Summer of 56

[Guest JT]

I was reading about the final days in 56 and was surprised to see that out of the final 4,012 employees ninety percent of them had been there for more than 23 years. That's hard to believe in today's world. I'm sure those were some very hard times for those folks. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[mrpushbutton]

Packard was one of these companies where families worked together, fathers got sons jobs, cousins, etc. Until Nance's reign there was no retirement plan, people worked until they could no longer physically show up and work. There were stories of two and tree generations of people sitting on the curb crying because they knew no other work. Every big show I attend people always ask "how could Packard go out of business" "why did they (whomever "they" are) let Packard go out of business"--never easy questions to answer.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Studebaker was much the same. I remember reading a Stude ad that showed a father and son working on the same line. They were proud of that. It's unuaual now, but I worked for the same company for 30-plus years. The company was loyal to the workers and vice-versa. That has disappeared in today's markets.

[Packard enthus.]

the question of why Packard died is VERY easy to answer. Just pick up one of their earlier advertisements, now re-printed of part of each issue of one of the Packard club's newsletters. It is entitled "REPUTATION". The article, written as an ad during Packard's glory years, explains the value of having a good reputation, and the punishment that will fall as a logical result of disgracing a good reputation with ever poorer quality and poorer performing products.

Packard management changed towards the end of the 1930's, with each successive change getting more self-destructive, greedy, and incompetent.

I remember a Packard salesman actually in tears, when the new 1953 Packard Patrician my dad ordered, took delivery of, drove for the first time, and then DEMANDED our "trade in" (our '47 Clipper Custom) back.

For obvious reasons - not just the increasingly bad "build quality". Why did Packard start de-rating its engine power after the war (the 1940's big Packards had a 356 cu in engine that would blow the doors off just about ANYTHING of their year, whereas the smaller displacement engine introduced in 1951, gave Packard the unenviable "prize" of being the SLOWEST accellerating post war car EXCEPT for a 1949 Chevrolet with the first Powerglide...!

If you know what happens when you "step on it" in 1947 Packard Clipper Custom, and then try that in a 1953 Patrician, you know why my father was so out-raged, and demanded the transaction be cancelled. Many years later, when I owned some '51 - 54' Packards, my dad would shake his head if we went over a good bump and got those cheaply made hoods to flutter, wondering at how they could build such crap after those great pre-war designs (the Packards up to 1950 were essential pre-war in design, and pretty much so in quality control).

That Packard COULD have survived is well-demonstrated by the TREMENDOUS jump in sales in late 1954 - early 1955, when Packard ads insisted "Packard is back" with cars that would keep up the Packard tradition of producing the best, fastest cars for the money in each of its respective price classes.

I recall the ads bragging about a bone stock '55 Packard V-8 by FAR out-handling ANYTHING else of that era (they showed how superior the new torsion bar suspension handling was, compared to the other luxury cars, in photos taken doing high speed "jumps" over bumps..such as rail-road crossings). And then there was the ad about the famous 25,000 mi. "run" that set some kind of world record for "bone stock out-of-the-box" production cars.

Sadly, the "build quality" by that point, had gotten to be such a disgraceful industry joke, that once in the hands of customers, "word got out" - so that by the 1956 production, dealers couldn't give the things away. I recall when Packard finally closed, one of the problems of the receivers was what to do with the THOUSANDS of un-sold new Packards still in inventory, that no-one wanted.

I was actually BORN in a 1936 Packard "120" club sedan - a car that showed Packard was faithful to its buyers no matter what price range the particular Packard they bought, was in. I'll match that car against ANYTHING in its dollar class.

In the year my 1938 Packard V-12 was built, it out-sold the Cadillac V-16 TEN TO ONE!. Stop-light drag race, twisting road course, or flat out highway brawl, what a 473 cu in. Packard V-12 would do to a 440 cu. in Cadillac V-16 is funny - far cry from how things changed - drive a well-maintained 1953 Packard up alongside a 1953 Cadillac, Buick, or Olds 98, and you get your doors blown off..not just in performance, but in every aspect by which cars are measured. EVERY.

The Packard Company had importance to American industry far out of proportion to its relatively small size. Its pioneering work in engineering draftsmanship standards, quality control, foresaw and probably had much to do with the rise of American industry as a leader in the world. Sadly, its later determination to self-destruct thru ever poorer quality products ( who remembers the famous incident at a 1954 auto show, when the President of Packard, got inside one during an interview, and had to KICK his way out, because the door fitting was so miserable). foresaw how the entire American auto industry later lost ITS "cause".

Who remembers how determined the later Packard management was, to destroy Packard's heritage as a quality leader? That famous "memo" in the early 1950's, from management to Packard Service Stores (the factory parts department) (even tho the parts dept. consistantly turned a net profit) to stop providing parts to pre-war Packards "why help keep out-of-date products on the road.....because unfair comparisons between products from another era are causing problems in marketing our present product line..."

The REAL story of how Packard self-destructed is pretty simple - it is certainly understandable that many today do not want to face it, and try and cover it all up with complex excuses.

Bottom line...if people stop buying the product...you cant stay in business.

I have told this story before, to illustrate the problem. Lunch-time at Beverly Hills, California Packard. Late '54. I am sitting on the curb with some senior Packard mechanics, as they eat their sandwiches. Big truck/auto carrier pulls up with a fresh load of brand new Packards. I wont repeat their eaxt language here...something to the effect " oh gawd...here comes another load of "do-it-yourself" kits.....!

The salesman at Earl C. Anthony in downtown Los Angeles remembered delivering my own '38 Packard V-12 to its original owner. He told me the proceedure in Packard's glory days was - clean the car, inside and out, of any traces of shipping paper-work (they were shipped in sealed box-cars). Take the hub-caps and cig. lighters out of the trunk and install them. Check the fluid levels. Fill the gas tank. Drive it around the block to make certain everything is perfect. Deliver the car.

