Packard 110's & Langworth's Premise

[55Connie]

This discussion thread quickly got off the subject of the 110's themselves, to plummet down the well worn path of 'what killed Packard'. As with any business, it was poor management, pure and simple. What we're left with today is a crumbling building, embattled proving grounds, preconceived opinions, and a bunch of really fine motorcars. Let's work with that.

Richard Langworth is a respected automotive historian who has lived with the cars he writes about, and Packard has long been a favorite of his. I respect his work. However, I completely reject his argument that the Packard 6 shouldn't have been built. We sometimes forget what cars in the late '30's were like, and what was going on in the market. The 110 must be looked at in the era in which it was born.

Technology progressed very rapidly in the 1930's: compare the most basic Model A Ford to a '40 and the difference in performance, style, and functionality is dramatically evident. Horsepower went up 150% for heaven's sake! Automotive technology matured so rapidly that the basic archetecture laid down in this era held sway for another 20 years. By 1941 we had automatic transmissions, air conditioning, power windows and seats, multiband radios, fresh air heaters, independent front suspensions, front wheel drive, overhead cams, alloy heads and engines, high compression, supercharging, all kinds of marvelous stuff that's commonplace today. It just wasn't all concentrated in one production car yet.

Viewed in it's era, the 110 was a really good car in its own right: one of the best you could buy in '37-'40. The Packard 6 had a better engine, brakes, suspension, transmission, and differential than most of the other popular models. The Packard 6 was bigger and produced 15% more power than the Ford V8, Dodge/Plymouth 6, or Chevy 6. The Packard 6 had full pressure lubrication while the Chevy and several others still used splash. GM bodies were made with wood through the 30's. Synchro trannies were phasing in, but none were as strong or as smooth as Packard's, the acknowledged leader along with Cadillac. Primitive independent front suspensions were showing up, but 'knee-action' was appaling and no better than Ford's straight axles when compared to Packard's independent front end. Ford still used mechanical brakes. Hudson used cork clutches. Fords had no oil filters. Packard 6's didn't overheat, partly because of the water jacket design: can't say that about Ford V8's. Most '30's cars generated gear whine. Silent cars like the Packard were rare and exuded quality as a result.

The Packard 6 was a technology leader in '37, a lot of car for the money, plus they looked good. Buyers always look for such cars and they usually sell well. They survive in good numbers today because they also held up mechanically, even after their resale value was gone and their reputation impugned. Don't compare them to Packard 8's, compare them to the competition.

The 110's fare well against the bigger cars too: the Buick 8 was more powerful but handled like a hog. Cads and LaSalles had the exhaust manifolds on top of the engine, making them harder to work on and generating a lot of underhood heat. Lincoln Zephyr V12's had a raft of problems. Packard engine mounts, timing chains, water pumps, bearings, clutches, were all state of the art and top notch: each a story in itself. These were not cheaply made cars mechanically, and in every way Packard engineering and quality was in evidence throughout. The worst that could be said about them was that the interior appointments were just average.

I've watched '30's cars compete in Greatrace, and the 110's do better than most other marques in their age range. They always finish well, without any repairs or maintenance required. They don't overheat, and high dramas such as broken trannies or axles just aren't an issue. Amazing for a car of its era.

Now: why is there any controversy over this otherwise well built, time proven, and popular car? We all know this argument has gone on for years. When did this start?

There are certain old car myths that are being passed on from generation to generation. Once a rumor gets started there's no shaking it. Some things hit the web that are resolutely untrue, but are spread so rapidly it's almost impossible to shake it. We have to be as discerning about what we read today as what we read back then.

Those of us who learned about cars in the '50's from the books and magazines being published at the time came away with some bad info, and it stuck; just like today's 'net. We've all heard 'em: Tuckers couldn't back up. The Fish carburetor gets 50 mpg but the government supressed it. Add these pills to the gas tank and it will restore your rings and reduce oil burning. Toilet paper oil filters will make your engine last forever. Unleaded gas will destroy the old car hobby. Spark plus with two side electrodes make more power and mileage than one, but add four and you've really got something. Batteries die if left on the ground without a wood block under them. Henry Ford took one look at the design of the new '49 and died on the spot. Fans under the carb atomize gas better. Magnets on the fuel lines improve mileage. The list goes on and on.

In this case, it's not what was said, but what wasn't said. No one talked about the Packard 6 cheapening the brand image or hurting the company until after WW2. Even then it was only speculated on after the decline of the company was self evident. Those first few years of postwar production were a positive time for all manufacturers: it was almost impossible for management to make a costly mistake. Then as now, the board was interested in making the quarterly figures and paying stock dividends, and investment for the future was simply not on the radar screen. Packard's sales and engineering departments reacted to market forces, rather than anticipate them, and they just flat missed it.

Olds and Cadillac helped bury Packard by building a car that people liked better: good value for the money, and good looking to boot. Damn near killed Lincoln too. GM had a depth of research, styling, and engineering to draw from that no independent could touch. Harley Earl could simply pull something like the Hydramatic trans from Olds and stick it in a Caddy. No other automatic came close to working as well. Delco and Frigidaire systems such as a/c could be plugged in when Packard had none to offer. Caddy's '49 331 V8 was lighter, almost as smooth, and more powerful than Packard's 327 straight 8. Better power, brakes, steering, and suspension, all the things that made the Packard 6 such a good buy in the '30's, now worked against them in the marketplace. GM didn't react, they led. Packard used to lead, but stopped after the war. Damn shame.

The '49 Olds Rocket 88 was a new sensation in driving, a true advance, while Packard retained its late 30's feel. When a medium priced car could outperform a top model, look out. The '55 Packard was the right idea, just a little too late and sadly underdeveloped when it did come out.

The speculation about Packard surviving by catering to the carriage trade simply isn't borne out in the light of history. Name one auto maker that succesfully did that? Look at the fabled 'Three P's'from the '30's: Pierce Arrow and Peerless died while the 110 was being born. They both purposefully decided to eschew a cheaper model, at the exact moment that Packard management went the other way. Packard's management wasn't alone either: Lincoln did virtually the same thing. The Zephyr helped prewar sales transition away from the dead Senior series and kept the sales numbers up, as did the Continental, and lack of innovative product after the war kept the division in the doldrums. Nor did Lincoln do anything great after the war, until the mid '50's. One could argue it took the same effort Packard put in to the '55's, that it did to get the Lincoln Premiere and Continental MKII to revive that marque. Mercury gained share in 1949 when it stole the midsized Lincoln, otherwise the luxury division might have crept back earlier than it did. Had Packard had Ford's resources to put into it, maybe they could have pulled it off too.

