Packard Forum Index » General

The recent post on Romney's selective memory (a real thought provoker, Steve203 - thanks for posting) got me thinking about that long debated "turning point" for Packard, and certainly we all have our favorites. My mind keeps wondering back to 1935 because it was here the singular Packard arguably split itself into two Packards. It still made the Seniors, struggling not only because of the Depression but because the market, technology and manufacturing were fast moving on. And it now made the Juniors, a more mass market premium car that had moved on but also needed compelling Seniors selling alongside it to fully realize its value in the market.

With this in mind, let's take a hard look at those '35 Seniors. Yes, they looked good, had presence, exuded luxury and offered high craftsmanship. But they were based on now old-school production methods, were heavy for their size, didn't have an independent front suspension like GM and didn't make good profits. My conclusion: they should have never been made!

Look back at 1923-24 when Packard dropped the Twin Six and abruptly shifted to its new flagship, the Eight, that was based on its more modern and production-efficient Six. For several years afterward, Packard's fortunes rose dramatically.

Now think about this analogy: in 1924, what if Packard had not made the new Eight but instead restyled the Twin Six and sold it alongside the Six for the next five years? Where would Packard have been in 1928? Quite possibly in the same boat Pierce-Arrow found itself in, having sold the old-school Model 33 alongside its new for 1925 Model 80.

With this in mind, I set to work once again on altering images of the One Twenty to see what was possible in terms of Senior potential, and came up with this:

- around 1933, Macauley would have realized that not only was a lower priced car of a completely new type needed, but that the current models had run their course, the competition having caught up to them in content and beaten them in value.

- Macauley would conclude that 1935 would need to be the year Packard once again made an about-face as it had in 1924. The entry and prestige cars would be based on the new One Twenty architecture, sharing many components and bodies. The money earmarked for restying the '34 Seniors would be redirected to the new program. Only if timing and resources prevented the new Seniors from launching in 1935 would the '34 models be carried over one more year. By 1936 at latest, all Packards would roll down the One Twenty line.

- let's give the new prestige cars a name... One Sixty, for lack on anything more creative... to represent their horsepower running on a new 356 I8 that was based on the One Twenty I8. Or perhaps they could have been called One Eighty, with a V12 based on the One Twenty I8 underhood. I have concluded that the motor powering these new Seniors was not as important as their bodies, styling, interior craftsmanship and One Twenty underpinnings.

- Junior bodies would become Seniors by simple addition of 6 inches to hood/front fender length.

- styling finesse would be the order of the day and Packard would get very persnickety about this. The standard One Twenty sedan had clean flowing lines in the rear. With a 6 inch longer hood mated to this body the new Seniors would look every bit as good as the Series 1200 sedan that we are familiar with. But the One Twenty touring sedan, club sedan and coupe sedan would not make it, their bustle back trunks not meeting the "only flowing lines" mantra. Instead, a coupe-sedan body on 6 inch shorter wheelbase would provide room of club sedan, and a new touring sedan on 10 inch wheelbase stretch from standard sedan would allow a decklid that flowed naturally from the body and didn't stick out 6 inches relative to the rear fenders, as the One Twenty's did.

- the CD-138 doors, which appear to have been 4 inches longer than the One Twenty's and with the rear door termination moved forward 10 inches, would form the basis for the 7 pass vehicles, on 138 wb for the One Twenty and 144 wb for One Sixty owing to longer hood.

- the former One Twenty 2-4 Coupe body would move back 6 inches to improve proportions, and would become a 2 pass only vehicle (question for forum: did rumble seats still sell in meaningful numbers by 1935?). The decklid and rear quarters would be used to make a Rollston or Dietrich-made convertible sedan and sport sedan on 144 wb with high price and low sales, an image car foretelling a body style that was almost ready for prime time. The sport sedan would use the convertible sedan's windshield, the coachbuilder hand-crafting a one-pierce roof of sleek design similar to '37 Rollston 1508 sport sedan.

Below are images of some of these models. The actual One Twenty is included as reference. All thoughts welcome!

Attach file:

---

  (67.37 KB)


  (67.26 KB)


  (67.21 KB)


  (68.45 KB)


  (49.84 KB)


  (48.70 KB)


  (48.47 KB)


  (53.98 KB)

Hi Paul

Thought-provoking! Time to dig into these concepts!

Steve

Have at it, Steve!

