Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Rusty O\'Toole On 2012/5/27 12:52:36

"It goes even deeper. Nance said at the start that Packard should have never put out such a "radical" design as the '51s."

I was flabbergasted when I read this. How could anyone call the 51 Packard "radical"? It is an obvious crib from the 1948 Cadillac and Futuramic Oldsmobile which, dare one say it, have a lot in common with the 1947 Studebaker.

When the 51 Packard debuted it was already 3 years old from a styling standpoint, possibly 4. This at a time when having the latest style was crucial to selling cars.

The 51 body could have been restyled more effectively if they had changed the grille and tail lights annually like everyone else. They did restyle it but never in a way to give a fresh look. Always in a way that you would have to stare hard at the car to spot the improvements, or have the new one parked beside the old one. This is no way to catch the public's eye or inspire an unquenchable desire to buy that car and no other.

If Nance can be blamed for Packard's backwardness in styling then he can be blamed for killing the company.