Re: Did the public think of Imperial as Packard's replacement?

Posted by Rusty O\'Toole On 2009/8/4 13:39:04

One thing that bothers me is the idea that Packard cheapened their image by building cheaper cars instead of the hand built luxury models that made them famous.

In the first place Packards were not hand made. They were not a small back street outfit they were a major industrial concern with all modern mass production facilities.

In the second place all luxury car makers brought out cheaper mass produced models or went out of business.

Lincoln dropped the senior models for the Ford like Zephyr. Cadillac dropped their slow selling V12 and V16 models, then dropped the LaSalle and replaced it with a cheaper Cadillac.

Pierce Arrow went out of business as did Stutz.

Chrysler led the parade by bringing out the Airflow. This was the car that was roundly hated for showing up the old style luxury cars as obsolete in the new streamlined art deco world.

So what happened to Packard? Why did they take the rap for doing what everyone else was doing?

I've tried to figure this out for years. All I can come up with is cobwebs and hot air.

Cadillac had the best promotion, advertising, and image building. Even though a lot of their claims were pure bull, it worked.

Packard advertisiing was more honest but less glamorous. Somehow Buick and Cadillac pushed ahead and the public became convinced that buying an independent make was to settle for something second rate.

Around 1953 the whole country turned their back on the independents and I have never been able to figure out why.