One issue that jumps out immediately is whether the One Twenty body was big enough to serve as a senior Packard. The data sheets show a 53" width for shoulders in the '36 One Twenty with no break-out of front and rear, so assume front and rear are same. For the '39 Twelve the numbers are 52-1/4" in front and 57" in rear for the 134" wb touring sedan. If the One Twenty's 53" does in fact apply to rear and not just the front, such a width might not have been competitive with Cadillac, certainly would not have met Packard's own standard for a senior. I sat in a CD-138 a few years ago, seemed roomy enough. Never sat in a '35-39 Senior or Cadillac.

Attach file:

---

  (42.39 KB)


  (67.03 KB)

Making both a junior and a senior line on the same platform makes a lot of sense. Some have put part of the blame for AMC's failure on platform proliferation which strained the company's finances by having to keep, with the advent of the Pacer, three platforms up to date at the same time.

It would have probably been better if Packard could have had a secondary brand for the cheaper line, like Lincoln had Zephyr, Chrysler had DeSoto and Cadillac had LaSalle, to get into a higher volume price class, without devaluing the Packard brand.

Packard could have bought the rights to Auburn for a song in 37, but 37 was probably too late. Stutz failed in 35. They would have had to move on a mid market brand in the early 30s....about the time Studebaker went bankrupt in 33, but Studebaker would bring baggage that liquidated companies like Auburn and Stutz would not bring.

Of the alternatives, I like Auburn because it was known for stylish, moderately priced cars powered by flathead sixes and straight eights. The timeline is just not optimal.

Timeframe not optimal but still might have been workable, Auburn somewhat weakened by 1933 (who wasn't) when One Twenty planning began. I like the idea, has lots of merit. And the Packards that came off the One Twenty would have been priced near former Eight yet with great technology and styling and a large price bandwidth that would include truly stunning special models by the top coachbuilders.

The city of Auburn would not have been happy but such were the times.

The city of Auburn would not have been happy but such were the times.

The company was toast anyway. By some accounts, it had been running on autopilot as Cord's interest had shifted to aviation, then he took it on the lam from stock manipulation charges.

Packard could have afforded it. When Auburn was liquidated in 38, the parts inventory and the rights to the name were sold for $85,000. The HQ building sold for $25,000.

Auburn somewhat weakened by 1933 (who wasn't) when One Twenty planning began.

Packard may have been able to buy the rights to the name earlier, while the company was still a going concern, but it would have cost a lot more. From reports I read, Auburn sales held up fairly well when the depression first started. Sales crashed in 34 and Gordon Buehrig did a refresh of Alan Leamy's 1931 design, then did the Cord 810, so they were not ready to wave the white flag.

Earliest possible time to buy the Auburn name on the cheap would have been when Auburn production ended in 36, which would be in the nick of time to put the name on the 115.

On reflection, regarding having a different brand for the junior line, I wonder how many people bought a 120, and paid Packard's price, because it had a Packard badge on it. Call it an Auburn or Studebaker, and the price people would be willing to pay might be significantly lower, which would defeat Packard's objective of fattening profits.

Lengthening the 120 to produce a new senior series might have caused problems with interior room, as you suggest. So go the other way, design the senior cars first, then cut them down lengthwise for the junior series, nip some out of the rear seat, nip some out of the hood, chop the top a bit.

Then do the same with the Clipper in 41.

I think "Junior" and "Senior" may be the wrong split point. The 120 had to succeed for Packard to survive. So it was a Packard in name and looks. I think the 110 should have had a different name, and would have still been a competitive offering. Since new tooling was required for the shorter hood and fenders anyway, it would only be necessary to not share a grill with the 120 to have a different face. The Zephyr was already out, I could see something more modern and horizontal.

"I think "Junior" and "Senior" may be the wrong split point. The 120 had to succeed for Packard to survive. So it was a Packard in name and looks. I think the 110 should have had a different name, and would have still been a competitive offering. Since new tooling was required for the shorter hood and fenders anyway, it would only be necessary to not share a grill with the 120 to have a different face. The Zephyr was already out, I could see something more modern and horizontal."

Agreed. Packard failed to master what Mercedes-Benz has done so successfully: market less expensive cars without diluting the image of their premium cars. In the U.S., the least expensive M-B is the "C-class," but in most of the world, M-B offers the decidedly "junior" (to borrow the Packard term) "A" and "B" class cars. But they maintain their luxury image.

As an aside, the Smart is a M-B product. Originally it was to be the Swatch in partnership with the watch maker. At the last minute, Swatch pulled out and M-B went ahead with the project as the Smart.

more on MB - the cheapest MB in the US is the CLA which isn't really C-class mechanics.

and in Europe MB is commonly in the taxi market, another Packard supposed mistake