Re: Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Show me how Packards were "better".

Posted by Bobby On 2012/7/4 13:31:38

Oh, if we're going to digress into a historical analysis of why Packard ultimately failed, I can gladly add my additional $1.98 to the discussion! First, if there's anyone out there who hasn't read James Ward's truly excellent book on the subject, "The Fall of the Packard Motor Company" it's a must read. In addition to a careful study of all the factors, it is truly well written..very engaging AND well researched, two adjectives usually not used in the same sentence in describing manufacturing obits.

Packard failed largely b/c of poor management...not a lack of talented management, mind you, but entirely too much ego. They simply believed all the advertising and marketing mythology they had cooked up for the general population, believing that no matter what, the upper echelon customer they were catering to, would always buy their product. Not so much b/c it was actually 'Superior', but b/c the image they had carefully spun over the decades would necessarily dictate it's purchase. We see the folly in that bit of narcissism with the interchangeability of the term 'Customer' for 'Carriage trade'. 'Carriage' is a quaint term for a totally outdated description of transport, PMCC focusing on something long lost, rather than contemporary and fresh.

Engineering was behind for the same reasons. Sure, there were all the 'Firsts'...I'm reminded of Packard every time I grab a (round) steering wheel or shift an 'H' manual gear box. But that was early on. They were woefully late with really necessary advances such as front brakes, IFS, and an auto box. After all, who needs that on a 'Carriage', any ways? They still looked grand parked in front of the club house.

Management was dreadful. Embarrassing. Ed Maccauley, who I personally hold responsible for the death of the company, showed his inability to lead with many decisions in the Depression, most notably his inability to figure out how to build the Light Eight at a profit (think about that for a moment, mighty Packard couldn't make a new car profitably), the appointment of his son Ed as head of styling (based on nepotism, which we know doesn't work unless you're in the religion business), and perhaps most astoundingly, his turning over the fate of the entire company to one George Christopher, who (proudly!)held the customer base in utter contempt. If Packard needed outside help, they should have hired someone on a consulting basis, not give them complete control over the company..especially to someone who had such a shocking lack of understanding of what the company (and their customers) stood for and expected. This wasn't rocket science, even in the '30's, either. In short, Maccauley blinked in the face of the Depression, showing him to be a fraud as a solid leader lacking ability and judgment to lead thru adversity. Anyone can lead when times are good, it takes true ability to do so when things get a bit rough.

Lastly, Packard failed b/c they never anticipated the end of the Depression and prepare for the future. Cadillac d/c'd the LaSalle in '40, Packard should have done the same for the 110/115 as well as the 120....models, by '40, that had outlived their usefulness. Instead, they should have retrenched into the field they dominated, renamed the 120 the Eight with Clipper styling.. and a higher price, and made Dutch's magnificent line of Victoria convertibles (2 and 4 door) as well as the Sport Sedan the basis for the standard line. Then, they could have concentrated on an auto box before the war, which would have left them in the position to reclaim the mantle of 'Boss of the Road'.

It's been said that Packard could never compete with GM on their level..and that's right. But, what's equally correct is that mighty GM couldn't compete with Packard, their entire 'Economy of scale' set up of manufacture ruled that out. Had Packard been able to recognize that an build unique, hand made cars of elegance and distinction, history might have been much kinder to PMCC.

*Steps down from soap box*