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

Posted by Steve203 On 2015/2/25 11:31:54

... the disastrous problems Ford ran smack into making the '58 Lincolns by that method. A dozen years later, Ford backed away from that mistake.

On the other hand, Chrysler shifted to unibody across the board in 60 or 61. Unibody did offer some advantages, first that comes to my mind being the ability to have acceptable seat height, with the lowered roofline that was fashionable in the early 60s.

Trucking components many miles might have been something the Big Three could afford, but not the then-integrating former independents.


Trucking powertrain components or stampings appears to be less economically questionable than shipping semifinished bodies. Look at the window sticker in most new cars sold in the US and you see domestic parts content, which can be less than 50% in some US brand cars, in spite of final assembly being in the US.

The independents did not have the money to build entire greenfield plants, like the big three did, so would have to build in phases, which introduces other problems.

In the case of E Grand, the city had grown up around the plant, so new construction would require buying up residential areas and clearing them. Like clearing the cluster of houses next to building 84 and expanding 84 to become the new engine plant. Buying up land on the east side of Concord to first build a body plant, then replace the body trim line, then replace the final assembly line, over a period of a decade or more.

Studebaker actually had a leg up, but they didn't take advantage of it. At the end of the war, they bought the government built aircraft engine plant on Chippewa Ave on the south side of South Bend. Chippewa covered 1,000,000 sq ft. Instead of moving car final assembly there, they used it for trucks. A few yards north of Chippewa was Studebaker's plant 8, 660,000 sq ft of single story building, which they used for service parts inventory. There was then and still is today, plenty of open land around Chippewa for expansion.

Comming back to Packard, reportedly, the foundry was sold in 54 because it was "surplus" according to the annual report of that year. Anyone know why it was "surplus"? I am thinking that their production volume was so small the foundry and forge were no longer economic to operate, or else the facilities required a major capital investment that Packard didn't want to make. Somehow, Walter Grant must have figured it was cheaper to ship castings from Lakey in Muskegon.