'55 & 56 Build Quality

[poci1957]

Robert, those are interesting points, especially regarding the Patrician percentages. The question I would pose on the subject is how does this compare to Cadillac's performance of the same period? I suspect the actual market share in the upper price field was diminished compared to Cadillac. Todd C

[Guest]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> This is where I have disagreed with Peter. I have benn saying all along that Packard had some of here best sales after WWII. People started walkng away in 1954 because of the what the compition had compaired to what Packard offered. Tere are many reasons for this TOO MANY TO LIST HERE. Jack Harlin had a good one. Packard tried to be adefense contractor as well as car builder. She didn't have the money in the bank to do both. As far as any profits from WWII forget it. Packard actually lost money. Ferry invsted in defense contracts in the early 50's which never gave her a dime of profit. This money sholuld have been used to invest in a modern tooling for a new V8. The best book on this matter is The Fal of Packard by Ward. If you read this boo carefully and a couple of times you will soon relalize the problems Packard faced after WW II and some of the bad luck she had. One thing that is forgotten by a lot of people aand Peter is right about Packard gave up on luxury car market after WW II and gave it to Caddy on a silver plate. Brady Berry my dear departed friend whom was a Packard dealer allways considered Buick his compition. If you read your history carefully the V12 when first it was under consideration was actually going to be a reponse to Buick. One sentance I will claer up. Peter is right about Packard gving up on luxuary cars after WW II. Some of you may get peeved at me for my differences with Peter but there are some things we do agree on. I have no fights with Peter about packards before WW II. The differences come on things after WW II.

[56clipper]

I think there's no question that Packard as a corporate policy aimed more middle than upper. But in reality, what was the hope of an independent to go up against mass-produced luxury ala Cadillac with GM's financial backing for model design changes and development? ToddC asked the question of how Cadillac production fared compared to Packard in the years I listed previously. I don't have the time to crunch the numbers for all the years 34-56, but I did look at a few key years in the Standard Catalog, and here's the comparison:

1937: Packard 123044 Cadillac 14164

1951: Packard 100313 Cadillac 107380

1953: Packard 89730 Cadillac 107642

1955: Packard 55301 Cadillac 134845

Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but considering that Packard was doing it alone all those years, I really don't think the numbers compare all that badly.

I'll also echo MBL's sentiments: I also think my '56 Clipper rocks! Love those boomerang taillights! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I also think the little vent-pods on the fenders of the '51 Patrician I have mouldering away upstate are nifty too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Pete....

I very much appreciate the benefit of the doubt you've graciously extended. My comments (as always) were made in good humor, as typical decorum within this forum dictates. My written comments did as I expected <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> they would. They brought you to the keyboard and you eventually posted a narrative further explaining your icy mishap.

As to somehow questioning your personal integrity, that's an frightful leap. I'm dumbfounded <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> by the insinuation. If you interpret a comment about pulling one's leg as an affront, well I'm sorry for you. Further, many of us younger enthusiasts are very well versed in the concepts of self respect and integrity. Those born in the first half of the century don't necessarily have that market all locked up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

To go much further, could suggest that I've personalized your earlier post. Frankly, I've spent far to much time responding already. As you so entreat; let's remember that this is supposed to be fun, so relax and ENJOY! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Kevin AZ]

Above post by yours truly.

Kevin AZ

Tucson, AZ

[Guest]

RE Packard sales :

Bear in mind the good sales for Packard In the years IMMEDIATELY following World War Two, were NOT a reflection of the product's comparitve desirability....you could sell just about anything, and all the manufacturers did well. Now watch how the sales started down-hill - again, there were "spurts and peaks" , but the TREND was down-hill.

I do not recall now where I saw the month-by month break-down, but the explosion in sales following the introduction of the '55 cars in the fall of 1954, shows us Packard COULD have survived, had it "delivered" what it promised in its massive advertising campaign that paralled the introduction of the technically advanced suspension and good performing motor. But LOOK how those sales plummeted, when "word got out" in the months that followed, about the horrid build quality.

Remember...Packard did MORE than "keep up" with Cadillac, year after year. But that was during its "golden years", when it had its wits about it. All the backing of GM notwithstanding, Cadillac was SWAMPED by Packard in any given price class. Why ? Simple...because the Packard of its "golden years"...really WAS what the mystique said it was...Packard BELIEVED in what it was doing, and the product showed it...it was simply a better buy for the dollar, in any given price range. AND THAT IS WHAT SELLS PRODUCT !

As John ('53 Packard) notes, he isnt about to take my challenge and compare his '53 Patician's performance, or its general quality and strength, against a '53 Cadillac Fleetwood, because he would find himself in the same situation as someone comparing a Cadillac product to a Packard of the same price range, in earlier times.

Again....this is NOT a "contest" about "mine is bigger/better/longer than yours"....this is PACKARD CHAT...where we are supposed to be able to take a hard, dispassionate look at technical history, and LEARN something from it.

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Robert, thanks for listing the production figures. BUT, i am VERY suprised at that pre-war figures reflecting 100K+ units!!!!

[poci1957]

Those figures just show how successful the 120/110 program was and the prestige the Packard name had then. For two generations Packard had been THE premium car to own and now one could buy a new Packard for the price of a Buick or Oldsmobile. It would be the equivalent of Mercedes Benz today building a midsize car for $22,000, why buy a Camry or Taurus when you could have the Mercedes name for about the same money? The thing is that after this life saving move the company didn't go back upmarket and re-establish their prestige afterward, as we are covering in my post "Low end Packards after WWII.

[Constellation]

It was a success, To big a success to back away from. Which has been one of the points I've been trying to Make all along.

