Re: The Second Packard "Twin Six"

Posted by PackardV12fan On 2008/9/21 9:34:29

Turbo has the right idea. When you see factual info. that conflicts with what you want to believe, CENSOR the guy.

Of course I did not claim "superiority" - I said the opposite - emphasized it was just an "accident of birth timing" that put me into an era and situations where I had exposure that many of you did not. But this fellow has the right idea - when you need to discredit facts, so what if you have to play "fast and loose" with them.

But again, I do understand. Precision of speech and accuracy are passe. Our educational system's rank with other third world countries confirms we do not want or need precise thinking - that is only for countries, cultures, and economies that are upcoming industrial centers.

The rise and fall of the Packard Motor Car Co. is an excellent model of how to build, then destroy excellence.

As for censorship & ridicule when something comes up that interferes with your belief system - nothing new there.

Another great example from Packard. Sometime in the early fifties I ordered a oil cooler for my '34 Super Eight. (incidentally, it was made by the Harrison Div. of GM)

The replacement oil cooler came back from Packard with a letter of apology that the original had failed, and an inquiry as to the nature of the failure. Reason - Packard Stores (what PMCC internal documents called their parts entity), was still doing well for the company, and in Packard's tradition, they were concerned about their product.

Years later (the night before the Packard records were to be destroyed,) a "tip off" by a sympathetic guard led to a pre-dawn break-in by Packard buffs, and some Packard papers were captured and saved. They are now in the Detroit Library. Someone either in this forum or others may have copies that appeared some time ago in one of the Packard buff publications. Amongst them is the interesting document I am about to refer to. If I recall the wording (this was around mid '54) it goes something like this....

"THE CONTINUED APPEARANCE OF PACKARD PRODUCTS FROM
PRIOR ERAS ON THE ROADS OF TODAY, IS CAUSING THE
PUBLIC TO MAKE UNFAIR COMPARISONS WITH OUR PRESENT
PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT PHILOSPHY....

THE BOARD HAS CONCLUDED THAT OUR CURRENT
MARKETING EFFORTS AND CORPORATE OBJECTIVES
ARE BETTER SERVED BY TERMINATING PMCC SUPPORT
OF PRODUCTS FOR WHICH WE ARE NO LONGER
RESPONSIBLE.....

PACKARD STORES INVENTORY OF PRODUCTS
FOR WHICH WE ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE, SHOULD
BE TERMINATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER
BE UTILIZED IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO OUR CURRENT
OBJECTIVESS...."

This is about as close to the wording as I can recall. Dosn't matter. The point is, you can't have real-world facts screwing up what you want to believe. Sic Transit Gloria