"Experts are saying the present deflation period may last for years. It is possible that if you were ever forced to sell you would get half what it was worth before the deflation set in."-----

Although no one living since the mid 1930s has ever experienced deflation, it's a funny economic principle. Your money buys more. That means that in deflationary times, even though the actual dollar amount that you might get for your car may be less than the dollar amount that you paid for it - the deflated dollars that you get for it will buy, usually, about the same quality and quantity of product that you bought with the inflated ones. If deflation should happen, you'd be little worse off and, perhaps, even come out a little ahead.

As The United States' trade imbalance continues to grow, domestic productivity of material goods continues to decline as more and more domestic industry is driven overseas to avoid rising taxes and growing bureaucratic harassment, trillions more dollars in unsupported (by anything other than smoke and mirrors) are created and put into circulation to, "fix," our current economic crises - deflation is just about as likely to occur for the foreseeable future as is the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning. Housing prices will undoubtedly continue to adjust back to near (but not quite) reality even in our entirely credit based, "Alice in Wonderland," economy but, deflation? Nothing in reality based historical economic principles indicates that our generation or the five or six that come after it will EVER see deflation. To deflate currency must be based upon something of quantifiable positive (rather than negative) value. In reality, since we went off the gold standard in the early 1930s and since our domestic production of goods in worldwide demand fell below what we, ourselves, consume - ours hasn't been.

I'd go ahead and buy the cars (both of 'em) if I had the money in hand. Hell, possession will be the law if the balloon goes up and the nation and everyone who lives in it have been, in the most literal sense of the word, bankrupt and living on unsupported credit at least since the early 1980s. Why worry now? If you have the means, enjoy a Packard. There are few things as worthwhile in the world today.

When put right and used as they were designed to be used, the 51 through 54 Packards were some of the most reliable cars that Packard ever built. Yes, it will cost you more to purchase SOME Packard parts but, hey, the difference between driving a Packard and driving a Chebby is why those of us who do drive them own them. They're a breed no longer seen, not designed for racing of any kind but rather for comfortable, reliable, roomy transportation needs with a grade of luxury somewhat above the average. Some disparage their bodywork (cheap chrome plating due to Korean, "police action," in progress, lack of material/bracing in the bonnet, etc.) but mechanically, equipped as they were straight from the factory, in proper working order with proper care and maintenance, they were one of the most dependable, reliable cars of their day and, as someone else pointed out, although without tire burning, neck-jerking acceleration capability, will cruise effortlessly at highway speed all day. Although perhaps not as modern, they possessed fewer of the irritating mechanical and electrical quirks than most of their competition because, with slight modernizations periodically, Packard had been building/assembling the suspensions, running gear and electrics for twenty years or more and they had that particular concept and combination down pretty well by the time these cars were produced. Within the parameters of what was available when they were new, they were quality product.

Bob & HH56

I seem to recall having read, somewhere, that GM execs were not happy about one of their competitors getting a product from Delco (a GM owned company) before it was available in their own top-of-the-line product (Cadillac). Do not remember the specifics.

The floor switch I remember well. Had a Caddy that came with it back in the days when I sometimes didn't read owner's literature thoroughly. Thought the car was haunted for about six months and couldn't figure out why it sometimes arbitrarily changed stations on its own.

Rusty O'Toole wrote:

"At least up to 1953 he felt the Packards had a lot to offer and were a top buy for the more conservative luxury car buyer, especially one who put quality and comfort ahead of gaudy styling and tire burning performance."

And, "Unfortunately in the end there weren't enough customers who felt this way."

Nicely put, Rusty, and exactly the way I've always felt. At least up to this period Packards were what they were for those who wanted one. Tastes do change and (just maybe) not always for the best.

I find this article extremely interesting, not only for Mr. Cahill's contemporary impressions of the 1952 Packard 300 that he tested, and how well it stacked up against its competition but for his viewpoint on government and corporate entities, "dictating," what products consumers should have available to purchase with their own money.

His reference to a, "pre-inflation $1,000 bill," will undoubtedly be confusing to modern readers as a majority of them are not aware that our government once trusted the population in general to possess currency in denominations larger than $100

It's definitely a Kaiser product. If we've established that it's not a Kaiser, I never saw nor heard of a Henry J convertible - so it must be a Frazer.

My grandfather accomplished this purpose by delivering a sharp rap to the side of the offending party's head with the admonition, "Don't touch the door while the car is moving."

I suppose that this would be unacceptable in today's politically correct atmosphere although it does occur to me that just letting them suffer the consequences would be useful in that it would probably discourage the practise in future - or improve the gene pool in the more drastic instance.

Damage to the car would be unacceptable however so, in your usage parameters, I'd probably go with the electric safety locks.

I suspect that the difference in perception of popularity may've had something to do with dealer location and availability. We had a relatively strong dealership in my area of far west Texas and Packards were fairly well represented numerically on the roads, there. New ones became scarce after about 1953-54 but the 22nd and 23rd Series cars were fairly plentiful up through the mid to late 1960s and were still regularly being driven by little old grey-haired people and poor high-school students.

Portlandon wrote:

"The "Clunker Bill" shows a lack of understanding of "sustainability." The environmental cost associated with building a new vehicle outweigh the savings associated with increasing your fuel consumption by anything but an astronomically high number (think 150%). So unless people are trading in old Suburbans for Vespas, you'll be hurting the environment more than helping it. The one benefit is the auto industry stimulus that would occur from added sales. However, it would be a one-time hit -- not a real solution to the many things that really ail the industry."

Speaking of "sustainability", consider the following:

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to, "DECREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL." Last year, 31 years later, its annual budget was $24.2 BILLIONS, it had 16,000 permanent federal employees and 100,000 private contract employees.

Have we gotten noticeably less dependent upon foreign oil?

Pretty efficient, huh?

This is the point where anyone with prior knowledge and the ability to add two and two together to get four would be slapping their foreheads and asking themselves, "What was I thinking?"

Instead, we're in the process of turning what remains of our banking industry and our auto industry over to a bunch of similarly forward-thinking bureaucrats.

I'd feel a lot better about the sustainability of the human race if we didn't just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again - all the while expecting a different result.

My Packard is sustainable as far as I'm concerned. I won't pollute the atmosphere as much with it nearly as much as the congressmen, senators, corporate executives and sustainability, "experts," flying around in their corporate jets and building plants to produce grossly overpriced merchandise that won't last until it's paid for if I drive it for another 40 years - unless we see fit to create yet another bureaucracy to, "regulate," it for, "environmental," purposes. How, "sustainable," in the overall scheme of industry and economy is another self-serving, non-productive giant bureaucracy?

Has anyone seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY