What Happened to Packard???

[Guest Silverghost]

Going into WW II Packard was at the TOP of the US Auto Industry. They built cars at several levels of price$$$ & Quality...

From their famous V12 to the Super 8

During the war they built mamy fine engines that helped win the war...Packard-built Merlin

aircraft engines(R~R Designed) just to name one...

Why did they not come out of WW II stronger than ever??? Why the slow decline???

I never got a "True" answer to this question... I had an uncle that could not keep head gaskets on his post-war staight 8

He got so fed-up with problems on this Packard that he traded it in after only one year... I am sure that you all have an opinion + the "True Story"... Thanks!

[Packard8]

The only chronic head gasket failures I?m aware of in postwar Packards are limited to the 1954 359cid engine used in the senior series. In an attempt to catch up with the competition?s OHV V8?s (Packard had their own a year later) they installed an 8.7:1 high compression aluminum head on the 9 main straight 8 to achieve 212 HP.

If the cooling system was properly maintained, it was not a problem. However, if the engine was exposed to just a few overheating cycles the head was prone to warp and blow the gasket. Many, if not most of the 359?s eventually were fitted with a replacement iron head (many under warranty). Could be that your uncle had a car with this engine, or perhaps he just unluckily got a ?lemon???. Something produced occasionally by every Mfg., including RR.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Packard came out of the war strong and flush with cash. Unfortunately the management was stodgy and unimaginative. Till Nance got in there, they didn't build a truly definable luxury car. Their top of the line looked like their taxicabs. They lost their best customers who never went back.

[Guest]

If I can add to that. The Clipper design which Packard exclusively used when production resumed began in 1946 was already a 5 year old design. Packard was slow getting back into production since much of it's machinery had been neglected. Then came steel shortages and labour unrest and for an independent this was a disaster. Packard had by now given up most of it's prestige car to concentrate on the middle priced and taxi models which although 7' shorter in wheel base still had unmistakeable resemblances to the luxury models which really in my opinion had no equal in the USA. I have owned both a 1947 Cadillac 75 and a 1947 Packard Super Clipper and from an engineering and quality standpoint I believe the Packard to be a better built car but the Cadillac does not resemble an Oldsmobile or a Chevrolet. I think this may have been a big factor in why Packard declined so rapidly. Most people who buy cars then and today don't look past the body work and engineer excellence doesn't always sell.

I recall a neighbour who owned a 1951 Packard 200 and it was not a good car. It was rather plain looking car despite it's contemporary body lines, with poor chrome because of Korean war shortage and the interior was very stark. The straight 8 engine wouldn't start in cold weather and upon pushing it one time the die cast grille snapped in half. The neighbour sold it at a big loss since it was already perceived as an orphan make and bought a Ford. Packard on going head to head with the big three in the mid class cars was overwhelmed but whether it could have survived at all is doubtful. Nance tried to revive the name "Packard" as a luxury car but by then it was too late. In a nut shell that's what I think although others may disagree.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Randy gives a good thumb nail description. But the issues that created the problems in that description can be summed as two words: Corporate Incest. The same problem was with Chrysler. C was lucky. LAI stopped the incest and for that he deserves alot of credit. Otherwise LAI was a just a big bag of wind. Look at GM,GE, XOM, IBM among many othjer successful and strong companies. They avoid hiring relatives, wives, inlaws, exlaws , outlaws etc. There are exceptions: Motorola and F. But thats about the ONLY exceptions. Show me a company with family and or religous clanning in management and i'll show u a company destined to fail.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Nance was just one more step in Packards chain of incest. To top that of, he was just a refrigerator salesman. An auto company is not a bank, retail store, real estate office nor like any other business endeavour. It takes a REAL MAN to run an auto company, someone like Durant, Sloan, Estes, old man Ford, among others.

[Guest]

I often wonder when I haven't much else to do what would have happened if George Mason's dream of merging the independants was made a reality? Would they have had a chance?

[mrpushbutton]

Silverghost: my $.02 tempered with/ adapted from "The rise and Fall of the Packard motor car company" by Ward

1. Packard's preference to pay stockholder dividends over re-investment in new, more technically advanced product.

2. The failure to merge with other independants as far back as the 20's or 30's, when GM (as re-designed by Sloan) and Walter P. Chrysler showed American and the world how to combine strengths and maintain (or gain) market share.