Bob

[Guest]

Yes....what a remarkable discovery...you CAN make money selling good products ! Damn....that is BRILLIANT !

Guess what...Packard in its golden years..KNEW how to make money selling good products all the way from the middle price, clear up into the "super luxury" car arena.

No matter how much you guys WISH it werent the case, the FACT is, the luxury car market came back..and when it did, Cadillac ran away with it. BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE BETTER THAN A COMP0RABLY PRICED PACKARD...It is that simple.

What do you guys do when you walk by a 1950's era Cadillac, at an auto show. Close your eyes and pretend it dosnt exist..?

Can't make money....LOTS of it..selling QUALITY BUILT cars to the upper classes...? Hmmmm...go try and tell that to Damiler-Benz, Lexus, Bayershe Moteren Werke ( BMW) etc. dealers.

The Packard Mystique...is STILL so strong, that even today, people recognize the name, and mistakenly fawn over ANYTHING that has "Packard" written on it.

Be honest....who has the GUTS to admit...that the famous "mystique"....did not come from making those very excellent buys for the money ( the "Junior" Packards)....or from the ULTRAMATIC DRIVE .....!

Luckily, at least if the POWERS SURVEYS of the last couple of years are to be believed, Detroit has finally "seen the light"...and gotten over "The Packard Disease" ( the idea that you could put a lousy product on the market, and get away with it ).

What an incredible irony...that the famous "Packard Mystique".....came from the hard, dedicated work....of the same company, that pioneered.....in its last years...the techniques of crappy product assemmbly that almost killed the American auto industry...!

Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

ok Pete, now let me get this streight, Packard lost its quality touch beginning sometime after mid 1930?????

[Guest]

CORRECTION: that previous post should read ...'after mid 1939'.

[Guest]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Peter: IAM ASKING YOU A DIRECT QUESTION AND EXPECT A DIRECT ANSWER. Do you have a copy of the book THE FALL OF PACKARD BY WARD. Ifyou don't would you be interested in reading a copy of the book. I could lone you my copy of the book. It seems to me that your knowlegde of the history and what happened to Packard after WW II is lacking in some areas. Perhaps you might understand the big picture a little better.

[56clipper]

The 120/115 lines in 1937 were brilliant from a sales standpoint. I agree, PackardV8, that the jump in sales that year seems absolutely amazing, but I checked it against several packard books I have, and it was the most successful year in the comany's history.

I have one remark to make about Cadillac and Packard and the handing over of the luxury market. I would hazard to make the following statement. Peter is absolutely right. The super luxury market that Packard dominated in the 1930's had ceased to exist after the war. What remained was the mass-produced luxury of Cadillac. The post war Cadillacs were, bar none, exceptional cars. BUT there were none produced in any postwar years that could compare to those high end super arrogant Packards of the 1930's. No matter how nice and luxurious 50's Cadillacs were, they were still just mass produced. I also don't think that Packard's move to provide both middle and high cars was bad from the point of view of trying to up the volume of production. In fact, as 1937 showed, it worked very well. I think one of packards biggest mistakes of the 50's was not differentiating enough between the middle and upper lines. From 1946 to 1954, the differences in outward appearances of the Clipper and Packard lines was just too subtle, thus making the higher end Packard not that much more noticable for the money. And isn't that what buying a top car in the 50's was all about? You wanted to be seen, and have people be impressed with your car. I think they started to get the right idea for 55 and 56. While still sharing the same body and much of the equipment, the outside (superficial) look was much different between Clippers and Packards. The Packards did look longer, more luxurious than the clipper. Both lines compared very favorably in styling to other 55-56 cars.

Overall, though, I think the numbers do point out that Packard wasn't doing all that badly in the early fifties. I think if quality was such an issue in those models, as previously stated, then why would production of 1953 models, which were virtually identical to 1952 and 1951, acually rise over 1952 numbers? If the public was so readily rejecting the cars, as was stated, then WHY WOULD PRODUCTION GO UP 27,000 UNITS? If the 51's were crap, I would expect that by 1953 the numbers would have gone clearly in the other direction.

But they didn't

Incidentally, I think that Packard's designs for '58 would have faired well. They looked much longer and luxurious, and the upright grill was narrower and more refined looking than the Edsel horsecollar. The big hit to sales would have been the recession that hit all of the car industry that year. Nothing they could have done about that.

And Peter, when I go by Cadillacs, I look at them with great longing. They are great cars. I owned a '55 Fleetwood in college that was (and still is) good for about 90 on the highway. Also, since my grandfather worked for Cadillac, owned nothing but Cadillacs (and the stray Olds) and provided me with my first old car shrine (1959 Sedan deVille 4-window, silver, sold when I was 12) I owe my whole devotion of old cars to Cadillac.

But there's something about those 50's Packards... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

PS: Cars my college friends and I have bought and currently own:

1951 Packard Patrician

1953 Cadillac Coupe deVille

1954 Clipper Club Sedan

1955 Cadillac Fleetwood

1966 Cadillac Sedan deVille

and of course, my own Clipper. Notice a trend? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[56clipper]

PPS: My copy of Ward's book is sitting right next to me on my desk. I took so long typing, Packard53's post came up while writing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" /> It's a good read for the story behind the fall, Peter.

[Guest]

For '53.

I cannot recall at this moment all the details and crack-pot theories in all the books I have in my library. I am not even sure that I have the Ward boojk. Trouble is, my library is still packed away in boxes, pending completion of our "dream house" - got a better idea - how about telling us precisely what your point is, and how it relates to whatever theory this Ward guy has ?

Since I cannot recall what this fellow "Ward" was talking about, without your help in summarizing, can't discuss this intelligently with you.