If anything, the better argument might have been for both Packard and Lincoln to carry their mid sized cars into the postwar market, to help generate the cash needed to get the full sized lines up to date.

Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg couldn't do it on high end cars either, even though their Lycoming division was a big name in both aviation and motorcar engines, and is still with us today. Rolls Royce made money building airplane engines as well. Packard got out of that business in the late '20's because Curtiss engines were lighter and more powerful. It was perfectly rational for Packard management to see the resumption of aircraft engine production as a positive step, based on what they had seen up to that time.

We forget our automotive history at our peril. Doomed to repeat it? Perhaps, but that's not always a bad thing. Look at today's Cadillac: they have completely revamped their image, with a combination of GM technical innovation, styling, and speed. Sound familiar? Who would have bet on Caddy's survival in this form in 1995? It's like its 1949 all over again. Who will survive the next 10 years? Olds is dead; is Buick next? Mercury? Doesn't the grey-haired-lady or well-heeled-farmer market still exist? Sure, but they're over at Lexus...

Richard Langworth is something of a victim of the era he grew up in. It's understandable. The Packard 6 was a very good car and launched at just the right time. It was very much a Packard and reflected well on the company. If no one had told you it was a problem, how would you have known?

Mr. Lamgworth, I contend for the reasons stated above, that the 110 line was a truly brilliant and innovative move. It may in fact have been the last one Packard's management ever did.

[Aanderson44]

55Connie,

Excellently written, IMHO. For my disagreement with Langworth's closing contentions about the 110 (and I sensed a bit of an allusion to the 120 as well in his final comments), I still consider Richard Langworth as perhaps the best of the writers that Collectible Automobile has, for he is not only knowlegeable about the era he writes, but gives every evidence of researching his material pretty carefully (unlike some of the newer writers for "that other newsstand collector car magazine").

Packard management did what they saw as necessary in the 30's, to simply continue in business. And often that meant, back then as today, "thinking outside the box", which I think is exactly what went on in the creation of two junior lines of cars. And, from all appearances, it worked.

Mindless conservatism, in the presidential penthouse, or in the boardroom seldom works for long in the business world--it really never did, doesn't now, and likely won't work for long at anytime in the future either. The business world is far, far too dynamic (meaning ever-changing) for any rigid adherence to a particular product, a particular design, or the same old, same old way of doing things, product selection, or producing products. While stock price probably wasn't quite the motivator in the early postwar years that it is today (and frankly, too much emphasis on stock price has made many a horrid mess in our modern business/industrial world today!), certainly it appears that paying out nice dividends, as if Packard stock were a "stock for widows & orphans" seems to have been a strong motivation--otherwise, why did not Packard management seriously look beyond the now, look out over the rest of the automotive field, seriously test the trends that were in the offing (most of which did come true, to the dismay on East Grand Avenue)? Therein lies the question, and the answers as well.

Packard wasn't singularly alone in their postwar conservative approach. The World's largest retailer, in 1945 was none other than Montgomery Ward. The record of Ward's, and their almost curmudgeonly chairman, Sewell Avery, is quite clear. Avery was firmly convinced that the Depression would return with a vengeance once the troops came home, that he'd need bank vaults full of cash to weather the storm he was certain would happen by 1946-47. So, absolutely no upgrading, no remodeling, no going out to find new product lines, and certainly no new stores would be built. By the time Avery left, Montgomery Ward had been passed by Sears Roebuck & Company like a hot car passes a struggling truck, and Sears didn't even bother to look back. Montgomery Ward lost their initiative, their innovation, their image as being a going, dynamic retailer, never to fully regain it, and slowly began retrenching, leaving what had been tremendous markets for them by the late 1950's. Even with 2 or 3 turnaround attempts in the 60's and 70's, it was too little, too late, and they pretty much melted away, certainly as a full-line retail store chain.

Had Packard's management and directors been able to see "beyond the now", been truly aware of what was happening with the industry leaders, I think things would have turned out rather differently. I wonder what the effect on Packard might have been, also, had the 120-sized car been continued in those immediate postwar years. I also wonder, had Packard's management done what others were doing during the war years, once the immediate crisis of gearing up, ramping up wartime defense production had passed, that being doing some engineering and design work on cars truly aimed at "taking the company to the next level".

I suspect that had they done some of those things, they'd at least have been a very valuable, desireable company for any merger or buyout, for a number of potential suitors, be they inside or outside the automobile industry. And, I do suspect that they'd not have been motivated to take the jet engine gamble that they did.

I have to admit that in my earlier post on this subject area, I was writing "off the top of my head" without really digging up much to support it. I did do some serious searching right afterward, and realize now that some of the things I wrote weren't factually true. However, those jet engines do show up in US Air Force databases, as maintained by the Air Force Museum, the J41 and J49, both of which are noted as "disposable" engines, and both listed as cancelled. By "disposable" I take that to mean engines destined for one-way use, such as a guided missile. In the early days of missile development, when airbreathing guided missiles were a serious thing, and of all those designed, most wound up being ultmately rejected for production. As such, for what was a relatively small entrant into the jet engine business, it seems to be that those two engines were a very risky crap-shoot for Packard, and one they very well could have left to the likes of GE, Allison, Curtiss-Wright and Pratt & Whitney. But that's getting away from the thrust of what you were saying, unless those dollars could have been invested in a body assembly operation before that came to be a crisis.

Art

[55Connie]

Please feel free to post my blog to whomever you might think would find it interesting. These were some of the thoughts I was having while reading Richard's article, and if it was his intent to stir things up a bit he certainly did that. I also know him as a fellow Triumph enthusiast, and even owned one of his cars. I had too much to say for a 'letter to the editor'!

One reason the postwar Packards survive in good numbers is because you couldn't kill them. At worst they just sat around waiting for a new home. I'll bet the surviving '49-'53 Packards exceed the number of Lincolns from the same period.

Just because it says 'Cadillac' on the grille doesn't mean there is any direct lineage to speak of. There's no accounting for taste, either. What consumers buy these days is all sizzle: you never see any technical specs in print ads or on TV anymore. In fact, if these were toys, the commercials would be illegal: showing a car doing something it isn't actually capable of, like exceeding the speed of sound, is not permitted with kids as the primary market.

I too would have loved to have seen the '57 Packard make it to steel, as long as it had better brakes! I would also hate to see that stately name on some turd that looks like a half used bar of soap.

BMW owns the rights to Triumph Cars, and I think it's as much to prevent the name from being used against them as anything else. A mid priced roadster with clean lines and good V6 power, slotted above Miata and below Corvette or Z8 could be viable, even desirable. Anything less and let's keep the name dormant, thanks.