How sad the American auto industry has been copying the death-wish of Packard management - will they go the same way..? "he who forgets the past.....is condemned to re-live it".

[michel88]

That really summarizes the Packard story exceptionally well. I have read many articles about the demise of Packard and this presents all the facts. It is a real shame that Packard was allowed to deteriorate and finally die.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the question of why Packard died is VERY easy to answer. <snip> </div></div>

(groan)?.He?s baaaaaack?????.. Playing the same of broken record?.?post war Packards are junk??.yadayadayada?..

I find it amusing the 356 Clipper engine you so adore and idolize is not one whit different from the post war senior straight 8?s. Drag racing in a Dynaflow, Mopar Fluid Drive, Chevy Powerglide or Ultramatic is just plain goofy. Take a 1954 Packard equipped with a 359 4bbl and 3 speed overdrive and it will hold its own with the competition (as proved by La Carrera and Pan Americana entrants).

Petey?believe it or not, you aren?t the only one ?who was there? I?ve owned dozens and dozens of post war/1950?s cars from the Big Three and the independents (I tried to remember them all a few years ago and got stuck at 40 some). There is really not much difference in build quality comparing a mid 50?s Caddy, Chrysler, Lincoln, Packard, Hudson, Stude etc. They all were lacking compared to today?s build standards. Right after WW II all US auto makers couldn?t build ?em fast enuf to meet demand and that resulted in shoving less than perfect product out the door.

Okay?for those new here, we?ve gone down this path a zillion times since the Packard Forum was at CollectorCar.com several years ago. Petey has had a few dozen incarnations in the interim (and usually gets shown the door after a while). I thought he might have learned by now but??..

[Guest Randy Berger]

The amazing thing is that he was invited back.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The amazing thing is that he was invited back. </div></div>

You're kidding............. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Packard enthus.]

What is the advantage to our readers, of you making up obvious hostile nonsence and then claiming that I said it? No matter how desparately you want to turn this into some kind of personality fight, the facts are simple.

Specifically, I did not say that "post war Packards are junk". Apparently, you got so upset about REALITY, you failed to understand (or did not want to) see what I was saying about the post war Packard Custom Clipper we had, and how my father wanted it BACK!

I am also a little confused by your calling the 356 cu in. block used beginning with 1940 production, ending in 1950, a "Clipper" engine. I believe you are inaccurate there too - I do not recall EVER seeing any data, technical info., or sales literature identifying the "356" block as a "Clipper engine". Packard had two other engines also available in lesser-priced Packards (using the same bodies, but with a shorter front end & hood).

Yes, the 356 cu in. block was used in in the biggest Packard cars known as Clippers, but it was also used, as you are apparently aware, in the '41 - '42 "160" and "180" series, as well as the '48 - '50 Custom Eight. My recollection is that the least year of the "big" Packard or "356" was 1950.

You are also mistaken if you think I look down on ANY car buff, no matter what their choice. PLEASE..I do NOT blame YOU because Packard decided to commit suicide!

You dont seem to want to face the truth about the later Packards, and that is certainly understandable. If you focus your car buff activities upon them, more power to you! But you are seriously mistaken about the '54 Packard 359 "giving a good accounting of itself". Simple proof is the public rejected them. Why ? Beacuase it was a PACKARD, and by that time, Packard's own research confirmed it had generated such a sorry reputation for itself it couldnt sell its products! I have a simple test for you - next time you are around a bunch of '54 cars, kneel down, look underneath, and take a critical look at the front bumper supports of a '54 Olds, Buick, or Cad, and then compare how they are built, with a '54 Packard. You wont even have to lift the hoods to see the difference in structure, to do that !

THAT is why Packard put so much effort into promoting the '55 production, in late 1954.

You REALLY think a '54 Packard would have a CHANCE against a '54 Cad or Olds similiarly equipped ? Your making a statement like that, and claiming "you were there", raises credibility issues.

History isnt always pleasant. The decent people who liked Packards, who bought Packards, or who worked at the Packard factory, got "sold down the river" by a greedy management that came out of World War II fat with profits, and with a single-minded determination to keep as much of that as they could, with as little of that as possible going into product. Direct your annoyance back thru time to those who ruined Packard, not to a fellow car buff sixty years after the doors closed !

P F H

Bottom line - I know where the nearest Cadillac show-room is - not sure where the nearest Packard show-room is..!

[Packard8]

Yup, same 'ol Petey...."don't blame me I didn't' build them", "don't shoot the messenger" etc, ...yadayadayada.

Sounds like you are off your meds again..I'll give it about a week before the current Petey goes "poof" like all the rest.....

Meanwhile, thank god for the Ignore button.......

BTW, how many times have you been banned here? How many times at ClassicCar.com?....Do I see a pattern here?

[Tom M]

Usually I don't butt in on these things but come on guys I am youngster here and I like to hear and read both sides of the story. Can we be civil? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> I don't like to see anyone get banned.

Hopefully I don't loose any car buff friends by writing this.

[Clipper47]

I agree, let Pete speak his mind and let the debates begin without personalities getting in the way. Pete has expressed an opinion on the reasons for the demise of Packard which many others share and so far that is all.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if you disagree then let us hear it. I don't care how many times he was banned from some now defunct forum or even this one. The fact is that the powers that be have allowed him back and as long as he remains civil he should be allowed to stay. Come on you 1951-56 guys get in there and rebut but please no personal slurs. In other words lets just talk "Packard" here.

