Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Steve203
Good point, all the principals were departed, literally and under less-than-stellar circumstances, who'd brought about this situation. The Briggs heirs weren't party to it and without detailed contracts of who owned what, they weren't obligated to sort it out. The ultimate irony is Packard ended up leasing not only the bodymaking facilities but also some of their own stamping presses and tools, long since intermixed with those of Briggs. All of it was held in control of a competitor! Of the two merger prospects, Hudson contained more assets useful to Packard than did Studebaker and not nearly as much troublesome baggage. Nance and his advisors apparently didn't have the analytical ability to see passed Hudson's drawbacks to those beneficial assets. JJN would have had to aggressively pursue merger with Hudson the moment he took the helm. Within a year, Briggs would be on the block, the timeframe to salvage their dies and tooling from Connor, installing them in the Hudson body plant for 1954-55 production was extremely tight. Hudson was an escape route for at least one major problem, if only they'd availed themselves of it. Thankfully, Nance knew enough to leave Kaiser alone! Talk about the third rail of independent automakers! Thanks Randerson, corrected that incorrect use.....and the dictionary is immediately at hand too! Would it be correct to write that Alvan Macauley and Walter Briggs were principals who compromised their business principles to make the bodymaking deal? Steve
Posted on: 2015/8/29 9:09
|
|||
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive. |
||||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I think Romney epitomizes everything wrong with American business. College drop out who doesn't know a wrench from a ratchet gets a job heading a public relations firm for something he knows nothing about and then ends up running an entire car company. At least Nance was interested in improving Packard cars and did a pretty good job handling some of the disasters that took place at the company. Everybody calls Romney some kind of small car hero. So what. There was Willys, and Kaiser Henry J, and Bantam small cars. So he declares himself some kind of new thinker with the Rambler. That's baloney. The only lasting effect I can see he had on Michigan government is that it sucks. At least all the other states run by totally rotten politicians have decent roads. The roads in this state are worse than Russia and Africa. And his car insurance is a total sweetheart deal for corrupt insurance companies. They can charge anything they want, they have a monopoly, they aren't required to justify their prices, and nothing will ever improve. The mafia would do a better job.
Posted on: 2015/8/29 9:24
|
|||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Excellent read guys. Perhaps 100 yrs from now a Packard devotee will, in the course of satisfying his or her own passion to learn, find your writings, meld them into a coherent story and author a (digital) book.
Steve - your recap of the body transfer to Briggs and description of the broader industry dynamics are as well-explained as I have read and with your usual literary flair. Excellent! Make/buy decisions are part of life for a car company and it seems Packard did what it felt it needed to launch the Clipper while helping its country battle enemies abroad. Yes, compared to the competition the Briggs bodies were too expensive by the early Fifties but then again, the competition was selling lots more bodies. What would the numbers have looked like had Packard walked a mile in Briggs shoes and brought production in-house? Now it would have to amortize a huge initial capital outlay and live with the same low volumes versus the competition. Who knows, maybe the costs vs. Briggs would have been a wash. I think the question Packard too often kept answering wrong from the late-Thirties to the end was not "Who should make our bodies?" but "What bodies should we make?" Re: Romney, yeah the Wiki article was massaged by Mitt's handlers to make Dad look awesome but the fact is, the guy saved AMC, even though so-called auto historians say it was impossible to survive against the Big 3 in these years. In 1962, of the 7 million cars sold, almost 3 million were compacts. So let's not stiff George. "Hey Lama. How'bout something... you know... for the effort!"
Posted on: 2015/8/29 10:37
|
|||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Tim and Paul
Romney's later political career notwithstanding, give credit where credit is due. His background wasn't stellar but he was mentored by one of the most savvy auto executives of his generation in Mason. Quite true he wasn't a small car pioneer by any means but he was prescient enough to see its time had come if correctly configured and presented. Note all the other cited flashed-in-the-pan, or were marginal products at best. He steered AMC profitably through the turbulent late '50's-early '60's when consumer preferences changed significantly from primarily full-sized cars to acceptance within compacts, intermediates and pony car segments. He transitioned two failing medium-priced automakers into a highly successful compact car maker in a segment that had consumed every prior contender in failure. Even demonstrated an independent company could one-up the Big Three and succeed; even influence them to enter a segment they'd previously bypassed repeatedly as unprofitable. His eight years as AMC chief were their most successful, even if it was with frumpy Ramblers, its hard to argue with that. And credit is due Nance for significantly improving Packard's product content and appeal. He can also be given more leeway in that he assumed the leadership of a company in worse shape to compete than did Romney. For Romney, Mason operated a one-man show, he needed only emulate the his example. For Nance, essentially then on-the-job training, surrounded by complacent gentlemen of no future vision other than to not rock the boat. JJN's lack of experience in finance, manufacturing and merger negotiations would ultimately lead to decisions that could but end as they did. In both cases, difficult, even ruthless, decisions were made and had to be; plants ended up vacant and workers laid off. Ultimately both Hudson and Packard became defunct: but only Romney was able to salvage a viable automaker from the carnage. Thanks, Paul, I knew you'd enjoy that bit of insight I was able to pull together....in my inimitable style! Steve
Posted on: 2015/8/29 12:34
|
|||
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive. |
||||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Indeed, and where were the brainiacs during all this change? You know, the whiz kids and their leader... the best and brightest, seeds of tomorrow and all that mumbo jumbo. They were studying. Like good college boys always do. "Should we make a small car. Should we not make a small car. Should we make a small car. Should we not make a small car... [push button on intercom] ...bizzzzz... Ah, Miss Humperdickel... Yes Mr. McNamara... Tell Team 3219 in Building K to bring up more data on the compact car. The five auditoriums full of charts and graphs we have aren't enough. Thank you and have a good day."