Driving my '55 Connie gives a sense of superiority to everything else on the road (except when you have to stop). My TR3 at least feels like the fastest thing on the road. The kew word is 'feel': at least you feel something driving these cars: and if you like the feeling, that's all the justification for existence any car ever needs.

Steve

'55 Connie

[Guest]

55 Connie: EXCELLENT POST you know your history well.

ANDERSON 44: When I made my remarks about Packard trying to be a defanse contractor, I knew what I was talking about. If you read and study the history of Packard as I have, then I think you might come to the conclusion that I have. Packard by trying to play both sides of the coin was their fatal mistake.

The money spent of defense contracts and and havinng to take profits from the auto side, to help prop up the defense side, took away money that should have been used for proper RD for the auto side of the business.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">55 Connie: EXCELLENT POST you know your history well.

ANDERSON 44: When I made my remarks about Packard trying to be a defanse contractor, I knew what I was talking about. If you read and study the history of Packard as I have, then I think you might come to the conclusion that I have. Packard by trying to play both sides of the coin was their fatal mistake.

The money spent of defense contracts and and havinng to take profits from the auto side, to help prop up the defense side, took away money that should have been used for proper RD for the auto side of the business. </div></div>

Which is pretty much what I said after eating some crow, I believe. It would seem to have made very little sense to go out on a limb to develop and produce a pair of jet engines in response to a DOD Request For Proposal, in those days, when things were already beginning to look less than rosy. But of course, retrospect is always pretty good vision.

Art

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

"However, I completely reject his argument that the Packard 6 shouldn't have been built."

In 50 words or less, what are Langworths REASONS for his claim????

[Guest Randy Berger]

Brian, you are spot on about Langworth and I notice no one has mentioned that he

started "Packard, a History..." and had most of it laid out and the various contributors lined up for publication. Although Ms Kimes did an excellent job in completing this work, the foundation was laid and the design was established before she took over. RML is a craftsman with words and keeps your interest with his knowledge and skillful use of the language.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"However, I completely reject his argument that the Packard 6 shouldn't have been built."

In 50 words or less, what are Langworths REASONS for his claim???? </div></div>

I think Langworth was pretty much echoing a commonly held sentiment that I was hearing way back in the 1950's.

Art

[55Connie]

I think Langworth's premise is properly summed up this way: that once Packard management accepted the concept of an automotive product that went for a price point, rather than the very best they could do, they ceased to be who they had been. His point seems to be that the production of the 110 was responsible for the postwar perception by the public and the management philosophy.

As an historian this argument has some merit, but only if viewed as an isolated subject, outside of the context of the rest of the automotive market.

The big clinker in Langworth's perception is that the 110 was actually a very well made car and compared smartly to its contemporaries. The 'Packard of sixes' if you will. Customers at the time thought so too and bought lots: the perception of Packard quality before the war was positive.

By 1950 that perception was changing, and fast. Today we look at the '50's Packards as quality cars, but the consumer of the day didn't see it that way. The 110 was one excuse heard after the war to explain Packard's apparent demise: "if only they had kept building those great senior cars. And put Fish carburetors on them."

'Quality' as a concept is not an absolute, but a perception. The word has no intrinsic meaning, it's a comparative. All that really matters in selling cars is how the consumer sees the product. The most towed vehicle in LA today is the BMW: got that straight from the guy who runs a rollback fleet. You never see a Saturn on the hook. Which car is more reliable, and which one has the perception of quality? Isn't reliability an essential ingreedient to 'quality'? It's all in how you look at things.

Packard had Indy Pace Cars before WW2: in 1919 it was the Twin Six, and in 1936 it was the One Twenty. Both were watershed models and good performers for their day. Great image builders and appropriate choices. How many postwar Indys were paced by Packards? Zero. We can't even envision one in that role until the '53 Caribbean, which would have been a damn good one, and much better than the '53 Ford Crestliner they ended up using. The '55 could have done the job too, except for that pesky Chevy (a lesser car in every way, including 'quality').

Here's a radical thought: what Packard really needed in the postwar era were more Indy Pace Cars. By definition that would have meant there was a management mindset that saw that as something good to do.

Quality in 1950 wasn't just about the thickness of steel or the stitching in seats: it was speed and handling. Cadillacs in the early 50's were well known as fast cars. What was Chuck Berry chasing in 'Maybelline', and what was he driving that could catch it? Hudson even went racing, and those were not cheap cars. The Rocket 88 was the very icon of a whole new breed of car: quick and light on its feet, or the polar opposite of the perception of Packard. The '53 Caribbean was built precisely to attack that negative image, proving that it was a known problem and that management finally got the hint.

Packard lost the perception war in the '50's, not so much because the cars were poorly made, but because people at the time simply didn't like them. We like them now, but we have to remember that our perspective is vastly different. We see them as grand and spectacular and different from anything else on the road, and we love them for it. In the '50's they were widely perceived as bland, boring, heavy, ponderous, outdated, and stuffy. Old men's cars, and certainly never to be seen on the track at Indy.

None of these phrases were associated in print or in person with the 110's or the 120's when they were new, nor the Packard line as a whole. They didn't hurt Packard's image, nor did they represent a compromise by management. They were good products launched at the right time, and well liked when they were new.

Just imagine a 1949 Packard Pace Car: grab a convertible and give it the Caribbean/Hornet treatment. Twin carbs on a 356, short wheelbase, open wheel wells, low stance, big brakes. Not radically different, just using parts from the bins. It was well within the ability of the company to do it. All it needed was a management team that saw the value in it. And would it ever be a hot collectible today!

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

ok. i have read every post in this thread (several times) and i believe that NOONE (author, critic, historian or any anyone else including myself) will try to argue that the 110,115 quality was the least bit lacking. i.e. the 110-115 quality was just fine relative to any measure wheather percieved or otherwise. I contend at this point we can put the quality issue to rest as being a NONissue.

"I think Langworth's premise is properly summed up this way: that once Packard management accepted the concept of an automotive product that went for a price point, rather than the very best they could do, they ceased to be who they had been. His point seems to be that the production of the 110 was responsible for the postwar perception by the public and the management philosophy."

This is just a diplomatic way saying that the 110-115 allowed an average John Q. Pubic to afford a Packard product.

THE question remains: did the 110-115 retain enuf styling so as to be NOT distinguisable from the 160-180 models IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC???

If the answer is yes then certainly that would corrupt the rich mans view and discourage him from buying another Sr.

Again, Packard operated under the banner of PRESTIGE and LUXURY and catered to the high rollers!!! Is that a false statement???

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

"'Quality' as a concept is not an absolute, but a perception. The word has no intrinsic meaning, it's a comparative. All that really matters in selling cars is how the consumer sees the product. The most towed vehicle in LA today is the BMW: got ..."

