1952 Russian Pobeda Smugglled

[Guest]

Pete ~ Back in the early 70's there were a couple of "180" limos that used to show up at the local CCCA Region activities in Maryland. I could be wrong but I believe one of them belonged to a man by the name of Bernie Caulkins. I have seen a "180" or two up close and personal but never drove one.<P>See, I didn't just ride into the hobby on my rodeo horse. I was a CCCA member back more than 30 years ago when I lived in Baltimore. <P>hvs

[Idle Swede]

The only Z;car (russian) I remember is the ZIL (Zawod Imlena Likhachov) named after Ivan Likhachov, constructor of the first cars & director of the company. Might we be talking about the same vehicle?

[Dave@Moon]

ZIS--Zavod Imiemi Stalina--manufactured Soviet trucks and luxury cars from 1931-1956. The name was changed in 1956 to ZIL to get rid of the by then embarrassing Stalin reference. <P>ZIL--Zavod Iniemi Likhachev--was named after Ivan Likhachev, a pioneer of Russian car construcdtion.

[Idle Swede]

Since there seems to be an echo in here, the correct spelling is: Imiena

[Guest]

The "general" must have taken his own advise and shot himself cause he aint been seen in days!<P>

[Idle Swede]

Probably the best thing that could happen to him

[novaman]

PackardV8 asked about the engine in the Pobiea. it was a four cyl., 2.1 litre, 50 bhp engine with a 3 spedd trans. had a top speed of about 65 MPH

[Guest]

hvs<P>Relax...I was "pulling your leg"....of COURSE I have seen a few Packard "180"s.....well...more than a few...and ..yes...seen em...up close.....REAL close.....!<P>Now...here's your "trivia" question for the day...wanna know WHY they called the things "180"'s..?<P>Pete Hartmann<P>Pete Hartmann

[1937hd45]

My guess is that the new owner "did a 180" and tried to return it on the drive home from the dealership.

[Guest]

back in the good 'ol iron curtain days the government was the dealer.<P>I read somewhere in a popular science issue from the '50's that Russian mechanics would run their engines as they drained oil from the crankcase, apparently used crancase oil was not thrown away but used in tractors and industrial motors.<P>Tell me, would 2 180's make a 360 and come full circle?

[Guest]

Pete, no why? ~ hvs

[Guest]

Here's why, HVS, the Packard "180"...was called a "180". Packard decided to get out of the "best of the best" super luxury car business, correctly recognizing the market at that time, was pretty much dead (they were rarely able to sell more than a thousand or so Packard Twelves a year - which dosnt sound like much, but it was more than the other big "best of the best" super luxury car makers could sell, COMBINED !). Thus, the tragedy of this whole thing is..Packard still "owned" the super-car market...but decided to abandon it.<P>Of course it was a bad decision - Packard's loss of confidence in the fine car market, cost it...its LIFE !<P>But...getting back to the "180", when they decided to "down-size" their product line, and combine everything based on their "middle class" car - the Packard "120", they needed to have a fancy name to make the traditional EXPENSIVE Packard buyers think they were getting something better than a "dressed up" middle class car......(remember - the average buyer of a luxury car in the late 1930's)...knew and cared NOTHING about the stuff we car buffs care about today....!)<P>They figured that most of their expensive car buyers knew that the biggest Packards, for some years, had 175 hp. So...they simply called the "replacement" of the Twelve....a "180". Of course it had a much smaller and less powerful motor than the Twelve it replaced..MUCH less "torquey"...BUT..it was mounted in the new much lighter all steel bodies that were now standardzed, based on their so called "economy" car line. In the much lighter body, that 356 cu. in. motor did fine, and with over-drive giving it a much higher (numerically lower) final drive ratio, they could say with a straight face that it was "faster" than the Twelve it replaced.<P>By the early 1940's, the market for super-luxury cars had started to come back, and Cadillac made the best of it. Just park a 1941 Packard "180" alongside a Cad. '41 Fleetwood Series 75. The Packard is obviously nothing more than a "dressed up" Packard "120". The Cadillac..."looks the part" of an expensive super-luxury car.<P>Incidentally, the Packard "180" and "160" are the same car - except for the fancier Laidlaw Broadcloth left over from the Twelves, the nicer interior fittings, and power windows. Oddly, the nonsence of calling this dressed-up "120" a "worthy successor to the Packard Twelve, ended with the start of World War Two.<P>President Roosevelt, secretly in league with the Space Monkeys, and with Elvis Presely (who later married Amelia Earhart) conspired to sell the dies of the Packard "180" to the Ruskies, as part of his "plot" to hire the Japs. into attacking our installations in the Hawaiin islands. This worked so well for the Russians, that they are now behind the plot to build the new Packard in-line V-32 7/8ths SUV...It will be built of sub-assemblies made by Lagonda, and sold as venison.<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

