Setting aside the “Big 4th” scenario, I find very thought-provoking the question of whether an Independent could have survived on their own in the 50s and 60s. The argument that it was impossible due to lack of scale was disproven by Beetle, Rambler, Mercedes-Benz and others. Perhaps what those who argue “impossible” are really saying is that it was impossible to compete model-for-model with the Big 3. On this I agree. Small players needed to make do with fewer cars – and needed to make those cars stand-outs that achieved good scale in the segments that they competed in.

In this light, the 1951 Packard “24th Series” is a fascinating program to analyze and poke at. The clay models for its lead vehicles – the ‘200’ 2 and 4-door sedans – were not finalized until October 1949. Therefore, Packard had the benefit of seeing what Buick and Cadillac would sell in the next several years, and how the market initially reacted to them.

Had Packard carefully tracked competitive sales it would have discovered that the long wheelbase Buick 52 & 72 and Cadillac 62 sedans were selling incredibly well despite their higher prices relative to the shorter-wheelbase sedans selling alongside them. The market was signaling its preference for rear seat spaciousness!

Given this reality, very late in 1949 one can make an argument that Packard should have made a last-minute pivot and gone all-in on the 127 chassis. To hold the 200’s August 1950 launch date (Packard’s financials were falling apart due to the slow-selling 1950 models) the 200’s design could have been retained, with only its front and rear doors being lengthened by 2.5 inches to stretch its wheelbase from 122 to 127 inches. At this point, the 2-door Club Sedan would have been dropped.

Had Packard taken these actions they would have ended up with a car similar to the original Clipper in its ability to be dressed up or down depending on interior trim and engineering specs. In base form it probably would have retailed for no more than $50-100 more than the original 122 wheelbase sedan, and in Patrician trim it would have been priced between Buick 72 and Cadillac 62, rather than above 62 as the Patrician 400 had. I like the marriage of the 200’s more rounded rear fenders and vertical taillights to the rest of the car’s tall and rounded forms, particularly its windshield and backlight.

If one were to add up the body tooling cost for the 24th Series – three roofs, two front door sets, two rear doors sets (with sharing of door outer stampings), three rear fender sets, three side glass/door frame sets, two decklids, two windshields, three backlights – it would roughly amount to the equivalent of two bodies.

This being the case, Packard would have had money to tool a second body, the only caveat being that it would have needed to sell well. Not at the same volumes as the tall 127 sedan but definitely at or above 10,000 units per year, else Packard would never recoup its investment. I think this model would have been Packard’s big opportunity to really stick it to Cadillac.

A marginally practical 127 wheelbase 4-door car with style-forward design including a hardtop roof (fixed and removable post versions), 3-piece open and one-piece formal backlight options, 300/Patrician 400 “bulls nuts” taillights, and elimination of “High Pockets.” Think 1924 Packard Sport Model with 2-inch sectioned body. Lower than Hudson, it would have thrown Cadillac off balance.

High-priced specialty models largely based on existing stampings and created with lots of body shop work could have included a 149 wheelbase 8-passenger sedan and EDL and a 122 wheelbase 4-passenger Speedster, plus a few 149 wheelbase Dual-Cowl Sport Phaetons for the parade circuit.

A primary goal of the 54th Series would have been to quickly make enough money to tool the V8 for 1953 as had originally been planned, and to profit even in the Korean War volume-constrained 1952 model year.