YES!!!! I am conviced that a Yugo fitted with a 3-pointed star and a People Magazine exposure with a $50K price tag would become the next trend to rival the SUV trend or MB or Audi trends. EVERY 20-something slut in the nation would have to one and noone else would rest until a new trend came along. ITS IMAGE!!!

I contend that the 160,180 buyers were humiliated by the 110-115.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok. i have read every post in this thread (several times) and i believe that NOONE (author, critic, historian or any anyone else including myself) will try to argue that the 110,115 quality was the least bit lacking. i.e. the 110-115 quality was just fine relative to any measure wheather percieved or otherwise. I contend at this point we can put the quality issue to rest as being a NONissue.

"I think Langworth's premise is properly summed up this way: that once Packard management accepted the concept of an automotive product that went for a price point, rather than the very best they could do, they ceased to be who they had been. His point seems to be that the production of the 110 was responsible for the postwar perception by the public and the management philosophy."

This is just a diplomatic way saying that the 110-115 allowed an average John Q. Pubic to afford a Packard product.

THE question remains: did the 110-115 retain enuf styling so as to be NOT distinguisable from the 160-180 models IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC???

If the answer is yes then certainly that would corrupt the rich mans view and discourage him from buying another Sr.

Again, Packard operated under the banner of PRESTIGE and LUXURY and catered to the high rollers!!! Is that a false statement??? </div></div>

Agreed that "quality" (as defined by fit, finish, durability and reliability) surely wasn't the issue, IMHO.

However, and I think this is important: The 120 and the 110 were then, and are today, clearly identifiable as Packards, and were badged and advertised as such. Of course, that certainly helped launch and sell the smaller, less expensive cars, and they surely did keep Packard going in tough times. However, at what price?

it seems to me, from all that I've read about these cars, indeed other marques and their attempts at either upscale or downscale variants of their products, faced the issue that Packard did: Just how to go about introducing a somewhat lesser version of the high-priced car, giving it enough brand identity to be able to capitalize on the Senior car while not cheapening the image of the top of the line? Or conversely, how to "create" a Senior car out of the brand of a lower priced vehicle, without its seeming like the same lower priced car with X-number more screws? Both are difficult, and not many have succeeded over the years.

Perhaps the two most visible efforts in the time frame 1924-the late 30's were the Essex-Terraplane from Hudson and the LaSalle from Cadillac (sorry to use the "C-word" here!). Both of these smaller, less expensive cars fared pretty well, while not seriously affecting their senior cousins over the economic storm of the Depression, mostly (IMHO) in that the Essex (and later the Terraplane) just didn't SCREAM Hudson, and likewise, while LaSalles certainly had much the look of a Cadillac, the badging, the advertising clearly was LaSalle, not Cadillac. But, everything about the styling of a 120, or a 110, clearly shouted PACKARD as you saw it coming down the road (as did all the advertising), as anyone who knew what a car was back then surely recognized a Packard radiator or grille shape instantly--such was Packard's identity. And I believe, therein lay a problem: Packard's clientele was heavily populated by the patrician, brahman society, the noble old-money wealthy, perhaps more so than any other marque. I suspect there may have been some "disgust" among those of of that strata of society that somehow, all of a sudden, "lesser", more "plebian" folks could now be driving what heretofore they may well have seen as "their" make of car. Additionally, by being badged the same as the super-luxury car, but at a much lower price, those who were "on their way" up (and there were people who were economically upwardly mobile throughout the Depression years), who seeing that they could have a bit of the "action" with a prestige brand, and even perhaps having the wherewithall to afford a more expensive Packard, opted for the lower priced cars, getting a bit of the prestige of a Packard "on the cheap" if you will. With that, at the top end of the economic scale of potential Packard buyers (particularly those who were already Packard owners), very well there was a bit of backlash, while at the lower end of the scale of prospects for a first-time buy at a Packard dealership, there wasn't as much incentive to move a notch or two up the ladder. (in other words, why spend significantly more for the prestige of the brand?) With this idea in mind, did the 120 and 110 truly do much for Packard other than provide badly needed sales and profits; did they truly "grow the marque" at all levels? Even Cadillac had to face that question with the last series of LaSalle, after analyzing sales in 38-40, they wisely decided to kill of the LaSalle, move those prospects directly to the Cadillac side of the showroom. Likewise at Hudson, it would appear, as the Essex-cum-Terraplane likewise got blended into the Hudson lineup by the end of the 30's.

Had Packard been able to give the junior cars some strong brand identity of their own, while retaining some evidence of their Packard heritage, still building them as they did, with every attention to build quality, I suspect they could have made it work much better, and come the postwar era, not have had some of the image I heard of constantly as a kid growing up, that the lesser Packards cheapened the image of the company in the 30's, and that I did hear, from my father, other relatives, in fact almost anyone with whom I'd talk about those older cars.

As for really distinctive styling, I think that was a problem with the Junior Packards, certainly by the late 30's. Again, look at the face of a 120 or a 110, they certainly had the genetics of their big brothers. But, when viewed from the side, or the rear--they really do look very much like a mid-range GM car, more so than any other marque of the era. That had to hurt some, as it gave what might have been a distinctive car, very much a generic look.

But of course, that's looking back at a time when I wasn't yet thought of, based on all the books and pictures I've seen, reinforced by what I heard being said in the 1950's.

Art

[Guest bkazmer]

The 40-42 120 vs std wheelbase 160 is a interesting comparison. There are a few more trim differences, depending on the year, but the main point is correct - the cars look much alike and share many components. However, a different engine in a car is a rather significant difference. I think the situation is more like Buick Century/Special or more currently the practice of makes like BMW or MB who offer the same basic body with multiple engines. So perhaps the line is blurred. However, while some say this doesn't make the 160 a "real" luxury car, I would disagree, in that viewed in context of it's time, it holds up pretty well to comparison. 356 Super 8 vs.V8 Cadillac or the contemporary Lincoln Continental?

[55Connie]

Getting back to Langworth's article once again, do we believe that traditional Packard owners wouldn't buy one because the 110 was called a 'Packard'? Where else would they go? Lincoln? Caddy? Nash? Or would calling 110/120's a 'Clipper' as its own brand have made any difference? It didn't seem to in '55.

Richard was saying that Packard could have survived as a specialty maker of upscale cars alone. I am still waiting for the evidence to back this up.

We do know from the postwar era that dyed in the wool Packard people kept the company afloat, and management was all too keenly aware of this. One could argue that the lack of product innovation was driven by this concern.

IF we accept the premise that the image of a cheaper model hurt Packard sales with their traditional customer, and brand loyalties and dealership familiarity were powerful sales tools with Packard, where did the customers go, and why? It wasn't to Lincoln: the V12 Continental didn't last long either.

