Why did Packard go out of business?

[John N. Packard]

I have the assignment to answer this question. There are many opinions from the introduction of the Model 120 in 1935 to quality control problems in 1955. I find many interesting comments in this forum. What do you think?<P>jnp

[Guest JT]

I believe a few reasons not necessarily in order are:<BR>George Christopher becoming president in 1948.<BR>Packard getting out of the body business in 41.<BR>Nance moving Packard out of East Grand Blvd. in 56.<BR>Loss of defense contracts in the early 50's.

[Guest]

YUM YUM...aint THIS gonna be fun.....!<P>( only trouble is...I am going to be "on the road" for six weeks...probably wont be able to join in....! )<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Wel...all right..I WILL stick my nose in this one. This is a VERY complex question. Well..actually..it is a VERY SIMPLE question...but if we admit it is a simple question with simple answers...we have to admit Packard SCREWED UP ROYALLY..and LOTS of people are not prepared to do that...so we HAVE to come up with wild and weird and complex theories...<P>But just for fun..I will throw in the SIMPLE...REAL answer. Packard went out of business...cause it couldn't sell its product. It couldnt sell its product...because they had a well deserved reputation for being no damn good ! They worked VERY hard to get that reputation. They came out of World War Two FAT with profits from war material contracts. They elected to squander those profits rather than plow them back into the company's previous policy of 1) QUALITY control - giving the customer the best-built car for the price 2) engineering.....giving the customer the best ENGINEERED car for the price.<P>The besdt way to see why Packard was so successfl ORIGINALLY..is compare products side by side. Compare a Packard of ANY price class, with ANY other car within THAT year and price class. BEFORE World War Two, the Packard product was a good value, and so people bought the cars.<BR>AFTER World War Two, the quality steadily went DOWN and DOWN, and the engineering joined it. Packard "down-sized" in both quality and performance..until by 1950 it had managed to "dis-engineer" its cars to be amongst the most sluggish in the industry. Word got out, and sales went down. It is THAT simple. A burst of engineering refinements for the 1955 year brought in a FLOOD of buyers when the product was first released, but the quality was SO miserable, word got out, and the sales went down...and down..and down. It really IS that simple. When Packard had a product worth buying..it stayed in business. When Packard had a product that offended its customers...they stopped buying..and THAT is what put it out of business.<P>Damn...that was simple....well...we GOT to find some complex excuses...let's see what you guys can do with this. Ahhh...I got it...we need a "conspiracy theory"..that ought to work...!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs..Arizona...<P>Good Bye For 6 Weeks...have fun in my absence...!

[Guest JT]

John, <BR>Packard went from E. Grand Blvd. where almost all production was under one roof to the much smaller Conner Ave location which was formerly a Briggs plant. I believe this was done to "modernize" to a supposedly more efficiency single story assembly plant . <BR>The Utica plant was built for defense work and when that was lost turned into Packard engine production and parts facility.

[Guest]

In the 1950s there were also significant demographic and economic reasons for Packard's demise, including government restrictions imposed on auto loans. But the sad truth is that size does matter - there was no way for a company that size to survive. All you could do as with Studebaker and AMC is put off the inevitable.

[John N. Packard]

Steve,<BR> That's an interesting premise. Packard dominated the luxury car field for many years; but then under George Christopher's leadership moved into the mid-price class. I guess Buick then became their real competition. McCauley believed that Packard prestige helped sell the Junior cars, at least initially. In 1938 the Senior cars were downgraded and by 1940 they were almost indistinguishable from the 120. Interestingly Cadillac struggled in the mid-thirties as well and used the LaSalle to boost their sales. GM however opted to stay in the luxury field with the Cadillac marque and enjoyed free rein for awhile after WWII. GM had the resources, as you point out, to do that. Could Packard have survived solely as a luxury car maker? I doubt it.<P>jnp

[John N. Packard]

Thanks JT and Pete!<BR> I believe that George Christopher came to Packard in the mid thirties as Manufacturing Director to produce the Junior cars. My understanding is that he was not enamored of the Senior cars; but they were not why he was brought on board. In a sense the "120" was Packard's second foray into companion cars. The shovel nosed model 900 in 1933 was the first. These were quality vehicles that were directed at a different market segment than the Senior cars. Christopher worked his way up to the presidency.<BR>Was 1941 the year that Briggs Manufacturing started to produce Packard bodies? Somewhere I read that Briggs design personnel were involved in the development of the original Packard Clipper that was introduced in 1941. Does this explain why Chrysler products also used the fade-away front fender?<BR>Packard came out of WWII financially strong because of the defense contracts; but the management's dependence upon this source of revenue to bolster the auto business proved to be a weakness.<BR>It's not clear to me why Packard shifted production from East Grand to the Utica(?) plant; but I wonder if that move, driven by the loss of Briggs to manufacture bodies, led to quality control problems during the early production of the '55 models. By the time the problems were corrected, the image was tarnished.<BR>Pete, I always considered Packard's Ultramatic Drive an engineering achievement. Specifically the shift from torque converter to direct drive. I felt the same way about the Easamatic power brakes; but perhaps other manufacturers were offering similar features. Packard certainly had many engineering "firsts" throughout its history; but when I compare my 5th Series Six sedan to my friend's '28 Studebaker, it seems to fall short. e.g. vacuum pump versus mechanical fuel pump. There is no question but that Packard hung on to the in-line eight cylinder engine too long. The short stroke V-8s could beat them at the light every time. I drove a '54 Super Clipper for the first 25K miles of its life and was embarrased by a date who was driving a '54 Ford Y-block. I couldn't keep up with her! I now have a '54 Patrician, primarily because it represents the final development of that big eight. I can't agree with you more that if you don't sell the product you will soon go out of business. More later...<BR>jnp

