As one of a reported 675 hardtop coupes made in Packard’s last year – or, Studebaker-Packard’s last year- this 1958 Packard Series 58L was one of three body styles with the 58L series designation, with a four-door sedan and station wagon being the others. This Packard project can be found posted here on craigslist in the beautiful wine country of Sonoma, California, and they’re asking $7,400. Here is the original listing, and thanks to T.J. for sending in this tip!
We have gone over Packard’s sad demise and the “merger” with Studebaker many times. It was a sad end, sort of like in hindsight, the whole company was in hospice care, waiting for the end but still hoping for a miracle. I wonder what a Packard seven-passenger SUV would look like today? Probably not a heck of a lot different from everyone else’s SUVs, come to think of it.
Other than the funky tacked-on dual-headlight clusters/housings/things, there are some killer details on these last-gasp Packards. Not the least of which is that rear 3/4 view as seen in the photo above. That extra little peek-a-boo gun barrel reflector/light hiding in the folded tailfin is great, I think. The trunk-mounted antenna wouldn’t last long at a modern whirling sandpaper-like brush car wash, but aside from same-era Chrysler Corp’s dual rear antennas, that’s as good as it gets.
I expected to see power windows here, as always in a “luxury” car, but there are bigger things to worry about inside this major project Packard. Almost every square inch inside and out needs to be restored, which won’t be inexpensive. The rear seat looks ok but I can’t imagine any of this interior fabric staying out of the dumpster, sadly. The seller says that it was sitting in a northern California barn for 29 years waiting for restoration, one that obviously never happened, sadly. The trunk and underside both also need help, but you already knew that.
The engine is a Studebaker-sourced 289-cu.in. which would have had 225 horsepower and 305 lb-ft of torque. It has zero power now as the seller hasn’t even tried to turn it over by hand it sounds like, and it’ll likely need to be rebuilt as much as everything else on this beauty will. With Hagerty’s #2 excellent condition value of $30,000, it’s doubtful that this car will be handed off to a restoration shop. Do any of you have any room in your hearts (or, garages) for the ’58 Packards? Will this one ever be restored?
A face only a mother could love. The Daimler SP-250 would look at home parked next to this in the garage.
At least the Daimler came with a hemi engine. Yeah, British sports cars were selling like hotcakes here, and Daimler wanted to get in on the worst way, and that’s what they got.
Come to think of it, you are right on the money, brother and sister mistakes, sadly. It will be a rare individual with deep pockets who´ll tackle this project, but I wish him luck.
Hey nice find, Scotty! These always draw negative comments, but I like them! It’s the last year of Packard, even though it is, yes, a Studebaker underneath. I dig the fins and the styling in general. Maybe I should buy it! (Insert cartoon sound of a spouse-swung frying pan clanging off Todd’s head.) Another day perhaps. Another sad tale of a car deteriorating while waiting for the Restoration Fairy. Thanks for the write-up on a good tip by T.J.
I’m with you, Todd, I like them. The catfish front end, those Dagmar, and of course, the double rear fins. Wish I had the money. I’d bag this, get it running and drive as is.
I like this styling a lot. Similar to a hawk, 58 Plymouth Fury or 57 Chevy.
If their heart was in it, a skilled owner could buy it, spend about $5k on interior, $6k on a Checkered chassis and some tin work, $2k on some wheels and tires, $20k on a donor late model hemi drivetrain, leave the patina, clean up the paint and bright work, seal up any leaks in the front windshield and rear window, tub it, slam it and possibly bly fetch an easy $70k if done right. Let the next guy paint it.
678 built and this is body number 662? Is this one of the last Packards ever built?
Hmm. It looks like mostly surface rust, surprising for a Stude of that vintage. The engine is shot. Studebaker made that engine like forever, so it may not be worth saving. The trim seems to be all there and intact, same with the taillights. Were it mine and I had deep pockets I’d do a restomod with a 289 raised up to R1 or R2 level, and a naugahyde interior.
Unfortunately, what this seller is asking is about what these are worth after a frame-off restoration!
According to Old Car Price Guide a #1 car is valued at $43,000.
This “Packardbaker”is a example of the end of the end of one of our country’s greatest automotive manufacturers and how clueless executives can turn a company that built some of finest cars the world had ever seen to this. These cars were supposed to be a stop gap for some really nice cars to come but Packard couldn’t get financing to retool. They are historical, but not in a good way. It would be a financial disaster to restore this car, Unless you put it in the Packard Museum in Ohio, Nobody wanted them then and probably fewer want them now.
The end of Packard came two years earlier, with the closure of the Packard plant in Michigan. The seeds were sown with management’s choice to pursue a purchase of Studebaker; and the fate was sealed when Packard’s management opted not to seek to reverse the purchase of Studebaker upon finding that their accounting was fraudulent.
The Packardbaker was a farce. Packard having lost its body source (Briggs) had few options, but gluing Packard badges on Studebakers was over the top. Ostensibly it was to buy the merged company time to get the Packard lines back in operation; but what this outrage did, was cause customers to flee and dealers to cancel their franchises in disgust.
