, “Sam, let me tell you, for 1948, Packard is all new styling, and you’d be best to wait”. Well, wait he did, and loved his Packard, for 13 years. To say the styling is worthy of criticism, is downright foolish, as all cars had similar styling then. But things changed fast, and the ’51 Packards were the ones that were dated, not the ’48-’50.
To Howard A: No, I didn’t mean to repeat my post that way. I remember when the ’48 Packard came out — it was not thought of as attractive. The 1951 was somewhat ahead of its time, in its “squarish” body lines, when it came out: look at other ’51s, and you’ll see what I mean. It was more where others would be by 1953. Unfortunately, Packard had NOT anticipated the popularity of the hardtop-convertible, and had not made provision for it in their 1951 design. But Packard’s drastic face-lift in 1955 was spot-on, and aristocratically dignified. I agree, that the slab-sides in 1948 were of the then-current trend — but the way it was done, on the 1941 Clipper body, looked terrible. Packard did have money from the War — but if they were THAT “flush with cash”, then why did they merely “warm-over” their Clipper with an ungainly modification, and not produce an all-new post war vehicle? To me, the 1948-1950 Packards lacked the dignity of styling that we had associated with Packard. The fancier “egg-crate” trim on some of those ’48-’50s certainly helped, and the design worked as a “woody” station wagon. Interestingly, there was no station wagon in the ’51 line-up — at a time when station wagons were gaining in popularity. But Cadillac didn’t have one either, except rarely. Oh well… we can debate this all day. I think we can agree, that errors in judgment over the first decade after the War doomed Packard, and that its demise was and remains a national tragedy.
Hi Harrison, and thank you for being cordial. I read Packard had a $130 million dollar deal to make the Merlin engine alone, or $2.83 billion today. Money aside, it wasn’t Packards fault, as all the auto companies had slow starts after the war. Material shortage and strikes probably hindered development some. I beg to differ, since I never drove a “full classic” Packard, it’s tough for me to relate, but I drove pert near every other car, and our Packard really did drive like what I thought a Packard should drive like.
To Howard A: No matter its styling, any Packard I encountered drove the way that a Packard ought to. I think this became a Liability by 1953, when the “junior” Packard Clipper was every bit as good as the “senior” Packard, but at a far more affordable price: unwittingly, they undercut themselves, because their lesser cars were TOO good, and made buying of the senior Packard merely a matter of prestige and not enough of an actual improvement to make the critical difference. What say you?