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

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/2/24 18:49:58

Regarding this thread's original question... the single factor that MOST contributed to the demise was IMHO that after 1932, major changes to the grill no longer required Board approval.

I use this historical fact both literally and as a metaphor for why Packard fell.

In literal terms, the amount of care and fussing that went into creating the 1932 grill and the level of approval required to bring it to production demonstrated both the single-minded focus and diligence that Packard poured into its cars and the knowledge and insights it had into why people bought them. The 1932 grill was both an architectural masterpiece and an appropriate evolution of the fabulous, longstanding grill that it replaced. Only Packard could have created it. It was a break from the past yet immediately familiar. It was a risk from a risk-taking company that took smart, calculated risks because it knew who it was and who its buyers were.

One can use the '32 grill to measure where Packard either lived up to or fell short from that point forward, or backward.

The 1921 Six's vehicle architecture and production line and the company's quick transition to a longer, more elegant Six in 1923 and even longer Eight in 1924 were of '32 grill caliber in their focus, quality of execution, understanding of the customer and level of risk. All in. One standard. Blinders blocking distractions. Detail-oriented. Confidence.

This is what should have happened with the One Twenty, the wonderful car and production line that represented the next appropriate evolution for Packard and a good entry Eight in the midst of the Depression, in need only of a companion above it within two years.

It was at this very point that Packard tried to serve two masters, and one can see how, for a small company, this was unhealthy. The '38 Seniors are but one example of the lack of focus that increasingly crept into everything Packard did. Yes, the suspension and hydraulics were modern but simple things like rake of windshield and body width forward of B-pillar were noticeably uncompetitive. And the cars were too heavy. And too expensive to produce. And should have been based on the One Twenty the year prior to complete the transition to the new line, with a 5 inch longer hood rather than the 115's 5 inch shorter hood.

With the '37 115, Packard took its eye off the ball, it lost its single-minded focus, its single standard. That's my big wrap on it. It didn't matter that the volumes were high because the company didn't make nearly as much on a per unit basis and the public became confused as to what Packard's standard really was. So did Packard. Gone was the fussing over details, the tailoring, the craftsmanship, the attention to proportion, to creating great architecture. The architects in the company were gone, replaced by developers.