1936 Packard

[RickyBobby]

Personal opinion -- the lower lights would look good moved in an inch or two on each side. I also think a filler piece between the front bumper and fenders/grill would tie everything together better.

I agree completely. Otherwise I love eveything!

 

[BillM]

Hey ZZ, no offense intended, but I'm in agreement as well with the headlight spacing....if the grille - headlight gap was maintained it would please my eye more.....then again, that's only from the very front. Looking from an angle might change everything as the lowers are out in front of the grille.....

Thanks again though for all the inspiration!

 

[soltz]

Your whole project is just amazing [cl
My only comment is "do you really need the much light" [S

 

[Yankee Transplant]

No , No , that car does not look right , just drop it off by the house and you can start over on a new one .... I'll drive it around and try my best to let it grow on me Just kidding I love your car ... You do great work [cl[cl[cl[cl[cl[cl[cl[

 

[bob w]

Well, now you've done it. Turned a frumpy ungainly 4 door coach into a rolling piece of automotive art. No way you will ever top this one...[cl

 

[zzrodder]

Thanks everyone for the feedback! As for the positioning of the driving lights, my thinking was to have them directly below the headlights, lined up with the seam between the fenders and grille shell, though they don't look quite on that line in the pics.
Naturally my first reaction to the idea of moving them (darn critics!!) was to buck the idea, but after looking over the pics, it may look better if they were the same distance from the grille on each side as the headlights........
That's why I like to get it outside for a better perspective every now and then - things look so different when crammed in the garage.
Never let it be said that I'm not receptive to constructive criticism

As for the idea of a gravel pan between the bumper and body, I think thats more of a 40's feature that doesn't fit in my mind - besides, then I'd have to make one for the rear too .

 

[smallfoot]

After considering the the suggestions by others, I think the symmetry of the lights move was spot on and the gravel pan is unneccessary...Man, what a build!

 

[Neverdone]

Gravel Pan unnecessary. I think once everything is finished that the gravel pan will look out of place. I can see both sides to the lights. I think if it were mine a smaller driving light would be my choice instead of the what's on the car. To me position is right if it were a smaller light. Since they are so close to the size of the headlights I think that is what is throwing off the look. Not that I would ever turn down a ride in this bad boy!!

 

[Country Misfit]

That sure is a bad looking ride. I can"t believe how good that hood looks.

 

[35 PROG]

if i dare.....

I agree that the lower lights are a bit to large. Maybe a cowl lights??? Hell I don't know why I am even commenting seems you pull it off in spades every time. You are a true artist. This build is awesome to say the least. [P[P[P

 

[Todd]

I thought the lower lights could be closer together.

Its amazing that you can see something in a picture that you don't see otherwise.

 

[zzrodder]

The car in the first pic is the exact same model my car started out as - Packard 120C 4dr. touring sedan.
The others show some variations on driving light placement and size that were my inspiration, most are Trippe lights, the red car shows a type of light similar to what I'm using.

 

[Gottkts]

I agree with others on the lower lights, they look to big and in my opinion take away from the whole look of the car. You have built an amazing car and they just seem to take away from it.

 

[Bamamav]

I think the height is what's killing ya. On your car and the red one, notice how much lower the lights are than on the stockers. It changes the effect, makes the grill look taller. That may be the look you were going for, if so, you hit it on the button.

I can take them or leave them, looks good either way to me.

 

[Todd]

Pic #3 rocks it. The just a bit narrower (following the grille slant) look is perfect.

 

[Ledco]

Maybe it's just me but I think the bumper is too low. On all the other pics the bottoms of the fenders are not exposed.

 

[Bamamav]

Maybe it's just me but I think the bumper is too low. On all the other pics the bottoms of the fenders are not exposed.

Good point. Maybe raise the bumper so it just covers the lower fender edge, and move the lights up the same amount.

 

[Yankee Transplant]

I really like the color of that burgundy, brandy , maroon car ,,, nice paint ...by the looks of it the only difference is the bumper a little lower on yours, I can live with it JMO.

 

[zzrodder]

Maybe it's just me but I think the bumper is too low. On all the other pics the bottoms of the fenders are not exposed.

Good point. Maybe raise the bumper so it just covers the lower fender edge, and move the lights up the same amount.

Well I guess that's the problem with comparing it to a stocker....
I use the stock Packard as my inspiration but I'm not trying to recreate it exactly. The driving lights I will move in but the bumper stays where it is. I don't like the way the stock position of it obscures the grille, I want a clear view of it since it is the focal point of the front end, also the lower position makes the whole front end look lower - remember this is the aired down height, it looks different at driving height..

Anyways, I got busy building a small console - 50% off at Pick n Pull on the weekend so I nabbed a bunch of GM power window switches and fit them in - they will work the air ride system, windows and the exhaust dumps. I used a couple pieces of 3" pipe to make the cupholders (my fellow Canucks will recognize the coffee cups ). I also modified the Speedway shifter boot trim by welding a point to it to carry on the teardrop theme of the headlights, tail lights and lake pipe outlets.

 

[smallfoot]

Love that dash....