The carriage trade began to disappear in the 30's, replaced by wealthy businessmen and enterpreneuers. The market shifted. Did the traditional Packard product appeal to this new class of people? Unlike the landed gentry or 'old money', these people drove themselves around: the 'driving Miss Daisy' customer was slipping away. Cars were much easier to drive than 20 years earlier in Packard's heyday. The era when women didn't drive had come to a close as well. Ask the man who owns one, but what cars did wealthy women prefer?

And so what if the cars looked like GM products? GM sold more cars than anyone in the world, by a huge factor. Maybe Packards should have looked more like them: the Sixty Special, hardtops, etc. were what the public wanted. You ignored those trends at your company's peril. Packard did make a fastback of course, and that body style was hugely popular in the immediate postwar period. A '50 hardtop to follow that up would have helped a bunch. GM's hardtops were all the rage in the early '50's.

Back once again to the subject, Richard's article.

You need to prove that enough traditional Packard buyers existed after the war to make the claim that the company could have survived, even thrived, as an exclusive luxury brand. Could Packard have been a US version of Rolls Royce?

You would have to show that there was a US customer base large enough to amortize the cost of manufacturing on a small scale, and that those products would have been attractive to those customers. Plus, that Packard would have had the resources to keep that product current with such a small production run.

Did Packard management actually consider this option and decided that they required sales volume to survive? Certainly, dealerships, service technicians, and the whole infrastructure needed to push tin to have enough work to do: and you also needed cash to develop and plan new products. Flathead straight 8's were no longer a positive sales feature by 1950, and that was obvious in '49, maybe earlier. Where would the cash for the V8 have come from? Or would you prefer that they had just bought Caddy engines and Hydramatic transmissions?

I don't see any evidence that this could have worked, but plenty to support that it wouldn't. American luxury car buyers weren't the same people as Rolls Royce owners. The fifties were all about what was new: there was little regard for the old and traditional. Fast, stylish, fashionable, modern, big, the latest thing: that's what Americans with money admired. Travel by airplane, not trains: even those modern diesel streamliners were losing fashion. Packard did get there by '55, it was just too late to turn things around under the mess that the corporation had become.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

One factor that is Often overlooked is the Lack of Packard Dealerships, especially in the South and Southwestern States. After WW2 nearly every medium size town had Gm and Ford dealers, here in Texas, but Packard dealerships were few and far between.

[Packard8]

Good points, and well presented.

One thing that?s always puzzled me is how Studebaker was able to design and manufacture a first class V8 4 years before Packard. Other than changes in bore & stroke over the years, the Stude V8 remained virtually unchanged from 1951 thru 1964, and is still ?modern? by today?s standards (gear drive camshaft, forged steel crankshaft & connecting rods and capable of more than one HP per cubic inch in streetable tune).

Did the Packard execs have their heads in the sand (or elsewhere) when they saw the competition offering OHV V8?s, even in lower priced cars? Even though the postwar 356 & 359 engines offered competitive performance (especially with a standard/OD trans) to Cad, Lincoln & Chrysler, the perception of a flathead straight 8 was that of an ?old man?s car?. After all, we were in the Jet Age and names like ?Skypower? and ?Rocket 88? and ?Firedome? adorned the valve covers of the competition?s V8?s.

[Guest BigKev]

On the Straight 8's Packard did very little to these motors for almost 20 years. They were solid and dependable. Engineering wise, Packard keep those designs that proved to cause them the least amount of headaches. In the latter years I think this they tried to play catch up and came up with some really inovative designs. But a lot of those were not as bullet proof and there caused lots of service issues.

If you look at the '54 Facts Book I posted a few months ago they had an entire page about how there engine design was proven and dependable and in comparison to the competitors V8s. While this thinking kept Packard strong during the 30's and 40's when perhaps other vehicles of the day maybe where not so dependable and the lurxury market was strong, by the 50's the luxury market was not the what it was. The lower/middle segement of the market was attracted to the newer, more modern styles.

I think if Packard had models with the style and features of the 55/56 cars starting in 1950, and then had worked all the kinks out of them they may had lasted a lot longer. I think at some point they would have been consumed by one of the big three. There lack of dealers I agree is one thing that really hurt them.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Another major factor that killed Packard in the South and Southwest was the Lack of a Pickup. GM, Ford and Dodge had Good Pickups. And a very large part of the people in those areas Needed and Wanted a Pickup. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The people I knew, when growing up, couldn't have survived without a Pickup. If they could afford a third vehicle, they may have got a car, but a pickup and a tractor always came first, in importance.

They needed the tractor to pull the pickup out of the Mud. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another major factor that killed Packard in the South and Southwest was the Lack of a Pickup. GM, Ford and Dodge had Good Pickups. And a very large part of the people in those areas Needed and Wanted a Pickup. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The people I knew, when growing up, couldn't have survived without a Pickup. If they could afford a third vehicle, they may have got a car, but a pickup and a tractor always came first, in importance.

They needed the tractor to pull the pickup out of the Mud. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

I somehow rather doubt that adding a pickup truck to the product mix would have done much. After all, Hudson had one, a very nice, and very wide-bodied pickup, and it really didn't see much rural sales (or for that matter, much in the way of sales volume at all). In most of rural America, Cadillacs weren't often seen either--but Buick sure was--in much of the midwest, for example, a sign of "making it" in small towns and even on the farm was a Buick, not Cadillac or Packard. Cadillac didn't reach into very many small towns or even every moderate-sized city either, but they of course, did have more dealerships than Packard.

Art

[Guest]

Anderson 44: The reason that CM dropped the LaSalle in 1940 is that the LaSalle was a BIG SALES FLOP from the day it was introduced. The Packard 120 from it's introduction in 1935 through 1939 out sold the LaSalle two to one. During this same period of time the Packard 12 luxuary models outsold the Caddy V12 and V16 models, Some times during the period of the 30's this was as high a two to one.

It seems that if you look at the sales figures for Caddy and Packard during the 30's, that people prefered the socalled generic look of the Packards, over the designs of the Great Farce Harley Earl. If you check the sales figures Packard most always outsold Caddy. You GM guys just hate to admit that Packard was on top of its game in the 30's, and Caddy no matter how hard they tried was second best.

[Guest BigKev]

Another thing that hurt Packard and its dealer network was of course was WWII. The fact that most of its factories were retooled for producing engines for the war, and another thing that hurt they was the choice to outsource the body production to Briggs. This proved costly, and in'53 Briggs was purchased by Chrylser and left them high and dry on producing bodies. On top of all that Nance was nightmare. Nance came over from Hotpoint and early retired a lot of the top Packard management and replaced them with his Hotpoint cronies. He may have know how to sell stoves and washers, but I think he was out of touch when the average car buyer of the day.