It was not, then, the end of Studebaker-Packard. S-P kept that name until about 1961, when the name of what had originally been Packard Motor Car Corporation, became The Studebaker Corporation. The former Studebaker management and corporate charter, were both gone. Packard management, including James Nance, had been booted, and S-P directors signed some sort of “Management Contract” with Curtiss-Wright. I don’t know how you outsource management, but C-W clearly didn’t have any interest in anything other than looting what was left of Studebaker.
By the time they were free of THAT, S-P directors had decided that cars were not in their future. The South Bend plant was closed on expiration of the UAW contract. The Hamilton CKW plant was kept open and upgraded to manufacturing, simply to provide ONE model car, formerly the Lark, to sell to dealers – precluding lawsuits for breach of contract. Studebaker invested in lawn tractors, oil additives, generators, railway locomotives (ALCO)…anything they could, to diversify to where they could survive after the auto division was shut down.
Which came to pass, even though, in the height of irony, Hamilton was making money, given its low breakeven point. Gordon Grundy, plant manager and what was left of the Automotive Division management, repeatedly drew the ire of the Studebaker board by suggesting product expansion.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, sealed the fate of the Daytona/Lark and Hamilton, as Grundy was told in March to close the plant as soon as practicable. And THAT sealed the fate of Studebaker, which became a poorly-focused conglomerate, paying the bills by selling off its components.
By 1986, McGraw-Edison bought what was left of what was by then called, Studebaker-Worthington Corporation. And it all started with incredibly boneheaded management decisions within Packard.
VERY well stated! As I’ve posted more than once before, I hold Studebaker responsible for destroying two premium car companies, Pierce and Packard, both of which produced some of the finest automobiles in this country. In both situations Studebaker found itself short on funds due to poor and detached management. The “end” for Studebaker actually started with the 1953 models (Commander?) which is when they stopped building good cars.
Call the scrapper.
Call the scrapper the next time someone finds a similar ’57 Chevy or ’58 Ford, for that matter. At least these cars are different and original, unlike that other ballyhooed junk. I wish l could afford to save it and hope it finds a good home, restored not hot rodded.
Agreed, especially the ’58 Ford; ugliest Ford of the ’50’s.
The grafted on quad headlights and the fin on top of a fin is just cringe.
Even Checker did a better job of integrating quad headlights in their cars.
http://icta.club/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/42nd-st-ii.jpg
The 57’s without the quads was a nice looking car. The quads made it look like Mr Magoo.
Ford’s 58 quad hack job was almost as awful, just slightly better integrated, but they seem to get a pass.
That’s exactly what I was going to say. They are so obviously just tacked on.
It reminds me of one of those “custom” models kits we used to have. All kinds of poorly thought out and executed customization parts.
I wonder how the car would look with them removed, and put on the 1956 tail lights.
Rough crowd here, it’s sad that this rare old girl is not worth restoring, I do like Studebaker’s and other ugly cars but $1,000 would be all that I would pay for it.
Wow, what a cool car! Well, not the doubled fins but this car is pretty awesome looking. Make it roadworthy, safe to drive. Install my 50K mile Dodge 360/727, gut the interior and install whatever seats the local auto recycler has. The exterior I’d leave as is and just drive it. A lot of thoughtless negative comments so far for a really unique car… I might say the same for those rude commentors. This is BARN FINDS, people, not ugh, beautiful (nothing new is beautiful, BTW) current crap.
Just because someone thinks a car is ugly in there opinion doesn’t make them rude. Comments and opinions is what this site is about. The exchange of ideas
and information. My negative opinion of this car is perfectly reasonable. Very little thought or creativity was given to slapping on those headlights and fins.
What a find! While I have encountered a ’58 Hawk, I believe this is the first one of these that I have ever seen.
I guess the PACKARD name displayed across the hood was necessary to convince everyone who still cared that yes, this is what the great car company has become.
Nice job Scotty!
JO
I’m with you, Todd, I like them. The catfish front end, those Dagmars, and of course, the double rear fins. Wish I had the money. I’d bag this, get it running and drive as is.
https://nihilistnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=Catfish
https://nihilistnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=Dagmar
Using the catfish and Dagmar motifs together was just early post-modernism.
If it at least ran and wasn’t on the opposite coast, I’d give it a home and some love. Absolutely nothing like it in these parts of the rust belt. I’d cruise it for the weird looks and questions alone.
I’ve always found these ’58 Packards interesting. Since so few were made and this one is so complete, if rough, it should be restored.
It would never make the owner a profit, so it would have to be a labor of love. Unfortunately, the seller’s ask is really too high for a restorer’s realistic beginning.
So many people with rough old cars like this think they have a pot of gold. They don’t. There will never be a pot of gold in a car like this, just a lot of expense with a possible beautiful result later.