PH,<BR>Relative to your statement: "Packard's loss of confidence in the fine car market, cost it...its LIFE !"<P>I respectfully disagree. The didnt go out of business for leaving fine car market, they went out of business because they couldnt find a way to be competitive in the general car market.<P>No fine car manufacturer continued to pursue that market by the end of the 1930's because there was no money to be made. History is very clear on this. Had Packard continued with building fine cars they would still have gone out of business.

[Guest]

One of the differences between the old days and now is that back then companies went out of business because they couldn't make <B>PRODUCT</B> that could compete in the marketplace. <P>Today companies go out of business because they have cooked the books to death and finally gotten caught at it.<P>How far a mighty nation has fallen.<P>But of course, as usual, that is just my opinion.<P>hvs

[Dave@Moon]

Unrelentingly cheerful that it may be!

[Guest]

Ahh... the gold old days.<P>Problem is? the good old days were nowhere as good as many remember. <P>In the crash of 1929 literally billions of dollars were lost in bank deposits alone from people who didn?t have that money to loose. <P>Why the market crashed is a matter of speculation, but I believe there is no doubt that it was due in part to the dishonestly and incompetence of those who were entrusted with investing those billions of dollars.<P>Ain't it funny how we forget history? <BR>

[Guest]

Oh, and one more thing, to generalize the state of our country with a blanket statement like... "How far a mighty nation has fallen.". Oye! <P>Of course, that is just my opinion... yadda... yadda... yadda...<p>[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest]

Peter ~ Too bad you weren't around in the '50s, but then that was 10 years before you were born. If you think this nation is what it was then, take a look at assorted statistics and compare America of 50 years ago with America today. <P>I could express myself in more detail, except for the fact that the PC police would shortly be on my back, and you Peter would probably throw me off of the forum. <P>Suffice it to mention crime statistics and general moral decay. Now before you damn me as a right wing conservitive, remember I am by political conviction a conservative libertarian. <P>hvs

[Guest]

hvs is leaving the building for a few days. <P>So if anyone wants to have at me, they will have to wait for any response 'till the end of the week. ~ hvs

[Bill Stoneberg]

Howard,<P>Do you think that the road that we are on started when they banned prayer in school ?

[Guest]

Hell no Bill. Religion is not my bag and I really don't care one whit who prays or doesn't pray where or when.<P>Now name me a war where religion has not been a major factor in the conflict.<P>We claim God is on our side, but remember the WW II German army belt buckle bore the inscription {translated) God With Us.<P>Every religion believes they are right and that they are the only true religion and right there is where the trouble begins.<P>What we need is freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.<P>NOW, I'll bet I have really pissed off a bunch of people, so I had better get out of town.<P>hvs

[Guest]