It was a long road of bad choices and lack of direction. I think if they joined up with collection of companies that formed AMC, which was planned before the studebaker merger, they may have been around for a few more years.

My 2 cents...again.

[Guest]

I am enjoying reading this thread! When I think of Packard I often think it's similarity with Mercedes-Benz. Both companies are/were renown for engineering fine engines and chassis and building very high quality automobiles. Both cars had distinctive grille work which were maintained for decades with little change. Both companies manufactured mid priced cars and high end luxury cars bearing the same identifying grille and name. Does the fact that almost all the taxis in many western countries in Europe are MB discourage sales of the S class V-12. Why then did the 120 and 110 discouraged sales of the "Senior" cars in the 1930s? Were people more class conscious back then than now?

Packard was the sole surviving independent auto maker in the US that survived the Great Depression. When you look at the low production numbers of the Super 8's and Twelves it is easy to see that the company would have passed into history in the late 30's along with equally high quality and engineeered automobiles Pierce-Arrow, Marmon, Duesenburg etc. What saved the company was the 120 and 110. To introduce a "new" brand of car ( remember the Viking, the Roosevelt and the Rockne) in the depths of the Depression would have been pure folly. To use the cachet and reputation of the Packard name is what sold the cars in such great numbers and this is what saved Packard from it's demise and I think was the best option available at the time. I don't think that it would have been possible to survive building just expensive "senior" cars for the very rich. I recall in the early 1950's a neighbour who owned a 1951 Packard 200. It wouldn't start and it had burned valves and the poorly chromed grille broke into pieces one very cold morning and he sold it very soon after. My father called it an "orphan" even though Packard was still producing cars in Detroit. My grandfather who was a big fan of Packard told me "The 120 ruined Packard." Having since read a fair bit about the history of Packard I think rather that without the 120 and 110 the Packard name would have been history in 1938 or 39. Just my $.02.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anderson 44: The reason that CM dropped the LaSalle in 1940 is that the LaSalle was a BIG SALES FLOP from the day it was introduced. The Packard 120 from it's introduction in 1935 through 1939 out sold the LaSalle two to one. During this same period of time the Packard 12 luxuary models outsold the Caddy V12 and V16 models, Some times during the period of the 30's this was as high a two to one.

It seems that if you look at the sales figures for Caddy and Packard during the 30's, that people prefered the socalled generic look of the Packards, over the designs of the Great Farce Harley Earl. If you check the sales figures Packard most always outsold Caddy. You GM guys just hate to admit that Packard was on top of its game in the 30's, and Caddy no matter how hard they tried was second best. </div></div>

Packard53,

Sorry, but you have me pegged completely wrong here. I hold no case for any marque, never have, and never will. I will admit, however, to not having been much enamored with General Motors over the years, with the exception being two cars I've owned purely because I liked them, individually--those being a '58 Chevy sedan delivery, which I restored in the years 1993-97, and a '59 Chevy Biscayne 4dr sedan which I preserved as an all-original car from the time I bought it in 1993 until I sold it in June of this year. Outside of the 27 T, 2 Model A Fords, and one '32 Ford I owned in the 1960's, I've not owned a Ford as a modern daily driver. I do admit to having owned just one Cadillac, an '86 Sedan DeVille which I acquired a year ago, from the original owner, with less than 50K on the clock--creampuff of a car, and I do drive it daily (although my annual mileage is generally in the sub-10,000 mile range. Most of my driver's seat time has been in Chrysler products, but finally swore off Mopars due to the constant headaches with the last one I owned.

As for antique, classic or collectible cars, I carry no dislike for any marque, I appreciate them all, including Packards. As a youngster growing up in the years 1944-1960, I, pretty much like most of my age, had limited regard for postwar Packards, along with many of the cars of other independents, but that was due as much to "peer pressure" as anything else, as most of us probably tended to echo our parents' preferences, or we saw something of the styling of the makes produced by Ford and GM we liked a lot more--with kids, style is as much as anything else. AND, as kids in the 50's, we WERE enamored with V8's, turned off (largely in as a group!) by inline engines of any sort, 6 or 8, it didn't matter much which.

Much of our discussion here, including our individual analysis of "what went right", and "what went wrong", with or for Packard (and this can be said of just about any carmaker (or for that matter, the manufacturers of just about any bygone products and even long-gone companies who left our midst 50 or more years ago, must, of necessity come from our readings, anecdotes we have heard in latter years, simply because to have been even a young adult in the 1930's or even in the immediate postwar years would necessarily make us in our 80's or 90's today. Almost certainly, there are very few people alive today (if at all) who were in positions to know first-hand, of any of the discussions, conferences and such out of which product decisions were made 55-75 years ago, and even memoirs and other written records can be quite sketchy, and often carry the personal bias of the writers. However, some things of those bygone decades do stand out, pretty strongly.

Packard management did what they had to do during the 1930's, just as did each and every management team in every industry in the United States, in order to survive what was (and hopefully will remain!) the most serious, almost savage, economic climate ever seen in this country. Certainly the Cemetery of Automobile Marques and Companies is well-dotted with the headstones of brands and companies who did not survive the 30's. Compared to the older headstones, one does see the "date of death" on the Packard marker as 1958, so for much of those years, Packard and its management did manage to keep on living.

In 1932, at the very depths of the Great Depression, each and every automaker put their best foot forward--1932 is regarded by many, within the old car hobby, designers, artists and stylists as well, as having been the one year when virtually no American automaker offered a bad-looking car. They pulled out all the stops, figuratively if not literally, and as such produced some of the finest cars of their genre, late-20's designs, but on the cusp of something new. Yet, from that year, the automobile went through perhaps its greatest period of evolution, and that was rapid, both in engineering, and in appearance. Virtually no car produced in 1941-42 bore any serious resemblance to the cars of 1932 save for a few styling cues, even transmissions, suspension systems, wheels, tires, brakes or interior appointments.

My view of the 1930's is pretty much that from the car buyer's point of view, it was a time of cautious shopping. People tended, with such a major purchase, beyond the obvious money factors, to go for cars that they trusted, either from brand loyalty (of that, perhaps Packard and Ford may well be the prime examples), or the strength of the manufacturer (certainly Packard, along with GM and Ford carried the external aura of strength perhaps more than any other companies in the business then), and I am pretty certain that reliability and durability were also strong considerations. However, styling DID rise to the forefront as a selling point, if not as part of a salesman's pitch, certainly psychologically. And styling came to the fore, not only in cars, but home appliances, furniture, clothing, even in public transportation (Airplanes were hot, streamlining railroad passenger trains was hot, for example). Manufacturers realized that true recovery and growth was going to come from that which was "new", that spoke of the future, not the past.