[Guest]

For John :<P>Regarding your above "post" that in "1938 the Seniors were down-graded". BULL FEATHERS ! Well...at least in ONE extent you are correct. The front suspension in the Senior models was moved rear-ward a few inches for the '38 Super Eights, and, of course, the 1937-1939 SUPER Eights were actually the "standard eight" motor. ( The reason the centers of the front wheels were moved rear-ward, in relation to the "mass" of the motor, was to improve straight-line stability for extreme-speed handling).<P>And the 1939 "SUPER" eight was a pale descendant of the traditional SUPER EIGHT in that they reduced it to essentially 120" sheet metal with a slightly larger motor (the Standard Eight was 320 cu. in -vs- the "120's 282).<P>But as far as the "big" cars, the '38-39 Twelve was a heavier, faster, superior car than its predecessors, consistant with Packard's belief in giving its customers what they paid for. The loss in length and shorter wheel-base had NOTHING to do with economics - this was simply following an industry trend to improve high speed straight line stability, which reflected the steadily improving roads and increased road speeds of the era. <P>I HOPE I will be able to get to a computer at random intervals while I am "on the road" for the next six weeks - if not, everyone have a great time enjoying this marvelous medium of communication !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

For John :<P>Regarding your above "post" that in "1938 the Seniors were down-graded". BULL FEATHERS ! Well...at least in ONE extent you are correct. The front suspension in the Senior models was moved rear-ward a few inches for the '38 Super Eights, and, of course, the 1937-1939 SUPER Eights were actually the "standard eight" motor. ( The reason the centers of the front wheels were moved rear-ward, in relation to the "mass" of the motor, was to improve straight-line stability for extreme-speed handling).<P>And the 1939 "SUPER" eight was a pale descendant of the traditional SUPER EIGHT in that they reduced it to essentially 120" sheet metal with a slightly larger motor (the Standard Eight was 320 cu. in -vs- the "120's 282).<P>But as far as the "big" cars, the '38-39 Twelve was a heavier, faster, superior car than its predecessors, consistant with Packard's belief in giving its customers what they paid for. The loss in length and shorter wheel-base had NOTHING to do with economics - this was simply following an industry trend to improve high speed straight line stability, which reflected the steadily improving roads and increased road speeds of the era. <P>I HOPE I will be able to get to a computer at random intervals while I am "on the road" for the next six weeks - if not, everyone have a great time enjoying this marvelous medium of communication !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest JT]

John N;<BR>"Could Packard have survived solely as a luxury car maker? I doubt it."<P>You're right about that point and that's where I believe George Christopher and the board faulted. After WWII Packard should have built cars to compete with Buick AND Cadillac.

[John N. Packard]

Pete,<BR> Have a great trip! Will you be stopping by Philadelphia for the AACA Annual Meeting on February 15 & 16? If so, I look forward to meeting you there. We will be addressing this topic in the Library Seminar. <BR> My comment about the 1938 Senior models is based upon a reference that states that the Twelve was built on the same chassis as the Super 8 beginning in that year. Apparently, George Christopher was attempting to consolidate the production of the Senior cars.<BR> I have a '37 Super 8 Limousine and had occasion to look at a '38 Twelve limo that presumably was used by General Eisenhower in Europe during WWII. It is in need of total restoration as is mine. Frankly, I was not impressed, which of course could reflect the condition of the vehicle. To me the lines of the '37 Seniors retain the classic look whereas the '38s do not. It is probably the split windshield and changed fender line that give this appearance. The motor seemed crowded in the engine compartment. If the Twelve was built on the Super 8 chassis, could that not be the reason? Price and condition dissuaded me from purchasing the car. I would love to have a Twelve however!<BR> JT, if we accept the premise that size of the company and the breadth of its product line was a criteria for survival in the post WWII era; then perhaps Packard's unrivaled success in its first 40 years as a luxury car builder sowed the seeds of its downfall. Their success in those years precluded any real consideration of merger or acquisition by a larger corporation. Cadillac enjoyed the benefit of a large corporate parent. It would be interesting to look at the various mergers and acquisitions over the years in the auto industry to see if they developed out of a need of the parties to survive.<BR> We haven't said anything about the role of the dealer organization. My dad bought his first car, a used 1946 Deluxe Clipper, in 1948; when we were living in upstate New York. Neither he nor my mother ever drove. My two brothers and I assumed that responsibility. We had routine service done at the local gas station. Shortly thereafter we moved to Virginia, to the town of Ashland just outside of Richmond. There we took the car to Mooers Motor Car Company, the Packard dealer in Richmond. I was always impressed by the professionalism of Mr. Goddard, the service manager, and Mr. Denny, the parts man. They took very good care of our '46 Clipper. Surely the factory needs to stand behind its product in warranty service; but isn't it the dealer that sells and services the car and keeps the customer coming back? Do we have any information on the dealer network? Certainly my small sampling may or may not be characteristic.<BR> I asked Mr. Mooers on one occasion what was his best year in the business and was surprised by his answer when he said 1928! I would have expected him to say 1937, which was a record sales year.<BR> I hope y'all are enjoying this thread!<BR>jnp

