Discussion:
Packard Motor Company returns...sorta...
(too old to reply)
Daniel J. Stern
2003-10-08 15:33:48 UTC
Permalink
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/

Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
"styling":

The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.

The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.

The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.

The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.

The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.

Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.

Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
Eeeyuck!

They'll probably sell enough of them to stay in business, because there
are so many people with much more money than taste.

DS
Brent P
2003-10-08 17:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
Yes. Why are these things always so ugly? Some guy with a garage level
shop can make replicas of talbot logos(sp?) of the early 30's that are
beautiful and this kind of thing comes from a 'serious' effort?
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.
Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
blues brothers.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.
The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.
So are the wheels. At least they could put on those spinner wheels that
are popular now.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.
The taillamps appear to be from a more recent lincoln.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.
Well at least they can be replaced with ECE units easily! :)
Post by Daniel J. Stern
Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.
If the pictures were bigger we could ID more stuff... the 'fog' lamps
look like standard rice-boy fair bought at the three stooges.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
Eeeyuck!
I'd rather have a resto-mod'd packard built from some shell they found
in a junkyard out in nevada.
Daniel J. Stern
2003-10-08 17:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.
Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
blues brothers.
...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
'77 Cutlass.

DS
Alex Rodriguez
2003-10-08 20:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
'77 Cutlass.
I'm pretty sure that would be a Grand Prix.
---------------
Alex
Aardwolf
2003-10-09 02:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
Post by Brent P
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.
Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
blues brothers.
...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
'77 Cutlass.
The four-door shared the Le Mans platform. (My folks had both a '75 Salon, and a
'73 Grand Am, both sedans--probably the two best looking models built on that
chassis--the Cutlass was Cameo White with a Cranberry vinyl roof and matching
velour interior. Pretty classy, it was, seriously...) By the way, wasn't _A
LOT_ of the chassis engineering incorporated in the '77 B/C/D cars based rather
heavily on the '73 A/G-body intermediates?

Back to the topic, why do those "relaunched marque" luxury cars always end up
looking like particularly poorly executed fiberglass kits? Virtually no fine
detail at all, and this design is better than most in that respect. A vulgar
product for a crass clientele, I suppose.

Instead of straining so hard to incorporate a pin-the-tail-on-the-donky hash of
retro styling details into a modern body style that it ends up looking like a
particularly bloated, elephantine parody of a current Jaguar sedan
[whew--mouthfull!], it could so _easily_ have looked so much _better_...

Loading Image...

--Aardwolf.
Ennui Society
2003-10-08 04:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.

I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.

Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.

Oliver
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Daniel J. Stern
Post by Brent P
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.
Reminds me of that pontiac that carrie fisher's character drove in the
blues brothers.
...which was the Pontiac version, I believe, of the same bodyshell as the
'77 Cutlass.
The four-door shared the Le Mans platform. (My folks had both a '75 Salon, and a
'73 Grand Am, both sedans--probably the two best looking models built on that
chassis--the Cutlass was Cameo White with a Cranberry vinyl roof and matching
velour interior. Pretty classy, it was, seriously...) By the way, wasn't _A
LOT_ of the chassis engineering incorporated in the '77 B/C/D cars based rather
heavily on the '73 A/G-body intermediates?
Back to the topic, why do those "relaunched marque" luxury cars always end up
looking like particularly poorly executed fiberglass kits? Virtually no fine
detail at all, and this design is better than most in that respect. A vulgar
product for a crass clientele, I suppose.
Instead of straining so hard to incorporate a pin-the-tail-on-the-donky hash of
retro styling details into a modern body style that it ends up looking like a
particularly bloated, elephantine parody of a current Jaguar sedan
[whew--mouthfull!], it could so _easily_ have looked so much _better_...
http://media.gm.com/events/productseminar/images/hires/X02IN_AP009.jpg
--Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
2003-10-09 05:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!

