Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2012/4/18 13:21:59

The written history by JW does say that Nance was, at first, considering buying the plant but keeping EGB operations in tact. So yes, Packard could have also leased Conner and kept EGB as you have suggested. Life for Packard would have improved had they done this, certainly in the short term.

I wonder where that $29M quoted in Kimes book came from. It just doesn't add up. The lease was $1M per year max. The cost to move everything would not have been cheap but... tens of millions? This doesn't square. Ward said it was costing distributors an average of $85 per vehicle to fix the cars. Maybe that was lumped in. Over a 70K model run that's roughly $6M. Other warranty costs such as the axle, V8, trans and T-L had nothing to do with Conner.

I think what needs avoided is dumping all the '55's glitches on Conner. The historical records don't support this broad sweep of the brush. As an example, here's a quote from Ward's book:

"... the move to Conner, the many mechanical changes made after production started, the new paperwork, and vendors' slowness created a tug of war between the parts dpt and the factory."

The only Conner-unique factor in this quote is the first. Everything else mentioned, and who knows how many body assembly glitches related specifically to the '55 redesign and not to reconfiguring Conner, would have struck Packard just as hard had they never moved.

However, it must be said that Conner's production ramped up very slowly, costing many sales in the first half of the model year. A cynic could argue that with all the mechanical glitches it was just as well... better to court later with a good product than to destroy a relationship sooner with a poor one. Still, one never wants to lose potential sales. The car should have been ready. The plant should have been ready. The supply base should have been ready.