[Guest JT]

I don't believe it's the size of a company per se but what can be accomplished in a given space. I would guess Packard had to farm out a lot the operations it once preformed at East Grand after their move. Do you think this made for a more efficient operation? Were they then locked into a limited number of suppliers and subject to things out of their control such as strikes, and price increases? <P>What about the 38-40 years when the guy who could have afforded a senior car came into a packard dealership and saw little difference in the Jr and senior models (ex the 12) so he buys a jr. How much did the dealers play a part in encouraging sales one way or another?

[Guest JT]

I don't believe it's the size of a company per se but what can be accomplished in a given space. I would guess Packard had to farm out a lot the operations it once preformed at East Grand after their move. Do you think this made for a more efficient operation? Were they then locked into a limited number of suppliers and subject to things out of their control such as strikes, and price increases? <P>What about the 38-40 years when the guy who could have afforded a senior car came into a packard dealership and saw little difference in the Jr and senior models (ex the 12) so he buys a jr. How much did the dealers play a part in encouraging sales one way or another?

[Guest]

You will have to forgive me this is my first post, and I am not old enough to remember what happened in the 50's, but have read a good bit of literature and articles from the 50's, so I will throw out a "conspiracy" theory and see if the folks who lived the 50's can lend support.<P>When the economy took off after the war, it was a giant consumer frenzy. So many things that were considered luxury before the war, were made much more obtainable after the war because of manufacturing advances. A family was faced with being able to afford many of the luxury items that were out of reach before. This led to the keeping up with the Jones's, that I am not sure has ended even today. A family faced with these types of decisions were looking to be able to drive something nice, but also be able to have enough money left over to purchase the luxury items that were now available.<P>That age old saying that a rich guy is going to buy whatever he wants is still true today. If Packard had been able to appeal to the folks that money didnt matter to anyway, they would have still been able to operate like they had during the 30's when modifications, and coach works were at their height. People buying Packards in the 40's and 50's were probably buying because of the history they had had with a previous model, or others had had with Packards, or the overall mystique of Packard. When they actually did buy one in the late 40's and 50's the quality and dependability wasnt there, and they were dissapointed.<P>I liken this phenomenon to the middle 80's and Chrysler. They came out with cheap cookie cutter cars, that everyone could use because of the price point, but the quality was terrible. I cant think of a more consumer oriented time period than during the 80's, when you had again to keep up with the Jones's. It was a choice to buy a car at a price point that allowed you to purchase the big screen, the stereo equipment, the bigger house, and all of the fluff for a better life. The quality that Chrysler presented for the price point is legendary for being bad, and the Chrysler problems stemmed from those horrible cars tainting consumers choices for years to come.<P>I am in no way saying that the 80's Chrysler situation and Packards were identical, they each had their own challenges, but these are real decisions, that real people had to make. Chrysler came out of their doldrums, because they signed up for a big re-engineering of the process for building cars, and yes they started making vehicles that appealed to consumers because they were different. I think Packard would have done well on a recovery to remind themselves of what they had succeded at in the past, and that was lead the market in innovations, and make the other makes catch up to them in quality and appeal.<P>Just a small conspiracy theory from a young pup.

[Guest JT]

Robert, <BR>Yes that would have been nice had Packard got the same taxpayer help Chrysler did.

[Guest]

In the old chatroom ths question was talked about alot. Since are so called resident expert is away THANK GOD. I would like to recomend a book that is brutally honest as to why Packard went out of business. THE FALL OF PACKARD BY JAMES A WARD. AL K even if the independents merged they still would have gone out of business. Packard and rest couldn't afford to compete with the big three. One fact alone GM spent one billion dallors on revamp of the entire 1955 line of cars. The indepenents couldn't afford to play thos kinds of money games with the big boys. Yes for once I agree with Peter on this subject.

