Truck frames are still shipped uncovered via rail to the assembly plants from A.O. Smith's corporate successor and from Budd Canada, so I'm not shocked to see the Packard frames stored outside. It could have been that the supplier would only set the line up to make Packard frames every so often since the volumes were relatively low compared to Ford, Chevy & Plymouth, etc., so maybe Packard had to buy a massive quantity all at once.

For the 500 convertibles that Packard built in '55 and the 276 built in '56, I'll bet that they added those reinforcing plates to the frames in-house. Otherwise, could you imagine the fun of trying to find the needle(s) in the haystack among all those frames stored outside?

Customers did see some evidence of sloppy workmanship on the '55 cars, as evidenced by the Popular Mechanics survey that Big Kev posted, but it could have been much worse if the dealers hadn't put in yeoman amounts of work to repair and prep all the cars. I remember one of the Nance memos (probably to his product planner Roger Bremer)saying in late '55 that his latest Patrician company car had pretty decent build quality. Unfortunately, it was already about the end for the 1955 model run, so the reputation for spotty build quality had already been earned. And that's not even taking into account what was said above about the engine issues.

I was under the impression that the frames were shipped in from the supplier firm of A. O. Smith in Milwaukee. I wonder why Packard didn't refuse the material on inspection? Were they really building so many cars that they couldn't afford to set aside a load of frames? Or was Conner so tight on space that they had no area to quarantine the material? Or was the process at Connor so out of control that no material inspection took place until it was too late?

Maybe it was a blend of all three!

Gosh, Mr. PB, I'm really sorry to hear this news. That certainly makes this morning's announcement about the loan package bittersweet. I know we're approaching the end of the calendar and budget years, but why do companies have to wait until the holiday season to do this to so many people?

You might want to set up a profile on LinkedIn to see if you can connect with other former Big Three employees and see if they know of any additional opportunities where they found their own new jobs at. If you want me to keep my ears open for something specific job-wise, just let me know.

FWIW, the Cadillac HT4100 (which originally stood for High Technology 4100, but has become known as the Hook & Tow 4100) was not introduced until the 1982 model year. In 1980, the standard 49 state gasoline engine was the 368 cubic inch version of the cast iron 472 motor that first appeared in the 1968 Cadillacs. Besides the unlamented diesels, the exceptions were the California-bound editions of the Eldorado, which retained the Olds 350 V8 with analog EFI. This same engine had been used in Sevilles from 1975 to 1979, as well as in the 1979 Eldorado.

1981 saw another iteration of the 368, which was the infamous V8-6-4 -- a great idea whose time had not yet come.

Continuing its plunge into the darkness, Cadillac unleashed the HT4100 upon the buying public in all 1982 models (except the Seventy Five series and the commercial chassis), thus setting the stage for the mass flight of its customer base to Lincoln, and then later to Mercedes and Lexus.

You really couldn't go wrong with any Cadillac up until 1981, and even in '81, if you knew which single wire to cut, you could still have a supremely quiet, comfortable, reliable and stately automobile. But between the HT4100, the Cimarron and the roller skate 1986 Eldos and Sevilles, Cadillac basically came apart at the seams. They've spent almost the last 20 years trying to recover, and trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up. Thankfully, the CTS shows great promise, but the rest of the line needs to rise up and meet the same bar level if they are to be taken seriously by today's luxury buyers (i.e., Mercedes and BMW customers). Maybe if The General drops some of the other divisions, Cadillac will have enough money to develop the models it needs to become a competitive global brand, like Packard was 80 years ago!

Very sharp car -- congratulations!

It seems to be a common and persistent opinion that the American public was forced to buy SUV's. I've been seeing this a lot over at a certain Wreath & Crest forum -- you'd think that 1959 Coupe de Ville owners would know their gas guzzlers a bit better than that.

The Big Three never held a gun against anyone's head to make them buy full-size trucks.

For many years Chevrolet dealer's lots were well-stocked with 50 mpg Metros, plus Prizms and Cavaliers, at the same time that they were loaded with Silverados and Tahoes and Blazers. Trouble is, the small cars were welded to the showroom floor, while all the trucks went flying out the door. And these were high-quality trucks, I might add. Even Consumer Reports acknowledged the Chevrolet Silverado in 2007 as its Top Pick over the rival Toyota Tundra pickup.

Who's responsible for this truck orgy? Did Chevrolet have snipers and assassins stationed on nearby rooftops to enforce truck purchases?

And before you claim that GM had only third-rate small cars to offer at the time, allow me to remind you that the Prizm and the later Pontiac Vibe are based upon the vaunted Toyota Corolla, right down to the motors. Why haven't these models sold more examples?

So, who should we blame? Or, who can we blame?

No one can sell what people really don't want -- just ask any VW dealer who had the misfortune of floorplanning (financing) an ill-fated Phaeton. People wanted trucks. We were living in a time where so much of our wealth revolved around our homes. We wanted a hauler we could take to Home Depot or Lowe's so we could load up on home improvement materials to increase our comfort and our equity position.

We then took out home equity loans on our newly augmented abodes so we could buy snowmobiles and jet skis and nicer trucks and more stuff, ad nauseam. And so it went until the "free money" party was over. At the same time, we found ourselves fighting for oil resources with the Indians, who took over a lot of our U.S. tech jobs, and the Chinese, who took a lot of our manufacturing jobs and whose cheap and plentiful crap we seem to have grown addicted to.

So, who is to blame?

As the classic cartoon character Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Shame on GM, Ford and Chrysler for putting all their eggs in one basket and ignoring the realities of our fragile planet and the inevitable end of cheap oil. But shame on the American public for literally mortgaging our and our children's futures simply so we can own more toys and more useless stuff.

Yesterday morning might have been as salt-free as we'll get around here for a while, so he may have used the opportunity to get it to a garage. Those fabric covered roofs were infamous for trapping water, especially along the rear window molding. I'd hate to see that happen to such a great old Packard!

Hi Vance -- check out entry #6 above. Svensk has the answers to your questions there.

I didn't get out of MSU until September of 1981, so it probably pre-dated me. The only 1956 Caribbean that I remember from that time period was Dave Marrold's.

Dang! I've been in Detroit for 15 years now, and I don't remember this Sullivan guy or his Caribbean. Can you fill me in with more of the story? Whatever became of the car?