For Peter Gariepy:<P>Your statement that "Packard went out of business because they couldn't compete" is only partially correct.<P>First of all, you are apparently too young to be familiar with what happened about the time Packard was abandoning the fine car market. THE FINE CAR MARKET REVIVED ! <P>Thus your statement that car manufacturers didnt continue to pursue that market...is in error.<P>The FACT is...GMC DID have more confidence in the fine car market, and demonstrated that by continuing to support Cadillac. By the time the 1941 sales year was done, Cadillac Div. was selling enough cars to be self-supporting. <P>Each year Cadillac, thru a combination of good advertising, and good, quality-looking and elegant-looking cars, increased its "market share", until, by the early 1950's, it dominated the fine car market. The fine car market has continued to expand. Look at how much money Damlier-Benz, Toyota, Honda, Bayershe Moterern Werke (BMW)...etc...etc...are making in the ever expanding highest price class. THAT is the market that..yes...DID have a terrible slump after the depression. THAT is the market that Packard elected to throw away. <P>Packard failed, as you note, because it could not compete. But that is a dry statement that does not adequately describe what REALLY happened.<P>As Packard's administration became more and more the "Harvard Business School" types, who were less and less aquainted with "hands on" auto manufacturing issues, quality went steadily down-hill, until Packard became a crude joke, from its miserable build quality, and bad engineering.<P>Packard literally DROVE its customers and dealers away thru self destructive greed. THAT is what killed it...and it DESERVED to die.<P>Packard was a brilliant pioneer in automotive quality, durability, and performance in the fine car field. Sadly, in its dying years, it pioneered the down-fall of the American auto industry, by setting new standards in sloppilly built cars. Elsewhere, you may have seen my "post" about how I sat on the curb with the Service Manager and a couple of sales guys from Beverly Hills ( Calif ) Packard, munching lunches, as a transporter rolled up with some new '54's. "Here come some more of those damned fool "do it yourself" kits..." said the Service Manager...reflecting the fact that the cars would have to be practically re-built by the dealers before they could be foisted onto what little customer base Packard had not yet driven away.<P>The sudden "rush" of sales in late '54 and early '55, when Packard put on a massive advertising campaign, effectively saying it was back in the "performance" car business with quality cars"...showed Packard COULD have survived had it been honest with its customers. But each year following World War Two, the cars from 1580 E. Grand Ave. got progressively worse. The "burst" in sales in early '55 showed they COULD still attract buyers. But these cars were SO bad in customer's hands, they delivered the final blow, and by '56..you couldn't GIVE one away.<P>Sure..a dedicated auto enthusiast can "de bug" one of these things and make a serviceable car out of it. But new car buyers are not interested in the "do it yourself" thing. Cadillac gave the fine car buyer, after World War Two...EXACTLY what Packard HAD been famous for, before World War Two.<P>To get a "hands on" perspective of what I am trying to explain to you...at your next auto show...try and find Packards and Cadillacs of the same year...and compare what the two companies offered BEFORE World War TWO...and after. Crawl under and take a look at the chassis - for example, look at an early 1950's Cad. front end support structure, and compare it with the much crummier, lighter Packard front end. Look at the fit and finish of the interior.<P>Then see if you can get a ride in one. At any price range BEFORE the Second World War, Packards would typically out-perform their competition in any category you wish to compare them in. Now take, for example..a 1950 Packard Custom...and a 1950 Cadillac Fleetwood...compare them side by side. Now get in them...and put your foot to the floor.....! The post-war Cadillac would "blow the doors" off the Packard.<P>End of story...End of Packard. GOOD RIDDANCE !<P>Pete Hartmann<P>[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: pete hartmann ]<p>[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: pete hartmann ]

[Guest]

Pobeda M20<A HREF="http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gaz20.htm" TARGET=_blank>Pobeda</A>

[Guest]

