Packard Forum Index » General

I imagine this topic has been trodden bare by now, but I was wondering why Packard abandoned the shovel nose grille after 1932?

as always
Garrett Meadows

Just the grille, or the entire concept?

If the former, IMO it just didn't represent the appearance or quality that potential Packard purchasers expected. If the latter, it sold for considerably less than the Eight ($1750 vs. $2350 for base sedans) but its cost was not sufficiently less - Packard lost a lot of $ on it and learned their lesson when it in concept was replaced in 1935 with the 120.

Initially, I was referring to the grille, but didn't realize that not only was it the grille that was abandoned, but the entire car concept. Thank you for the clarification.

From an aesthetics point of view, I never cared for the shovel-nose, which rather reminded me of the cattle-guard on the old steam engine locomotives or snow-plow.

as always
Garrett Meadows

All we can do is speculate at this point, but one reason might be cost-cutting. The Light Eight was carried over into the Tenth Series, but was given a conventional grille shell and scuttle. I don't remember offhand if it was just the bodies that carried over, or if the chassis was continued as well, just with the front end ensemble change. Fewer die changes in the stamping plant reduces costs for time and labor and die maintenance. It maybe could have been justified if the volumes were there, but they just weren't. And the scooped grille itself may have been difficult to chrome plate and to finish.

It could also have been a quality issue. Maybe the stampings and die castings were notoriously difficult to produce, and Packard decided to save money and go with the tried and true.

Another possibility is the prestige factor. Some people may have thought the Light Eight was the most modern and stylish of the Ninth Series, but others may have seen its unique appearance as immediately telegraphing to your neighbors that you bought the cheapest, bargain Packard and not a regular "real" Packard.

And it may have been a marketing issue. Maybe they received feedback from their clientele that the Light Eight didn't look as substantial and imposing as the other Packards.

It's possible there could be some discussion of this topic in the PMCC's board minutes, but I don't remember seeing that particular research. I do know that many years ago, The Packard Cormorant magazine of The Packard Club (PAC) had a feature on how the Light Eight bodies were continued as a more conventional looking 1933 Packard Eight 1001.

I think the reason Packard did not carry on with the 900's grille styling is because it was only used on the Light Eights and the company wanted to distance itself from their down price range venture.

Personally, I have always found the grille design to be most pleasing. If continued, it would have lent even more to an already distinctive grille shape.

(o{}o)

Quote:

John (JW), yes but the other way around, kind of.
By help of the shovel nose, the company wanted to distance itself from their high price range but did not carry on the Light Eight venture.

A 120 with a Light Eight grill design? That would have worked. Packard senior like, but different. Working off of a past venture, which was not acceptable then but timely in the depth of the Great Depression. Your turn.

(o{}o)

P.S. Packard could have named the new mid-priced cars Light Eight and later, Light Six instead of 120 and 115/110. I'll stop now.

Hi Garrett

All good reason stated for quietly returning the styling of the base series back to consistency with the rest of the line. The Light Eight was a good proof of concept, that there was a definite market for a Packard priced under $2,000, and a reality check for management, to quote from my earlier posting last year:

"After the only-too-successful '32 Light Eight sold fully 40.7% of their overall 1932 volume but gave away the store because of its low prices ($1,750-$1,795 revised to $1,895-$1,940), management quietly folded it back into the 1933 Eight line. This time, priced from $2,150-$2,250, the Model 1001 still accounted for 39% of sales. While they likely made no profits on them, at least it wasn't emptying the till quite as quickly as the Light Eight 900 did. These hard lessons were some of the impetuous that lead to the decision to produce the 120."

One can imagine the board members hearing Alvan Macauley say "Gentlemen, next time we field a lower-priced Packard, it will have a unique appearance so as not to confuse it with our fine car lines but will also be built to a price standard, by method by which we might reasonably expect to make a profit. To that end, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Max Gilman from our New York operations....."

Steve