Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Fyreline On 2012/8/15 20:29:11

OK, I'm taking a leap of faith and making this my very first post since joining the site this week. I should start by saying that I am also "not an expert", but as a serious and long-time student of automotive history and being a particular fan of Packards, I have enjoyed this particular discussion immensely.

For an all-too-brief period, the entire archives of Studebaker-Packard were stored in a warehouse here in Syracuse, New York which was one of many such facilities owned by Syracuse University. Whether the material was donated or not and if so, by whom I do not know. But in any case, fortunate circumstances gave me access to the stacks of material while it was here.

You gentlemen all have some correct pieces of the puzzle. The move to Conner, the perceived profitability of continued auto production, even your discussions of some viable options all reflect actual corporate discussions contained in the archives. You guys know your Packards, what motivated the company, and when you ask, "What were they thinking?", you've pretty well answered that, too.

Obviously not everyone agrees on what could have been. The mixture of nostalgia, respect for the Packard marque, and the changing nature of the automobile industry tend to color our thinking. We tend to think more in terms of what we think SHOULD have been . . . But in the context of the late 1950's, Packard realistically had little or no chance. Business decisions were responsibly made, and a grand old marque died what most consider an ignoble death. That's pretty much it.

I am so glad to have found this site, with the wisdom and passion you all so obviously feel for Packards. I intend to eventually read every post in every thread, especially those involving "what if" discussions and/or proposals. So hello all. I'm already glad to know you.