good ole' days?????? social degradation????<BR>cost analysis?????<P>What we are attempting to compare here is NOT within a homogeneous time frame.<P>When discussing these topics we must remeber that the pre-war society and economies were really a different world than that of the post war years, especially 1955 and later.<P>Prior to WWII America was for all intent and purpose an AGRICULTURAL nation. i.e. we were a bunch of farmers and farm hands. Only a few pockets of industrialization here and there. WWII was THE single event to change all of that and in a mere 4 years to boot. <P>Yep, there r only 2 things that cause a war: Religion and P----. However, WWII was the exception. WWII stemmed strictly out of economics - to get the farm boys into the factories. The 10-29-29 and its aftermath also contributed to encouraging the advent of WWII for economic reasons.<P>But, then again, it has been argued that 10-29-29 had its religous overtones too. Do we really want to go there??? i doubt it.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Peter H.,<P>I'm not about to represent myself as a Packard expert, and certainly am not old enough to have lived through "the good ol' days", but (in spite of my disclaimer) I wanted to comment on your comapre/contrast of Cadillac and Packard in the '50s.<P>I will not try to dispute that Packard may have had some quality control problems by the '50s; and their engineering might have become "dated"- just about everyone else had dumped the venerable L-head eight by 1950; exceptions were: Pontiac, Hudson (the same little 254 Commodore from the '30s) and Packard- even Buick retired it's venerable straight-8 by 1953 or so, and Chrysler dropped its straight-8 of 16 years in 1950. So there's a major limitation- Caddy introduced its "modern" OHV V-8(lighter and snappier than the hoary old 359 Packard) in 1949.<P>In 1950, if that's our target year, I believe Packard was still an independent mfr., whereas Caddy had the mighty GM family unit for "support" - R&D, Capital, etc; which gave it quite an advantge.<BR>Perhaps there was "better thinking" over at Caddy too; but if Cadillac management "made mistakes", I think they were in a better position to recover from them. <P>Changing market conditions did a lot do-in many 'marques' during the '50s and 60's; Chrysler terminated the De Soto (a car which set a "first-year sales" record when it was introduced in 1928, that was not broken until the Mustang debuted 36 years later!) in 1960 because its market share had "disappeared" or was being covered by other marques in the MoPar stable (the High-end Dodges & the low-end Chrysler);same thing with the Edsel.<BR>The Kaiser & Frazer went away because they weren't able to compete with the rest of the market, plus their last cars in 1954-55 were mechanically the same as the '47-48's, with the same 226 Continental engine (when everyone else had jumped on the v-8 band-wagon), but were priced in the Buick bracket!<P>And as far as building the same car for too many years, even Caddy fell into that malaise during the late '70's and through the '80's. Tell me there's any great changes (or dramatic improvements) in the De Ville from 1977 to 1990? So now they're trying to shake the image of "an old man's car" and breathe life back into the divsion; although there are still rumors on the street that Cadillac might follow Plymouth, Oldsmobile, De Soto, and Packard into the history books, although I find that a little hard to believe.<P>I can empathize with you're feeling that Packard's management may have had as much as anything to do with its decline as anything, but many fine luxury car makers disappeared well before Packard's extinction, such as Pierce-Arrow, Locomobile, Marmon, Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg , Peerless, and probably some other notables that are escaping my memory. I guess I'm suggesting that as an independent luxury car maker, Packard's demise was inevitable, just a matter of "when".<P>And what luxury cars were left? The ones that belonged to the Big Three: Cadillac, Imperial, and Lincoln.<P>I have a co-worker who is 91 years old (really!), and his wry remark is "Nostalgia isn't what it used to be..." <P>Just a few thoughts from "one of the kids", who loves cars that are "older than he is".<p>[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: DeSoto Frank ]

[Guest]

For Frank McMullen:<P>Your attempt to find "excuses" for Packard's self-inflicted SUICIDE is very nice. Trouble is....you obviously know enough about the automobile business...to be in possession of information, that if you would sit back and think about, would force you to accept the FACTS of what happened.<P>Your comparison with what Cadillac did to itself in the 70's and 80's is a good one. You are CORRECT. Cadillac (and, for that matter, the entire American car industry) DID try very hard to copy Packard's suicide, using the SAME TECHNIQUES ! <P>American cars of the 1930's...in ANY price range, were good buys for the money. American cars, even our "icon" Cadillac, of the '70's and '80's, imitated Packard in using warmed-over designs, build quality went into the toilet, and serviceability and durability became a mean-spirited joke or insult. <P>This foolishness continued to the point even I started buying Toyotas...! <P>What IS a Toyota...anyway, but a copy of the concept that American industry USED to provide. Serviceable and durable. It is that simple !<P>ANY manufactured product will reflect the philosphy of the people that design, engineer, build, and service it. Fact is, those 1970's and '80's American cars reflected the "Harvard Business School" mentality of the people who HATE the manufacturing process; idea is to provide the least "product" for the most money.<P>LOOK at Packard in the late 1930's, when it mistakenly believed the "expensive car" business was over. They DID build a car to a price - the famous "Packard One Twenty". It introduced a lot of people to Packard products, and they LIKED what they bought, and they came back and bought MORE.<P>As you correctly point out...LOOK at what the '70's and '80's Cadillacs were. Each year, larger numbers of the buyers of these cars...DID THE SAME THING PACKARD BUYERS STARTED TO DO IN THE LATE 1940'S...BUY SOMETHING ELSE !<P>Could a smaller manufacturer such as Packard survived, had it met the expectations of its buyers...? Ask Bayershe Moteren Werke (BMW) Damiler-Benz, and the luxury versions of Toyotas and Datsuns gave them the feeling they got what they paid for. <P>Packard came out of World War Two fat and with its plants intact. All of the above, came out of the war broke, with damaged plants. But they were DETERMINED to give good product for the dollar. It is as simple as that !<P>In a famous advertisement during its "golden years", Packard ad copy sang the glories of "REPUTATION"..bragging about its reputation for providing a good product for the dollar...noting what a cruel master "REPUTATION" was - once you have one for excellence, you damn well better make certain your customers are not disappointed. Were they ever RIGHT !<P>Cadillac, after it took over the market Packard threw away, used to brag in its advertising "STANDARD OF THE WORLD". Look what ITS failure to live up to its REPUTATION did to IT..!<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ<p>[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: pete hartmann ]