3. Abdicating the Luxury market after the war, being stuck in the middle--largely the effect of the 120 line managers rising to the top.

4. The out-and-out plainess of the 24-26th series cars coupled with their outdated powertrains (see No.1) and the inability of the dealer network to deal on those cars in comparision to their big 3 rivals.

5. (big personal opinion here) is that Packard, as a corporation was "a nice guy" in terms of competition, labor relations, dealership relations, etc. Ford and Chrysler in particular were scrappy individuals when it came to these topics/behaviors, and were not nice guys. It's always been a cut throat business. Packards were cars built "for gentlemen, by gentlemen" The world stopped supporting that model with their buying habits. I.E. Snoop Dog sells a lot more records than Johnny Mathis these days.

[Guest AlK]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I often wonder when I haven't much else to do what would have happened if George Mason's dream of merging the independants was made a reality? Would they have had a chance? </div></div>

This just MHO mind you and I am sure there will be those that dis-agree. That said, this subject comes up every so often and the last time that I remember there was a very long winded reply from an old adversary as to the why, and how comes, but I truly believe if the Nance/Mason merger had come to pass, I think we might still be buying Packards today, or at the very least have been able to buy them well past 1956. Look at what became AMC. In effect AMC is still alive today having been bought up by Chrysler and of course now only containing Jeep. However the concept is still valid, if you have more model lines over which to spread your production and advertising costs, then you are not tied in to one line of cars and you sink or swim on that. Think if GM and only Corvair, or Chevette to lean on they would have gone belly up long ago. Think Edsel and where Ford would be based on that model alone. Ford lost millions on Edsel and not just because it was a bad car(actually it was not), but the market timing was bad(1958 recession), yet Ford survived. Had the merger been completed there would have been Packard selling top of the line Luxury cars (= Cadillac, Imperial, Lincoln), Studebaker, Hudson, Nash selling middle price range cars (= Olds, Buick, Pontiac or Chrysler, Desoto, Dodge, or Mercury) and Rambler selling entry model low priced cars (= Chevrolet, Plymouth, Ford). When you throw in the Jeep line for trucks, and Avanti (= Corvette and T-bird) now you have an independent con-glomerate that possibly could have competed in the market place. The merger might have bought Packard the time it so desparatly needed to re-tool, and Studebaker the time it needed to solve it's cash flow and assembly line problems. The main reason for the merger not taking place was(aside from the death of G. Mason), was the fact the Nance and Romney(who took over for Mason) could not stand one another and would not have anything to do with each other. But look at the reality, AMC continued on as a profit making company well into the 70's, before slowly fading into the sunset with just Jeep left. Of course the other nail in the coffin was the pro GM guvmint administration(Eisenhower) who somehow saw it as fit and proper to take all of the goverment contracts away from Packard and give them to GM. That took care of a lot of incoming cash that was needed. Just my humble opinion and unfortunatley we will never know.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During the war they built mamy fine engines that helped win the war...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard was slow getting back into production since much of it's machinery had been neglected.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the pro GM guvmint administration(Eisenhower) who somehow saw it as fit and proper to take all of the goverment contracts away from Packard and give them to GM.</div></div>

Some of Packard's major struggles in the postwar years are summed up neatly in these three quotes. Packard made a tremendous effort during WWII. One reason for the sorry shape of their automobile manufactuing equipment was that it had been moved outside during the years when Packard concentrated entirely on defense production. Other automobile manufacturers had to re-tool as well, but many had greater resources than an independent, and Packard arguably contributed more to the war effort than any other manufacturer its size. Packard had made profits during the war (although contracts were highly regulated--unlike many today!), but the cost of re-tooling alone would cut deeply into these profits.

Then there was the unfortunate appointment of GM man Charles Wilson as secretary of defense in the Eisenhower administration. He introduced the "narrow-based procurement policy" for military contracts, which basically shut out independent automobile manufacturers, often in favor of GM (which provided much of the "narrow base"). This was particularly unfair to a company like Packard which had basically been a "war hero."

There were so many other factors in the eventual demise of Packard. The thoughtful posts here on the subject bring together an appropriate overall picuture, I think. I would add another ingredient here to the "perfect storm" of problems that brought Packard down. IMO the debacle of the Conner plant is often overlooked and is an important aspect of the entire picture. The facility cost Packard a great deal in lost time, re-tooling efforts, and quality control problems startng in 1954-55, when the company could ill afford them.