Hey...John...would you do me a favor - along with your summary for me of this guy Ward's theories, will you provide me a brief summary of your examination of a side by side comparison, of your '53 Patrician to a '53 Cadillac 60 Special Fleetwood..? You dont even have to DRIVE em ( we KNOW why you dont want to make THAT comparison....just give me a summary of what you find when comparing the hood bracing, and front end / bumper structure.

THEN try and come up with some more interesting excuses for why Packard died.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

There are many crack pot theories. Try on this one and you can call me a crack pot if you'd like. This is a theory that I've had for years concerning all the "so called" Independents of the early 50's.

As we all know, TV is a very powerfull medium. It is a known fact that the Independent Automakers could not afford to advertise extensively on TV. The Big 3 could because they could write it off over more units. As the late 1940's and into the mid 1950's wore on more and more homes got TV. It was an absolute craze to get a TV as soon as you could afford one. Teenagers used to go on Dates to watch TV, if you could imagine such a thing today. People were glued to the TUBE. What kind of Car commercials did you think they saw. Not Packard, not Hudson, and not Nash as a general rule. They were exposed extensively to Spots for G.M, Ford and Chrysler Products. There is more than some truth to this. That as the 1950's wore on the Idependents market share went down. They were out of sight and out of mind. So much so that by 1955 there were no real major independent automakers left.

Think about it.

Bob Bosworth

[Idle Swede]

Bob,

I thought about it, you are absolutely right.

Everybody was home all the time watching TV, never saw a Packard commercial and therefore did not know that they existed. Of course they couldn't buy a car that they never heard of. So there you have it PH, all your fancy theories down the drain. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest JT]

Bob, I think your point is another example of a factor that could have played a part. Unfortunately by the time I started looking at cars and being bombarded with TV ads I was 7 or so and Packard had been gone a couple of years. I do remember you just had to go to the Ford and Chevy dealers the very day the new cars came out and see what was new. Never got the chance to visit the local Packard dealer.

As to the "crack pot" theories they all contain elements of why Packard went under, at least all the ones I've read. The overall reason for the failure is much to complicated to put into a few paragraphs. At the same time who knows, pull a couple of those elements out of the equation and they probably would have gone on a few more years.

[Constellation]

To Idle Swede and JT,

You Bet Your Life, Do you remember what happened to DeSoto after it stopped sponsoring the Groucho Marx game show that aired Thursday nights on N.B.C., in 1958. You guessed it, by 1960 DeSoto sales were in the Tank. The last of the 1961's were made in late '60. DeSoto was a good Car and did well all through the 1950's . The Desoto-Plymouth Dealers of America sponsored "You Bet Your Life" with Groucho From 1950-1958.

Bob

[56clipper]

The lack of commercials and advertising, really, I think may have been a big part of the problem. It's very hard to find Packard advertising from the time, especially TV, though I have tapes full of all the other major car lines. The other thing I've always felt is that the advertising campaign for 55-56 packards was one of the lamest ever. Ads seemed so stogy, not at all in keeping with the snappy car designs they had come up with. And there definitely was not enough saturation.

I'll also ask this question again, Peter: if 53 Packards were so bad, why did production go up 27,000 units over 1952 production? I know they may not have sold all produced, but I highly doubt that they just left 27,000 cars on the side of the road.

[Guest]

Peter: no I am not going to to xplain the Ward bookto you. There are no crack pot theories in this book just the plain facts as to why Pckard failed. My offer still stands to loan you the book, or are you afraid of learning something new which might prove some of your ideas wrong. Nowfor me comparing my 53 to 53 Caddy. In my erea there dam few early 50's Caddies that hae been restored none that I know of. I said bdfore that I can think of about 30 reasons why I wouldn't want to race a Caddy. If I walkedup to Caddy owner whom has taken great care and invested much moeny in restoring it, and asked the person if he would like his car, he would think I amprobably the village idot and tell me to get lost. The bottom line about cars is that no matter what kind of car it is it will have its week points, YES INCLUDING CADDIES. Te other point is that my dear departed friend Harry Huber whom was a mechanic at Town & Country Buick in Jersey Pa maintained that Packard built a BETTER QUALITY CAR THAN BUICK. Now how do you explain that? One other thing my friend Ed Miller in Nples Florida whom owns a Packard V12 has said to me that in the 30's that cars like the Packar 120's where better cars $ for $ than the Packard 12's. One thing that I might YOU HAD BETTER NOT IN ANY WAY ACCUSE ME OF MAKING THIS STUFF UP.

[Constellation]

Peter,

Both Pack 53 and Robert asked a viable question of you. Why did Packard's production rise some 27,000 units in 1953 over 1952? Surely if Packards were the slip shod junks you make them out to be, why would anyone want one? Further, If no one wanted one they wouldn't have sold 89,000 of them. If what your saying is true then that means there were 89,000 loony toons out there who should have been locked up for visiting their local friendly Packard Dealer in 1953.

Bob

[Guest]

I have no explanation for why the auto industry, including Packard, enjoyed a "sales spike" in 1953. I do have to admit, that of all the post-war Packards, the '53 and '54 Patricians are my favorites - owned several of them down thru the years, and had a lot of fun with them. I liked their styling, both inside and out.

Also, MANUAL TRANSMISSION Packards of the early 50's, were giving a good accounting of themselves in stock car racing, including the Pan American Road Race, where, while none finished, they got in some impressive times against the much better supported "factory" teams.

It is certainly possible that the return to a "traditional" advertising format, high-lighting the more expensive Packards, helped generate buyer interest thru-out the Packard line.

Perhaps these were factors in getting new car buyers into the "closing room" during the '53 production run... ? ? ? ?