An awful lot gets said about Harley Earl at GM, both positive and negative. By all accounts, he was an arrogant, often nasty bastard. Yet on the other hand, Earl did, perhaps as much as anyone, bring about a fundamental change in the way products are designed for appearance. He wasn't much of a board-designer past his very early years at GM, but he was a trememdous force in being able to make styling the important part of the design of cars as any other area within GM. Almost every other carmaker had to make do with either very small design staffs (Ford for example, pretty much depended on Bob Gregorie to interpret Edsel Ford's conceptions, but Ford had fewer stylists company-wide than GM had in any division, as an example). The small size of many companies, relative to Ford or GM gave those companies rather little room to wiggle, let along make a mistake. With the smaller independents, such a little thing as a grille that turned customers off could be the kiss of ultimate death.

But, the overwhelming need for any company trying to get past the Depression was the task of "growing the brand", in what was, by all acounts, a limited market, limited in the sense that new car sales never reached, let alone, surpassed the record year of 1929 (in fact, 1929's sales figures were not surpassed until 1955). While Chevrolet of course, grew their brand in the 30's, they did so at the expense of Ford. Other major makes did so at the expense of independents. Packard was able, it would seem, to have done so by managing to pick up sales from this as well, with the 120/110, and that was a very good move on their part. However, is not the real thrust of this thread here the "effect" that the two less expensive, and somewhat smaller cars had on the Packard name, in retrospect? I think so. I have to wonder, as I am pretty sure others do as well, had Packard been able to focus marketplace attention on say, "One Ten" (or any catchy name) by Packard, with that car having it's own distinctive appearance, yet retaining some Packard identity, the long-term effect might have been different. Even Rolls-Royce was pretty much able to give Bentley, in certainly the postwar era, an image, even though anyone with a grain of sense could look at a 50's Bentley, and see a Silver Cloud with a different grille shell. Had the Clipper been known as "Clipper, a fine car from Packard" rather than (at least in popular conversation if nothing else) a Packard Clipper, perhaps the larger Packards might have seen marketability after WW-II, but of course, who really knows what went on behind the eyeballs of management that wasn't recorded on paper?

But, please do not characterize me as just an interloping "GM Guy", because that I am not.

Art

[Guest BigKev]

Well there is a reason the Ziz cars looked a lot Packards. The Soviets purchased the body tooling from Packard.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Kev, that's an urban myth that was disproven several years ago. The soviets

just liked to copy things and chose Packard to copy. If you ever see the film of Yuri Gagarin (first cosmonaut) in the parade in red square, you would swear he was riding in a 56 Caribbean - they copied that, too. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest BigKev]

There is a book out there called "Packard" by Dennis Adler. Where he states that Packard, during the War, sold the tooling of the older style 17th, 18th, and 19th series cars to the Russians.

Then there is Michael L. Bromley research where we states "For decades Soviet cars eerily resembled Packards. The country's post-War automobile industry was salvaged by tooling sent their way by Packard after WWII. Too bad they kept the styling thereafter."

I guess maybe I shouldn't believe everything I read...even in multiple sources.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

I'd heard that was changed to being was a Myth, but I've never heard how they Proved it was? Does anyone know the full story on that? There are still a Lot people that believe plans and tooling were sold to them and you can't tell them different. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Right now I don't know for sure which story is true?

[Guest Randy Berger]

Rick, the article was either in CNB or PAC quarterly. They measured both a

Packard and a Zis and confirmed mounting holes for fenders, etc. and although it is close, it is still a copy. It does make a good story though. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The car probably got it's name when old Joe Stalin saw the first one and said,

"Vot iz zis?"

Sorry, couldn't help it. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_Speedster]

For Once, I Agree with Stalin, 'Vot iz Zis'? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, but I don't see how the mounting holes being slightly different would 'Prove' Plans were not purchased. They could have modified and reengineered the design slightly, before going into production. I understand that would indicate that it was not the same tooling, for some of the parts, but that just don't seem to be enough 'Proof' one way or the other, about the purchase. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Was there anything else that indicated it was a Myth?

[Guest BigKev]

Well close could mean a lot of things. Just because a company was to use the body tooling there are always could be differences based upon materials. The stuff I have read points its way that they only used the body tooling ans possible the engine tooling. If they used a slightly different chassis or anything like that, then it is possible that they had to use a little creative license. I'm not saying that the cars were an exact copy. But were based on the Packard tooling.

I guess the question of the day is did Packard actually sell ZIS/ZIL/ZIM (or whatever they were calling in that month) any tooling? What the Russians did with it afterward is a different matter.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rick, the article was either in CNB or PAC quarterly. They measured both a

Packard and a Zis and confirmed mounting holes for fenders, etc. and although it is close, it is still a copy. It does make a good story though. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The car probably got it's name when old Joe Stalin saw the first one and said,

"Vot iz zis?"

Sorry, couldn't help it. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

Randy,

I also remember that article and as I recall, they had a Ziz or Zil side by side with a Packard. While it?s clear that the Russian car was a copy of the Packard, the actual measurements of body panels, glass etc showed that the two cars could not have been made with the same tooling.

I?ll give the Russians credit tho; they acquired three B-29 bombers that had to make an emergency landing on their territory during WW II and then ?disappeared?. Lo & behold, in 1949 they had a fleet of them flying.

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm

[Guest imported_Speedster]

About 30 years ago I heard that it was Plans for the Tooling that they got, not the tooling hardware. Which could possibly account for difference in the production tooling.

[Guest JT]

One thing I remember was the hugh weight difference, it was a real slug.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing I remember was the hugh weight difference, it was a real slug. </div></div>

Yes, being a Bullet-proof Tank was a real Plus, in that part of the World. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest BigKev]

The Japanese were famous for "borrowing" other people designs. I remember watching a show that was in regards to the history of tools. They showed early US made socket sets from the 20's and the box that they came in. Then they showed the exact same thing thing that was copied by the Japanese perfectly. The box and everything. Only difference was the language on the packaging. Lets just say the US company had no idea.

[Guest Randy Berger]

When I said "ETC" I assumed everyone would read between the lines, BUT

the doors were different (big difficulty), the fenders, hood, cowl, roof, trunk, all were dimensionally different. More so than can be accounted for in converting to metric unless they were using string or rubber bands. Albert said the article had the two side by side and it was obvious that it was just a copy. That is my memory also. But it makes a good story. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest BigKev]

I agree Nance probably had an uphill battle, and he was not the cause of all the problems with Packard by any means. I just think he was another choice that did little to help the company along. After he resigned from Packard he went to work for Ford as VP of marketing and then VP of Mercury/Lincoln. With in that year he already had resigned from Ford and ended up as the President of Central National Bank in Cleveland. The point I was tring to make is if they (the Packard Board) could have brought in someone that was a heavy hitter in the automotive industry already that had the contacts, resources, and respect of people already in the industy, then perhaps things MAY have been different.

