Re: An interesting discussion on the Hemmings blog...

Posted by Tim Cole On 2013/7/11 20:59:14

Whipping a dead horse? Nah I don't think so.

There seems to be two prevailing opinions on Packard's decline.

One: If they just kept building super premium cars they would have stayed around. When I was in Detroit I stopped by to look at the Bugatti Royale (I really wanted to see the 626 Speedster but it wasn't there). You really need to see the Royale in person next to the Duesey because it makes the Model J look like a Model A.

Two: If they just copied Cadillac (tailfins and all) nobody would have switched.

Even Turnquist conceeded that Packard would have been gone by 1938 without the 120. And as noted by historians, many senior cars were traded in on 120's.
If anything Packard management gave their brand too much credit because out in middle America the Packard name was pretty much unknown. So the 120/110 marketing was a problem because it assumed everybody wanted a Packard. You can't want what you don't know exists.

Also noted by historians is that GM was very seriously considering dropping Cadillac for 1934-35. Most of GM thought Buick was a better branded car.

Granted Hydramatic and the 49 OHV V-8 finished off Packard prestige, but not by building super premium Cadillacs. Just a better Cadillac. Everybody copied the Caddy V-8. Nobody copied Packard.

I say finished off because when you look at the numbers, Packard's market disappeared with the 1929 crash. After that super premium cars went out of style. The wealthy found out that lower priced cars satisfied their needs. Packard was moving down market since the Twin Six was dropped. The 120/110 was a progression. You might as well blame the fall of haberdashery on bad management.

If Ford had taken over Packard for the nameplate they would have avoided the Edsel, but the companies would not have gotten along very well. And by now the modern Packard would be built on the Ford Mondeo platform a'la the Jaguar S.

The failure of the US car makers was a long time coming and I remember being told that "you aren't as smart as you think" for lambasting GM stock at $100 per share. Heck when the Germans visited Ford and told Henry about the Volkswagen his reponse was - nobody builds a cheaper car than Ford - and he had ready a new low priced car for the post war market. After he died it was killed. Later McNamara had the Ford Cardinal to sell below the Falcon and it was killed.

The challenge today is for the carmakers to figure how to sell transportation again. The more gadgets you can get rid of without people noticing the higher the profit. You just have to convince them they would rather spend money on steak dinners and vacations than operating costs. It's a hard sell. If I had to buy a new car today I don't know what I would do because I want reliability and don't give a hoot about gadgets.