Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by HH56 On 2012/4/15 21:20:36

Didn't his plan call for the 55s to actually happen in 54 but body tooling and engine took too long so everything was pushed back a year? As an incidental, one of the histories said they spent 29 million on the Connor move and co-incidentally lost right at 29 million that year.

Been debated adnausem but what if he hadn't been convinced to make the move-just lease the plant and bought the extra machinery needed for body production only instead. There probably would have been money for a new hardtop.