Re: Packard & Hudson proximity

Posted by Tim Cole On 2013/2/18 18:32:30

Blaming Christopher and Gilman is like blaming MacCauley for hiring them. Fact of the matter is Packard relied on fat margins for profit and those margins evaporated due to technological evolution. I've know people who said the last good Packard was in 1903 and others who said everything after 1914 was shxt.

Even Turnquist realized that Packard would have been gone without the 120. I don't know what the numbers were for Cadillac as a stand alone company, but the V-16 didn't seem to help them much. One thing I do know is that people have told me they thought Packard was a "snob car" whereas Cadillac was more for the up and coming. So Packard suffered heavily from brand maturity.

Bolt for bolt, by 1940 the Cadillac was more robust and held up better than the Packard. But still I don't think that accounted for the decline. Brands come and go. Remember when the SAAB was the car for people who didn't know anything about cars except what they were preached by stupid car magazines like R&T?

At Ford management cried the blues because there was no more market for a "Standard Ford." They thought that should be their core product. Now they rely on a gargantuan pick up truck market that didn't exist until the quintissential big American sedan became history.

Finally, I knew this guy and he had a 49 Caddy 75. Two blocks behind the wheel of that car and you knew Packard was finished. That OHV V-8 made the 75 chassis so competent and restful that the only comparison would be between the Packard Twelve and a Buick Special. It is a true classic. Yet they only made it for a half year.