Packard 110's & Langworth's Premise

[55PackardGuy]

I think I read all the posts, but the thread kind of seemed to start in the middle of something. The discussion is very interesting, but I'd also be interested in finding the source... Where can I find this Langworth article, anyway?

This is off the original topic, but it is in line with previous discussion:

Russian cars over the years "eerily resembled" not only Packards, but Cadillacs as well and I believe Buicks, too. As far as I know, no "legends" exist about GM selling tooling to the Russky's. GM probably would've sued for libel! As a reference source for "what really happened" regarding the Packard tooling story, I guess I wouldn't trust anything that wasn't specifically researched and written about RUSSIAN cars. I think it's pretty likely, though, that what the Russians liked, they copied from actual vehicles, photos and drawings. All were probably quite easily available for purchase (or "industrial espionage"). As one old Bolshevik quote goes: "A Capitalist will sell you the rope that you use to hang him, if he thinks he can make a profit." Marx, Lenin--one of the usual gang of suspects--supposedly said that, or something like that. Actually there's some truth in it, I think, especially when you look at where weapons sales go even in wartime.

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

The story I have read on this claimed that the Russians captured a single B-29 and copied it to make their first heavy bomber--right down to an aluminum repair patch on the skin of the original plane. Q:"Vot iz Zis?" A:"Who knows, Ivan? Put it on."

[Packard8]

Yes, there were ?Studillacs? custom built in New York by Bill Frick Motors.

http://www.car-nection.com/yann/dbas_txt/Drm54.htm

One was featured in Ian Fleming?s James Bond novels. I think it was a natural swap due to the similar physical dimensions and much greater displacement and power. By 55 or 56 the Caddy was up to 365 cid while the Stude was only 259 inches. Caddy power was also popular in the Cunninghams and Allards of the period and I believe placed well at Le Mans.

[Aanderson44]

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

The story I have read on this claimed that the Russians captured a single B-29 and copied it to make their first heavy bomber--right down to an aluminum repair patch on the skin of the original plane. Q:"Vot iz Zis?" A:"Who knows, Ivan? Put it on." </div></div>

The Soviet's did intern 3 B-29's which had to seek emergency landing at Vladivostok during the USAAF bombing campaign over Japan, during the time when the Soviets and Japanese honored a mutual non-agression pact between them (The Soviet Union re-entered the war against Japan in early August 1945. The B-29 crews were interned, housed, but not imprisoned by the Soviet Union under the rules of neutrality. However, stray aircraft weren't covered by any such treaty agreements, so the Soviets were free to dispose of those aircaft as they saw fit.

The Tupolev Design Bureau was given the task of disassembling them, and then duplicating them, which they did masterfully, down almost to the last rivet. The resulting TU-4 bomber (Superfortress in Russian costume), and down to their various features and equipment. TU-4 was operational by 1948, appearing in the skies above the May 1 Soviet Labor Day Parade that year.

To bring all this back on point, Tupolev did a much better job cloning the B-29 (seeing as how they had 3 of them to play with) than ZIS did of a Packard.

Art

[Guest JT]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the Packard execs have their heads in the sand (or elsewhere) when they saw the competition offering OHV V-8?s, even in lower priced cars? </div></div>

Packard would have had a V8 in 35 120's if engineer Van Ranst's prototype had gone into production. Supposedly the straight eights outperformed the V-8 prototype.

[ComorantsForever]

Excuses...excuses. The years go on, and each new generation of writers tries to make excuses for Packard's failure in the market-place.

I agree completely with most of '55's "post" that started this "thread". Of course the "cheap" Packards such as the 6 cyl "110" series and small engined 8 cyl "120" series SAVED PACKARD. As '55 notes, they were good buys for the money; people bought them by the bucket-full because they knew the Packard Motor Car Company had a long history of DELIVERING on that promise engraved on the factory walls "quality first". Of course they were "cheap" compared to the traditional Packard products. But again, as '55 notes, they were GOOD cars for the money, and REPUTATION caused them to sell well, get "repeat" business, and earn good profit for Packard.

Packard's problem, that eventually killed the company, was not making cheap cars. The REAL problem is what post-war Packard owners do NOT want to face. So much more emotionally satisfying to conjur up ANYTHING but the simple truth. Post war Packards, as they came out of the factory, were monuments to failure. Failure of vision. Failure to remember what made the name PACKARD so well respected.

Which nonsensical excuse will some author focus on THIS time ? Packard made cheap cars ? Packard had problems with suppliers after the war ? Packard had labor troubles after the war ? Any or all of these EXCUSES will work...IF you are DETERMINED enough to try and sell excuses. AND you can find people IGNORANT enough of the American automotive industrial revolution, to "buy into" such nonsence.

You want to talk "cheap" cars ruining a manufacturer's reputation ? NONSENCE. Half the taxis in Europe are cheap model Mercedes. They may be cheap to buy (as, of course, was the Packard "110" and "120" series, but they "delivered" as being a good buy for the money. You want to talk labor problems killing a manufacturer, or perhaps supply problems ?

