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

Posted by 58L8134 On 2015/2/28 12:46:20

Hi Steve203

"Coming 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"?"

The details of why are in Mr. Neal's last book. I'd post it but I don't want to be a spoiler for those still reading it.

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.


On the EGB plant, although it would have been costly to buy adjacent residential areas to clear for expansion space, seems if that might have been a better approach than eventually having far-flung operations. Just avoiding the handling, transportation cost and attendant logistical headaches should have made it worthwhile.

Studebaker proved that even when the opportunity to create a modern assembly plant stared in the management's face, they clung to the old outmoded brick piles even as it added to their unit costs. That long bridge for carrying bodies shows just how much the complex was a patchwork. Their best production year was 1950: 320,884 units. It must have been organized chaos using that factory to knock out so many cars.

Steve