Many felt the plant was vastly inferior to East Grand Boulevard, and that the acquisition was a disaster for an already foundering company. In defense of their decision, Packard had lost their body supplier when Briggs was bought out by Chrysler, and they needed extra manufacturing space for the new body facilities. But why Packard took this opportunity to move ALL manufacuring into a space less than 1/3 the size of East Grand Boulevard remains a mystery. At least I've never seen a coherent explanation for it.

[55PackardGuy]

Packard8,

Thanks for the information on the aluminum head straight eight. Many months ago I asked if anyone knew how well this design held up in the real world (over on the "Packard Firsts" thread), and this answers the question. I still wonder if any other manufacturer attempted to put an aluminum head on a straight eight. If it was a "first" it wouldn't be a notably successful one.

[Guest stude8]

I would venture to say anytime you put an Aluminum head on an Iron block the two coefficient rates of expansion will always produce the undesired effect of a head gasket failure situation. All the sealer potions in the world won't cure an Aluminum head that expands twice as fast as an Iron block it is bolted to.

Another condition is the galvanic erosion because of two dissimilar metals, in the 1930's they used steel gaskets under aluminum heads because the preferrable Copper gaskets reacted badly with the Aluminum and disolved eventually. Stude8

[mrpushbutton]

As for the American Motors (as invisioned by Mason) question--that would have had a good chance of keeping Packard alive through the 1960's and perhaps into the 70's Providing: the new AMC would radically restructure everything that went on at the old Studebaker/South Bend operation-OR-keep the name and completely shut down South Bend, send the best people and production to Kenosha, Which would be the center for the inexpensive lines of (the new)AMC.

Complete consolidation of finance, engineering, and marketing in Detroit, comprised of the best people from each organization, and unfortunately--the elimination of others. Complete standardization of body shell manufacturing, engines (within package sizes) transmissions, etc. agressive dealer network building, getting the dealers out of the constant "behind the 8 ball" status, and have room to deal when appropriate. continue to develop Packard's full luxury status begun under Nance, bring Packard's mechanical reliability on par with Lincoln, Caddillac and Imperial. Build new plant @ Utica for Packard and Hudson lines (perhaps some Nash models), have hit men take out Charlie Wilson so AMC could get defence work. AMC as it occured was stuck squarely in the middle with no quanity/economy line to truly compete with, and nothing at the fat, profitable top segment. The middle is a funny place to be, with perhaps the most fickle demographic. Aaah--Monday morning quaterbacking is fun!

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would venture to say anytime you put an Aluminum head on an Iron block the two coefficient rates of expansion will always produce the undesired effect of a head gasket failure situation. All the sealer potions in the world won't cure an Aluminum head that expands twice as fast as an Iron block it is bolted to.

Another condition is the galvanic erosion because of two dissimilar metals, in the 1930's they used steel gaskets under aluminum heads because the preferrable Copper gaskets reacted badly with the Aluminum and disolved eventually. Stude8 </div></div>

Yep, the big obstacle at that time was metallurgy, however the iron block/alum head combo is pretty common today. The GM/Isuzu V8 diesel is a good ?extreme? example?.20:1 compression ratio with 20+ lbs turbo boost and they seem to last a long time without failure. Also, the Hudson 7X Twin-H Power motor of the mid 50?s had a high comp alum head and I don?t recall that they had a problem with it. Today?s coolants help overcome the electrolysis issues, but I?ve seen more than one 359 with the head ?welded? on by corrosion.

I have seen one Packard 359 (?54 Pacific) that still has the original head 50 years later, but that is pretty rare.

[55PackardGuy]

Right you are, Stude8, and that issue was amply discussed on the other thread. My question was if Packard was any more successful overcoming all these inherent engineering problems of aluminum mated to cast iron, and incidentally if they were the first-and-only to try it with a straight eight given the great expanse of that single piece of aluminum. Apparently, they weren't <span style="font-style: italic">much</span> more successful if at all. But it sounds like they took some steps that might have helped, and in some cases the application might have given satisfactory performance. It seems this design has kept attracting manufacturers over the years to attempt to make it work, for some reason. I suppose the weight savings are a factor in that, but as you point out the bugs that are built in to the equation are very difficult to deal with.

