Fine diatribe! Now, my turn, enthusiasm for but tempered with realism. I'll leave the citation of the merits of specific features to others more expert than I. What made Packard's reputation for perceived overall superiority to their contemporaries was an over-three-decade exclusive focus of a stalwart management ethic of engineering, crafting and servicing the optimum combination of the finest features of an automobile with minor regard to unit costs versus overall quality. Pioneering advancements first was of far less importance than presenting thoroughly perfected features on a timely basis.

It was then in regular, even rigorous, service that all those subtle, unseen perfected details delivered the superior durability, performance and reliability that outshone competitive makes. Only then did every, genuine, word-of-mouth endorsement by a satisfied Packard owner build their sterling reputation brick by brick, cementing them tightly as it went. No amount of costly advertising hyperbole could ever have the same affect or value.

Over those three decades of a developing auto industry, this was an absolutely correct course for them to pursue, in the framework of a generally ever-expanding auto market. Even it was marred by occasional sudden downturns that gave indication what could happen if a worst case collapse should come. But, as is human nature, ever optimistic, those minor downturns were weathered and forgotten. That is until 1930. To say that the framework that supported the auto industry in general and Packard's lofty position was suddenly overturned would be to make gross understatement. For a company in Packard's position, relying solely on the upper price segments for it's prosperity, it was analogous to the ground supporting it suddenly becoming a abyss, them sailing off in a long arc into thin air. For a management who had heretofore experienced little but positive, even glowing, response to their every manufacturing effort , now suddenly, nothing they did, regardless of how magnificent, resulted in that one key thing that keeps it all together.....i.e.......profits.

Operating in parallel and contrast GM, under the calculating dour Mr. Sloan, was under no such constrictive restraints of sterling reputation. Its total focus was profit, from each division within their respective price segments, maximized by as much component sharing and economies of scale across makes as was practical, or as much as they could get away with, without raising customer ire. To this end, GM's business model was perfected, even if it's cars always weren't. They were, for the general usage, "good enough" which in a period when many were experiencing automobile ownership for the first time or stepping up only to their next car, expectations were still forming. Sure, Packard and others had established a fine reputation, but it was largely out of reach for most......still it was a widely held opinion which could be exploited when and if the circumstances demanded...which they did as the '30's unfolded.

Cadillac up until 1930 had charted a similar course from inception, made serious progress building a unassailable reputation, operated as a worthy competitor and spur for Packard never to relent. And their thrust might have remained on that course, one championed by Larry Fisher, but for the intervention of the Depression. Both makes essentially stood at the same critical crossroads in 1932, each had to chart a course first for survival, then one to build on and thrive. Compromise was going to be the order of the day, or they could stand, as Pierce-Arrow did, regaled in it's royal purple finery, forever asking "Where are my peers?" until the bankruptcy gavel fell. Or, as Edsel Ford did with the Lincoln Model K, admitting they didn't stop building fine cars so much as people stopped buying them.

To those critical objectives, a path to survive then thrive again, Packard was ill-equipped, both in it's manufacturing framework and it's management mindset. Cadillac, on the other hand, always had it's corporate umbrella, it's ace-in-the-hole, and the unwavering support of Mr. Sloan whose long-range view of GM's future wasn't to be thwarted by the near-term dismissal of it's flagship marque simply because it was unprofitable for a few seasons. GM had the strong financial base in Chevrolet, a deep-well reserve of funds, and dozens of smart and savvy strategists/engineers who would develop a course for Cadillac, albeit in smaller 'junior-size' packages, to pursue it's way back to prestige sales leadership, that being of first importance. Profits would just be the felicitous byproduct of the effort. It had worked for Packard in spades in the '20's, it would work even better for Cadillac in the '30's & '40's.

