Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Ross On 2012/4/4 5:20:40

Ah yes, what were they thinking?

They were thinking that there was no place to produce a Packard engine as they could not keep the Utica plant open and no on else wanted to buy the tooling for it when it was offered.

They were thinking that big engine set very far forward as it would be in the sedan bodies would be unworkable.

They were thinking that in 56 darn few people wanted to buy a Packard even with a Packard engine.

They were thinking that they had to produce a Packard car to honor the dealer sales agreement or be sued to death.

They were thinking that the Stude 289 was a fine engine but needed to have a higher rated hp for that market and supercharging was a good way to do it.

And by 58 they were thinking that the medium priced car market was collapsing, so we'd better try the compact field next year.

Lacking any sort of government assistance they pulled off a comfortable, well built, reliable medium priced car for minimal tooling expense. Just like a--Packard Clipper.

Studebaker applied a supercharger to their 289 to make it meet whichever market they were hoping to hit. There was not a problem in 57,58 or again in 63 or 64. The engines are quite reliable and surprisingly zesty even when not supercharged.

The Packardbakers were of course based on the 56 President Classic. If you are on the east coast sometime I'll take you around the backroads in mine. Bring a change of trousers.