Re: What SINGLE factor MOST contributed to the demise of Packard?

Posted by PackardV8 On 2015/2/24 10:22:02

Packarrd had an excelleent dealer network. WHICH MEANS many dealers and the claassic realestate axiom of "location-location-locaation".

Stud,Nash and hudson suffered from sparse dealer network. Packard did not need Stud,Nash nor Hudson for anything.

The ONLY reason Nash (AMC) ever made it thru the late postwar era intothe 1990's was AM-General and Jeep. Without AM-general and Jeepthen AMC would have never lasted past the mid 60's.

As for AMC building and designing compact cars in the postwar era they were a bit too early. NOTE Falcon, Dart, Corvair et-al that neraly ALL debuted in 1960. Such cars were impending econ-depression cars for a depression that was avoided by 1965. NOTe that Pontiac was nearly defunct in 1958.

NO doubt that post war era of Packard Stud, Nash and hudson was completely void of any real managers at the helm of any of those companies.

However, Hudson was probably the greatest car ever built even by todays staandards and expectations. THey simply had a too few dealers.

BOTTOM LINE: any NEW cars sales will only be as good as AVAILABILITY of service and well dependent upon resale value. Nash, stud and hudson refused to recognize that. Or i can better argue that at least NASh and Studebaker (i m not sure about Hudson) just didn't give a shit.