--Aardwolf.
Nate Nagel
2003-10-09 10:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!
--Aardwolf.
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...

nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Brent P
2003-10-09 15:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...
I aways saw the avanti as step on the road to pony cars like the
mustang, f-bodies, etc.... Actually the car would have fit right into an
early 1980s product line up.
Nate Nagel
2003-10-09 22:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by Nate Nagel
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...
I aways saw the avanti as step on the road to pony cars like the
mustang, f-bodies, etc.... Actually the car would have fit right into an
early 1980s product line up.
The problem with that statement is that is probably how a lot of other
people viewed the Avanti as well... when it was introduced in 1963 it
has a sticker of somewhere around $4K - I'm sure you can imagine what
would have happened to Avanti sales after the Mustang was introduced
(for much less...) had Studebaker kept the doors open that long.
Granted, it had a larger engine than the 'stang, the kickass fiberglas
body, and an optional supercharger, but when you could get a Mustang
'vert with a V-8 and 4-speed for less than a non-supercharged Avanti,
the numbers didn't add up.

nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Aardwolf
2003-10-09 22:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!
--Aardwolf.
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...
nate
But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)

--Aardwolf.
Nate Nagel
2003-10-10 12:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!
--Aardwolf.
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...
nate
But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks
Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
:P)

Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
I suspect those people of lacking souls)
Post by Aardwolf
--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)
I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
for leather seats.

nate
Classic Car Fair
2003-10-10 14:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!
--Aardwolf.
The original Studebaker Avanti was not particularly refined either,
luxury pretensions notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that they aren't
a kick in the ass to drive though or that I don't want one badly...
nate
But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks
Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
:P)
Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
I suspect those people of lacking souls)
Post by Aardwolf
--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)
I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
for leather seats.
nate
The real Avanti is a spunky looking thing:
http://motormarket.orcon.net.nz/1963studebakeravanti.htm
Aardwolf
2003-10-14 03:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks
Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
:P)
Oh yeah?? Well... Well... So what if I do?
Post by Nate Nagel
Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
I suspect those people of lacking souls)
Post by Aardwolf
--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)
I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
for leather seats.
Actually, as an overall styling job, I think I'd have to say the '55 four-doors are my favorites.
Speedster nose and all.
The '54s are really clean, but I just like that chrome-loop saber jet grille. Too bad none of the
later sedans had Hawk
styling, gaudier though it was.

As for leather--all I can say is "Not in Wisconsin". Definitely better than vinyl, nice look and
smell, but what I really like
is a nice, stiff, heavy duty German-style velour. Moderates seasonal temperature extremes and has
a slight sort of
velcro effect to help keep the occupant from sliding around in the seat.

--Aardwolf.
Nate Nagel
2003-10-14 10:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Aardwolf
But it was a serious, bona-fide automobile from a real manufacturer. And it had some pretty
sophisticated tricks for the early '60s--disc brakes and a rear stabilizer bar for instance.
Not to mention real, bona fide style, right down to the detailing. They managed to get a
pretty large amount of power out of 304 cubic inches, too, even if almost no cars were ever
ordered with those particular engines. (FWIW, I actually like the looks of the last
Hawks
Yuck! (aardwolf likes old guy cars... aardwolf likes old guy cars...
:P)
Oh yeah?? Well... Well... So what if I do?
Post by Nate Nagel
Well, the fact that *some* people like them I guess is success enough,
I'm sure not everyone likes '54 Commander Starliners either (although
I suspect those people of lacking souls)
Post by Aardwolf
--either those or the '55 Speedsters were the best looking ones, as far as I'm
concerned.)
I'll agree with you there, so long as you graft a '54 nose on it. The
dash and instruments of a Speedster could be a model for "how to lay
out a plain yet elegant and functional instrument panel." Right up
there with the early Porsche 911 IMHO. And besides, I've got a thing
for leather seats.
Actually, as an overall styling job, I think I'd have to say the '55 four-doors are my favorites.
Speedster nose and all.
The '54s are really clean, but I just like that chrome-loop saber jet grille. Too bad none of the
later sedans had Hawk
styling, gaudier though it was.
As for leather--all I can say is "Not in Wisconsin". Definitely better than vinyl, nice look and
smell, but what I really like
is a nice, stiff, heavy duty German-style velour. Moderates seasonal temperature extremes and has
a slight sort of
velcro effect to help keep the occupant from sliding around in the seat.
--Aardwolf.
If you're serious, drop me a line off group. I have a line on a real
nice '55 Prez 4-door that would make an excellent beater driver or
fairly easy resto. As you will discover if you take me up on it though,
rechroming a '55 is *not* cheap.

nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Ennui Society
2003-10-08 16:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Ah, got it.

About the Avanti, the owners switched different chassis over the years
as well as doing some cosmetic works that move Avanti further and
further away from its originality. Even stretching the Avanti at a
customer's request called LSC in 1980s. Then convertible. Then horrible
four-door Avanti. The latest F-body Avanti was a final straw.

Think of Porsche 911 excellent example of evolution whilst retaining its
original concept and design.

Oliver
Post by Aardwolf
Post by Ennui Society
Does Bugatti Veynon 16.4 count as ugly "relaunched" marquee? It looked
pretty exotic.
I think DaimlerChrysler doesn't do excellent job with Maybach marquee
which is none other than spiffy version of old S-Class chassis. Had they
redone the car in its own design rather than borrowing from
Mercedes-Benz, I might change my thoughts.
Pity about the redesigned Avanti on GM F-body chassis. They ought to
stick with original Studebaker Avanti with some updates proposed by
Raymond Loewy.
I should have clarified that. What I meant by "relaunched marque" was the idea that
some outfit someplace would buy the name of a long-dead company, cobble together some
half-assed homebuilt product using bits and pieces that were already available and sell
it to rich poseurs with no sense of style simply because it's "exclusive". Bugatti
doesn't count, it was supposed to be exotic, and a competent product. Maybach doesn't
count either, it also is a serious product, actually built by an auto manufacturer.
Avanti most certainly does count, it's just a Firebird chassis with a needlessly large
pile of money sitting on it in vaguely Avanti-shaped form. A refined and stylish
luxury automobile? You're driving a friggin' Trans Am!
--Aardwolf.
Nate Nagel
2003-10-09 23:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ennui Society
Ah, got it.
About the Avanti, the owners switched different chassis over the years
as well as doing some cosmetic works that move Avanti further and
further away from its originality. Even stretching the Avanti at a
customer's request called LSC in 1980s. Then convertible. Then horrible
four-door Avanti. The latest F-body Avanti was a final straw.
Think of Porsche 911 excellent example of evolution whilst retaining its
original concept and design.
Oliver
I spent some time talking to Mike Kelly at the Chicago Auto Show in
February and supposedly Chuck Beck (yeah, that Chuck Beck) was involved
to some extent in the design of a replacement, proprietary chassis for
the "next" Avanti. That's all I know; both Mike and Chuck were very
friendly but still very closed-mouthed about their plans. (of course,
that makes sense - who wants to go divulging all their secret plots to
one of those crazy Stude club guys?) Of course, that was 9 mos. ago and
the XUV still isn't in production yet, which I was told was the first
order of business.

I did get a pic of me and Chuck in front of his 904 replica though :)
(yeah, I can still get mildly starstruck...) The Beck Lister was
awesome looking too...

nate
Ennui Society
2003-10-09 02:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

Oh, does that mean the next incarnation of Avanti is possibly more
closer to original concept and execution albeit the modern technology?

Oliver

Nate Nagel wrote:

[snip]
Post by Nate Nagel
I spent some time talking to Mike Kelly at the Chicago Auto Show in
February and supposedly Chuck Beck (yeah, that Chuck Beck) was involved
to some extent in the design of a replacement, proprietary chassis for
the "next" Avanti. That's all I know; both Mike and Chuck were very
friendly but still very closed-mouthed about their plans. (of course,
that makes sense - who wants to go divulging all their secret plots to
one of those crazy Stude club guys?) Of course, that was 9 mos. ago and
the XUV still isn't in production yet, which I was told was the first
order of business.
[snip]
Nate Nagel
2003-10-10 12:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Oliver,

You now know 99% of what I gleaned from talking to those two. It did
sound like it was going to be a little more capable performance wise
than the F-Body, but that's it. Since the XUV fiasco, Mike et. cie.
have been much more quiet.

I did get my first publishing credit though - as the XUV was unveiled
at the Chicago show and I was there Friday night and had pictures
emailed to my friend with a web site before dinner, they were some of
the first widely available pics of the XUV on the web and they were
actually used by an Estonian auto magazine. I have a copy; I can't
read it :/