As usual, John Shinerman is speaking more out of passion than real-world fact. I have no explanation as to why John's friend would think a Packard was a better car than a Buick of the same era. This is utter nonsence. By '53 Buick (in the Super and Roadmaster) has a modern short-stroke V-8, which offered far better durability than the long-stroke flat-head Packards. Buick's then-new "Twin Turbine" Dynaflow, would blow and Ultramatic-equipped Packard's doors off so badly, it was FUNNY.

Here's an odd personal note...I abused the hell out of my family's Ultramatic-equipped early 50's Packards....literally beat the crap out of em....NEVER had one fail.. Sadly, this was NOT typical of their record in service......my recollection is that the high failure rate of the Ultrmatic was a disgrace. In fact, those transmssions were so horrible, even the Packard clubs, which are "authenticity" buffs, are still advertising a "kit" by the late H. Gibson (one hell of a grand guy, and old line Packard wrench-turner) that enables you to put a Chrysler Corp. automatic into those Packards - and with THAT transmission, the Packard performance aint half bad.

As much as I liked the STYLE better of the Packard, the fact is in terms of basic automotive hard-ware, anyone who has even the foggiest idea what they are looking at, would have to concede Packard had "lost it"...to GM.

In earlier "posts", I have touched on the structural problems that left the '50's Packards feeling MUCH less "sound" than the GM cars of their respective price ranges. In terms of basic solid "feel", the GMC cars had it hands down. Fittings and hardware..? Sorry...that was superior in the GM line too. Another example just came to mind out of the fog of history - take a look at how the convertible tops are attached to the body on the Packards of that era...and then on the GM cars of that era. With their much more solid bodies, and so much less draft from their superior convertiable top attachment method, if you compared a Packard and GM convertible side by side....well....all the romance of the Packard name wouldn't cover up THAT mess.....!

John....isn't your friend Ed Miller the one who says his Packard Twelve, even under modest driving, gets only 8 mpg...? And you expect us to believe this guy knows what he is talking about ? I bet if I had his Packard Twelve in my shop for a few days, it would 1) get more than 8 mpg...

2) after driving it running

the way it is SUPPOSED to..

he would forget all about

Packard 120's.....!

John - again, I have probably have in my stored boxes of library reference material... this Ward book you are apparently so impressed with - and I cannot now recall what his salient points are. Isn't that the book that was re-printed in one of the Packard club publications a few years ago...? Again, if you would refresh my memory, perhaps it would "ring a bell" and we could discuss it intelligently.

Lack of TV advertising..? Hmmm...that is an interesting point - I cannot argue against it as a factor in Packard's death. But I think it pales in insignificance compared to the major factor...the "bottom line".....which was alienating Packard owners by selling them products which did not measure up to the competition.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

I can tell you this, Packard was the only Independant Automaker except for Willy's Jeep Div. of Kaiser-Willy's Sales Corp and the Rambler model at Nash-Kelvinator in 1953 to see an increase in sales. Packard even outsold Hudson which had never been done before. Why? Because Packard offered a good value for the money thats why. Packard like the rest of the Independents were doomed. The Big 3 had the resourses to modernize their assembly operations after the war. Thereby cutting costs. The Big 3 could make use of extensive media advertising to blitz the public. It became very fashionable to "See the U.S.A. in Your Chevrolet" thanks to Dinna Shore. I can't imagine what would have happened had Packard been able to sponsor the Dinna Shore Packard Show. Further what do you think cars like the Chevy Bel-Air and the Ford Crestline-Fairlane did to mid price independents? Then there was the infamous sales war between Ford and Chevy in 1953 whereby huge inventories were heavily discounted to move them out. Even Studebaker, Nash and Hudson couldn't compete with all that, never mind Packard.

Then couple that with the unfolding tragedy at Packard with the idiots that were running the show at East Grand. Its not to hard to see what happened.

Bob

[Guest]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Peter: For you to say that ED doesn't know what he talking about is very INSULTING TO ME. My last name is spelled SHIREMAN. I have put up with you misquoting me and mispelling my name wrong. I draw the line in the sand when you make that kind of remarks about a personal friend of mine. This is a very honest and truthfull person whom has agreat deal of integrity. I have stayed in this persons home and talked about packards of the 30's for hours. I got the pleasure of meeting his personal mechanic Manfred. If this fellow wasn't good at what he was doing he wouldn't be working on ED's 33 Packard. In my opinion you lack all three attributes that Ed Miller has.

[Guest]

John - I am sorry I mis-spelled your name.

You seem like a nice enough fellow - with the very normal human trait of wanting to sound important.

As I have noted to you and others in here, I think much can be learned about human nature, as well as America's rise as an industrial power, and our later decline, from a study of the Packard Motor Car Co. Sort of a "minature" of what happened to our whole industrial base.

I think you do yourself a dis-service, John, by being more involved in the emotional aspects of your opinions, and less interested in learning something.

Didn't I havwe a telephone conversation with this Miller fellow ? If he is the guy I am thinking of, he sent me a picture of his beautiful Twelve. He also, if I recall correctly, was quite candid in his admission he was not technically inclined; had NO hands-on experience in the technical aspects of his car's innards. I salute his honesty, his curiosity, and admire his un-embarresed eagerness to learn.

You could learn something from his ability to admit his lack of knowledge in certain areas, without embarssement or resentment. With your present 'chip on your shoulder', I fear he will learn a lot more, a lot faster, than you.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Pete. If u'll write a book I will buy it. WHY DON'T YOU run for president of the PAC or PI clubs. HEY, i don't always agree with your strategies or analysis of a few things. But one thing is for sure, we need someone running those clubs with some technical energy and mechanical background! YOU r the man for the job!!!!!

