|
Re: Henry Ford & Packard (trivia)...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
Had to look that up. My book only goes back to 1930. It does show "chassis" from 1930-37, but it does not say "commercial chassis". So possibly that could have been used for limos or custom bodies that were not hearses or ambulances. In any case less than 50 were produced most years, so no major coachbuilder would have tooled up for that. And the last one was in 1937, 10 years old by the time Henry died. A funeral home in a major city, such as Detroit, would have been anxious to dump a 1930-37 hearse after WWII. They used the hearses longer in rural areas where they got less use and would have much less competition. But this would not be the case in Detroit. So it is highly unlikely a Lincoln could have been located on short notice if there weren't many to begin with, and the funeral homes got rid of them after WWII. Same deal with a Ford. I do believe the Ford family did find one Lincoln hearse somewhere, but it needed a full restoration, so obviously it couldn't be used. I think they might have bought, restored, and used it for other Ford family members later though, but not sure on that.
Posted on: 2010/3/4 0:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Henry Ford & Packard (trivia)...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
No, I have never seen it. It would be interesting to see.
Posted on: 2010/3/3 17:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Henry Ford & Packard (trivia)...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
CADILLAC With the intent of liquidating the firm's assets, Ford's financial backers, William Murphy and Lemuel Bowen called in engineer Henry M. Leland of Leland & Faulconer Manufacturing Company to appraise the plant and equipment prior to selling them. Instead, Leland persuaded them to continue the automobile business using Leland's proven single-cylinder engine. Henry Ford's departure required a new name, and on August 22, 1902, the company reformed as the Cadillac Automobile Company. Leland & Faulconer Manufacturing and the Cadillac Automobile Company merged in 1905. The Cadillac automobile was named after the 17th-century French explorer Antoine Laumet de la Mothe, Sieur de Cadillac, who founded Detroit in 1701.[2][3] LINCOLN The company was founded in August 1917 by Henry M. Leland, one of the founders of Cadillac (originally the Henry Ford Company). He left the Cadillac division of General Motors during World War I and formed the Lincoln Motor Company to build Liberty aircraft engines with his son Wilfred. After the war, the company's factories were retooled to manufacture luxury automobiles. [edit] Purchase by Ford The company encountered severe financial troubles during the transition, coupled with body styling that wasn't comparable to other luxury makers, and after having produced only 150 cars in 1922, was forced into bankruptcy and sold for USD 8,000,000 to the Ford Motor Company on February 4, 1922, which went to pay off some of the creditors. The purchase of Lincoln was a personal triumph for Henry Ford, who had been forced out of his second (after Detroit Automobile Company) company by a group of investors led by Leland. Ford's company, renamed Cadillac in 1902 and purchased by rival General Motors in 1909, was Lincoln's chief competitor. Now, if you were Henry Ford, would you want to ride in a Cadillac?
Posted on: 2010/3/3 17:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Henry Ford & Packard (trivia)...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
If Henry Ford died in 1947, how did he congratulate Packard on their 50th in 1949?
Posted on: 2010/3/3 14:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Henry Ford & Packard (trivia)...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
No, Lincoln was not in the hearse business. And neither Packard or Cadillac built hearses. Packard and Cadillac produced a commercial chassis that could be purchased for conversion to hearses, flower cars, ambulances, etc. Lincoln did not.
Many companies used the Cadillac chassis, Superior, Sayers & Scoville, Miller Meteor, Eureka, etc. In 1938 or so, Henney and Packard signed an agreement making each other exclusive. Henney would only use the Packard chassis, and Packard would only sell to Henney. This, plus the increase in Cadillacs popularity, resulted in there being far more Cadillac hearses than Packards. On rare occasions, someone could take a regular passenger car from another manufacturer and have it converted to a hearse. But this was much more expensive and less practical It was not ironic, but on purpose, than Henry Ford was carried in a Packard hearse. Henry Ford was driven out of the original Henry Ford Company. After he was gone, the company was renamed Cadillac. Plus Cadillac was competition to the Lincoln division. So there was no way Henry was going to ride in a Cadillac hearse. The family looked for, but could not locate a Lincoln hearse. With good reason, with no chassis or manufacturer using Lincolns, hardly any were built. So a Packard was chosen instead. It was still competition for Lincoln, but Henry was never kicked out of Packard, and did not have an intense hatred of the company like he did for Cadillac.