[John N. Packard]

Packard 53,<BR> I have read Ward's book and found it to be an interesting history of the many business decisions made, particularly during Nance's presidency. However, he leaves it somewhat open as to the cause of the company's demise. He lists many factors and suggests that any one of them being different might have allowed Packard to survive.<BR>Chesapeake Region provided cars for display during the holiday period at Port Discovery, a children's museum in Baltimore. I attended with my '54 Patrician and with a fellow member who has a 1963 Studebaker Avanti. A gentlemen looked at both cars and stated that the Avanti could not have been built by Studebaker. He went on to say that if Studebaker had built such a car it would still be in business!<BR>I wonder if a major factor in the demise of Packard was lack of confidence on the part of the consumer in the company? This same doubt may have been shared by the dealers. It's tough to sell or buy a product that you don't have confidence in. Somewhere along the way in its early history, Packard earned a reputation for producing quality luxury cars. McCauley used that reputation to sell the Junior series cars, when they were introduced in the mid '30s and was tremendously successful, initially. When the distinction between the Junior and Senior cars became blurred in 1940-41 ( by management design, according to the references I have) and quality suffered, customers moved on to other makes. Packard's business diversity was in war production of aircraft and marine engines. They dropped truck production in the twenties. Their car business just could not survive on its own and the merger with Studebaker was a total disaster!<BR>jnp

[Guest]

To Charlotee, John Packard, and all the rest...<P>Sorry...while the "resident Packard Expert" is away ( I am up in northern Canada freezing my (you know what's) off waiting for a turbo-charger to be fitted to my "new" airplane) they DO have computers here...!<P>First of all, I agree that there are a number of "conspiracy theories", and I agree that the '38-'39 with the "split" windshield and shorter hood do NOT look as 'cool' from a "classic" standpoint as the earlier cars.<P>As for the various books expressing complex theories for the demise of Packard, of COURSE if you are "stuck" with one of the "last" Packards, and havn't got the GUTS to admit the TRUTH, a "conspiracy theory", or complex explanations that put the average person to sleep, are a wonderful way to avoid the simple truth. And that has been discussed in considerable detail earlier; simply put - Packard drove away its cusomters with ever sloppier assembled products. The PROOF that Packard COULD have survived, had its management been a little more responsible, is that there was a temendous sales "spike" when the '55's first hit the market. Trouble was, the damn things were sloppily built and of marginal quality. In the hands of owners, word got out, and sales later that year, and into '56, dropped off scale. THAT is the simple brutal truth. I FULLY understand why, if you have one of those cars, why you dont want to hear that !<P>I dont blame our fellow chatter (see above)John Packard for saying he wasnt impressed with some derelict Twelve he saw. I wouldn't be impressed with a direlict Twelve either ! Poor John. Another well-meaning "young-un" who thinks because the Twelve and the "Super" Eight of 1938 used the same sheet metal, that they are on the same chassis. BULL FEATHERS. If you could DRIVE a properly maintained Twelve, you'd see why I froth of the mouth over such nonsence. A look at the diagramps in the Packard Parts Book will show you how much heavier, more ruggedly built EVERYTHING in the Packard Twelve chassis was, than the "Super" Eight. It HAD to be. There are certain basic laws of physics, and ASTM and SAE "standards" that make this so, no matter WHAT some ding-bat who never held a wrench in her life felt like writing in some damn fool coffee table book ! The FACT is EVERYTHING in a Packard Twelve's chassis, from the suspension, brakes, springs,the chassis itself, is heavier because it HAD to be ! AND because during its 'golden years' Packard DELIVERED on its promise to its customers that its products, no matter what the price range, were a superior "buy" over the competition. That meant that even tho a 1938-1939 Packard Twelve cost MUCH less than Cadillac V-16 it was a MUCH heavier, faster better handling, better braked, better cooled, etc. etc. car than the Cadillac V-16, and the customers BOUGHT TEN Packard V-12's for every Cad. V-16.<P>(Trouble was, the ENTIRE market for high performnace 'super cars' dried up, and did not emerge again until after the war, when Cadillac elected to go after it, and Packard elected to commit suicide with declining product. Packard threw away its heritage deliberatly. Its management had changed. They grabbed off the profits from war production that SHOULD have gone into maintaining their position, and peed it away on executive "frills". All the conspiracy theories in the world wont bury the fact that people stopped buying the Packard product for a damn good reason. <P>Now...which one of you brain surgeons said there isn't much difference between a Packard ONE TWENTY and a PACKARD TWELVE. Look me up next time you are in Arizona. I will take you to dinner in my Packard Twelve. It is NOT restored...just WELL MAINTAINED pursuant to Packard's tech. standards. I DARE YOU !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>(temporarily freezing in norther Canada)\<BR>normally in Big Springs, Arizona....! )

[Guest]

