Re: SP merger

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/4/7 17:28:13

"The only way for any carmaker to consistently clear its break-even point and stay profitable is to consistently present desirable, compelling cars of consistently high quality for their price segment."

Steve - you summed it up nicely. Packard was run as too many car companies are today, by play-it-safers who have no compelling product vision.

Here's a good video on Packard. At around 41:30 the late Bob Turnquist explains Nance's mistake: in 1954 he had the bankers on his side, then he squandered their money. In one of the history books it says his plan was to lose money in '55 and '56 then turn a profit in '57 with the new cars. What kind of cockamamie plan was that? 1955 was the year to go all in and get rich or go broke.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMw1c_Ol2sQ

Rusty, I like your creative thinking and agree it would have been wonderful for Packard to have fielded a Continental competitor. Like Steve203, I think the risk would have been a too narrow interior. Also, the Conti had its cowl belly frame; i.e., step-down. Packard's taller floor would have been the Darrin Victoria all over again, a beautiful car that generated buzz but might have reminded people that the production cars were too tall.

Just remembered something else mentioned in the Hudson Chrestline book. Mason was not happy when Nance did not reciprocate and buy stampings from Jefferson Ave. after AMC committed to buying V8s. Mason thought the contract stipulated reciprocity but after his team carefully read it they learned that it did not. Nance may have thought he and his "key men" had duped a fellow car CEO but history showed them to be the real losers. Soon after Mason passed, Romney discovered that in October 1954 Nance acquired an option on the Murray facilities. Once Romney learned this he knew there would be no reciprocity and ordered his engineers to quickly ready a V8. Eighteen months later it was in production and Packard's V8 order was cancelled.