Su8overdrive is spot-on correct, GM really only sold sizzle and just enough steak to keep 'em coming back for more. This is not to cast aspersion at their cars as inferior, only to recognize their efforts were directed by a more pragmatic philosophy. In the person of Harley Earl, they understood how to get inside the customer's psyche, to massage the need for recognition that a new car with advanced new styling could fulfill, out-weighting the common-sense urge toward practical transportation needs. Annual styling changes were about that and only that and Packard woefully neglected developing it's styling department as the '30's unfolded and the role of styling became increasing influential in purchasing decisions. Neglected it until it had no alternative other than to turn to Darrin and Briggs to pull it's complacent fat out of the '40 GM C-body Torpedo fire, albeit terribly belatedly with the Clipper. For all this magnificent design capability, Gubitz was just one man, who could only get it right perhaps 60-75% of the time maximum. When the idiom changed to one beyond his understanding, they had no one to turn in-house to developed what they needed so badly. No need to denigrate Ed Macauley here, his 'contributions' stand on their own merit

Better yet, had they realized how important styling was becoming, they might have arrived at the new idiom, perfected from continual exploration at the custom-body and/or styling studio level, then spring it on an unsuspecting public.....much as Cadillac did with the '38 60 Special. Individual preference or distaste for the frontal aspect of each or any of the initial four 60 Special model years notwithstanding, the overall major importance of that breakthrough was to pioneer the 3-box sedan configuration that's become the norm, influencing the sedan body architecture of the whole industry for generations. (You knew I'd work this point in eventually if you've read my prior postings!).

Kidding aside, it was a seminal achievement for Cadillac and one that cemented their reputation for daring, doing it so right at the right time. It is nothing more than the sport sedan with integral coupe trunk, the very architecture Packard and others luxury marques had featured on full custom-bodied sport sedans back to 1930. Unhappily, Packard didn't figured out to package it as a lithe, nimble, owner-driven luxury sedan of moderate price until Cadillac pull the rabbit out of it's hat.....then GM unleashed a herd of rabbits with similar architecture at even more popular prices.

This would not have harmed Packard if their major market emphasis hadn't been centered completely on the middle priced segment, which it was by then, it's Senior offering mostly window-dressing at less than 10% of annual production. Consequently what was seen on the street, what constituted a 'Packard' in the public view was now a middle-priced car, not terribly exceptional to any of its contemporaries. Sure, they still saw FDR in his Packard phaetons, but given the miniscule numbers of Seniors spread across the country each year, the idea of a luxury Packard and only that was fading from the public conscience.
Being saddle with three year old touring sedan architecture in 1940, regardless of how fine the chassis was, as Su8overdrive so succinctly put it "but when you're in the car business, you offer what people want, or think they want, or you go under. To which I would add, offer it first in a perfected form if possible, stealing the march on the competition. But for that to happen, to do so meant that all facets of the business have to be functioning at a higher, more constantly aggressive level, searching actively for worthwhile advancements, which brings me to another major point.

Mindset: Four years of emotional and intellectual thrashing the Depression extracted on the Packard board left them cautious and timid in their approach, no longer acting to lead the industry. Certainly, the conquest into the middle-priced arena was a bold one for Packard, but it was just about the last bold action they ever took. It also was the only realistic course available for them to maintain their operations near-term, the other options were no-existent. As such, the entr?e into the middle price segment should have been approached and handled as a temporary market detour until the economy returned to reasonable strength, with Packard set to fully resume it luxury car sales domination. The GM production and hard-boiled internal leadership mindset that displaced the "only Gentlemen in an ungentlemanly business" understood only mass-market production to the exclusion of the very segment that had made Packard's reputation. Worse, Macauley and the board acquiesced to their program and made no insistence the Senior models receive much more than rationalization and IFS for '37 and a mild restyle for '38-'39.

Where, one has to ask, by '36 or '37, was the badly needed new monoblock Senior series straight eight once the 120 was safely in production? The Seniors financial drain could have been abated somewhat with a modern, cost-effective new engine to replace at least the two straight eights, based on 120 engine manufacturing technology.
Why did the Seniors have to take hand-me-down, year old Junior all-steel bodies to create a new '39 Super 8 upon? It was all indicative of a 'let-just-do-something-good-enough' mindset in the approach to the Senior line that would have never been tolerated by Macauley and the board a decade earlier. It was beginning of the slide into the "Also-Ran" status to become Packard's lot in the postwar years. The intervention of ordinance work gave Packard a breather to regroup, assess where it should directed it's efforts after the war ended.