[mrpushbutton]

OK--had Packard maintained the level of quality they were renowned for in the 1930's and early 40's they still would have had to deal with:

? An insufficient dealer network

? The lack of a internal finance system (like GMAC) to feed competitive sales, causing the dealers to deal with the local bank

? the high break-even point of running your own stand-alone executive, engineering, styling, purchasing, accounting, foundry, body fab (a BIG one) engine and transmission plant (not so small either!) etc. without (high volume) partners to amortize costs

? The extreme financial demands of re-tooling a new body on a much more aggressive timetable than ever before (look at the benchmark GM set from 1955 to1965)

? The lack of a high-volume "little brother" to pay their bills when the public goes through one of their "we don't feel like buying upper-end cars" moods.

In summary: Packard had a good run, No-there is nothing like a 30's 12 cyl Packard, never will be again, but that was a rare moment in time. The writing was on the wall before the war that the large, multi brand/price bracket conglomerates were the way to go, the war and the post war feeding frenzy bought time for all of the independents but once the demand was met it was going to be very competitive. Quality alone does make for a successful company. I can think of several American manufacturers who made a superior product to their conglomerate competitors, only to die for lack of money or credit at a crucial time. Packard could have lasted a few years more without the crushing losses in South bend, but they needed to be part of a bigger picture (conglomerate) to survive the cruel, changing world of American business.

[Guest AlK]

Unfortunately guys Ole Petey can't spell civil. I am one of the old line guys from the old collectorcar.com days and I have have seen Petey in all his guises. I to was once of your opinion, "let him speak, let's hear his opinion". Until it became abundantly clear that the only opinion that Petey was interested in was his own, and no one elses. And God help the poor individual that had a car that was not a V-12. Man then you got the 10 commandments of Petey thrown at you. The actual truth of the matter is there is no ONE reason and ONE reason only for Packard demise, but several. However Petey will never admit to that, because that destroys his pet rant. Every company at one time or another has had terrible quality. They all managed to survive somehow. Packard demise was the culmination of several events that have been documented over and over, all you have to do is read them to see it. But not our old friend Petey. To him it is only one reason and one reason only ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That is why not to many people here are interested in letting Petey back into the forum. I wish the moderators would look to the past to determine Peteys re-entry into the forum. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And we don't need or want a re-pete of Pete.

[Packard8]

I?ll just give you folks a bit of history and then drop it.

My first experience with PFH was 5 or 6? years ago at the old forum. A new member?s first post was a general question about a Packard 110. Well, the first reply was from Petey and it was a 5 page harangue about how the 110 did not deserve to wear the Packard nameplate, it was a piece of junk that was not up to the standards of the other prewar Packards, the member should get rid of it and buy a REAL Packard (like Petey?s)?.. yadayadaya ad nauseum.

Well, the member replied that she was an 18 YO young woman and her Granddaddy had just died and left her the car as a remembrance. She was not real happy and left the forum. Did Petey apologize? Heck no?.he started another diatribe about how correct his assessments of the 110 were and he was just trying to help the new member get rid of her junk car.

I?m sure you will see a typical lawyer?s rebuttal of the incident (?it depends on what the meaning of ?is? is?.?), but those who were on the forum at the time will remember the facts?..

Just be careful of what you wish for guys, and that?s all I?ll have to say about that??..

[Packard enthus.]

For Packard 8 & his buddies...

I kept a copy of my discussion with the young woman about the Packard "110" she was THINKING of restoring. If you like, I can e mail it to you to review. I will not "post" it, as our Editor would prefer we just leave these personal discussions out of the Forum..and I DO AGREE !

Let's remember we are ALL Packard buffs, or we wouldn't be in here. The REAL question is how we can better serve fellow Packard enthusiasts with an exchange of info. that is as accurate as we can make it.

Your info. about what you THINK I said about "110" series Packards is not helpful or accurate - let's you and I work together to see how we can help obher Packard buffs better learn about the cars and the Company.

Fact is, over and over again, I have repeatedly tried to educate people on what made Packard great. The "110" and "120" series, as I have said over and over again, were typical of Packard's long-standing attitude of trying to provide the best, most "honest" car for the money. A study of those cars, and a comparison with other maker's products of the same era, will show why Packard did so well when it entered that price field.

Yes, the Packard V-12 was a great example of what Packard could do in that particular price field. Packard sold only about 500 Twelves in 1938 - out-selling Cadillac's V-16 ten to one. I am sure we all agree neither company could have kept the doors open on sales like that !

Bottom line - the "110" and "120" cars were so good, that it brought all kinds of new business over to the Packard Company. And those people who bought em, came back, meaning "repeat" business. That says it all about how good the "110" and "120" were within their price range. Anyone who thinks poorly of that price-range Packard, and/or thinks those cars "killed Packard", should study the REPEAT sales those cars generated !

Again, I think we can learn much, both in the understanding of our car hobby, and about life in general, by taking a clear view of what companies can do when they set their minds to success, and..sadly..to failure! But it is quite a "stretch" to say I dont like Packards other than my own !

My suggestion to the young woman considering putting money into a "110", was that she first LEARN more about our hobby, and RECOGNIZE there are BIG differences in Packards. By learning more about the various Packard products, it was, and remains my view she could then better select one that would give her satisfaction. While a Packard "110" was a fine car for the money, wouldn't she have more fun in a "120". And suppose she could get her hands on a "160" or "180"? wouldnt that give her more "bang" for her buck ?

All the excuses in the world wont save us from the awful truth that the Packard Company is no longer with us. Please DONT BLAME THAT ON ME !! I PROMISE...I DID NOT STAND OUT IN FRONT OF THE PACKARD DEALERSHIPS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND TELL LONG LINES OF PEOPLE BEGGING TO BY THE PRODUCT, THAT THE "110"'S WERE NAUGHTY CARS...!