P.S> ( to my "post" above ) Now DONT take from my above "post" that I am "dumping" on the Packard ONE TWENTY. Of COURSE it could not be ANYTHING like the Packard TWELVE is; it wasnt designed or priced to compete in the "high performance super car" market. It was, what it was. And that is why it sold so well, and kept Packard in business. Because as was the case with ALL Packard products of ALL prices ranges it competed in before World War Two..it was a good buy for the money. I was BORN in one. We came across the United States in one. I have owned a few ! ( well, more than a few). Remember, folks, I actually worked on Packards of just about EVERY era when they were used cars. I don't have to read some damn fool book by some computer geek who never busted his knuckles fixing one ! <P>My sympathies go outto those who own the post war cars. I know how I felt when I parked one of mine alongside some General Motors product of the same price range. Made me want to puke with disgust. THAT's the truth, and I understand why SOME of you just dont want to hear it. Be patient. Us old guys who KNOW the real world realities wont be around for ever. Than you "young-uns" can make up any silly legend or conspiracy theory that makes you feel good, and you won't have to worry about being challenged. But...until then...... HA HA HA !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

Ok I will be the first to bite on the young one issue. I seem to keep making comparisons, but this time with experience to back me up. I liken the 55 models to a body style change with the corvette in 1984. For those of you who have not owned a corvette, this was the year that the body style and engine changed drastically from previous models. Was an 1982 Corvette a good car, yes it was, and it was the end of a body style that had the kinks worked out of it. The 1984 chassis and engine are one of the worst model years for Corvette, can anyone remember a "cross fire" engine. What a disaster, and the body and chassis squeaked like a warehouse full of rats. By 1988 most of the engine and body problems were a thing of the past. No cross fire engine and the chassis was refined to include less noise. I guess my point here is if you want to step out there and be different, and redesign things, it may take a while to get them refined. I am sure there are plenty of other examples of first year models by every car make, that were not well received or designed well.<P>I guess this is where I really kick the beehive. Can the merger between studebaker and packard help the transition of fixing these problems of the 1955 models? They sure didnt get 4 years of tinkering around to resolve the issues and refine the car. During the merger everyone was busy trying to fit studebaker parts on packards and vice versa to save money and engineering time and create brand awareness.<P>I dont want to sound like sour grapes here, but yes I do own the post war stuff, am I sorry I own one of these cars, NO WAY! These cars kept GM and FORD up at night trying to figure out how to drive them out of the market. I own them because I still think they are fine automobiles. Faults included, these cars are quality stuff. I admire the "classics" just as much as the post war stuff. I just cant make the leap there for discounting a packard made after a certain date as an inferior car. I am driving a 51 year old example of Packard engineering. My beloved GMC pickup truck will likely not make it to 51 years of age, so what does that say about the packard?<P>A car that was made in limited production and hand tooled is a piece of work, but so is the car that was made by the assembly line!<P>Again just a young pup getting his two cents in.....

[Guest]

For Phil and Johnson :<P>Your getting annoyed at me and calling my comments "base-less rants" may make you feel better, but no matter how much you WISH it werent true...no matter how much YOU like your post war Packards..the fact is..the buying public DIDNT. It is that simple ! I was around Packard show-rooms. I personally guarantee and warrant to you there were no armed thugs chasing eager buyers away ! No conspiritorial monsters or demons. The buying public just stopped showing up at Packard show rooms. C'mon...guys...you think they started running away in ever increasing droves just to spite YOU ? <P>Again, the PROOF that Packard COULD have survived if it had ANY respect for its customers, can be seen in the rush of orders when the publicity about the '55 V-8's hit the buying public. If only those cars hadn't been trouble-some "do-it-yourself" kits, rolling embarssmeents to a great heritage. But they WERE troublesome. Some of you may recall my telling you of a sorry day when I sat on the curb outside the Beverly Hills, California packard agency, "shooting the breeze" with the Service Manager and a couple of Packard Salesmen, when a tractor-trailer rolled up with a bunch of new ones. With bitter sarcasam, the Service Manager growled "here come some more "do-it-yourself" kits..."<P>My dad bought a new '53. We picked it up in the morning. By the end of the day, he was so furious at the miserable performance of the Ultramatic, he took it back and demanded our '47 Custom Clipper back (for those of of you who are not technically minded, Packard, in its greed to steal more and more company money from product improvement for their private use, steadily REDUCED the peformance and quality of its cars (until the '55's came out) and no more painfully obvious example is the difference in accelleration between the 356 cu in engien used from '40 thru '49, compared to the sluggish performance of the 288-327 engines used thru '53.)<P>All right..all right...I can't fool you young-uns...you are right..it is all MY fault..I ran around Packard agencies in the early 1950's...and every time a line of eager potential Packard buyers lined up at the entrance...I yelled "boo" and scared em all away.....Mia Culpa....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona<P>(except I am temporarily in Canada...freezing my butt off....!) <P> PACKARD killed Packard...no one else !

[Guest JT]

How did the bodies Packard built after losing Briggs as a supplier in 53 compare ?

[Guest]

Robert Johnson~<BR>You have no need to apologize or rationalize your purchase of whatever Packard you own. You were responding to a baseless rant familiar to many here. It is well to ignore it as best you can and enjoy your part in this great hobby.

