Packard Forum Index » General

I find it easier to blame Studebaker.

There were a lot of other factors, but Studebaker was in bad shape, and from what I understand , it drained most of cash Packard had.

Agree with Mr. Cole's assessment of modern management, Nance having been version 1.0

Romney seemed sensible in all aspects except expecting Packard to reciprocate by buying equivalent value of stampings to the V8. Which stampings??? Big Nashes? Rambler? New tooled parts in the '55 Packard such as front and rear fenders and rear door outers? The latter might have made sense had Briggs still been Packard's body stamper and builder but once Packard leased the Briggs plant from Chrysler it made no sense to farm out work to AMC when Packard now had it in house.

If Romney had expected that Packard would have turned to AMC for all body building and stamping for its 1955 line-up and never leased Conner, how did he think that would have worked? Most of the '55 Packard body was carryover, all of which was made in Conner. Truck all those tools to Wisconsin? Then have AMC stamp and build bodies, then ship mostly air back? Doesn't make sense. Base the '55 Packards on the dumpy Nash? And lose EGB's volume model and the financials that hinged on it? No. Romney couldn't seem to come to grips with the fact that AMC needed Packard's V8 and had little to offer in return.

As to su8's "which Packard"? The only Packard worth saving was the winning Packard of old.

Hi

While none of our Monday morning quarterbacking can change history, for me it is an exercise that broadens my understanding of the people and events of that time. It requires detailed study as a framework.

Working out other scenarios is a creative mental activity which allows one to involve oneself, at least vicariously, into process whereby better possible outcomes might have been wrought. It's essentially harmless, an entertainment for those of us so fascinated.

As for 'Which Packard' to save? What could have been saved was the potential, which still existed as long as the company was an ongoing business, for a revival of a Packard as it had been at it's zenith, focused as a creative, engineering enterprise producing the finest automotive products, perhaps the American Mercedes-Benz or BMW of our time. When that organization was dismantled, the thin thread of potential was extinguished.

Steve

I agree that the stampings angle sounds like an excuse to back out of the deal. The bottom line in the merger plan seems to be expanding the number of sales outlets, which for the Rambler was less favorable than for Packard.

So yes, Romney may just have been coming up with a less dead beat reason to back out. And given, thanks to Edsel, Ford had excess capacity on the way for motors Romney may have decided to dump the Packard deal.

Obviously, AMC had a succesful car and was already struggling over the Hudson. So why take on more problems via S-P?

However, Packard built a whole plant to accommodate motors and I don't see AMC building a new stamping plant in Detroit. In the end maybe Nance just treated Romney poorly on the assumption Mason would live forever and when Mason died Romney had his own ideas.

If compared to Mason, Romney was an errand boy, then Nance was a grocery clerk.

I'm working from memory from "The Nance Papers" by George Hamlin for PAC's magazine sometime in the nineties.

Packard had excess engine capacity and AMC needed a V8 to use. AMC had excess stamping capacity between Kenosha and the old Hudson plant.

Packard, like many manufacturers sourced many of its stampings. Fenders and doors came from Jarecki Corp in Grand Rapids, for example. So in the spirit of this cooperation, and to help AMC off set the cost of the engines and trannies, they were given a chance to quote on many of the stampings for the new V8 cars. [The Connor Avenue floor plan does not show any presses. I would doubt that large stamping was ever done at Connor, even during Briggs ownership as that requires amazing foundations.]

Problem was, the quotes were not competitive. One example I remember was the cowl top which came in several dollars more from AMC. In volume manufacturing that is a huge difference.

In the end Nance directed that purchasing should buy some of the stampings from AMC that were not too far out of line. It was a lot less than AMC hoped for. The decision was not some petty act of spite.

As in most areas of life there are two side to every story, and often the story is far more complicated than what is retold from one viewpoint.

Hi Ross - your comments about Conner not doing stamping are very interesting, first I have heard. Can you provide details such as a pic of the floorplan showing date it was created, and reference material confirming Jareki et al? Would help add facts to the archives. Thanks.

"The Packard Cormorant" #126 (Spring 2007) has an article by Mr. Pushbutton on the Conner Ave plant, and a two-page layout of the plant from 1955. The original layout came from the Feb. 1955 issue of "Finish" magazine. Can't show them here because of the copyright, you know.

"Finish" an industry trade magazine ran a huge spread on the new Connor plant in their Feb 55 issue. The mention of Jarecki is from a congratulatory US Steel ad with pictures of 55 fenders and doors being stamped.

The centerfold was a double page copy of the Connor floorplan with all the different areas pointed out to show the flow. The scale is necessarily tiny and I don't have a way to reproduce it that would be likely legible. I do think it has been reprinted in one of PAC's mags.

Everything I can identify on it was either a receiving, subassembly, finishing or assembly area. That actually stands to reason as the nature of a plant that does stampings, especially large ones, is going to be different because of height and foundation requirements than an assembly plant.


There was another magazine, "Mill and Factory" that also did a big spread on Connor but I have never been able to obtain a copy of that. IIRC, "Automotive Industries" also did an article on the painting procedures used.