Further comments after yours, which are eagerly anticipated, personal postwar perspective to come shortly.

Steve

Hi

Check out this upcoming auction at Zanesville, Ohio, June 30th for a very sweet-looking '37 115 Six and a rough '54 Clipper Special and another stored inside '54 Clipper not pictured but visible partly in one photo:

http://www.kikoauctions.com/?nav=auctions&details=1647

The extreme rarity is that '30 Jordan Great Line 90! I was hoping it was a Speedway Model Z Sportsman Sedan that was just discovered but no such luck!

Steve

Hi

Thanks for posting the link, what a delight! Boy, folks certainly dressed up a good deal more to attend then. One doesn't see many guys in shirt and tie in the crowd these fifty years later. Also fun to see all the future show cars parked around the periphery and other spectator parking, including a Continental Mark II and '55-'57 T-Birds.

Packards certainly were popular collector cars even then, thankfully. An appreciative tip of the hat to that generation of collectors who took on the preservation and stewardship of all those cars so we might have them to enjoy now.

Steve

Hi

Found this YouTube clip from the movie Hollywood Hotel 1937 with Benny Goodman and his Big Band , Johnny 'Scat' Davis, Dick Powell, Rosemary Lane and Mabel Todd, lyrics by Johnny Mercer, music by Dick Whiting. It's a fun sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW-cHXt2abs

The phaeton looks to be a '27-'28 Packard Six, those couple of years when the cusp were gone from the radiator face. Bunch of other interesting cars including a '29-'30 Lincoln, '33-'34 Ford convertible, and a convertible sedan which looks to be a '36-'37 Chrysler product.

"Puts you behind the eight ball": When was the last time you heard someone use that expression"

Steve

Hi Dave

I just had a thought, it might be worthwhile contacting Hess & Eisenhardt or it's current successor to see if they have any records for '51-'52.

As this custom seems to have been built from a regular production '52 Patrician and no traces so far from the main suspect coachbuilders, this might have been initiated by the original owner independently.

Steve

Hi Paul

Here's a try, Irfanview shows 81.06KB/1.15MB. Like it even better!

Steve

Attach file:

---

  (61.17 KB)

Hi Paul

Now, add 5" to the front fenders and hood, raise the rear bumper, wipe away the rear fender character line, push the dogleg up and open the wheelhouse to match the front.

Steve

Hi

Anyone here tried bright nickeling? When I worked for Corning, Inc. we had some parts plated with it for a project. As long as the surface underneath was smooth, looked like very good chrome, fine enough for a driver. It didn't have the blue-white look of real chrome but would be a more consistent appearance with good older paint.

Steve

Hi

Just found this link on the SDC Forum:

http://public.fotki.com/CADCLIFF/car-collection-006/?view=roll#185

The stuff of dreams!

Steve

Hi

The all-steel body shells for all '38-'40 Six/110 and Eight/120 for both 122" & 127" wheelbase cars are interchangeable. The difference in wheelbase is taken up ahead of the cowl to accomodate the longer 120 engine. Additionally, the '39 Super 8 and '40 160 & 180 127" wheelbase bodies are inchangeable with above, though much scarcer to find.

The '41-'42 bodies are restyled versions of the '38-'40 units with larger windows and integrated trunk. The only change is that won't fit the '38-'40 hood sides to these later bodies is at the lower rear hood corner since the curvature found earlier panel surfaces is now cut straight downward. Otherwise, they will interchange just as those noted above between 122" & 127" wheelbase cars.

Since your objective is to assemble a driver, not an authentic show car, any that are available in good condition should be considered, with the caveat for the '41-'42 hoodside/cowl differences.

Good luck with your project.

Steve