nate
Post by Ennui Society
Hello,
Oh, does that mean the next incarnation of Avanti is possibly more
closer to original concept and execution albeit the modern technology?
Oliver
[snip]
Post by Nate Nagel
I spent some time talking to Mike Kelly at the Chicago Auto Show in
February and supposedly Chuck Beck (yeah, that Chuck Beck) was involved
to some extent in the design of a replacement, proprietary chassis for
the "next" Avanti. That's all I know; both Mike and Chuck were very
friendly but still very closed-mouthed about their plans. (of course,
that makes sense - who wants to go divulging all their secret plots to
one of those crazy Stude club guys?) Of course, that was 9 mos. ago and
the XUV still isn't in production yet, which I was told was the first
order of business.
[snip]
Alex Rodriguez
2003-10-08 17:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
Looks like Hyundai styling to me.
-------------
Alex
Nate Nagel
2003-10-08 23:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
The swoopy lines aft of the front wheel and forward of the rear wheel are
directly off a '77 Olds Cutlass Supreme 4-door.. In fact, so is the front
door.
The rear door glass is directly off an AMC Hornet.
The overall look actually kinda reminds me of a new Jag. Not in a good
way. You're right about the olds connection - that side shape was an
olds styling cue for years. Looks better on an Olds. Trunk like looks
like that new big Hyundai. Gak.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The radiator grill is from that "build your own pimpmobile" kit that was
popular in the 1980s...Excalibur //e or whatever.
Sadly enough, I feel obligated to point out that the Excalibur was
styled by Brooks Stevens of Studebaker fame and the original Excaliburs
were built on leftover Studebaker chassis. Oh how the mighty etc.

Of course, I never did like what Stevens did to the Hawk either - took
Bob Bourke's kickass, timeless Euro-flavored design and turned it into
an old guy car.

Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Post by Daniel J. Stern
The cornering/front sidemarker lights appear to be shelf stock from
the '80-'89 Lincoln Town Car.
The quad round sealed beam headlights are state of the art circa 1957,
and are set into bodywork lifted directly from an Acura Integra.
Windshield looks like a stock standard '77-'90 Chevrolet Caprice item.
Oh, yeah, "ultra luxury and style" at an "If you have to ask..." price.
Eeeyuck!
They'll probably sell enough of them to stay in business, because there
are so many people with much more money than taste.
DS
For the price you could probably buy a helluva REAL Packard. I'll have
a '55 Caribbean convertible please. Already got tons o' spare
drivetrain bits for it :)

nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
C.R. Krieger
2003-10-10 21:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
--
C.R. Krieger
P.S.: Ever see a Packard Daytona? Now *that's* a good-looking concept
car!
Brent P
2003-10-10 21:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Nate Nagel
Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
I think this is what they may have been going for:
Loading Image...
C.R. Krieger
2003-10-11 03:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Nate Nagel
Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
http://icbooks.homestead.com/files/36.05packard.jpg
No; I said a '48 and I *meant* a '48:

Loading Image...

See?
--
C.R. Krieger
The Ultimate Automotive Fashion Arbiter
Brent P
2003-10-11 03:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Brent P
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Nate Nagel
Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
http://icbooks.homestead.com/files/36.05packard.jpg
I know I can read. I offered my opinon. I simply find the '42 has more
of the styling elements they are trying to replicate, including a
vertical grille.
Post by C.R. Krieger
http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg
See?
Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48. But with only a
beltline contour on the side I went looking for a similiar car with
front and rear contours. I found the '42. Both cars together have just
about everything they tried to incorporate.
C.R. Krieger
2003-10-12 00:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
I know I can read. I offered my opinon.
I know. I wasn't being nasty; just emphatic.
Post by Brent P
Post by C.R. Krieger
http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg
See?
Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48.
"1948 Packard picture". Worked for me.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em m'dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
Brent P
2003-10-12 02:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Brent P
Yeah, google didn't turn up but a small pic of a 48.
"1948 Packard picture". Worked for me.
I used '1948 packard' in the image search tool....
Nate Nagel
2003-10-12 00:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Brent P
Post by C.R. Krieger
Post by Nate Nagel
Surely they could have kept the traditional Packard grille shape and
made it less... um... pimpish? Kind of like an Aston Martin? But no,
that looks worse than an Edsel ever did.
Uh, Nate, if you take a look at a '48 Packard's grille, you'd be
hard-pressed to tell the difference. Especially with all the bulbous
bodywork surrounding each. Unfortunately, those were the
worst-looking Packards ever.
http://icbooks.homestead.com/files/36.05packard.jpg
http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/48PackardSedan.jpg
See?
I respectfully disagree, I think the "bathtubs" were the worst looking
Packards. Either way, styling did suffer for PAckard in the 40s.

nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Scott in Aztlan
2003-10-09 04:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel J. Stern
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/
Ye gods. It's hideous! Let's see if I can identify some of the, er,
Looks like someone put a Rolls-Royce grille on the front of a Jaguar S-type.
--
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
Loading...