Happy Easter and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
121 user(s) are online (61 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 121

more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Fyreline)




Re: '66 Packard Model Car
#51
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
While the business model for an AMC/Packard car makes more sense, I still can't get past customer resistance to any Packard based on what was still percieved by many as a Nash, or worse yet, a Rambler. While both of those were fine cars in their own right, they just didn't have the cachet that the Packard name warranted. Granted, some of the prewar Nashes were fine cars indeed and might have been able to carry it off, but let's face it, folks - those days were gone. George Romney had hitched his wagon to the smaller-car star. I absolutely buy the argument that a fine car such as the Packard would have enhanced AMC's market coverage . . . But I can't help but think that they would have trouble selling it.

Chrysler's 1964-66 Imperial didn't look all that bad versus the competition - after all, the overall Lincoln styling theme was very similar, and the Imp looked great compared to the 1964 Cadillacs. It didn't even compare that badly with the restyled 1965-66 Cadillacs. But still, it sold in much smaller numbers.

It would have made one swell-looking Packard, though!

Posted on: 2012/9/13 19:42
 Top 


Re: '66 Packard Model Car
#52
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
I've long been a fan of Elwood Engel, and I consider his design for the 1964 Imperial among his best. While many call It a blatant rip-off of his Thunderbird design (can you rip off your own work?) which ultimately became the stunning 1961 Lincoln Continental, it's really so much more than that in many subtle ways. I think your choice of the Imperial as a basis for a continuation of Packard is a good one, for many of the reasons you mentioned. I particularly like the overlay of the car's "C" pillar to represent the reverse-slant backlight. Some may consider it a little gimmicky, but I like it. Please continue to develop this line of "what if" thinking . . . I'm interested to see what you do with the front end.

Good work so far.

Posted on: 2012/9/13 11:09
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#53
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
Does anyone see a viable future for Hudson in this mix, other than as a re-badged something else? I suppose the notion of basically just calling the Packard Clipper a Hudson makes some sense . . . It just seems as if the brand with the big 6-cylinder Hornet in it's recent past could fill a bigger role.

Maybe not.


I guess this falls into the same question category as, "Why did Pontiac get it's own version of the Camaro, but not Buick or Oldsmobile?"

Posted on: 2012/9/2 16:49
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#54
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
You bring up a good point - and add yet another piece to the puzzle. Yes, financing (as well as advertising, marketing and distribution) would come into play in any proposed merger. While I don't believe that Packard had a GMAC-like "house financing" arm, I can't really vouch for the other players.

Anyone have any inside information on Studebaker, Nash or Hudson's ownership or interest in any financing institution? While even just a few years earlier, many new- car buyers still paid cash, by 1955 financing was quickly becoming the norm.

Amazing how many facets there are to the merger scenario. What else have we not touched on yet?

Posted on: 2012/9/2 14:24
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#55
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
A bit more grist for the mill:

Packard:

Engine: 320 CID V-8. 225 - 275 HP
Weight: 3680 - 4275 lbs.
Price: $2926 - 5932


Studebaker:

Engines: L-Head 6: 185 CID, 101 HP
V-8: 259 CID, 140 - 182 HP
Weight: 2800 - 3175 lbs.
Price: $1783 - 3253


Hudson:

Engines: L-Head 6, 202 CID 104 - 120 HP
L-Head 6, 308 CID 160 HP
V-8, 208 HP from Packard
Weight: 3500 - 3800 lbs.
Price: $2290 - 3100


Nash:

Engines: L-Head 6, 195.6 CID. 90 - 100 HP
L-Head 6, 252.6 CID, 120 - 140 HP
V-8 from Packard
Weight: 3000 - 3500 lbs.
Price: $2178 - 2750

Just a few facts and figures to get started with. Now we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, rationalize a much smaller set of platforms, and then decide where we're going to build them.

Caution - Rough Road Ahead!

Posted on: 2012/9/1 19:46
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#56
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
I think the bottom line here is that AMC and S-P, whether they merged or simply shared, needed to reduce the collective number of platforms and assembly lines from 4 to 2, needed to do so as quickly as possible and needed to target South Bend and Kenosha's large car lines for closure.

Absolutely. Depending on how you draw distinctions, and including such non-starters as the Hudson Italia and Nash-Healey, the new AMC would have had about 11 different platforms at the start. Consolidation and a rationalized sharing of platforms were needed, and in a hurry. The actual state of Studebaker's finances has long been a bone of contention, and certainly was a significant piece of the puzzle. In any case, some hard and painful decisions would have needed to be made, and made quickly. I guess that's the nature of business, at least if you want to be successful. A little leadership can go a long way.