Restore this car. The front end reminds me of Edgar G. Robinson going nyah.If you don’t get that reference you’re a child…😮
Looks like this one has a two-barrel carburetor, which is not correct for this car. Should be a 289 with a four-barrel carb.
WELL worth restoring! Can’t understand all of the negative comments above. I have restored cars in much worse condition than this. This car is a late 1950s icon, and is worth quite a bit when restored.
It must be restored to original; As noted, the end of two car companies crashing and unable to be relevant. But what a tribute to the random and in so many cases terribly ugly styling of cars of that era. My gosh that thing is ugly, but I’d love to have it sparkling in my driveway.
People mock S-P’s products from ’58 and give a pass to Ford. Lincoln. Mercury. Chevrolet. The rest of GM’s absurd line with it’s criminally abused sheet metal.
The ’58 Chevrolet was hideous and riding the roads of my childhood as a late model. They’re still awful but people oooh and ahhhhh.
The hardtop roofline of this is quite nice, easily as well done as Chrysler’s 57-58s.
Needs a good home. Sellers of cars like these need to meet reality or they’ll spend another 28 years waiting for the restoration fairy someone mentioned above.
1958 was a horrible styling year for American autos. The Studebaker was one of the only decent looking cars, but it didn’t translate to the Packard.
I’ve never figured out what they were thinking when they styled the ’58 Packards. The ’57 Packard, while still a Studebaker, had looks befitting a Packard, and was unquestionably a nicer car inside and out than a “common” Studebaker. In ’58 they went all in on the catfish motif, which didn’t at all fit the Packard image (although there was a precedent in some of the late ’40s and early ’50s “real” Packards for strange styling that didn’t fit the luxurious Packard image either, in my opinion).
Hi Phil, just a question, are you from Uniontown Pa??
Why yes, Jack, I’m originally from Uniontown. You’re apparently familiar with my family.
I was born and grew up there, worked there, and lived there until 1999.
Phil, thank you for replying. I lived in Uniontown from 1952 to 1967. I remember, as a 5 year old, going to your father’s dealership in 1957 to look at the new models. If I remember correctly your father was named Berwyn. His dealership was on Morgantown Street as was Tewell Motors who had the Rambler franchise. Fast forward to 2016,my mother was at Hillside Manor assisted living and she told me that your father was there as well. Small world! Anyways I would love to communicate with you about Uniontown and old times. Send me an email at hackjackett1952@gmail.com if you are interested. Thanks, Jack
As a proud owner of a Packard Hawk (#41) of the 588 , I agree the catfish grill is more than unique. I believe it is better looking than the Mercedes grill which i believe ruined the looks of the hawks. This car needs to be restored, but the asking price is double what it should be.
In spite of all the negative remarks, This one doesn’t seem to be in too rough a condition to restore. I agree the price is somewhat high for the condition. Since it needs bodywork to get rid of the rust and a compete interior, plus rebuilding engine and quite possibly transmission as well price should be $1000.00 or even a little less. It’s going to take a lot of labor and money to restore.
I love Packards even the ugly ones are cool. I was stationed in Phoenix in 1976. The place was a trove of cheap rust free classics. That’s when I ran across the 1956 Packard . I ended up with a 1956 Ford Fairlane town sedan with factory air that still worked for 500.00. This car definitely deserves saving. Sometimes it’s not about the money. As a matter of most times it’s not about money.
Looks like what would happen if two cars were brother and sister and had a baby.
I find it interesting that the ’58 Packards came standard with a [Carter?] 4-barrel carb, yet this car has a 2-barrel that looks factory installed. The ad says power steering, however power steering was an option! From the photos of the engine compartment, it’s never had power steering.
I suppose as Studebaker-Packard was desperate to sell cars in a recession year, If someone said I want a 58L-J8 Packard hardtop coupe, with a 2-barrel carb instead, they would certainly built the car.
As a Packard & Studebaker collector from the mid 1960s, I’ve seen less than 2 dozen of these hardtops in all those years. They are rare, and the body style was used only one year.
The last of a grand old marquee and even with the odd ball quad pods certainly worth saving. I would do a Jay Leno style restoration- maintain original body and interior look but updated mechanicals. If you could nudge the seller into selling the old gal at a fair price that is.
I think the Daimler SP250 is a stunning looking car. Nothing ugly about it. But as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just wish I was a beholder. No need to tell me about the doors coming open as you went around corners. That problem was fixed.
Wow that would be the ultimate for a Rat Rod and not too much to change to your liking
1 of 1Resto-Mod, sleeper?
Yesterday I received my latest copy of the Packard Club’s Magazine “The Packard Cormorant”. In the back pages was a reprint of a very rare advertisement for the 1958 Packard, featuring the hardtop version.
What makes it especially rare is the fact it’s in Spanish, and it was from “Studebaker-Packard Corporation Export Division”. I’m hazarding a guess this ad was for all of Mexico, down through South America in general, as it doesn’t mention a specific Packard dealer, city, or even country.