Some peoples posts (or most of the posts) that you have opined as being false or thoughtless over the years are probably THE RESULT OF the 'clubs' derelection of duty when publishing newsletters, information and services. e.g. 1965 v13 Packard vans!

Those clubs need a man like YOU in there to set things streight!!! I even believe you would delegate some reasonable research into the V8 models too in spite of the fact that you loathe V8 models so much.

PETE HARTMANN FOR PRESIDENT!!!! Go for it Pete!

[Guest]

For Pack. V-8

Thank you for those very flattering comments, but...you've got the wrong guy..! Think about it...If I was 1/4 as smart as I claim to be....I'd be RICH...and I sure as hell wouldn't be DREAMING about Britney Spears...I'd OWN her, and be on my yacht in the Carribean....!

As for club organizations..frankly..I am "all burned out". I was active in the CCCA for many years, had a hell of a lot of fun making a pest of myself reminding some of the newer guys why the CCCA was formed in the first place. Was finally "run out of town" of Club management as a result of my smart-alec attitude. (actually, the final "blow" was when I, as EDITOR of the So. Calif. Region, Classic Car Club Of America bi-monthly magazine, put out a "satire" issue making fun of the guys who run these advertisements that...well...you know....(also, that issue contained too many pretty young girls wearing only smiles..which SOME "party poopers" thought was a little racy for the CCCA..!

Getting back to the discussion on what killed Packard i.e. The Packard Disease".....terrible "build quality" which drove more and more people away from Packard - and how that "disease" infected the rest of the industry in following years......

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND to anyone with the least bit interest in how Packard pioneered the near demise of the American industrial community....OLD CARS WEEKLY, JUNE 14, 2001 Edition . Excellent article about how EDSEL Div. of FoMoCo "pulled a Packard". They flooded the media, as Packard had done a few years ago, with advertising claiming "THIS...was THE car". By the time the first Edsels hit the show-rooms, the public was in a fever pitch to buy em ( I remember clearly.....in fact..the parallels are spooky.....you should have seen the people lining up to buy the first of the '55 Packards that came off the transporters at EARL C. ANTHONY Packard in down-town Los Angeles - it was a full-blown crowd control problem for the LAPD - if memory serves...there was an article about it in the Los Angeles Times).

Anyway, the article in OLD CARS WEEKLY shows how Edsel, infected with the "Packard Disease" well...to quote Curry Weed, Product Quality Engineer....

" I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE CARS THEY WERE SHIPPNG

WERE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND THAT QUALITY HAD TO BE

IMPROVED.... etc..etc..or the whole EDSEL project

would go down the tubes..."

Of course he was right.......incidentally, FoMoCo had a senior

executive by the name of Robt. McNamara, who went on to give

us similar "quality government" in the management of a certain

war.......

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

Peter,

Did you ever consider what happened to Edsel was not what you call Packard Disease, but more likely Nance Disease. Afterall James Nance ran Packard and later Studebaker-Packard into the ground. What do you think happened at the Mercury- Edsel-Lincoln Division when he ran that?

Bob

[Guest]

Good point - and it parallels my own personal prejudice about the malaise that has infected the entire American industrial base, evolving from a major culture/sociological change, as the "old crew" who actually LIKED making things with their own hands faded away from management, and the new "Harvard Business School types", with their general distaste for the details of "product" as they called it, took over.

In fairness to Nance, many of the decisions that eventually sunk Packard were made before his arrival on the Packard scene. As John points out, 1953 was a pretty good year - but this was a "spurt" - Packard's sales trends were in the decline.

Packard demonstrated in the 1930's, that a "two line" philosophy could keep them making money in both the luxury AND upper middle class markets. That is..IF they had a competitive product to sell !

Note that what was LEFT of Packard's incredibly competent Engineering Dept. was still foward-looking enough to come up with a reasonably competent engine and suspension system for 1955, and again, there was a sales "spurt" as new car buyers decided to give Packard "one more chance".

So - while the "immediate cause of death" was increasingly sloppy "build-quality", and Nance certainly was "in charge" when it got REALLY bad, the general malaise that left Packard less and less competitive each year had showed its ugly face years before.

I know I am getting boring repeating myself - but all you have to do, is park a Packard and a Cadillac from the early 1950's alongside each other, "thump" on the center of each car's hood, and look underneath at the front end bracing, and there's the whole story. You don't even have to drive em to get the idea ! And if you compared he "sharp" performance of the GM cars with the sluggish performance of the late 40's early '50's Packards...well...Nance wasn't at Packard yet when that horrid decision was made....!

Pete Hartmann

[Constellation]

Peter,

Ok you've made your point. Explain this one away. After Nance and his band of Henchmen (Key Men) got done by late 1953. They had either fired or pensioned off all the older executives, department heads and supervisors who had been with the company for years. These were the same people that knew how to build a car and had voiced some opposition to Idoicy of what was happening around them. As a result, Morale at East Grand went into the tank with even the line workers. No one cared any more. Therefore, the increasingly sloppy build quality on the late '53s and 54's. Now factor in the move to Conner Ave. It was a disaster in that it was to small to build cars in to start with. The line workers were standing on top of each other to get the job done. The line crew didn't even have a place to hang their coats. Every available pipe and even the Mono Rail system became a coat rack. With it, the Morale sank even lower. The build quality was so bad the cars had to be taken to East Grand on a Hastily contrived line to be finished.

There was just to much hand finish work to get the End Product road worthy.