Let's see what we can do to INFORM people about our HOBBY ! I personally am just not that exciting a subject!

[Guest bkazmer]

Enough guys - we know where this all can end up. Let's try to take the high road and move forward. Differences of opinion are fine, but do not need to include a lack of respect. Pete, do us all a favor and make like archy and mehitibel - don't use your shift key. It gets you in more trouble than you know. If somebody gets a nasty-gram as a reply, the rest of us can assure him/her of our support. But don't highjack threads to rehash old stories. My $.02

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Talking of banning someone for expressing non personal opinions???! Not sure if we are all reading the same posts - I have to say something in his defense. I have yet to see a personal attack from Pete (I don't know about any prior history, just this forum). I did see where he had a difference of opinion with another person in advising someone on treating leather seals in another thread, follow the posts, I hardly think he was looking to offend anyone and in fact did take the high road there, ignoring the other person who got personal.

Just my 2 cents as I think this guy is getting an undeserved beating up here. There is a fine line between interesting posts and strictly facts, but I figure if you don't attack someone and you are on topic, that is OK. I figure some of you may have old beefs - too bad because without that, this is a heck of a forum. If he is not your cup of tea, then why not just pass on his post? I just think it would be more productive overall.

Re postwar, he is really not saying anything that is not fairly common/accepted knowledge Re postwar Packard. How do you compete, as an independent against the economies of scale GM & others had? Virtually no one produced a vehicle on another level like pre-war Sr. cars or coachbuilt cars of any make. One could argue this level would give Packard an image car - much like the earlier cars helped make the 110 & 120s so popular. Lincoln tried with the Mark ll but lost on each one, so that was not viable either. I do think quality played a role also.

[DutchDarrin]

Packard8: Peter in many ways is correct in his statmenets about the history of Packard in the 50's.

By 1954 Packard offered a product that few had any interest in purchasing. In 1955 people didn't want to purchase a product that had poorly built bodies, and many machanical problems.

THE GREAT GRAND WIZARD

[Packard enthus.]

Hey Steve !

Thanks for your gracious words - be assured, I have, and I wish others would have a thick skin about silly stuff.

Also be assured, I NEVER EVER use fowl language. FOUL language..? Well..that's a different story..not often..but when a wrench slips off..... but..again..I do NOT speak birdese...so I will NOT tolerate being accused of using FOWL language...

My personal prejudice is that people are...well...HUMANS...which means some of them are going to have less patience with conflicting views than others. Best thing to do is not let them get to you.

Funny...bitter-sweet irony here - when I was in high school, actually did lose a couple of friends because they not only thought I was so dumb for paying twenty five bucks and riding around in my then 17 year old Packard V-12, SOME of them got so irate about being seen in the damn thing, they actually broke off their friendship !

Now, 60 years later, we've got a couple of guys not all that happy with me because I have a Packard Twelve !

Fact of life - no matter where you go, what you do, or what you are, there is alway someone with a bigger one, a faster one, a prettier one, etc. Trick is..not to let it bother you.

So - again, thanks for the gracious words, and for those who are not so gracious, I say BIRD SPEAK to you ! (naw..just kidding)....

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard8: Peter in many ways is correct in his statmenets about the history of Packard in the 50's.

By 1954 Packard offered a product that few had any interest in purchasing. In 1955 people didn't want to purchase a product that had poorly built bodies, and many machanical problems.

THE GREAT GRAND WIZARD </div></div>

Lemme see if I can remember all the Packards in the last 10 years?

49 club Coupe

51 2 Dr sedan

2ea 53 Clipper

2ea 54 Pats

54 Limo

54 Pacific

54 Conv

55 Clipper Conie

3ea 56 Pat

2ea 56 400

56 Carib

Now granted, many were parts cars, six were from one collection and I fixed up and eBay?d them. But none had parts falling off, or were significantly poorer build quality than the dozens of other old cars I?ve had over the years (markedly better than many!).

The V8?s stacked up quite well with the competition, but they were about 3 years too late to save the company (or at least postpone the demise).

BTW, welcome back John <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest 55_Clipper]

My 55 Clipper being my first Packard, I really have nothing to compare it to. However, for ride quality, it is superior to my 2002 Grand Marquis- and my Merc aint no slouch for ride comfort. Performance wise, well that is comparing apples to oranges. Technical aspects, well let's see..... now days all fuel injected engines have the intake above the the block with air free flowing around it, and optional after market cold air intakes, to help atomize the fuel. So does my 55 Clipper. Nowdays, self leveling cars are the cat's meow, hmmmmmm my 55 has that option. Point is, my 55 was way ahead of it's time. Packard could have "gutted it out" so to say and maybe survived <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Guest BJM]

Pete,

While I have not been overly offended by your comments, I disagree entirely with your advice to the young lady. If you had a car, a Ford or Dodge or Packard 110 that you grandfather owned, father owned, and passed down to you, that car has what is called "sentimental value" that far exceeds it's monetary value. This young lady was not interested in the old car hobby perse, she was attached to that car. So she would have had no interest in stepping up to a 160, a 180 or a post war Carribbean or whatever. So in that sense, your advice was misguided. Note the cars I own in my post footer. None of these cars are comparable to a V12 Packard. But we get what we like in this hobby - and can afford.

Regarding the posters that have recognized this new felloe Pete as an old poster that continually gets knocked off for his comments - please understand that this Packard forum "started over" to eliminate the kind of comments you are posting - to gain civility and bring the discussion back around to Packard and Packard history.

No where in Pete's 1st post was there anything I found offensive - I may not have agreed with him on every point - but nothing offensive. Now, however, we are mired in a personality dispute. personally, I think the moderator should just shut down the Packard specific sites if this continues. It needs to nipped in the bud before it gains legs.