My point on the 56/56 models was that they contained great styling and features. Only if they were able to pull that off 5 years earlier before their dealer network and the buying public had lost faith in them, it may have been a different story. There was very little difference in styling between 51-54 across all the models and Senior/Junior line (with the exception of the Caribbean). So if a particular buyer didnt care for the general body styling of the 51-54 era, there were really no other choices in the Packard offerings.

As with everything, Hind-sight is 20/20. So really all any of us is doing here is giving opinions based upon what we thing know now. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> None of us truely know what was going on behinds the scenes and I am sure people who were involved in the company during those day each have there own memories of what transpired.

I take it all with a grain of Salt. To me this is just good heathly debating. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard8 -

You wrote:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing that?s always puzzled me is how Studebaker was able to design and manufacture a first class V8 4 years before Packard.</div></div>

I never studied the matter fully, but read more than one reference that Studebaker's V8 bore more than a passing similarity to Cadillac's V8. I've also heard of more than one Stude being refitted with a Caddy V8.

Though that Stude motor debuted as more powerful (per cubic inch) than other V8 of the day, I've heard it lagged behind others over the course of the 1950s - until displacment reached 259cid and they began toying around with superchargers, culminating in Granatelli's work with the R-series motors for the Avanti.

Now, I'm not saying Stude cloned their V8, but was "highly inspired" by the Cadillac V8 - more of a follower than a leader. </div></div>

I suspect Studebaker pulled off their V8 when they did, more or less because of Studebaker's willingness to advance their product line as for any other motivation--they clearly saw a crying need to leave the 30's behind.

Also, it should not have been "rocket science" by 1948-49 to begin developing a new V8 engine--after all, Studebaker's V8 conquered no new territory, covered no really new ground. For decades, by that time, the Society of Automotive Engineers had been meeting more than annually, and as professionals in their area of expertise were (and still are) wont, they shared ideas, even their results (that's called "presenting (research) papers"). That said, designing a new engine, with overhead valves, with completely conventional features just is not an exotic affair. As a case in point, drawn from motor racing, the most famous, and longest-running series of pure racing engines ever developed, with its beginnings in 1919 and continuing to 1977, the Miller/Offenhauser/Meyer-Drake/Drake-Goosen-Sparks inline 8 and 4-cylinder racing engines owed their designs, each of them, to ONE man, who did the engineering (with the input of Arthur Sparks (of Forged-True Piston fame)through all those years. Leo Goosen did the calculations, determined bore & stroke, figured out the requisite dimensions and worked the stress tables, then executed the drawings, to be built and machined by a very small group of craftsmen--so for a company such as Studebaker (or even subsequently, Packard) to have laid up a brand new, existing-technology V8 engine would not have been as huge an investment as it might seem sometimes. The only critical issues would have been the avoidance of patent infringements, such as those potentially might have been.

Of course, there are major differences in how a thoroughbred racing engine might be laid out and manufactured compared to one that must be mass-produced at an acceptable price, but I think the illustration I've given isn't all that invalid.

Art

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well there is a reason the Ziz cars looked a lot Packards. The Soviets purchased the body tooling from Packard. </div></div>

As others have stated, "Urban Legend". I suspect that this oft=repeated canard comes straight out of the "Red Scare" years of the late 40's, followed by Sen. McCarthy's reign of terror. Any direct, side-by-side comparison of the immediate postwar ZIS and it's supposed Packard counterpart, shows far too many major dimensional, shape and contour differences for the ZIS to have been a perfect, off-the-original-dies copy. The one ZIS I've seen up close (and I've seen it twice), that being the one alleged to have been presented by Stalin to Chairman Mao upon Mao's accession to ultimate power in China, then given to the Chinese People's Army commander in Korea (supposedly Mao was embarrassed to be seen in such an automobile?), showed me far too much in the way of "cobbled" sheet metal, panels that seriously didn't fit, and an overall crudeness of fabrication and assembly, for a car supposedly made from very precise stampings from very precise dies.

The differences in dimensions really can't be explained away by the thinking of some that those came about due to conversion from inches to metrics--as that conversion is so easily made, 25.4mm=1 inch. Now, it is more probable, it seems to me, that the Soviets, having their own purchasing commission within their diplomatic posts here, for them to have simply purchased a car, shipped it home, either around 1940, or immediately following VE Day, and gone from there, simply studying it, then drawing up their own.

I think the same is almost certainly true of the later ZIL and Chaika limousines (keeping in mind that the Soviet Union had an interim car between the supposed Sr. Packard clone ZIS and the late-50's ZIL which really doesn't closely resemble any particular car from any other country directly), given that both of those later, more visible limousines are physically much larger in all dimensions than a 55-56 Packard.

Art

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard8 -

You wrote:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing that?s always puzzled me is how Studebaker was able to design and manufacture a first class V8 4 years before Packard.</div></div>

I never studied the matter fully, but read more than one reference that Studebaker's V8 bore more than a passing similarity to Cadillac's V8. I've also heard of more than one Stude being refitted with a Caddy V8.

Though that Stude motor debuted as more powerful (per cubic inch) than other V8 of the day, I've heard it lagged behind others over the course of the 1950s - until displacment reached 259cid and they began toying around with superchargers, culminating in Granatelli's work with the R-series motors for the Avanti.

Now, I'm not saying Stude cloned their V8, but was "highly inspired" by the Cadillac V8 - more of a follower than a leader. </div></div>

Actually, that?s another ?urban legend?. The two engines are similar in appearance (as most of the pushrod V8?s of the era were), but there are no interchangeable parts. The first Caddy OHV V8 was much larger displacement (331 vs 232), and I believe the Caddy used a chain driven camshaft. The intake will adapt with a bit of machining, but so will a Mopar as Eric has pointed out.

Tho quite heavy for the displacement, it was a very stout and durable engine. In Studebaker's final years the Granatelli Bros were able to coax out around 300HP from the Avanti 289 R2 and an estimated 400HP from the 304 inch R3. An R3 powered 1964 Avanti held the US production car speed record of 167 MPH for about 30 years until the Corvette Z powered version came along to break it. Also, drag racer Ted Harbit has dyno?d his twin turbo Avanti at over 800HP last I read, and that is with a mostly stock Studebaker lower end and block. Not bad for an engine designed in 1949!