Posted on: 2012/9/1 10:35
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#57
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
There's an interesting post by JW over on the 1966 Model thread suggesting that the agreement between Studebaker-Packard and Mercedes-Benz to market M-B automobiles in Studebaker-Packard showrooms might have leant itself to badge-engineering the large Mercedes sedans with Packard grilles in order to provide Packard with a quality product to sell. JW even provided an illustration of such a car, which is handsome if a bit dated looking. It raises the issue, once again, of "buying out" a Packard by utilizing an existing car and modifying it to become more "Packardesque".

Probably the most well-known of these schemes involved the French Facel Vega Excellence, a 4-door pillarless hardtop with suicide rear doors and what was referred to as "Gallic Thunderbird" styling, fins and all, on what was (for a European car) a large platform. The story is fairly well known, supposedly S-P officials approached Jean Daninos of Facel about buying Excellence cars without drivetrains, shipping them to Detroit, and fitting them out as new Packards. While I've seen a few different artist's renderings and some internal correspondence concerning the project, Jean Daninos said that no one officially approached him about such a project. I'm sure he would have liked the opportunity to sell even a small number of additional Excellences, so there's little reason to doubt him. Further lore concerning this project states that Mercedes-Benz objected to the scheme, feeling it would provide unwanted competition to it's own 300 sedan in S-P showrooms.

In a similar vien, how about the plan to purchase 1956 Lincoln bodies from the Ford Motor Company and perform a similar "Packardization, on them? Ford was reportedly willing to do so, and I've seen an artist's rendering that was very nice indeed. I always admired the 1956 Lincoln (not so much the tarted-up '57) . . . As a convertible with a Packard grille, cathedral taillights, wire wheels and a spectacular paint combination it could have made a convincing Caribbean.

But would it have been a Packard?

Posted on: 2012/9/1 8:25
 Top 


Re: '66 Packard Model Car
#58
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
That's certainly an interesting Mercedes-Benz/Packard rendering. Very stately, to be sure, but maybe just a bit anachronistic for the time it would have been introduced. Sure, it can be argued that it's no more old-fashioned looking than the contemporary Rolls-Royce or Bentley . . . or even that Mercedes-Benz itself stuck with the 300 "Adenauer" for a while longer.

But this was the mid-1950's, and a new Packard had to compete with Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial . . . Any of which made a car such as the one pictured look hopelessly out of date. Which is too bad, it would have been a neat car, regardless. I like it.

Regarding the infamous Facel Vega - Packard collaboration, Jean Daninos (head of Facel) always denied it. He said he had no recollection of such an arrangement ever having been proposed (I have a letter from him saying so). However, enough "Packard People" have told the story over the years that there must have been at least something to it, even if it was only from Packard's end. There are a couple of different artist's renderings of the Facel Vega Excellence 4-door pillarless hardtop with suicide rear doors (a la 1957-58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham) and it does have a certain Packard air about it. The story at the time was that the Studebaker-Packard alliance to market Mercedes-Benz automobiles in the USA was the supposed downfall of the Facel-Packard, as the German automaker had no interest in such a car being sold alongside their own 300 sedan in S-P/M-B showrooms, so they nixed the deal. Again, Jean Daninos, who was certainly in a position to know, says it never happened.

You be the judge.

Posted on: 2012/8/31 21:52
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#59
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
Yes, I was somewhat ambivalent about "muddying the waters" by adding Kaiser-Willys into the mix . . . But I must admit that I always liked the chutzpah of the Kaiser organization, and if there was a way they could continue as a viable producer, becoming part of a new AMC may have been it. The addition of the Jeep, the huge Willow Run plant, and Henry J. Kaiser's industry steel connections would have added a couple of wild cards to the hand.

I always liked Henry's quote about his foray into automobile manufacturing: "We were not surprised that we had to toss $50,000,000 into the automotive pool. We WERE surprised when it disappeared without a ripple".

Posted on: 2012/8/31 21:24
 Top 


Re: Continuing the Packard
#60
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

Fyreline
Lots to digest here, and great input by all. I will try to get up a list of available engines and some other data that may be helpful in 3P (Prospective Product Planning). And yes, there were some VERY strong personalities involved among the players. No one wanted to see "their" company suffer or disappear in any proposed merger, yet all of them were in varying stages of desperation as they realized they could not survive alone.

This could get interesting.

Posted on: 2012/8/31 8:41
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 »



Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved