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

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/2/27 22:35:11

The '32 grill comment should be taken to mean all grills through '39 since they were all nicely evolved from the original.

Agreed, the '38 Seniors are one of history's all time greats and a personal favorite but I think they need a custom greenhouse and rear to fully shine.

Packard had been pushing advanced design at the time the '32 grill came on line. That grill and the shovel nose, and the Car of the Dome, speedsters and other '34 customs were fruits of that labor. So was the front wheel drive V12 experimental car, which would have given Cord-like lowness for appearance. But after 1934 the advance work came to a halt and the new master became mass production and fight for survival. This was understandable but should have only lasted a few years. The One Twenty brought the company back very quickly. Attention should have soon been redirected back to the company's fundamental mission: to create high quality, luxurious, mass-produced rolling works of art, of which the One Twenty line now made Depression-viable.

When an outside coachbuilder fundamentally redesigns an OEM's car in a spectacular and successful way, they are sending a message to that carmaker that opportunity has been left on the table. Such was the case with the '38 Eight Graber Victoria. It was clearly fussed over by its creator just as the '32 grill had been and it's a design the entire Packard showroom should have resembled, with a suitably lowered floor and rolling down the One Twenty line.