Absent so far on this thread are some of the engineering gaffs that led to Packard's reputation for reliability suffering in the final years. Transmission troubles in '55, re-calls in '56 for the flanged axels, and "teething problems" of the V8 were among these.

Packard's typical care in thorough testing before bringing innovations to market seemed to take a back seat to the drive to prove themselves as a technology leader in the years under Nance. Sometimes it seemed to work, such as the highly successful and well received Torsion-Level suspension. In other areas, it seems the headaches these innovations caused in the field negated the PR benefits. Some people still contend that the Twin Ultramatic was <span style="font-style: italic">the</span> culprit in dooming Packard, but as the posts here point out, there were many other factors. The mechanical problems certainly didn't help the situation, though.

[Guest AlK]

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

Absent so far on this thread are some of the engineering gaffs that led to Packard's reputation for reliability suffering in the final years. Transmission troubles in '55, re-calls in '56 for the flanged axels, and "teething problems" of the V8 were among these.</div></div>

The tranny troubles IMHO were overblown, maybe in an attempt to bring about Packards demise by the competition. I have 2 55's and the T/U on my car is starting to make noise, but don't forget just about every car maker had problems with their new techno-toys, witness Cadillacs 8-6-4-2 engine, was there ever a more Rube Goldberg contraption than that. Or how about the diesel in the 80's Olds. The tranny troubles were a key to Packards demise only in the fact that they were in the throes of going under so any bad publicity is going to hurt. If current status means anything the same tranny in the 56 does not seem to be held in dis-regard, so it seems that the problem was resolved, however by then, sadly to late.

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

Packard's typical care in thorough testing before bringing innovations to market seemed to take a back seat to the drive to prove themselves as a technology leader in the years under Nance. </div></div>

Again IMHO I think these were reactionary to the problems of the Conner avenue plant. When you have to get product out the door, you tend to cut corners elswhere, in this case testing. Old saying goes, "when your up to your butt in

snakes, alligators, and crocodiles, it is difficult to concentrate on the main mission statement, which was to 'drain the swamp' ".

[mrpushbutton]

The technical problems on the V-8 cars are often cited as the "thing that killed Packard". The problems I outlined on my 1st post started their demise long before the V-8 cars were introduced. The "Big 3 is all we need" thinking was really gaining ground by the mid 50's, and the trans troubles did not help, nor did the lax quality control of the Connor plant/ Hotpoint cronies supervision. No single-line manufacturer of American automobiles survived the 1950's. Packard might have survived into the early 1960's had they not taken on Studebaker as the money furnace they became, and had maintained their luxury image after the war. But that did not happen,Hash survived and S-P folded. GM has been using the public as their proving grounds for 25 years now, and look where they are. My '56 400 has a wonderful T-U, that shifts like a dream. It is very late production (5687-4134) they got it together, but it was too late. In the end, the inability to secure new loans killed Packard, and the compounding of decades of narrow minded business decisions brought about that inability to either issue stock, borrow money or self fund their operations.

[Guest]

I agree with you that the V-8 problems and even the quality problems at the Connor Ave. plant were only the last nails in the coffin. The problems began during the Depression when Packard in order to survive entered the mid class field with the excellent 120. It was a decision that saved the company from the fate of all the independent luxury makes and it was the right one but it had far reaching consequences. The fact that it survived the 1930's when so many great car companies did not is testament to the fine products this company produced. I was 12 when Packard left Detroit and I remember that I was very sad. My grandfather was a real fan of Packard cars and every year when he took me across the river to the Detroit Auto Show it was to the Packard display that we went first and foremost.

[Dr Morbius]

I've studied this and read many books and articles on the subject and have come to the conclusion that although the Conner plant was small, they came out with a v-8 too late, Nance's sales backround and the 120 in the thirties .... the main {probably 45%} reason has to be Charlie Wilson and the defense contracts. Does anyone realise how much Packard lost because of that lame brain! We're talking many hundredths of millions over each 3 to 5 year period. Even if you take 30% profit of say ....500 mill your talking 150 million spread over that time period. Easily enough to tool up a new body design for Packard and I'll also add a different but tasteful design for Clipper. Langworth was wrong on the 120 - It opened up Packard to the rest of the world in sales, as you can see in the sales numbers. If Mercedes could sell low and high end, why not Packard ?