No more comments about "Petey's old ways. IF he responds to a rebuttal of his post content with inappropriate comments, then let him dig his own grave.

[Guest AlK]

O.K. it's obvious that no one is going to convince the newbies of the situation. In truth they are very liberal minded and want to give everyone another chance and obviously are not willing to listen to the voices of experience. We, the old timers, have been there, done that, jousted with him, and know the mindset. We had to learn the hardway, so since your not willing to take the advice of the people who have been thru it, then you will have to find out for yourself. I put in my $.02 and it fell short. You are now free to learn on your own. I will scan this thread with great interest, but will contribute no more to it. Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Packard enthus.]

Alk - you are obviously unhappy with one or more of my "posts". WITHOUT getting into some silly personality fight that would NOT benefit other Packard enthusiasts, I would like very much to discuss with you whatever Packard "issue" you think we can learn something about.

Would you PLEASE pick a SPECIFIC post of mine that you think other Packard enthusiasts can benefit from reviewing ? Let's talk.

You dont help your fellow car buffs by walking away. Stay and express your enthusiasm for Packard and its products. Who knows - you and I BOTH might learn something new !

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O.K. it's obvious that no one is going to convince the newbies of the situation. In truth they are very liberal minded and want to give everyone another chance and obviously are not willing to listen to the voices of experience. We, the old timers, have been there, done that, jousted with him, and know the mindset. We had to learn the hardway, so since your not willing to take the advice of the people who have been thru it, then you will have to find out for yourself. I put in my $.02 and it fell short. You are now free to learn on your own. I will scan this thread with great interest, but will contribute no more to it. Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! </div></div>

It?s not surprising Al, most are not aware of the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hide aspects at play here and have only seen the good Doctor so far. They are not aware that when the wheels came off last time, Mr. Hyde emerged as multiple personas in the form of ?new members? whose only purpose was to foment discord and start arguments. It was in a way comical to witness him arguing with himself using many characters simultaneously within the same thread?..?My name is Legion for we are many??..LOL

Hopefully Peter G will be on alert for a slew of ?new members? who spring forth from the same IP addy. Like you, I?ll just watch with interest and not take any more bait.

Who knows??? Maybe the wheels will stay on this time around??..

[Packard enthus.]

for Pack8

Looks like you have the same problem as Al. How about YOU ? You also indicate you are unhappy with one or more of my "posts". Could you "put a lid" on your unhappiness with some personality issue, and help the other Packard buffs in here learn more about the car and the Company ? BY TELLING US WHICH POST YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH, AND SPECIFICALLY..WHY ?

Perhaps there is some aspect of a Packard product, or about Packard management, you feel I have in some way mislead other Packard fans ? What SPECIFIC issue about Packards and the Company can we learn more about from you ? Discuss, please..?

[Guest twinfour]

What does all this have to do with the 1956 Packards??

[R W Burgess]

P. Hartmann, you keep saying, "Tell us this, Tell us that!"

I think in fact, "you" want to hear the discussion.

May I suggest you post your e-mail address and any discussion can be done off-site where it won't irritate regular members here.

Wayne

[Loyd Smith]

twinfour - my sentiments exactly.

[Packard enthus.]

Perhaps I can help answer the above three questions & comments of Twinfour, RW, and Lloyd. You are in what is called a "thread" of the PACKARD Foreum. Think of a "thread" as a "chapter". Any of us can start a "thread", and, within reason and taste, name it what we wish. This particular "thread" is entitled "Summer of '56; written by someone who is obviously interested in the failure of the Packard company in that year ( Some Studebakers were manufactured in another state, with "Packard" emblems, but I dont think that would be relevant to what the people who were commenting in this "thread" were concerned with).

If you are interested specifically in 1956 Packards, you might want to start your own "thead" or "chapter" here; we have a number of participants who are far more knowledgeable than I about the details of those cars, and would be happy to answer your questions. But again, from th title of the person who started this "thread", and from the comments of other participants that followed, the focus appears to be why the company failed in 1956, not a detailed discussion about the technical aspects of the 1956 Packard.

Burgess seems concerned that "some of the regular members" might be in some way irritated at discussions about Packards. That is certainly possible - we have no way of knowing how many of our participants actually care about Packard products or the Company, indeed, somne of them may just be in here for personal reasons to "vent" against those who do. I dont know. My suggestion is, best thing to do, if you do not like being exposed to information you find disagreeable, is try a chat room dealing with a car and/or manufacturer you DO find pleasing.

There is nothing new and novel about people hating Packards and what they stood for ! In fact, hating Packards, and what they stood for, was even practiced by Packard management ! There is an interesting article about Packard, in a 1937 FORTUNE magazine article, where the new management referred to the Packard tradition of the highest quality cars, as 'THAT GODDAM SENIOR STUFF". That executive headed the decision team that elected to physically "gut" Packard's "Senior Division" production facilities so completely, in 1939, that Packard could never again make really large, elegant cars (everything after that was based on the very nice middle-class Packards known as the "120" series.

So - again, being offended by, or even hating, some aspects of the history of the Packard Motor Car Company, is not new, and some have good reason for their resentment. I think their views should be respected, encouraged to discuss them in here. Who knows what interesting information about the rise and fall of the Packard Motor Car Company is yet to be uncovered..!

[Guest 55_Clipper]

Again, another failure to communicate. The Packard Motor Company died as a result of poor business decisions. IMHO the management a Packard failed to realize what was in the hand at the moment. My 55 has many technical advances in suspension, economy, comfort, etc, etc, etc...... that are now common place on cars theese days. Less horsepower, More performance. The only way to do this is to lose weight. Packard was on the crest of the wave in the post war era, the should have been shooting the curl.........

