Re: SP merger

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/3/26 19:17:31

Don't know Steve203 but you may well be right, a very interesting observation.

I have a question too... how did Packard, the master engine builder, come to launch a flawed engine? They had been planning it since before Nance arrived in May, '52.

Steve - glad you like the concept and nice job highlighting the many bold moves Cadillac made. They earned their position through years of hard work, focus and some gutsy product calls. They were led by car guys, of which Nance took too long to become one if he ever did at all. He blew '54, which really set Packard back, and despite 2-1/2 years to prepare, was late and rushed in getting out the '55s.

There were arguably many plausible paths to Packard success, and this forum through the years has probably hit most of them. In thinking more broadly about the Hudson connection, perhaps Nance should have stopped letting himself get pressured by Mason into aligning to Mason's grand and rather self-serving, or at least Nash-centric plan, and instead reached out to Barit soon after taking the job, recognizing that it was Hudson and not Nash that was directly below Packard in stature and that it was Hudson's timing for a major redesign and not Nash's that was perfectly aligned with Packard's. Barit was a good manager and ran a tight ship that made a consistently high quality and innovative product at a fair price. His plant had a capacity of 300,000 cars per year and he sold 142,000 fairly expensive cars three years in a row. He had a fatal flaw that came out in the Jet. Oh oh, news flash... humans have flaws! At least he had proven he could be successful too, and he had great pride in his company and was genuinly saddened by its loss.

Steve203 - was thinking about your comments regarding your family's experience with low cars, wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree... for lots of buyers, cars became too low by the early 60s. Personally I prefer a taller car. You mentioned Honda and VW. I have owned both, my '95 Civic 3-door hatch being very low like a sports car while my '87 Golf, '84 Jetta and '92 Audi 100 were nice and tall. Now I drive an SRX, appreciating the interior space despite it being too tall, dumpy looking and clumsy on the road for my tastes. I wish BMW hadn't made the 5-Series GT so ugly aft of its B-pillar, the vehicle height is comfortable and very similar to the '51 Packard. This said, in 1955 the game was about lowness. As Steve said earlier, people had never experienced a super low car and the OEMs had been teasing for several years. The market was primed and ready to indulge itself for a few decades.