Re: SP merger

Posted by Steve203 On 2015/3/26 19:46:18

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.

I have read the comment from time to time, dating back to the 60s: "why is it, your Aunt Sophie can find more design flaws in a car in 6 months than all the company's engineers with their proving grounds and test stands can in 3 years?"

I think it was the Ward book that says something to the effect "contrary to popular belief, Packard actually did run a test engine before putting the V8 into production" Apparently, they had run a total of 7 prototype engines, only a couple of which were actually close to the design produced.

Why didn't the weakness of the Twin Ultramatic show up in all their hole shots, sand pits and steep grades at PPG? Why didn't they stuff TUs in some older cars and flog them around Detroit traffic?

Then there was apparently an issue with the electrical connections for the TL being exposed to weather on the 55s.

I figured out years ago, that, when a company is in trouble, the first things to be sacrificed are quality control and customer service. Packard's testing budget was probably cut severely in late 53-54, just as they were pushing to bring the new powertrain and suspension to production.

Studebaker had it's cost cutting blow up in it's face too. They tried to reduce the number of dies used to form a stamping from the usual 6 to only 4, resulting in a lot of unusable torn and wrinkled stampings. Why did they have the horrendous FUBAR with the 53 Starliner's front fenders? Studebaker "saved money" by not setting up a pilot line to try out the tooling, before going to full production.