[Packard enthus.]

for '55

I read your posts - PLEASE - be assured I personally APPRECIATE your enthusiasm for the V-8 Packards. I can tell you our family, being long-time Packard nuts, practically whopped for joy when, in the fall of 1954, the advertisements, Packard salesmen calling our home, industry scuttle-butt, all screamed from the roof-tops...PACKARD IS BACK !

YES - those '55 / 56's had some tremendous "leap fowards" ! I dont know how to direct you to it, but somewhere out there in computer-land, I will BET you could buy a video of a promotional film I saw, that showed what a '55 Packard with the new suspension system could do to ANY of the competing luxury cars. It was REALLY funny ! It was a high-speed "run" over a raised bump - believe it was a rail-road crossing. The then-new Packard literally floated over it, obviously giving a smooth, stable, and controllable ride. The other competing luxury cars just about lost control trying to keep up with it.

As a result of what the new '55's could do, Packard sales didnt just come out of the toilet..they went thru the roof. Well..for the first few months the cars were available.

But the sad fact is, once it became disgustingly clear that the "build quality"/reliability was so poor, sales plumeted even lower than before, to the point that by the 1956 year, you couldn't give one away !

As you point out, "I have nothing to compare it with". That your problem..and it isnt your fault ! You werent "there! I was !

In the fall of 1954, when the 1955 Packard line was introduced, Packard wasnt the only manufacturer offering new automobiles ! Other manufacturers were too ! See if you can get someone to give you a ride in a well-mainted '55 Cadillac or Lincoln. Look at how the hoods are braced, study carefully the "fit and finish" of the dash, window hardware, etc. NOW you see the problem ! NEW car buyers DID have something to compare and they VOTED WITH THEIR FEET !

So -you are wrong - Packard could NOT have "gutted it out". Th simple economic fact is, if you cant sell product, you cant keep the factory doors open. All the apologists, excuses, fancy theories in the world wont change that simple fact. The public got tired of Packard's excuses for shoddily built products.

It is that simple.

Now, PLEASE - do not think I am making fun of you and your particular car. There are two Packard clubs with enthusiastic Packard V-8 owners who can help you with any "bugs" your car might still have, to get them out. Once "de-bugged", I am confident, even with my own VERY LITTLE experience with the '55 - '56 Packards, you can have a LOT of pleasure out of owning and operating it.

The "trick" of enjoying these forums is to see what you can learn. SOME of what you can learn about the Packard Motor Car Company and its products is pretty exciting. Some is pretty frustrating. As you get into a study of the decisions, you wonder "why'd they do that" !

PLEASE - dont think I poke fun only at the later years. Even during its glory years, Packard pulled some whoppers! Its chief engineer, in the 1920's, got it into his head that a STRAIGHT TWELVE would be kind of cute. Can you imagine the silliness of wasting valuable research time on an IN LINE TWELVE ? If the article I saw in one of the Packard publications inst a fabrication, they actually built one ! Of course anyone who stayed awake in even a basic engineering course would know that was a crack-pot idea, and that isnt the only one.

One of my favorite pet peeves is, even during the glory years, they didnt put enough bolts on the heads. Packards, even the mighty Twelve, were notorious for blowing head gaskets - for the simple reason there werent enough studs to hold the damn heads down !

Again, trick is to see what you can learn. In life in general, as well as the Packard hobby, sometimes, learning more can get uncomfortable. That's life !

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, another failure to communicate. The Packard Motor Company died as a result of poor business decisions. IMHO the management a Packard failed to realize what was in the hand at the moment. My 55 has many technical advances in suspension, economy, comfort, etc, etc, etc...... that are now common place on cars theese days. Less horsepower, More performance. The only way to do this is to lose weight. Packard was on the crest of the wave in the post war era, the should have been shooting the curl......... </div></div>

You are correct that the 55 & 56?s were leaps ahead of the competition. The problem is that by the time they came to market terminal cancer had set in at Packard and metastasized throughout what was left. If you can find a reprint, Richard Langworth did nice piece on the 1954 Pacific in the June 1979 Special Interest Auto. He actually drove an overdrive equipped Pacific HT with the 212HP 359 straight 8 and concluded ?It compared reasonably well with all three competitor?s OHV V8?s. It had more horsepower than Lincoln?s V8 and was the only in-line producing comparable HP/cid to the more modern competition?. He quoted another owner of an OD straight eight car who praised the ?turbine like smooth power? that would take you to 80 MPH in 2nd gear. Langworth concluded that ?image? is what killed sales?.?Alas, by 1954 it didn?t matter if your sidevalve eight was developing 500 horsepower. All anybody saw when they opened the hood was eight sparkplugs in a row. To all but the most knowledgeable, this fairly shouted obsolescence ?. an ?old man?s car?.

Langworth commented on the luxury and quality of the car in relation to its contemporaries. I value his judgement over someone?s vague memories of what they ?think? they recall from fifty-some years ago. Better yet, take your Clipper to a cruise night and park it side by side to any other car of the period and see for yourself?.a real world, real time comparison, not foggy memories.

It wasn?t quality that killed the line, by the time they had a competitive design it was all water under the bridge. It has always amazed me that Studebaker was able to design and build a first class OHV V8 (gear drive cam, forged crank, 5 headbolts per cylinder etc) 4 years before Packard.

