Re: Would it have been easier to salvage Packard than Studebaker?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2011/1/3 21:34:11

Great recap, can't argue with the numbers and we've all read the same books. I can't help but suspect there is more to this though. Historians never get it exact, they don't know every detail. They can't. Now, I don't' know if this Wilson guy blatantly set about to torpedo Packard. Or less seriously, if he simply wanted to greedily line the pockets of GM, and Packard just got in the way.

Could it have primarily been a simple risk analysis that the military did? Maybe they concluded that Packard in the early 50s was not looking competitive on the auto front and therefore was a higher risk for defense work. Or wasn't capitalized enough to ramp up in quantities that would give the military economies of scale. Maybe it was psychology. The Packard that America turned to and depended on in 1941 was not the same Packard in 1953. If Packard had gotten their act together post-war they might not have looked weakened in the eyes of the military. If Ike had a stunning Packard parade car to ride in rather than a Lincoln or Imperial, this whole thing could have turned out differently. Packard had more control of their destiny than history may suggest. I constantly see stories by the auto writers about the internal goings on of today's Big 3 and sometimes I laugh out loud at how completely wrong they got it.

I accept your arguments but will leave open the possibility that there are unknowns at play here.