Posted on: 2010/3/3 14:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Can old brands be revived?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
There is no easy answer to this. Avanti, Challenger, Camaro, VW Beetle, and Mini Cooper have all been revived, and quite successfully. That is because these were very distinctive cars that were "modernized" into the current version while trying to remain close to the original vehicle. They also have the support, financial, and dealer backing of a large manufacturer (except Avanti).
Then there are things like the new Bugatti. I feel that this car has absolutely zero to do with Bugatti. They could have slapped any name on it. Maybach has nothing to do with the ones of the past also. It is just a big Mercedes. Packard is a different story. The last true year was 1956. This is far less contemporary than any of the current modernized versions. Chrome, fins, and 1950's glitz do not translate well into modern car designs. If you are not using 1956 as your base, then what year are you going to use? All the ones in the first paragraph are based on the original version. What is the original Packard? 1899? Not practical or desireable. So everyone picks a year, or couple years, and translates their own modern version of it. Or they simply slap a few Packard design cues on a car that otherwise looks nothing like a Packard. Ending up with a design that few like besides they guy that created it. Then without support from a major manufacturer, these unfavorable ideas have little chance of getting off the ground.
Posted on: 2010/3/2 17:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Round: How the Luxury Market Dominance was Lost
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Actually the best merger would have been Nash and Packard, Both were financially healthy immediately after the war, whereas Studebaker and Hudson were not. Merging with Studebaker and Hudson just dragged Packard and Nash down. However I understand the presidents of Nash and Packard hated each other, making a merger impossible. Packard probably would have been better off forgetting about Studebaker and producing their own line of less expensive Clippers and significantly different from the Clippers senior Packards.
Posted on: 2010/2/16 22:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Round: How the Luxury Market Dominance was Lost
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
This is not true. Lincoln and Cadillac did offer cheaper cars prewar. However, they did not move down in price to Buicks range as Packard did postwar. Chrysler is a different story. For 25 years it was the Chrysler Imperial. Then all of the sudden, it was Imperial as a seperate division, meant to compete with Cadillac and Lincoln. You can sell an expensive nameplate on a cheaper model, and people will rush to get that prestigious name at a lower price. But then eventually, it will lose the prestige if lower price offerings keep getting sold under that name (this is what happened with Packard). It is much more difficult to convince people to pay more for a car with a less prestigious name. So even though Chrysler dropped the Chrysler name from the Imperial in 1955, after 25 years, people still thought of it as a Chrysler, and were not going to pay more for a Chrysler than for a Cadillac or Lincoln. With Packard, the lower end cars sold very well postwar. But it was hard to convince someone to pay over $1000 more for a senior car which had different tailights, slightly different grill, and very little else to distinguish it as a senior Packard to the casual observer. As far as offering the same as their competitors, well they really didn't. A couple I know has a 1953 Clipper. Manual steering, manual brakes, manual seats, crank windows, str8 instead of V-8. Your average Buick would be better optioned than this. In looking for a 1956 400, I thought that that most would have full power being comparably priced to a Cadillac. Only about half have power windows and seats, and a very rare few have a/c.
Posted on: 2010/2/16 21:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Round: How the Luxury Market Dominance was Lost
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
True, but, you can buy a 1956 400 and buy from the parts counter a Caribbean hood, quad carb set up, trim, nameplates, etc. bolt them on and have a car that is very little different from a Caribbean hardtop for a lot less money. In fact many dealerships did just that. There is no way you can go to the parts counter at Lincoln and come up with a Mark II.
Posted on: 2010/2/16 20:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2nd Round: How the Luxury Market Dominance was Lost
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Very true. As much as I like 1956 Caribbeans, it was basically a just an ordinary Packard convertible with fancier trim and a more poweful engine. The Mark II was designed and built from scratch (except for the engine, which was still specially selected from the assembly line and tested), not a facelifted 1951. The quality of materials and craftsmanship was so high that Ford lost money on every one built. That being said, I still want the Caribbean.
Posted on: 2010/2/16 17:41
|
|||
|
||||