Then there is a typical story about the Methods engineer who new that the costs were off at Utica on the new V-8. He was even lent Oldsmobile's engine cost book by a friend at G.M. The Henchmen told him they didn't need it as they knew how to build Engines. This methods engineer was Persona-non-grata after this. He left Packard to work for G.M. where they knew what they were doing.

This goes to show you what the atmosphere was like at Packard in the Bunker years. This unfortunately got carried over to M-E-L. The Edsel was doomed from the start by Mac Namara. Couple this with Nance and some of his carry over Key Men searching Parts bins at Ford in late 1956 and early 1957 looking for parts they could use in building the (E-Car) Edsel. The Edsel in some ways was Packardesque in its looks. It never suffered from Packarditis, but rather Nanceitosis.

Bob Bosworth

[Guest]

Bob - what is it you want me to "explain away"...? If you are trying to "pin" ALL of Packard's failure on Nance....then I would, as I noted above, have to agree only in PART, for the factors noted above.

Otherwise, sounds to me like we are in complete agreement.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

Peter,

Your the one who Talks about how shoddilly built and designed our '50's Packards are as Compared to other Makes. I'm Still making the Point "Don't Blame The Car". They were well designed, for the era. They were and still are better cars than most of their time. You and I both know the owners of these cars didn't buy them to hot rod with. However, you condemn the Ultramatic. You condemn the straight eights, but guess what they were a good engine. As far as a comparrison I'll grant there was some lacking on Packard's part to Caddy in their product. However, Buick was even more antiquated than Packard even in 1953 with their Specials. The '54 Buicks, all with V-8's were not much better performers either. A 1949-56 Lincoln was no match for any Packard overall. Chrysler never sold enough Imperials to make a difference and Chryslers and DeSoto's were no great shakes unless they had the Hemi under the hood.

The interstate highway system of today virtually didn't exist either. Nor did the State Highways in the condition they are now or the nice rural roads you see in most places today. Most of the time you couldn't go over 35 MPH to start with if you were lucky. The Packard suspension took it all in stride.

Buicks and Caddy's were OK if you liked to bounce around as if on bed spring. Both were good cars, don't get me wrong. However, the only thing that could wallow more on a rutted, dirt road than a Buick or Caddy with their soft suspensions were Oldsmobiles and the Chrysler products.

For the record, the best road car of the 40's and 50's was a Hudson. This was followed by Nash Airflytes. Both these cars were top choices of cross country travelers.

Bob Bosworth

[Guest]

Hi Bob:

Well...looks like, at least to SOME extent...you are "catching on"....you are DURN RIGHT when you say... "

'GRANTED...PACKARD WAS SOME WHAT LACKING COMPARED TO A CADILLAC'

(we are referring to 1950's Packards here )....

Good man....NOW you are "getting it" as to why people stopped buying Packards to such an extent they couldn't sell enough to keep the factory doors open.

But in most of your "post"...all I can do is admire the passion with which you defend nonsensical views.

Where in hell did you get the idea that on "most roads you coulnt go over 35 mph"... Who told you that...? Perhaps you are thinking of the days BEFORE the U.S. Highway system was set up, and paved, which started in the 1920's.

By the early 1930's, a NUMBER of manufacturers, not all of them makers of the larger super-powered luxury cars, were advertising that their cars had crossed the CONTINENT in less than three days. They did it on the U.S. HIGHWAY system (why people like to call the U.S. HIGHWAYS "routes"..such as in "Route 66"...escapes me....the STATE highways were, in fact "state sign routes"...the term "route"....was NOT applied to the U.S. HIGHWAY system..persuant to the 1928 'COMACT OF STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS'.

By the late 1930's, the majority of the U.S. Highway system was paved, and curves shallowed out. I do not now recall when (this was before my time) the last "sharp curves" stretch of U.S. Highway 66 (again...WHY IN HELL do people think a stupid song from the 1940's is actually the name of a highway....! ) was by-passed by straight wide two-lanes with gentle curves (referring now to the section between Kingman Az and Needles, Calif over SitGreaves Pass ) ( that section is still open, for those of you who want to see what a REAL 1920's era road is like) but by the 1940's....except for going thru towns, (and except for World War Two..when there was a NATIONALLY enforced 35 mph speed limit to save tires ) (not gasoline..we had PLENTY of gasoline)...you could (and we DID) go like blazes once clear of the traffic jams of the cities.

Yeah..I remember when the first freeways and sections of the "Interstate" were opened....wow...I remember coming across Oklahoma in the mid 1950's....to find the new "TURNER TURNPIKE"...and the signs...about 2 miles outside of each of the "interchanges"..." WARNING....INTERCHANGE AHEAD...REDUCE SPEED TO 80 MPH!

Now...where was I...oh yes...road speeds. The genious of Packard's "Safety-Flex" suspension was the superior ride over severe roads, while maintaining "boulevard ride" over smoother paved roads. As late as the 1980's Ford still thought concept its concept was worth extra expense .."re inventing" it - called it the "Twin I Beam". But it was not THAT much better than the standard "un-equal A arms" of the General Motors products, so it is no longer in use.

Who told you Buicks and Cadillacs didn't ride well ? SURE they werent sports cars, and, yes, the superior "sports car" type "tricks" Packard utilized on its largest cars did give them better roll and sway control (under wild high speed driving conditions most large Packard owners would never attempt ) (not ALL Packard owners are squirrels like me....!)

I owned a number of classic and later Cadillacs, including the "Mae West" Series 90 ( 1938 V-16 Imperial Formal Sedan). The Series 90 was MINT MINT MINT when I owned it (for a short time in the mid 1950's)....yes...I did make sure the very expensive-to-manufacture "lever action" type shocks were full of clean hydraulic fluid. Its ride was far more in keeping with a luxury car for rich old codgers, than my Packard Twelve. Heck..let's face it...it was a smoother and quieter car than my Packard Twelve of the same year..! ( as a side-note..the introduction of rubber-mounted engines made ALL cars so smooth and quiet and vibration-free, there was less need for multi cylindered engines in the first place...! ).

