Quote:
mtpackard51 wrote:
"One thing I am not clear on. When I read a discussion of this kind, it appears that Cadillac beat Packard by cleverly offering cheaper mass produced cars and easy financing to outsell Packard. While Packard foolishly offered cheaper mass produced cars which only cheapened their name and drove away customers.
I don't quite see why using the exact same strategy was brilliant and successful for Cadillac and foolish and destructive for Packard."
When I read this statement over more closely, I think Rusty meant that Caddy could afford to build a car, of existing quality, for less money. And Packard had to build a cheaper, i.e. lesser quality, car at the to compete on price.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
For years I have been reading how Packard went out of business after slowly destroying their name by building cheap cars.
To me this is a load of hooey. Packard pursued the same course as Lincoln, Cadillac, and Chrysler. They moved with the times and brought out cheaper mass produced cars, when it became possible to make such cars comparable to the earlier hand made models.
Such cars as the Cadillac V16, Packard V12, Lincoln V12 and Pierce V12 may have been magnificent in their way but by the late 30s they didn't have much advantage over the standard models. Not enough to justify them to the luxury car buyer of the day.
The only firm that stuck to their guns and refused to make a cheaper mass produced car was Pierce and they went broke in 1938.
Cadillac, Lincoln and Chrysler all prospered by moving with the times and so did Packard.
Packard's cars were quite comparable to what the competition was offering. This indicates to me that we must seek elsewhere for an explanation of why Packard finally failed.
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=47453