[John N. Packard]

Let me interject another thought. The public knew in 1955/56 that Packard was struggling to stay afloat. Many people would avoid the product simply because of fear that no one would be around to service it and that it would have low trade-in value. Poor quality control didn't help either. If indeed the dealer employees were describing the cars in derogatory terms, that would not help consumer confidence in the product or the company.<P>jnp

[Guest]

For BH:<P>I agree with your comments about the interesting comparisons between the then new '55 Packard line and the competition. <P>Regular readers to this chat have seen my previous reference to an advertising "short film" showing how superior the new "torsion bar" suspension on the Packard was to the competion (movie shows the Packard and the competition going over high speed bumps - the Packard design clearly VASTLY superior. <P>Part of the "packard Mystique" was Packard's reputation for putting out a proudct that was superior to anyting in its price range. As I noted earlier in this "threat", this and other interesting design features DID "spark" car buyer interest, and for the first few months, the cars DID sell. <P>Tragically, the cars were badly made, and, again as noted above, quickly developed a reputation for being "do it yourself" kits. Sure, you put enough time into correcting all the "bugs", and you can get them to behave. But again, the new car buyer is NOT an auto enthusiast as we "wrench benders" understand the term. They will REJECT sloppily made products, and they DID.<P>And THAT is the bottom line. Packard DESTROYED ITSELF thru ever sloppier quality control.<P>As to the question of what happened to body quality after Briggs, I personally didn't see much difference. My friends who have the later cars say there are SOME examples indicating they were even worse at the end, but beyond that, I really shouldnt comment - not that well informed about the last years.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

damn...typo error...I meant to type above... "earlier in this "THREAD"...not 'threat'....!<P>PFH

[Guest]

Another thought to interject that was told to me by another chatter. The situation that our resident expert described I.E. dealers comment as the cars were comng off the trailers was made at a West Coast location<BR>if I remember correctly. If that is all correct, the scenario could have been a local phenomenon which is understandable given the times. WEST COAST FIRST. There does not seem to be anyone else that heard that type of comment at any other dealer location. I am not saying that the comment or the scenario did not happen, I'm sure it did. What I am saying is that there can never be just one reason for the demise of our favorite cars Marque. There was not one reason for any of the wars we fought, and there is not only one reason for the fall of Packard. Poor quality alone will not wreck a car company. Corvair did not wreck Chevrolet, Edsel did not wreck Ford, and the Airflow did not wreck Chrysler. So Peter your just going to have to go thru life with the stigma of being wrong on this one(heresy, I know). Your one reason and one reason only scenario does not hold up to the light of day. The poor quality of the 55/56 models was a temporary setback and would have been overcome given time and money, none of which came forth in time. The poor quality stigma also does not hold up completely as evidenced by the number of 55/56's still extant. My own 55 I feel is a prime example. Either this one slipped thru the cracks or the poor quality syndrome was overcome by the time it was built. My car sat in one place for 8 years and has started up and run ever since with none of the problems that a lot of people have alluded to. How do you explain that one Peter. Is it possible that the poor quality you constantly harp on was only a temporary setback that could have been resolved had the time and money been forthcoming. True by 55/56 I feel the demise decision had already been made and it was a done deal and maybe the early/late 40's and early 50's problems were the seeds that sewed that crop, but no one knows for certain, not even someone who was there and lived it. Don't get me wrong I am in no way comparing my 55 v8 with your 38 v12. Apples and Oranges.

[Guest]

Hi Al !<P>I disagree with your insinuation that it was just us "fuss-budgets" here on the west coast that were unhappy with the out-put of the Packard factory in the closing years. THINK...Al...the durn things didn't sell ANYWHERE. <P>Heck...man..being WRONG is part of my life's work ! ( I didn't intend it that way...but that is what seems to be the case with me)<P>....well..EXCEPT as to why our beloved Packard Corp. dug itself into a hole. THAT is pretty simple ! Of COURSE you like your car and of COURSE it is perfectly serviceable, and probably gives you a lot of satisfaction. But...Al...I ACCUSE YOU...of being a car buff ! I ACCUSE you of LIKING "playing around" with cars. And if my hunch is RIGHT...then...just maybe...you will finally "get the point"...that NEW car buyers are NOT like us...they dont WANT to piddle ! SOMEONE probably tinkered with your car quite a bit in order to get it to the point where you are happy with it. The bare fact is, Packards, towards the end, needed too much "piddling". THAT is what killed their reputation, and drove off the buying public ! Of COURSE that is too simple an explanation....(if you like "conspiracy theories and dont like the truth...!)<P>Dont you find it interesting how even in death, Packard "set the stage"....! By "off-shoring" more and more of its production as it came towards "the end", with less and less interest in quality control....it showed all of Detroit how to self destruct !<P>I disagree with you about the Corvair...the quality was GOOD...the reliability was GOOD...and THAT is why they sold enough to keep the plant going. SURE they pulled some cheap tricks like, in the first years of production, doing away with that front sway bar (which aggrvated "rear swing/axle tuck under". <P>I disagree with you about Chrysler. They did product ever poor quality cars..and that DID kill them ! ( or are you forgetting that the only reason they are in business today is because the American tax-payer bailed them out...with MANY millons of tax payer's money...not once...not twice..but THREE times !<P>Al...my personal prejudice is that there is a defect in the human spirit....we dont LIKE to accept responsibility. I believe Packard failed unnecessarily, for the simple reason they detoured time, money, and effort to "feathering" the executive's nest, rather than keeping up their earlier reputaton as a "good buy for the money". There ARE examples in EVERY price range that if you work at your reputation for delivering a good product..you will sell enough of em to stay in business.<P>Propheticlaly true was a 1920's Packard ad, in which they brag about their reputation for excellence, describing what a "cruel master" reputation is. If you dont have one ...dosnt matter if you besmirch it. But if you DO have one, and people come to rely on it...woe onto you if you fail to meet their expectations.<P>I will be back at my own computer in Arizona in late Feb. I dont know how much longer I will be stuck here in Canada, or if I will be able to find computer access in the other towns i will be visiting as I work my way down to the amphib. aircraft convention in Florida, and then back to Arizona.<P>In ANY event, I hope you all enjoy these exchanges as much as I do - I believe this is a tremendous form of communication !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>(freezing his butt off in northern Canada...!)<P>