That "boulevard ride" is what the public buying that class of car wanted, as more and more roads were paved and their curves smoothed out. I love my Packard Twelve (which explains why I kept it and dumped the Caddies...but..let's face it...the Packard Twelve, which was obsolete in many ways, before it ever was assembled !

But Packard's OVER All reputation sold cars. That is...while it HAD a reputation to sell ! When it lost its reputation due to increasingly shoddy products, it lost sales. It is that simple.

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

Starting in 1951 neither Packard's lone Patrician-400, 4 door sedan or 300 sedan on the 127" platform was any real competition to Caddy's, Buick Roadmasters, or The Olds 98, AS FAR AS MODEL LINE UP. The tatical error was that Packard did not have a Convertible, Hard Top or 2 door Sedan on the 127" chassis to compete in the Showroom with the Big 3. As far as quality, the Patrician was as good a car as any of the afore mentioned Cars from G.M. No Lincoln or Imperial could touch a Packard, Patrician-400 either.

As far as ride, the Packard would handle better on the road. I'll stand by that. Caddy's and Buicks from the early 50's all had this pillowy, matress bounce to them that became more pronounced on rough roads. All Chrysler Products were springy as well, except for Dodge Trucks. Lincolns weren't much better than their Ford Cousins.

As far as roads are concerned. The U. S. Route system was laid out in the 1920's. Most of your country roads in the '50's were the old style crowned narrow lane and 1/2 affairs. Most were rough at best, frost heaved, pot holed and were passable only because they weren't dirt. They were surfaced with, mix in place tar and sand. Even in the 1950's most towns still had Macadamized streets which was only, crushed stone, asphalt tar, and sand rolled in to depth of 2" at best. If you were lucky the State Highway you were driving on was made of Concrete.The bulk of the highway system in all 48 states in the late 1940's and early 1950's were 2 and 3 lane affairs, that were modernized in the 1930's. The G.A.R. highway system that came about after the First World War, with federal money that was infused into it after World War II, was what was responsible for a major portion of the 2 lane highway system being widend to 4 lanes on major U.S. Routes such as Route 1 and Route 6.(I grew up on Route 6) By the way, Route 6 used to go from Lands End in Provincetown, Mass., across country to the Sana Monica Pier in California, both ends of the highway faced west ironically. It now ends in Bishop, CA. It was laid out as a State Highway in Mass. in 1925. It was widend to 4 lanes in the mid 1950's On Cape Cod it became a modern Divided Highway known as the Mid-Cape Highway for the most part, in the 1960's, which I watched them build. I hope my history lesson on Mass. roads was enlightening.

Peter, no offense is ever intended in my corespondence to you, I like debating with you. You're pretty good at it. You should be a Politician like me. (I am an Elected, Board of Public Works Commissioner in the Town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts and serve on other Boards and Committeees as well) Your town is missing out. I've just noticed his thread, is the most looked at of all on this board. People like the raging debate I guess.

Bob Bosworth

[Guest]

Bob - Again...at the risk of repeating myself...please don't think I am picking on you personally. Your spouting nonsence is a VERY normal and common human trait. It isn't YOUR fault...it is OUR fault as humans..so many of us want so desparately to say something....say ANYTHING...that the validity of what we say is IRRELEVANT...the important thing...is to say something.

Who told you the early 50's Lincoln wasn't the 'road car' Packard was..? What would possess you to volunteer something like that...when you KNOW there are peole in this room who actually DO have "hands on" experience with these cars.

Yes, the "factory prepped" "road race" Lincons were hardly what the average person drove on the streets...but even without the "factory prep" those early '50's Lincolns would run away from Packards....for a number of technical reasons....FIRST..they had Hydramatis...which was a superior FOUR speed transmission, in place of Packard's ONE speed transmission...That' right...only ONE speed...you started out in "convertor"..then..depending on throttle setting...LOCKED into direct drive. Of course you could put it into "LOW", thus putting the entire system thru a set of reduction gears...but...again....ONE speed....the now "reduced" gear ratio...starting out in "convertor"...then....again, depending on throttle setting....lock into the now reduced "direct" drive. That was one of the reasons why the Packard was so sluggish - proof...the few early 50's Packard with manual transmissions weren't all that bad performers. Of course they couldn't go as fast as the competition, because they were geared so much lower (had to be...otherwise, their less powerful motors would have given even MORE sluggish performance..!)

Perhaps you got confused and meant for your comments about handling to refer to the '55-56 model years only ( there were no Packard after 1956...they were "re-badged" Studebakers, and they did NOT have that marvelous "torsion bar" suspension ). For that period ONLY, yes..the Packards handled better...MUCH better !

But..getting back to the early 1950's...Lincoln had a modern short stroke V-8...oh...forget it. Dosnt matter...the question is WHAT possess people to utter such nonsence.

Who told you that in the 1950's "most highways were just macadam mixed with sand...etc..." Or that they were "rough at best". Again...not picking on you personally...but...I am puzzled on the thought process that would volunteer nonsence like that, KNOWING there are people in the "room" such as myself, who were actually THERE. By the start of World War Two, most of the original "Lincoln Highway Standard" concrete U.S. Highways, had been re-paved with asphalt, and were as smooth as, if not smoother, than most Interstates today. I recall as a child the tremendous work on the major highways to keep them suitable for war-time travel. True, during the war there was a 35 mile an hour speed limit, but that was to preserve tires ( I am the second owner of my Packard Twelve...the original owner was a high ranking army officer, who liked to see how fast he could make it to the Army Air Corps base near Tucson, from his home in Hollywood....you should have seen the extreme speed "bug burns" on its fenders when I bought it in '55.