Could Packard have survived if things were done differently? Probably not, just look at the finances of Ford & GM?hovering near bankruptcy. DC is trying to sell off Chrysler?.the only hope would have been if Toyota had bought Packard?.. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Guest AlK]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Could Packard have survived if things were done differently? Probably not, just look at the finances of Ford & GM?hovering near bankruptcy. DC is trying to sell off Chrysler?.the only hope would have been if Toyota had bought Packard?.. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

I don't state this because of any great knowledge, just from the standpoint that I think it might have made a difference. They might not have lasted until today but they might have lasted into the next decade at least if the

AMC merger had taken place. As for Toyota buying Packard, I don't think they started importing Toyotas until the middle 60's so Packard would have had to last at least that long in order for toyota to be a factor. IMHO the biggest nail in Packards coffin was the failed merger. Had Mason not croaked there would have been a 4th conglomerate, true after GM, Ford, Chrysler, then AMC, but look at the structure of the first three and all of the various platforms they had to write low selling vehicles advertisements off. Poor quality alone has never sunk a car company, if that were true Chevy would have gone under with the Corvair, Ford would have gone down with the Edsel, etc. etc. Many factors cause the demise of an auto manufacturer, not just one.

[Packard enthus.]

I am so thrilled to learn this Langworth guy (writing somewhere around 30 years after Packard went into the toilet because it couldnt sell cars) knows all about 1954 Packard performance and quality.

If you want to see how bad my memory is about the REALITY of the choices car buyers have in those years, look at the various articles on Packard sales figures. WHy they went up. Why they went down. Why they went DEAD !

I never met this Langworth fellow, so I have no idea what his mechanical background is. I dont know what Packard he personally owned, worked on, or drove.

But to suggest that the straight eight Packard engine was in the same league, performance wise, with a modern short stroke "cross-flow head" V-8 of its era, does raise my eyebrows. Especially since, being half crazy and senile, I have this wierd belief that the road tests I am aware of from that era, support my own recollections.

Seriously, you are partially right - a "stick" equipped 327 or 359 with a four barrel WOULD get out of its own way. But, a "stick" equipped '54 Cad (if there was such a thing - I dont think there was) or a "stick" equipped Buick or Olds of that year...c'mon..man - the Packard driver would be lucky to see the competitor's tail-lights with binoculars! The CLAIMED horsepower dosnt put the power to the road. An "L" head engine just cant breathe anywhere near as well as an overhead engine. That is why, except for the cheapest, smallest industrial engines, I dont think you can find the "L" head design still in production. It simply "dosnt cut the musturd" from a performance standpoint.

So the Packard with Ultramatic ( as about 98% of them were ordered) had two strikes against it - a miserable transmission that would not let the engine spin at its best power range, AND an engine whose design prevented it from having much of a power range compared to the competition's MUCH more modern design!

The problem was, the new car luxury buyer did not order a car with a manual transmission. I dont have the figures in front of me, but most luxury cars by that era, in fact, the overwhelming majority, came with automatic transmissions by the early 1950's.

Because the GM Hydramatic had FOUR speeds foward, GM cars could be geared "tall" for long-distance high speed crusing, and still, with the extra low first gear, REALLY snap your neck off in a drag race. Again "L" head engines simply cant brathe as well as over-head valve engines, especially, with "cross-flow" cyl. heads.

The problem with the Packard Ultramatic of that era, is that it was a NO speed transmission! Seriously! It had a convertor and a "lock-up" clutch. You started out in a mushy fluid-like drive, and then, depending on the throttle lever, you would have a "lock-up" in direct drive. That was IT. Now, you could move the column selector into a "low" range, and bring into place a reduction gear set, but it was still only a NO speed in the so called "low range". Again, it would start out in "convertor"...then you'd get a "lock up" into "reduction-direct", and when the car was moving over, say about 20 mph, you could MANUALLY move the column shifter into "high".

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NEW CAR BUYER, WHO WAS EXCITED ABOUT AUTOMATIC SHIFTING, WANTED TO HEAR !

Part of the problem with you guys in here..is...we all here, are CAR BUFFS ! We like to monkey around with our cars, play with em, we are willing to accept shortcomings, and we fix em.

The new car buyer of 1954 wanted to drive out of the dealership, perhaps beat the next guy at an impromtu stop light drag, and/or have passing power on the two-lane highways of that era.. and then have a trouble-free car. Crusing along at , oh, say 50 mph, and "flooring" an Ultramatic Drive equipped Packard of that year, and the "lock-up" clutch dis-engages, and you are back in that sluggish slippery fluid-type drive. (yes, it was a torque convertor, but the slippage rate was absurd).

No matter how many times some guy like Langworth will type in some book that they THINK Packard "build quality" met industry standards, wont change the fact that it FAILED. People stopped buying Packards because they saw too many of them going back to the dealerships on the back of tow trucks. People stopped buying Packards when they opened the hoods, and even BEFORE they saw that perfectly reliable 1920's era engine design, felt how flimsy the hood was, compared to a GM product of the same year. Add that all together with the miserable "buld" quality (yeah...right..I am senile...eh...) and that explains why neither new customers, nor previous "re-peat" Packard customers came back for more.

Enjoy your Packard...whatever year or price-range it is. But try and keep an open mind on hsitory - Packard is DEAD. It committed SUICIDE. All the conspiracy theories in the world...all the fancy economic theories, wont change the fact that what came off the transporters at the dealerships were sub-standard products, that failed miserably to meet customer expectations.

As a personal note, once, when my mom ruined the engine in our '51 convertible, I went into a junk-yard and bought the engine out of a wrecked Packard '54 ambulance which, of course, had the four barrel carb. and higher compression than the '51 "327".

I figured out a way to play with the linkage on the Ultramatic, so I could get the "reduction gear" - "low" range start, then a solid "lock up" at about 20 mph, then manually shift into high range. With that combination, other cars of that era could still pull ahead of me at stop lights, but not by much!