[John N. Packard]

But Al, unfortunately what counts is the perception of the public at the time. I think I related somewhere on the DF the experience we had showing a '63 Avanti at a local museum. One gentleman could not be convinced that it was built by Studebaker. He said "If that car was built by Studebaker, they would still be in business". Unfortunately it was and they are not! Unlike GM and Ford the Packard line was not broad enough to sustain the operation, when the quality issues surfaced. <P>The final blow, in my view, was putting Packard identification on a Studebaker in 1957 and 1958. Why pay more for the Packard name when you could get the same car in a Studebaker? And the worst looking vehicle to carry the Packard name was the Packard Hawk. I guess they are collector items now; but that car has never appealed to me!<P>jnp

[Guest]

The war is not really a dividing line for Packard cars, in my opinion. The Clippers were fully competitive in both Junior and Senior versions. Due to a lack of funds to fully retool, the bathtubs gained weight in getting the then-fashionable flow-through bodies. This hurt performance, but the basic engineering of these cars was still quite good. I agree that the V8 was needed sooner. The 51 bodies are modern, but to me not at all distinctive - the basic shape could be Mercury or Pontiac. The quality problems of the 55's are well known, but many other makers had flashy but shoddy intro's too (57 Mopars).I'd say it slipped away about 50-51, with the over-long stay of the bathtubs and the not changed enough 51's. Remember that '49 was the second best sales year ever.

[Guest Albert]

Pete how could you be cold, it was very nice up here in Toronto yesterday it went up to 10deg C or 50 deg F all our igloos melted...

[Guest]

Hi..Albert...I am NOT "cold"..any more...finally got the airplane out of the shop in Muskoga, Canada (north of Tornoto) and now in Winterhaven Florida for the amphib aircraft owner's convention. 85 degrees here. And you should SEE what the young girls ARENT wearing down here....!<P>About '49 being the best sales year"....yeah...that is the tragedy...I think the sales records show there WAS a good market for Packard products that COULD have been exploited if the Company had been "on the ball!...!<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest JT]

With the current Enron mess going on it makes me wonder about Packard's purchase of Studebaker. If Studebaker misrepresented it's financial position so badly why didn't Packard pursue some sort of legal recourse against them?

[Guest]

Hi JT...!<P>The answer to your question ( he asks how come Packard didnt go after Studebaker for mis-representing its financial condition during the so-called "merger").<P>You raise an interesting question...and each of us..depending on which "axe" we like to grind, has answers we like..because they fit our prejudices....! <P>I personally believe a study of the Packard Company's rise and fall is an excellent "window" and "study in minature" on corporate industrial America...its virtues...its vices...how it rose...and how it lost its "edge".<P>There are two clubs that focus on Packards...Packards International...which began and remains most active and influential in the western part of the country, and The Packard Club...which began and remains most active in the central and eastern part of the country. I recommend anyone seriously interested in things Packard belong to BOTH...as they BOTH have excellent publications, which down thru the years have addressed just about every subject relating to the Company, its products, and its corporate nature.<P>My own personal prejudice is that both companies failed because they became over-run with the so called "management/Harvard Business School" types, who had no real connection nor interest in the product itself. By the time of the merger in the mid 1950's, the people in management in both companies who actually enjoyed, had "hands on" knowledge, and were interested in the product itself, were long gone. This was reflected in each company's management's decision to channel every dime they could get their hands on away from product improvment and quality control, towards administrtive functions and benefits. I rather doubt if the management teams of eithe of the merger partners really wanted to have the financial public exposed to their internal "dirty laundry". <P>The simple fact is...there IS an expensive HONDA...an expensive TOYOTA, and expensive Benz cars, each making tons of money selling quality cars, to the "Packard" price level/market. There is no avoiding the fact each of the above got rich by establishing the same kind of reputation for quality and performance that built Packard, and maintained it as a profitable entity during its "Golden Years". If we accept the fact that there really IS an expensive Toyota, Honda, and Benz automobile, and that they really DO sell well, in spite of their high price, then we must face the fact that Packards, which once sold well, stopped selling well, because they lost their reputation. This is a painful but simple truth. People who are willing to spend BIG bucks on cars...do NOT want "do it yourself" kits. The fact that both Studebaker and Packard were turning out poorly assembled cars, and THAT was the reason they werent selling, was a fact that the respective managements were simply not interested in hearing. In one of the Packard club publications I have referred you to, (some years back..you will have to research this on your own)....it is noted that when angry factory reps came back and told management they HAD to get the product back up to traditional standards....management FIRED them...because management had its own ideas on how to run a modern corporation (milk it and sell the wreckage).....!<P>So - my own "hunch" is...there was SO much corrupt ill-will within BOTH management teams...NEITHER wanted to "stir up" questions they did not want to face.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

