Re: When and how the luxury market dominance was being lost?

Posted by Owen_Dyneto On 2008/12/15 14:13:04

I owned a 120 years back (a 1941) and agree it was one fine car, and of course that why it sold well. And of course it handled better than the seniors prior to adoption of IFS, but those years from the mid-30s on brought so many improvements. And I agree that you can tell a 110 or 120 for a Super Eight or Twelve, but all the trademarks and styling cues were there to annoy the buyers of the senior cars.

I think a more interesting slant on John's earlier thoughts that Packard never made any money selling to the monied class and often made downmarket moves, would be to explore those moves from a corporate motive and marketplace viewpoint. As 1 example, when the Twin Six came out, yes it was cheaper to make than the prior Dominant Six ("the "48") and sold for less I believe. But the "48" was becoming rapidly obsolete (who would keep such an antiquated design but Pierce-Arrow) and the Twin Six had lower cost, more power, better smoothness, and more panache. That move kept Packard in the top of it's class.

When the Single Six and Single Eight replaced the Twin Six, the Twin six design had lost much of it's glamor, was more expensive to make than the Single Eight, and offered less performance. So these two moves were to increase market share (but still selling to the monied class) by offering a less-expensive but better performing machine.

The Light Eight experiment (1932) really could use some enlightenment. It did not offer a better chassis or engineering (it was almost identical to the Standard Eight), the interior was only modestly trimmed down, but sold for significantly less, yet still was an upper middle class car. Most would view the Light Eight as a dismal business decision (though they are delightful cars).

Introducing the 120 was as everyone has said, a simple matter of survival, and a magnificent move it was. But I don't view the introduction of the 110 as a survival issue, it was the influence of all the GM folks Packard had brought in (some might call the motive greed) and that influence stayed around until George Christopher was finally sent packing back to his farm in 1950. Hugh Ferry was a holding pattern charged primarily with finding a new President.

Thoughts?

PS - I forget just when Alvan Macauley (Sr) retired, wasn't it about 1950? Apparently he took little active role in the company in the later years but one can wonder what his thoughts were postwar as the GM-whiz kids transformed Packard and continued on their binge of de-emphasizing the upper end of the line. Look what Buick did just postwar, they made extremely difficult to buy a Special so sales went to (presumably more profitable) upscale Supers and Roadmasters. Very clever move on their part.

Edit: I use to frown upon the 110's , 115's, and 120's until I owned and drove them, some drive better than the senior cars due to more advanced suspensions. Interesting, I used to frown on the V8 Packards until I bought one.