Quote:
Mahoning63 wrote:
Would argue that (PACKARD) are better than (PONTIAC) and that's why people buy them. They handle better, certain elements of their interiors are of higher quality and they have a personality that (PONTIAC) lacks. Their consistency of purpose centers on engineering and appearance whereas (PONTIAC) centers on reliability and value. (CADILLAC) is probably a better example of how the (GM) win mainly because of reputation and status. (PONTIAC) and (CADILLAC) are seen as (GM) goody two-shoes brands. With that label comes both opportunities and contraints.
Packard lost its consistency of purpose the day Alvan Macualley decided to make the 110. The problems the company faced post-war have a direct link to his decision.
There fixed it for you lol. You are arguing basically the same thing I said, in a different way. Packard SHOULD HAVE kept their reputation by building fine cars, and made money with a good quality but lower priced car, in the medium price class. Not a "tin lizzie" but covering the upper medium and high price market from Olds 98 and Buick territory through the Cadillac and Lincoln price range.
They could also have used the support of a Studebaker range selling in the Ford - Chev - Pontiac price brackets.
I disagree about the 110. It would not hurt Packard unless it was somehow inferior in quality in other words a lemon. If it held up Packard's name for quality and reliability, the fact that it had a 6 cylinder engine and sold for less money would not hurt. PROVIDED they also had good senior Packards as a flag ship brand.
Mercedes has built millions of diesel powered 4 cylinder taxicabs, yet they are still looked on as a quality product because of their senior cars. The same parable applies to Packard.
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=133285