[Idle Swede]

Pete,<BR>It's Bayrische Motorenwerke <p>[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Idle Swede ]

[Guest]

Idle...what has your response to my "post"...got to do with Britney Spear's lovely young thighs..?<P>PFH

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Peter,<P>Maybe it's all Charlie Kettering's fault... <P>ever since his "practical self-starter", it's just been one concession after another that have put people "behind the wheel", that probably don't belong there!<BR>(Synchro-mesh trannys, hydraulic brakes, automatic chokes, power steering...)<P>Someday, I'll own a REAL car!!!<P>

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Pete, you offer a lot of experience here, not to mention a push for all of us to study the hobby related details before posting (speaking). This is fine with me.<P>In my opinion, all the good comments get trashed by your crude, sexual fantasies.<P>There are "true" ladies and gentlemen that read this forum. There is a push for "Young Folks" to get involved. They read this forum. There are potential new members that read this forum. Most people go by first impressions. Please consider this...<P>Thank you in advance.<P>Peter J.

[Guest]

American luxury car manufacturers who survived the 30's without funds generated by sales of less expensive cars - zero. Packard had no option but to produce a lower cost line.<P>I think the 356 holds up quite well when compared against the Cadillac flathead V8, Chrysler L8, and Continental/Lincoln V12 of its era.<P>I think Packard did not do their engineering and manufacturing homework in time, and slipped behind with each post-war redesign. The 50 needed to be a new, up to date car, wasn't and it was catch-up from there on.

[juddman]

All very interesting!<P>Now I wonder wich one of you is the General...

[Idle Swede]

PH is the "Packard General"

[Guest]

There was a reference in my business school text to an American who tried unsuccessfully to introduce just-in-time procurement/manufacturing and other efficiency measures to the American auto industry. After WWII, he took his ideas to Japan, where they were successfully implemented. What was his name and how much credit does he deserve?

[Guest]

After thinking about it, I believe his name was Demming, and his program was called Total Quality Management. Does that sound right?

[Guest]

Pmenhusen,<P> That sounds like one of Demming's concepts. After being shunned by American industry, he found a receptive audience in Japan. The rest is history.<P> Tom

[Guest]

Deming's work on quality is different from "just-in-time" manufacturing. And the quality stuff started in the US with Shewhart, then Deming went to Japan

[Guest]

Mr. Heizman.......I take offense at your criticism that my "sexual fantasies are crude..".I beg to differ with you....they are extremely involved and well choreographed...<P>Pete Hartmann

[rocketraider]

Where, we were told in our TQM program training in the mid 80s, W. Edwards Deming was revered as a god.<P>My own experience is that TQ didn't turn out as promised or desired. The only people who benefitted were the consultants who sold it to us at a handsome profit. We spent more time than ever in meetings and half as much work got done.

[Guest]

Just in time processing has high rick or violating two fundemental rules of manufacturering:<BR>1. the Line DOES NOT STOP !!!!!(excpet <BR> maybe to run payroll).<BR>2. HF Sr's savvy of: 'buy nothing from<BR> NOONE'.<BR>The 'Assembeled Unit' approach begets executive sabotage of the managing company for purpose of gaining control over all of the other suppliers thereby eventually bringing everything back in-house so as to speak. THATS WHY most 'assembled car' manufacturer do not stay in business very long.<P>Oh yeah, and then there was the 'X' theory???