As to the 359 with the aluminum head, I have 2 Packards both with the 359 and both with aluminum heads - yes the Pacific has it's original head, and they both run SUPER ! The key to having it run with no problems is to torque the head every 6 months. It's no secret {you just go to any seance and call up Col. Vincent} <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and it works for me. It also helps you don't overheat the engine !! Just my ooh....14 cents worth. ........Steve

[Dr Morbius]

By the way , my 2 Packards are not trailer queens -- I drive them pretty good all year round , although the Caribbean not so much in the winter!!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Silverghost]

Great answers guys!!!

Does anyone think that sales marketing + Body design & Styling had anything to do with Packard's lack of unit sales???

As some have already stated...Most customers BUY mostly on the design & look of the car's body and interior... In some people's opinion the cars produced just after the war were not at all up to this great co's proud history of beautiful + very dynamic designs... Just look at all those great CCCA Classics that Packard once produced in the 20s-30s...not to mention the 120's...

Packard finally got the style issue ironed out...but was it then too late when you add all the other factors that everyone above

mentioned!!! Why did Packard drop out of the High-End market ??? Were these cars all sold at a loss...just to wave the Packard Flag ??? As others have already stated...It is very hard to compete in the middle-of-the-road market !!! When today I think of Packard I think mostly of the Great Senior Series Classics...These cars were the Zenith of this great American Co. They were, and still are, and will always be, some of the GREATEST CARS EVER BUILT !!! It's a shame that they did not stay with what they did best!!!

I LOVE these GREAT CLASSIC PACKARDS !!!

[Dr Morbius]

Yes !! Very true - another large chunk of blame should go to the '48 to '50 body styles. Built like tanks !!! Unfortunately looked like tanks !! But before anybody gets their cockles in a bind my very first collector/classic car was a '50 super sedan. I still think it's a great car but in the context of the late '40s how can I put it ? it just wasn't a very exciting car.

....Steve <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Steve: I tip my hat to you. Somebody who finally sees one of the big reasons why Packard failed. Ferry when president tried to play the game both ways and failed, because of getting screwed on the defense contracts, Here are the other four reasons why Packard went down the tubes.

1. Macauley

2. General Motors

3. Ford

4. Chrysler

More of my 2cent later on.

Silver Ghost: How about telling me something about your Rolls. There is a nice little car museum in your area. I live in Jersey Shore just west of Williamsport.

John F. Shireman

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Twinsix writes: " another large chunk of blame should go to the '48 to '50 body styles. >>> Unfortunately looked like tanks !! ... the late '40s how can I put it ? it just wasn't a very exciting car."

I DO get my "cockles" in abind over this misconception of ca. 1950 styling. Was Packard the only bulbous styling of the 50'ish cars???? What about Nash and Linclon ????? They were equaly as bathtub'ish Those that did not have the bulbous styling were still stuck in the 40-47 somewhat pre-war styling carry over such as Chrysler. Was there ANY 49-52 styling among any makes that could be considered revolutionary (except: Cadillac)???

This same kind of styling blind-hind-site occured in the late 70's with the AMC Pacer. 20 years later and suddenly everyone is falling all over themselves to buy a Taurus, Caprice or late model cadillac among many other popular makes that resemble not only rolled over bathtubs but are nearly indistinguishable from each other across all price ranges. I am NOT defending the bath tub styling i am only trying to look at it objectively.

[55PackardGuy]

It might have been helpful if Packard had a primary market outside the U.S. in '48-50! The styling won a number of awards when it was shown internationally. It also won a "Fashion Car of the Year" gold medal from the Fashion Academy of New York. It seems the U.S. market was less interested in a fashionable car though, and more inclined to traditional lines. I think the design is quite striking, but could have used some more angles to complement the curves. It's a matter of taste, and evidently the taste of the buying public at the time differed from what Packard and several other manufacturers were offering.

Packard's sometimes less-than-successful flirtation with the middle market goes back at least as far as the Model 116 "Single Six" of the early to mid '20s. It seems the more successful Packard became with this market segment, such as they did with the 120, the more they are chided for diluting their luxury marque status. In fact, it seems that the phenomenal success of the 120 in the mid-'30s may be responsible for the theory that it marked the "real" beginning of the end for Packard. I've never been able to understand this viewpoint, but many discussions indicate that it's a passionately held belief.

