Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2012/4/10 9:15:08

Strong, if opposite, arguments from all. Car companies need to be run and in large measure owned by car fanatics, and it seems that S-P's board could have cared less where the ROI came from so long as it came. They apparently wanted out of car production completely, not just Packard but Studebaker too.

I never understood the merits of bringing back the Clipper name as a unique marque. It's a somewhat weak name, a model name at best, not a brand name. Were the name "Packard" not to have been attached to it, it would have meant nothing - as Nance learned in 1956. My feeling is that Studebaker needed to get rid of it in 1957 and leverage the Packard name to the greatest extent possible. I can't quite warm up to the Loewy coupe, not by 1957. It was 5 years old by then and getting long in the tooth. Some have suggested selling a medium-sized Packard based on the Studebaker that could run with Mercedes. Not a bad idea.

Here's another: forget the 4-doors and sell only a mid-sized 2-door coupe and convertible. Such a size in 2-door form need not have been a detraction for a luxury marque in 1958, if the success of the '58 Thunderbird was any indication. Packard could have used the new Studebaker hardtop coupe, which looked genuinely fresh, as the base and added several inches to the hood/front axle to create an elegant long hood/short deck car with bucket seats and a center console. Coupled with a Packard V8 such a car might have been viewed as "truly Packard". It still wouldn't have solved the larger problem of Studebaker wanting out of car production but at least the Packard name might have been kept alive as it continued searching for a new home.