By the time I started driving trucks cross country in the mid 1950's...oh...forget it...what's the point ?

What on EARTH possessed you to type in that utter nonsence about "route 6. First of all, until that damn fool song " Getting Your Kicks On Route 66 " came out, there was NO confusion about "state sign routes" and "U.S. Highways".

By law, all states had in their vehicle codes, the provisions of the "COMPACT OF STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS OF 1925" which provided that NO numbering system of a state "sign route", nor could the designs of the signs themselves, conflict with a U.S. Highway. It also established technical stanards for the "U.S. HIGHWAY " signs. STATE highways were "routes"...U.S. HIGHWAYS...were HIGHWAYS.

There was a U.S. Highway 6 that came down thru eastern California, but why would you invent that nonsence about it going to Santa Monica ? It never went NEAR Santa Monica....it came down along the eastern side of the High Sierra..came into Southern Calif. thru the old "Mint Canyon" pass, now "CALIFORNIA ROUTE 14 (long since replaced by the Antelope Valley Freeway, but some sections can still be driven) then went down San Fernando Road, then down FIGUEROA to the San Pedro area..

What you MAY be thinking of is U.S. HIGHWAY 66...which ran from the Santa Monica pier, up thru Santa Monica Blvd, then across to Pasadena, then east along the foot hills, up thru the Cajon Pass....then out across the desert to Needles, then to Kingman, Ash Fork.....Albuqurque.....thru Missouri...ending outside of Chicago...(think the town where it ended was at the old railway switching town of Kancakee, Illinois....oh hell....what's the point...I was there..you weren't.. I dont have a need to make up silly stories...you do....but the real question...Bob...is WHY..? Perhaps if you are SERIOUSLY interested in a clinial discussion of the foibles of humanity...you can discuss this with me without getting sore.

I regularly drove trucks as a kid in the mid 1950's up U.S. Highway 6 as far as the Reno area, and drove U.S. Highway 66 all the way to its eastern terminus. Yeah...one thing I would agree with...there were some three lane streches in one or two states...mainly in Missouri...(this "3 lane - center lane for passing"..was one BAD idea left over from the 1930's....THAT was suicidal....by the late 1930's...with car speeds nearly as fast as they were today....two cars, heading in opposite directions...both starting to pass at the same time...closing at over 120 mph....not funny. )

Pete Hartmann

[Constellation]

Peter,

I'm not getting sore. If you knew me, you'd know that wasn't true. Lets face it, I thought I made that plain at the end of my last post.

However, To consider any early to mid 50's Lincoln the equal to a Packard Patrician-400 is pure foible. There is no comparisson as Lincolns were downsized shadows of their former selves. Would you consider a '55 Lincoln to be the equal of any Packard model in 1955? I wouldn't. It was a warmed over '54. I know what 1952-54 Lincolns are, they are nice cars, but are not as Stately nor are they as Nice as a Packard Patrician. They are a just a big Mercury with a Ford Truck engine. The same is true of the 49-51's as well. Granted they had a Hydramatic, but so did Nash, Hudson, Kaiser-Frazer and on the G.M. side Caddy, Olds and Pontiac. Ford couldn't come up with a suitable automatic for Lincoln. Packard at least had the Ultramatic. I've always refered to the Lincolns of that Era as being Zepherized. They were not the Lincolns that Edsel Ford envisioned.

As far as highways, some sections of the country were ahead of others in the area of road constuction. You're a westerner. Out west it seems as in California, they were years ahead of other states as far as Modern Divided Highway construction. Here in Massachusetts this didn't get started until the mid-50's. Route 6 was until 1956 when it was finally completely widend to 4 lanes from New Bedford to Wareham a 2 and sometimes 3 lane Macadamized highway that was modernized in the early 1930's. The same held true for the stretch from Providence, R. I. to Fall River, Mass. Interstate 195 though here wasn't built until the mid 60's. The Mass Pike I-90 wasn't finally finished untill the early 60's. The same is true of Route I-95 or I-93 here in Massachusetts.

U.S Route 40 "Lincoln Highway" was the first Paved highway of its type in the country. Where you are confused is that U.S. Route 6 is not a Federal Road.

Its a State Highway over most of its length. It uses a U.S. Route numbering system for Odd numbers running North and South and Even numbers East and West.

U.S. Route 6 was laid out as a State Highway in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1925. It is part of the original Grand Army of the Republic Highway System as well. I can imagine that Route 66 follows along on this same Idea just as Route 1 from Florida to Maine does.

As for 3 lane highways, I agree with you they were the most dangerous roads ever devised. I can remember a lot of near misses going to Cape Cod with my father in the Plumbers' Supply truck starting at age 3. State Route 28 from Middleborough to Bourne was a 3 laner. More people died on that road in head on's. It wasn't until the mid 60's that the state finally did something with it. There were several stretches or Route 6 from Orleans to Provincetown that were still 3 lanes until 1970.

Don't worry Peter, I'm not sore at you. Others on this board might be, but not me.

Bob

[Guest]

Bob:

Which were "modern divided highways out west" in the early 1950's..? (unless you are referring to portions of the main highway across the Ridge Route to Sacramento and the few completed sections of the Hollywood and Pasedna freeways.....?

Have you no shame..? You are talking to someone who was THERE !

Pete Hartmann

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs, AZ

[Constellation]

You got it right on the Freeways. As far as Shame I have enough for both of us.

Bob