Historians have definitely not overlooked the significance of the move to the Conner plant in '54, it had just not yet been mentioned in this thread. The <span style="font-style: italic">internal</span> reaction to it among those who had to manage and work in production was reported to be almost universally negative. Had the work environment been on a par with the East Grand Boulevard plant, there might have been a somewhat smoother transition to the body building enterprise. IMHO the move to a new facility, perhaps a necessary evil in the face of the loss of Briggs as a body supplier, is relatively important in the overall picture of "what happened to Packard," due to the cost involved and the production difficulties it presented, especially at a time when the company was already facing many other challenges.

[Guest bkazmer]

As far as styling opinions...

The Clipper was certainly current for 41-2, and everybody was reheating 42 designs after the war, so I'd say the 46 Packard was still up to date.

The first new designs were from the independents. Chrysler's efforts were very conservative, and oh heresy to Harley Earl, so were GM's in that the cars still had rear fenders. The "fuselage" bodies were more modern evolutions - see Kaiser, Nash, Hudson, and the 48 Packards. The aesthetic problem to me on the bathtubs has to do with the financial need to reuse the Clipper main stamping. The door lines had to go outwards, but the greenhouse stayed where it was. The resulting car has a much narrower greenhouse than lower body. The fashion award at Monte Carlo was to a convertible, where this is barely noticeable. The fastbacks do not show this effect as much because of the roofline into the trunk. But the sedans do. Even so they sold very well initially - the design was on the market too long.

GM's market clout held sway, and the early 50's cars had rear fenders (remember VHS was not technically better than Betamax, just bigger). So Packard went to the 51 bodies. I agree that they are modern, but not distinctive. Ask an old car person who is not real into Packards to identify a 51 -54, and especially from the side it may be taken as a Mercury, Pontiac or ?.

The 55-6 is a brilliant facelift under a limited budget.

Lest we drift to far into "if only", remember that the closest thing to the 57 Packard look derived from the Predictor was the 58 - 60 Lincolns and the 59 Edsels. The deal to use the 57 Lincoln shell might have come up with an attractive car.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nance was just one more step in Packards chain of incest. To top that of, he was just a refrigerator salesman. An auto company is not a bank, retail store, real estate office nor like any other business endeavour. It takes a REAL MAN to run an auto company, someone like Durant, Sloan, Estes, old man Ford, among others. </div></div>

I'd hardly call William Crapo Durant a competent manager of an auto comppany--after all, he founded GM, virtually ran it into the ground by 1910--was ousted, came back in through Chevrolet, ran GM into the ground again (!), then created Durant Motors--and promptly ran that company into liquidation.

Art

[Aanderson44]

<<Of course the other nail in the coffin was the pro GM guvmint administration(Eisenhower) who somehow saw it as fit and proper to take all of the goverment contracts away from Packard and give them to GM>>

I'm still waiting to know just what "government contracts" were taken away from Packard, and given to GM in those years 1953-55--can someone please enlighten me?

Art

[Dr Morbius]

Did anyone see last week when Helen Thomas asked Scott McClellen , spokesman for the White House about the collapse of Packard he immediately blamed it on the Clinton Administration. Jeeeeze Loueeese! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Dr Morbius]

To Packard V8 -- Unbind your cockles please......you brought up the point about bulbous styling on the Nash & Lincoln and I'll grant you that- except that Nash was not even in the same market as Packard and Lincoln sales numbers were like 1/4 of Packard's numbers- again not in it's league, or you might say apples and oranges- or qumquats....whatever. The only real competition to Packard was at that time Cadillac, and Cadillac's Styling I believe was heads above Packard. I also believe most people saw it the same way and bought accordingly. Packard should have kept the Clipper styling {which I still believe is stunning!} up to 1949 and then come out with the Contour styling which was a really great design. But what KILLED Packard's styling momentum was the "Pregnant Elephant".

.........Steve

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Twinsix wrote: "...bulbous styling on the Nash & Lincoln and I'll grant you that- except that Nash was not even in the same market as Packard and Lincoln sales numbers were like 1/4 of Packard's"

True, but styling trends are rarely limited to marketing class. My point was that the bulbous design was NOT unique to Packard. Were there any 49-54 manufacturers with exciting or attractive styling???? Maybe Cadillac or Buick or corvette but thats about all in those years.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From <span style="font-style: italic">The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company</span> by James A. Ward, published in 1995, pp. 189-190:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After the Republicans administration took office, procurement patterns changed dramatically. From January 1953 through June 1954, GM picked up another $1,700,430,000 in business, while Studebaker lost $244.9 million and Packard lost $84.7 million.</div></div>

In another passage, the book details Packard's loss of two-thirds of its 1953 contract for jet engines, while Studebaker lost all of theirs.

