Re: 1935 - Turning Point and What-Ifs

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/9/7 8:07:32

Very thought-provoking Steve, would have been important to target specific markets and competition. Packard did just that with the One Twenty but left several segments above it untouched as you have pointed out.

I want to make sure I understand what your wheelbase step-ups of 4", 5", 6", 5" and 7" provide in terms of bodies, which cars would have had the longer hood, how long would the hood extension have been, which bodies would have been shared and how many body styles would all this have resulted in. I almost need a table... but don't go to the trouble, not until we build a time machine so we can travel back!

With the engines, are you suggesting three V12's and two Eights?

Speedsters would have been a natural follow-on to the '34 LeBarons, keeping the excitement going. Sales would not have been high but impact would have been huge. This is where perhaps the coachbuilders could have been of great value, relieving Packard of this low volume manufacturing distraction.

Your sales data and observations really highlight the huge market changes that Packard found itself swirling around in. It all came down to Macauley. What must have been going through his head? The '35-39 Seniors were his baby whereas the original Twin Six was one he was perfectly willing to cast off in 1924. Am not sure who sired the Twin Six but if it was Joy and not Macauley, this might explain why. One thing seems to be sure, Packard's timing for the all-steel bodies in 1938 was inopportune, the company finding itself in a long-term body investment just as GM was changing the benchmark for body proportions. When Darrin said in early 1940 that Packard was scared of GM, this only two years after Packard had made its big investment in all-steel bodies, it was a clear indication that EGB had realized it had gotten its vehicle planning wrong, or at least not quite right. What was Gilman to do? He was fighting GM on one hand and an amortization schedule on the other. He should be given major credit for pushing the Clipper program through, particularly since Packard was now immersed in the war effort. That Briggs became the body supplier is no surprise, was an expedient.

I wonder how Macauley felt in 1938-40 after it became clear that Packard had lost the upper hand to GM. Packard put out a publication in 1937 ("Packard: The Enduring Legacy"?) extolling the staying power of the marque, Macauley proud of what he believed had been exemplary planning and leadership. And it been, except at it turned out... it hadn't. Not quite, anyway.