JT: Maybe this will answer your question. When packard purchase Studebaker Nance and the Packard people never went in and went over Studys books. they too Studebaker at thier word that everything was ok. Even Studebaker didn't know how much money they where losing. After the purchase by Packard of Studebaker and a complicated stock swap, Studebaker had a 55% controling share in the new company. Studebaker share holders had 8 seats on the new board compare to 7 for Packard share holders. When Packard people found out howbad things where at Studebaker itwas kind of late to bring any law suits.

[John N. Packard]

Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion on this thread! For those who are interested I have posted the notes that I used for PMCC in the AACA Library Seminar on Orphan Cars held at the recent 66th Annual Meeting in Philadelphia. You will find them plus two pages of photos and ads at <A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/chesapeake/orphan_cars.htm" TARGET=_blank>www.aaca.org/chesapeake/orphan_cars.htm</A> Enjoy!<BR>jnp <p>[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: John N. Packard ]

[Guest JT]

Another old thread on Packard's demise.

[Guest]

Let me throw my 2 cents in - While mismanagement and poor accounting were the devils, the fact remains that Packard advertising during the 1950's was almost non existant.

Especially TV! Let's face it - Desoto had banner years in 55 and 56 because Groucho sent people to the dealers! Packard? Did some Reader's Digest show sponsoring but not even the whole show, just occasionally.

Well, my 2 cents = Packard has lousy advertising.

Let's face it, you can have a crappy product that sells like mad if its advertised well and an excellent product that collects dust because its not advertised. Thats 1950's TV generation reality.

[Guest]

Fonz - you are wrong. Packard SMOTHERED the media with advertising when the '55's were introduced. No question it helped generate a FLOOD of sales for Packard in the first months of that model year.

Well...you ARE partially correct...we all know how "snake oil" salesmen were able to "pump up" crowds, and make lots of quick sales of products that do not meet expectations...then they run like hell..

So...now you understand what killed Packard. It had advertised down thru its golden years, about the value of "reputation"...and how determined it was to meet the expectations of its customers. AND IT DID ! THAT was the REAL Packard legend. Reduced to its bare essentials....it was "a gentleman's car..a great buy for the money".

Let's take a cold, hard look at what REALLY killed Packard. This is not rocket science, and does not require a book full of economic "black magic" graphs.

Packard had famous reputation for a good buy for the dollar for the upper and upper middle class. Heck..the Packard legend, based on all those years of making customers feel good about what they bought from Packard.....is STILL so strong to this day, that whenever I have mine out...nearly FIFTY YEARS after the company died.... there are a few people who STILL come up...read the name off the hub-caps, and STILL have warm feelings and much to talk about.

Now we have the introduction of the '55 models, and all that advertising about "Packard Is Back", and the warm after-glow of that legendary reputation.... Whether it was the flood of advertising, or past good-will, Packard sold cars like mad.....for about three months.

Look at the sales for later in that model year. Like all buyer-seller relationships with snake-oil, once the product was in the hands of the public, and failed to meet its expectations, the public turned against Packard with a vengance. You know the old saying....about fooling people...

All the fancy theories, economic, social, or otherwise won't blot out simple truth. If you cant sell product, you dont get an income. If you dont get an income, you die. Packard COULD sell product, based in part on advertising, and in part by its legendary reputation. For a while. Then, the reality of sloppily assembled cars foisted off on dealers who got increasingly angry trying to make serviceable cars out of these "damned do-it-yourself kits", caught up with them. By '56, you could hardly GIVE a new Packard away. Yes, of course other manufacturers in that era were also letting their quality standards fall. But (1) not anywhere NEAR as bad and (2) they didn't have that legendary PACKARD reputation.

Hang on to your personal belief system, if it makes you feel good about the later post-war Packards. Trouble is...there IS a real world out there....where a famous old saying can apply to YOU in your daily life, if you dont keep your eyes open.

.."those who forget the lessons of history...are condemned to re-live them"..