Although a variety of books that were previously published on Packard appear in his bibliography, know that among the many other additional sources of information, Ward also researched the <span style="font-style: italic">Studebaker National Museum Archives </span> - including Nance's papers and S-P's Board of Directors Minutes.

I highly recommend you purchase the book for the rest of the story; while it may not go into the <span style="font-style: italic">n</span>th detail on everything, it has proven to be a trustworthy reference. </div></div>

I did a search back when this very subject came up earlier this year in another thread. While I cannot access the same database I looked at at that time, it was a complete listing of all jet engine designs (by USAF and US Navy alphanumeric designations). I found two designations assigned to Packard jet engines, BOTH of them described as "Expendable", meaning for use in guided missile (think cruise missile here) applications. Unlike Packard's experiences with the R/R Merlin in WW-II, these jet engines appear to not have been all theat much a "sure bet", but rather a speculative venture--depending in large part on the success of the airframe manufacturer to succeed in bringing to the bable a viable unmanned missile powered by a Packard engine--and that certainly did not happen? BTW, at the same time GM's Allison Division was in very similar straitsm the 1at-generation Jet fighters built around Allison jet engines reaching the end of their production lives, and INTENSE competition for the next generation jets, the early "Turbofans" coming from not only United Aircraft's Pratt & Whitney, but also General Electric and Westinghouse. GM-Allison fell back on their one real "ace", geared gas turbine engines--of which they went on to produce hundreds of thousands, for helicopters and the ubiquitous Lockheed C-130, as well as just about every other fixed-wing turbo-prop airplane built in the US in the US into the middle 1960's. GM seems also to have built a huge number of diesel engines as prime movers for tracked armored vehicles and for military trucks, INCLUDING the famed "Eager Beaver" Deuce-and-a-Half--STUDEBAKER'S "Chippewa" Truck--which Studebaker produced until their financial situation appeared so shakey that Kaiser was sent in to take over the completion of existing contracts in the very early 60's--Kaiser producing the very same truck until the formation of AM-General--who continued the same old, same old, Stude design into the late 1980's. As for any aircraft engine production, I find no Studebaker aircraft engine production after 1945, when Studebaker completed their wartime work on the massive numbers of Wright Cyclone radial engines for the likes of the B-17 Flying Fortress and C-47 cargo aircraft.

I think what gets done here is to confuse the rather sudden changes in US Military production requirements upon the end of the shooting in Korea in 1953, and the subsequent slowing of early Cold War hysteria--and then ascribing the cancelling of contracts with certain suppliers to some sort of dark conspiracy--I really doubt that seriously objective historical analysis can support such conspiracy theories.

Art

[Guest JT]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what KILLED Packard's styling momentum was the "Pregnant Elephant". </div></div>

Maybe more like delayed it. While I think Packard used the design one year too long it would be hard to argue that it was a bad design in 1948-49 given that production was, I believe, company's second highest in 1949. The conservative management was much more to blame in 1950 than the car. Too bad they didn't come out with the 51 a year earlier and with a V8 in it.

[SafeTFlex]

What DID happen to Packard, anyway......?

Scanned this entire "thread". WOW - what complicated reasons! What great books and publications, each with such an involved theory.

BH is right - post-war Packard owners are and should be less than excited with the pre-war stuff.

I've got my own crazy theory on why Packard died - got it from an article that was recently re-printed in one of the Packard Clubs. I agree with it completely. Dont be cross with me - I can prove I didn't write it!

If you dont like the article about how Packard could kill itself, again, DONT pick on me; write the author!

At the end of the article, I will include the author's name and address so you can write him and complain. ( I am abbreviating the article to save space, but you get the idea !) The article is entitled "REPUTATION"

" REPUTATION IS AN IRON TYRANNY THAT COMPELS MEN WHO DO

GOOD WORK TO CONTINUE DOING GOOD WORK. IT IS AN

INFLEXIBLE LAW THAT BINDS MEN WHO BUILD WELL, TO

GO ON BUILDING WELL. THAT WHICH IS ACCORDED A

GOOD REPUTATION IS FOREVER FORBIDDEN TO DROP BELOW

ITS STANDARD. ONCE YOU HAVE CREATED A REPUTATION

FOR BUILDING WELL, YOU DARE NOT DISOWN IT WITHOUT

DRAWING DOWN DISASTER.

