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

Posted by 58L8134 On 2015/2/24 19:20:47

Hi

"Thinking about the architects of the Grand Plan, seems to me that if these guys really had a burning desire to make a great car and had a vision for what that car needed to be and understood that teaming with another big car company would greatly help them afford it, overtures of a very direct and emphatic nature would have been made long before all that money was spent separately developing all those cars between 1950-55.

For example, Mason would have said to himself in 1949 the moment he caught wind of Packard's plan to redesign for 1951: "That's it! My big opportunity to get in sync with Packard. I don't care how I do it, just know the next Nash ABSOLUTELY WILL RIDE on the next Packard platform. And I'll see if Packard has any interest in Nash's making a little car to sell in Packard showrooms based on my Rambler."


Paul makes an excellent point with this scenario, comparing it to the reality reveals the mindset of Masons, Ferry, Barit, eventually Nance: being still locked into doing business in the pre-war model. Mason, no doubt when promoting the concept to the other companies, would have argued the synergies of a shared, common body shell; the efficiencies to be had by fully utilizing the best foundries, stamping plants, engineering resources etc for the mutual benefit of the participating companies. But, he could only conceive of doing so in the framework of merged companies.

The postwar situation demanded something more, a new approach. What would be called out-of-the-box thinking today; a collaboration between, in this case, Nash and Packard to develop a common shell useful to both, ideal. Or, if one was in development, sign on to assist. As long as the results yielded the same benefits as the shared body programs did for the Big Three, it should have been a no brainer. There was some precedence for such an operation: in the 1930's various small manufactures had shared bodies from makers such as Hayes to build their cars. Then it was out of necessity, it had become that situation again for the remaining independents by 1949-50.

Maybe be should be more respectful of the leading principals then... addressing them with Mr. Nitwits!

Steve