0ne fine summer, soon as I finished my Army Reserve duties, I drove the thing to New York to see a girl..left the George Washington Bridge in NYC, and pulled off the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles, in TWO AND A HALF DAYS ! And that was before the Interstates, so you can imagine how fast I was going once I cleared the big cities....! But that didnt help Packard sales. The public made a choice ! The public HAD a choice !

Funny..I just cant recall seeing Langworth around any of the garages I worked in in those years...!

Everyone..if you have a Packard product...get it on the road and enjoy it. Today is today. The past has passed! But trying to ignore the lessons of history, is not good, either as car buffs, nor as individuals!

[Guest 49 Packard]

Peter, thanks for your insights. You make a compelling argument.

You're right on the money in one regard... people in this forum just like working on their cars. Looks like this Saturday (March 24) will be the first day good enough to get back underneath the '49, and I'm looking forward to it. It's been a long winter, and writing code (I do software for a living) doesn't compare for fun.

[Clipper47]

Pete, Just in case you are interested.....I would say his opinion on Packard history has some considerable weight. I'll admit, however, he's just a kid along side of you..... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Richard M. Langworth CBE (born 1941- ) is a Moultonborough, New Hampshire and Eleuthera, Bahamas based author of books and magazine articles, specializing in automotive history, automobile makes, brands and American and European automobile manufacturers. He was editor of The Packard Cormorant from 1975 through 2001, and is a Trustee of the Packard Motorcar Foundation (Detroit, MI). His works have won awards from the Antique Automobile Club of America, Society of Automotive Historians, Old Cars Weekly, Packard Club and Graphic Arts Association of New Hampshire.

[Packard8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Pete, Just in case you are interested.....I would say his opinion on Packard history has some considerable weight. I'll admit, however, he's just a kid along side of you..... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Richard M. Langworth CBE (born 1941- ) is a Moultonborough, New Hampshire and Eleuthera, Bahamas based author of books and magazine articles, specializing in automotive history, automobile makes, brands and American and European automobile manufacturers. He was editor of The Packard Cormorant from 1975 through 2001, and is a Trustee of the Packard Motorcar Foundation (Detroit, MI). His works have won awards from the Antique Automobile Club of America, Society of Automotive Historians, Old Cars Weekly, Packard Club and Graphic Arts Association of New Hampshire. </div></div>

Yep Dave, ?that Langworth guy? as I recall also wrote a few books and a few hundred magazine articles, but I doubt he knows what he is talking about as he ?wasn?t there?.

The following titles are listed by the Gale Literary Database and represent a partial listing (not counting magazine and journal contributions) of Langworth's major works to date:

? (Editor) The World of Cars, Dutton, 1971.

? (Co-author with Beverly Rae Kimes) Oldsmobile: The First 75 Years, Automobile Quarterly, 1972.

? Fifty Years of Triumph, Automobile Quarterly, 1973.

? Kaiser-Frazer: Last Onslaught on Detroit, Dutton, 1975.

? Chrysler & Imperial: The Postwar Years, Motorbooks, 1976.

? Hudson: The Postwar Years, Motorbooks, 1977.

? Studebaker: The Postwar Years, Motorbooks, 1978.

? (Co-author with Graham Robson) Triumph Cars, a History, Motor Racing Publishers, 1978, rep. 1998.

? (Publisher) Pat Chappell, The Hot One: Chevrolet 1955-57, Dragonwyck Publishing (NH), 1978.

? The Thunderbird Story: Personal Luxury, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1980.

? Tiger, Alpine, Rapier: Sporting Cars From the Rootes Group, Osprey (London, England), 1982.

? Porsche, a Tradition of Greatness (Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1983.

? The Studebaker Century: A National Heritage, (With Asa E. Hall), Dragonwyck Publishing (NH), 1983.

? Chevrolet 1911-1985, (With Jan P. Norbye), Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1984.

? Encyclopedia of American Cars, 1930-1980, Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1984.

? Mercedes-Benz: The First Hundred Years, Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1984.

? The Mustangs, 1964-1973: A Collector's Guide, Motor Racing Publications (London, England), 1984.

? History of Chrysler Corporation, 1924-1985, (With Jan Norbye) Beekman (New York), 1985.

? History of General Motors 1908-1986, (With Jan Norbye) Publications Intl. (Skokie, IL), 1986.

? Illustrated Cadillac Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1986.

? The Complete Book of Corvette, Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1987.

? Illustrated Oldsmobile Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1987.

? Complete Book of Collectible Cars, (With Graham Robson) Publications Intl. (Skokie, IL), 1987.

? The Great American Convertible, Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1988.

? Illustrated Buick Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1988.

? Great American Automobiles of the 50s, Consumer Guide/Beekman (New York), 1989.

? Illustrated Packard Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1991.

? (Publisher) Winston S. Churchill, India, First American Edition, Dragonwyck Publishing (NH), 1991.

? Illustrated Studebaker Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1991.

? Chrysler & Imperial: The Classic Postwar Years, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1993.

? Hudson, 1946-1957, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1993.

? Studebaker, 1946-1966, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1993.

? Complete Book of Collectible Cars: Revised & Extended, Publications Intl. (Lincolnwood, IL), 1994.

? Illustrated Dodge Buyer's Guide, Motorbooks International (Osceola, WI), 1995.

? Great Cars of the 20th Century,(With Arch Brown, Publications Intl. (Lincolnwood, IL), 1998.

? Connoisseur's Guide to the Books of Sir Winston Churchill, Brasseys (London, England), 1998, 2001.

? (Editor) Winston Churchill by Himself, Ebury Press (London, England), forthcoming 2008

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

[Clipper47]

John, I have been a long time fan of Mr.Langworth. He is a very accomplished historian and author. He didn't get to be a Commander of the British Empire by writing nonsense.