Alvan P. Macauley

President, Packard Motor Car Company

1580 East Grand Avenue

Detroit 32

Michigan, United States Of America

yup - you guessed it - partial text of a Packard car ad. from the pre-war days.

[55PackardGuy]

That "reputation" quote is from <span style="font-style: italic">way</span> pre-war--its was written by Theodore F. MacManus (of MacManus Inc., Packard's ad agency at the time) and appeared in 1922. He also wrote the Cadillac "penalty of leadership" ad, which appeared about 7 years previous to the Packard ad. The Packard "reputation" ad is probably less well-known than the Cadillac "leadership" ad today, but it was famous in its time, and reprinted in booklet form and translated into many languages. (Kimes, pg 236) (As a former ad copywriter, I can identify with the pressure to re-create a successful idea for a new client... "can you do something like that ad you did for _______?")

There may be some truth to the idea that once you've established a reputation, you're liable to be judged more by how well you continue to excel rather than whether you're objectively as good or better than the competition. You certainly become a "target" for competitors who want to pick holes in that reputation.

When it comes to comparing sales figures for various models and judging their relative worth on those figures, I think it's important to also consider the state of automotive industry sales in general during the time period that the cars were introduced. Sometimes a vehicle looks like a "dog" but the sales are merely reflective of a general slump in the automotive industry. IMO the early '50s models are an example of this. There seems to have been an industry retrenchment after the immediate post-war years of intense demand for ANY kind of new cars. Also, supposedly "successful" models can be a reflection of geneal industry expansion rather than the particular merits of the model.

Not trying to make things more complicated still, just pointing out that industry analysis IS a complicated subject. This thread is the best discussion by far that I've seen on this topic, and synthesizing all the knowledge available here arguably gives a better overall picture than any single text or source. For example, I think Brian makes an excellent point on the unknown factors involved in the decision to change manufacturing facilities, and provides a good basis for conjecture about what may have gone on behind the scenes.

This is what I would call a "learned discussion" rather than simply a recitation of isolated "facts" which don't always supply a very complete scenario. It definitely makes me want to get the Ward book and see what it has to say.

[Dr Morbius]

Oh stop ..... I'd put any 1954 Packard, or '56 if you want against a Rolls-Royce from the same year. The doors close with the same tick - Packard engines are smoother and need less maintenance and have more power..... I've lived in Merry olde England for some years and got to know RR and Bentley fairly well. I'll take a Packard over them anytime ! Even a bathtub model ! And ask any mechanic which car he'd rather work on, oh wait , he'll want to make lotsa money for the extra hours he'll spend on the Rolls compared to the Packard for doing the same thing. If you want to compare quality the highest quality Packards was from 1905 to the big 6 "Dominator" of 1915. Much better than anything from the thirties ! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Dr Morbius]

I guess it's a classic case of " It's all relative "

........Steve <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest imported_Speedster]

One thing that is often overlooked is the mindset of the buying public at that time. They had just lived thru WW2, the korean war started, the A-bomb Cold war was starting. Most people were more worried about buying a Bomb-shelter than buying a futuristic luxury car. So most only wanted inexpensive transportaion, such as a Ford or Chevrolet. Only the young kids thought about modern car design.

[Guest]

Art: In 2004 you and I got into the military contract thing in the CCCA forum. Then I gave you many examples of how the independents and Ford and Chrysler got short changed by Ikes admindistration, when it came to defense contracts, which ended up giving GM a favored egde when it cames to defense contract work. Then you came out on the short end with me that time.

If you realy want to, I think BH and I can set you straight on the matter.

John F. Shireman

[Guest Silverghost]

TWINSIXSTEVE: Don't know WHO you are talking about???

I don't know, and am not RELATED TO B.H.!!!

I just LOVE OLD PACKARDS...JUST LIKE YOU!!

BTW: DO YOU HAVE A GREAT TWIN SIX???

HOW ABOUT SOME PHOTOS???? CAR PHOTOS,ENGINE PHOTOS.....ANY PACKARD PHOTOS!!!