Any of these excuses will work...PROVIDED you are mentally disciplined enough to FORGET there was a little incident called World War Two, that gave the German and Japanese manufacturers just a few more headaches then Packard had..! Bombed out plants, broken supply lines...half its skilled workers dead or imprisoned. Now THOSE are REAL headaches ! Why do the Germans and Jap auto manufacturers do so well today ? VERY simple, and that simple truth hurts. They were DETERMINED to keep faith with their customer base, and produce QUALITY cars.

Talk about pre war designs ? Just LOOK at what automotive products our former enemies were selling in the late 40's and early 50's...SURE they were small, cheap, and out-dated. Far more so than Packard products. But they were generally QUALITY products, whereas each year, instead of at least holding the line on quality, Packard fell further into disaray.

'55's comments touch on so many of Packard's horrid management mistakes. Firing area representatives who complained to management that poor quality was breeding customer resistance and dealer anger. Reducing performance when it was obvious that performance has ALWAYS sold cars.

The sad thing about Packard's failure, was it did not have to happen. Even as late as 1954, when the 1955 models were introduced, amongst a public relations "blitz' by Packard that "Packard Is Back" they were able to sell those early '55 Packards like hot-cakes. Someone refresh my memory..I think in the first three months the 55's were introduced, they sold over 50,000 of them. Then..BOOM..word got out...the cars were coming out of the factory as "do-it-yourself" kits. New car buyers are NOT interested in being car buffs like we are. Yes, "tinkering" has made those '50's Packards useable. They also ruined Packard's reputation to the point they couldn't GIVE Packard products away by the middle of the '55 production run.

Trouble was, REPUTATION. Yes...the word REPUTATION that early Packard advertising hammered home over and over again, as being so important.

That's the sad thing. How RIGHT Packard was on the importance of REPUTATION. They correctly pointed out that REPUTATION is a cruel master...the maker of a cheap inferior product dosnt have to care..nobody expects anything better. But the maker of a QUALITY product, whatever its price class...quickly enrages its customers if it fails to "deliver" on quality.

It is so ironic that Packard pioneered both the best days and, in the end, the worst of American industry. In its glory days, it helped us improve far beyond its relatively small size, not only with quality cars, but with quality in thinking, in pioneering engineering, drafting, labor management techniques.

How ironic that the incredibly miopic attutide of Packard's management in the later days, forecast the decline of the American auto industry.

Of COURSE those "110"'s and "120"s were relatively cheap cars...just as today a Toyota Corolla or "baby" Mercedes or BMW is a relatively cheap car.

Those who want to avoid the truth about what killed Packard (loss of respect for QUALITY) (and now appears to be killing our entire society) will eventually have their way. Those of us who know the awful truth, are fading away. There will always be those who want to find excuses for bad planning, for lack of quality in planning and organization.

Personally, my favorite "excuse" is that President Roosevelt sold the Packard dies out from under Packard, because he liked Joe Stalin. This works well for those who are ignorant of dies and what they do. Needless to say, people who like that excuse dont want to know or care that Packard had no body dies to sell...by the early 1940's they HAD NO BODY DIES ! Packard was even then ceasing to be a MANUFACTURER and was more and more an ASSEMBLER. Packard had long since closed its body plant, and bought bodies from an outside vendor, who OWNED the plant and facilities in which the bodies were made.

Bottom line - a study of the rise and fall of the Packard Motor Car Company, and the fame and respect of its products, is an excellent "tool" for understanding how we rose...and how we fell as a industrial power. How many of you can handle an HONEST study of how this all happened ?

[Packard8]

?Why do the Germans and Jap auto manufacturers do so well today ? VERY simple, and that simple truth hurts. They were DETERMINED to keep faith with their customer base, and produce QUALITY cars.?

Anyone who believes that was either unconscious from 1949 to 1970 or is now senile. With the exception of a very few like Mercedes & VW, pretty much everything produced in Europe or Asia and imported here was woefully incapable of service in the US market. Remember the Renault Dauphine & 4CV? The early Datsuns & Hondas? The 2 stroke Subarus? These cars were basically ?Metro Cars? designed to operate for short hauls on narrow streets and tended to grenade themselves after about 20K miles of interstate driving (if they didn?t rust out first). The interiors were mostly plastic and tended to crumble to the touch after about two years of Kansas summers.

While I was growing up in the 50?s and 60?s, my Grandfather was an Import Car dealer in Kansas as was my Uncle in Nebraska. They sold almost every make imported at the time and I saw it first hand. To their credit, the Imports eventually did build a product that put the 70?s and 80?s Detroit Iron to shame and that subsequently germinated the turnaround in US quality. But to compare the average postwar import to a Packard, a Caddy or even a Ford or Chevy is just plain goofy.