Reminds me of Chief Ruddle and Miss Kratzner in the 1957 movie "Kiss Them For Me". Go to about 1:28:10, that's where they finally get together and combine their mental firepower. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugy0-oFhBTk
Posted on: 2015/8/29 14:13
|
|||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Paul & Steve203
For all the ballyhooed smarts and savvy blared by the Big Three management of their acumen, they analyzed to death whether to enter the small/compact market before taking the plunge. Romney took indications from his current Rambler sales, that of imports, looked hard at the falling trend of Nash and Hudson acceptance and ran with Rambler. It was a calculated risk and a gutsy decision in 1955-56. But for a product planner who understood at least that segment who would embrace it; the frugal, conservative, no-nonsense buyer, a reasonably safe bet. "Yes, compared to the competition the Briggs bodies were too expensive by the early Fifties but then again, the competition was selling lots more bodies. What would the numbers have looked like had Packard walked a mile in Briggs shoes and brought production in-house? Now it would have to amortize a huge initial capital outlay and live with the same low volumes versus the competition. Who knows, maybe the costs vs. Briggs would have been a wash." Given the high capital requirements postwar for body operations, financial benefits may have been harder to achieve by in-house production on their relatively low volume. Bypassing Briggs mark-up and transportation would have reduced costs but less tangible benefits of direct control of quantity and especially quality would have made it worthwhile . Mr. Neal wrote in both his last books of frustration with order backlogs blamed on Briggs inability to supply on time and customer complaints detailing poor body assembly quality, squeaks, rattles, leaks. All of which Packard would have been in a better position to address if production occurred in-house. "I think the question Packard too often kept answering wrong from the late - Thirties to the end was not "Who should make our bodies?" but "What bodies should we make?"" Falling behind in styling and progressive configurations such as lower height could be just as fatal as getting too far out ahead. Recycling the obviously pre-war Clipper body into the 22nd Series pseudo-envelope type when competitors were fielding all-new cars styled as truly modern envelope bodies gave customers one more reason not to buy. The initial popularity of the 22nd Series, still simply the beneficiary of pent-up wartime demand, deteriorated very quickly once the all-new 1949 competitive makes were introduced. We've all read how when benchmarking body dimensions for the '51 Contour series that engineering insisted the belt-line be raised to reduce glass area as glass was heavier and more costly. They cited the '49 Olds 88 cowl height, and apparently overall height (62"-63") as ideal. But another successful (at the time) benchmark existed in the Hudson step-down, which exampled that 60" was acceptable. Reinhart knew the correct cowl height without interference, lower by two inches than eventually built, could combine with a 60" overall height for a progressive appealing style. As Paul points out, "what bodies (i.e. heights and styles) should we make?" was just as important. When a new type such as the hardtop became a hot item instantly, delaying for a year or two damaged their reputation, spotlighting them as a laggard, with the public more than the management could imagine. Steve
Posted on: 2015/8/30 13:41
|
|||
.....epigram time.....
Proud 1953 Clipper Deluxe owner. Thinking about my next Packard, want a Clipper Deluxe Eight, manual shift with overdrive. |
||||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
We've all read how when benchmarking body dimensions for the '51 Contour series that engineering insisted the belt-line be raised to reduce glass area as glass was heavier and more costly. They cited the '49 Olds 88 cowl height, and apparently overall height (62"-63") as ideal. But another successful (at the time) benchmark existed in the Hudson step-down, which exampled that 60" was acceptable.
In the Langworth book about Hudson, the author talks about how Hudson designer Frank Spring was obsessed with Buicks and he pressed for the beltline to be raised to be more like the Buicks that he admired. Spring was delighted with the result in 48, but then tastes changed to favoring larger windows and the stepdown could not be revised, at least within Hudson's budget. to give it a taller greenhouse.
Posted on: 2015/8/30 17:00
|
|||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
"...poor body assembly quality, squeaks, rattles, leaks. All of which Packard would have been in a better position to address if production occurred in-house."
Good point, Steve. Would have been reason enough to bring in-house were the problems not otherwise resolvable. Today high beltlines are back in, has come full circle. But they now have to live in a diverse landscape, some vehicles still providing tall glass and low window sills relative to driver position. Big American SUVs and BMW X5 are examples.
Posted on: 2015/8/30 17:46
|
|||
|
Re: Romney's selective memory
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
some vehicles still providing tall glass and low window sills relative to driver position. Big American SUVs
SUVs are getting claustrophobic too. I used to have an 08 Ford Taurus X, which had a relatively low beltline, large windows, and excellent sightlines all around. When the Gilmore museum had it's Lincoln show a few weeks ago, the local Lincoln dealer had some new models for people to try out. I climbed into three SUV models and they are all cramped and claustrophobic inside. Sightlines are terrible, especially to the rear quarters.
Posted on: 2015/8/31 8:21
|
|||
|