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

Posted by Fyreline On 2013/10/21 8:45:06

I guess I may as well chime in on this topic. Many good points have been presented here, and some good insight into the reasons behind some of the decisions that Packard management made over the years. The sad reality is that any independent automaker faced a significant uphill battle in the postwar era . . . As evidenced by their survival rate. In order to be successful and commercially viable, an independent has to offer "something different" than the Big 3. While we usually equate that to mean smaller, lighter, cheaper, or with more flamboyant style, there's no reason an independent couldn't offer a car a cut above the Cadillac, Lincoln or Imperial. Whether or not that strategy would (or even could) be a winner, Packard was certainly capable of doing so.

In retrospect, and in light of the 1957-58 Packardbakers (which were not intrinsically bad cars, just bad Packards), I'm sure most of us wish they had at least tried. You know, the old "Better to die with a bang than a whimper" thing . . . Which tends to ignore the fact that at the end if either choice, you're still dead. I guess we have to try and forgive Packard for not doing what we as enthusiasts would have liked them to do. I don't think they tried to "out-GM GM", I just don't think the post-war market was willing to support an additional luxury car choice. As postwar Buicks, Oldsmobiles and. Chryslers became more refined and featured Hydramatics and Hemi V-8s, those were the cars postwar buyers spent their dollars on. As Packard went through its downward spiral at the end, I'm not sure any scheme could have saved it. How and where in the postwar timeline that ignominious end could have been prevented makes for great discussion, and talk of villains and conspiracy theories makes for great drama but that's about all. If there had been a clear path to continued postwar Packard profitability, do we really think Packard would have chosen not to take it?

So, to answer the original question, what single factor most contributed to the demise of Packard? In my opinion, there is no one single factor. I feel that the answer lies in the actions of the major manufacturers in a changing postwar economy, and Packard's reactions to their actions. Not having a V-8 sooner was certainly a factor, quality issues and moving production facilities were certainly factors, Some questionable leadership moves certainly didn't help, but over their history GM, Chrysler and especially Ford had their own postwar leadership issues. There are a lot of little pieces to the postwar Packard puzzle (and a few larger ones), and they don't add up to a clear single cause you can point a finger at and say, "That killed Packard".

I guess some if the saddest words are always "It might have been . . ."