Packard Forum Index » General

As a result of last week's post about the death of Richard Teague's son Jeff,
we published Stuart Blond's article from 2008 chronicling the various attempt to revive the Packard marque over the years.

Here is last week's post about Jeff Teague:

56packardman.com/2016/08/09/gear-head-tu ... o-designer-jeff-teague-59-has-died/

Here is the new post, Stuart's article:

56packardman.com/2016/08/16/gear-head-tu ... t-a-packard-revival-over-the-years/


We also link back to the post here at PackardInfo about the renderings of a new Packard by Dennis Burke and John Perkins.

Stuart has found several intriguing new designs for future Packards; but one must remember that in this day and age, it costs about $1 billion to take a car from concept to production, with no guarantees of public acceptance or success. Call me a pessimist, but I am of the belief that there will not be a new Packard automobile company during my lifetime.

That said, there are some alternatives that I have not seen mentioned. The Studebaker "Packard" was, like the 1955-56 Clipper, a model; not a brand. Studebaker was in the business of building Studebakers, not Packards. No one who looked at a 1958 Packard Hawk would be fooled into thinking that they were actually buying a genuine Packard. That Studebaker continued to use the Packard logo as long as it did was testament to the gravitas of the moniker itself.

Today, a car company could revive venerable names like Packard, Auburn, Pierce-Arrow, or Stutz as model names for their cars, as opposed to actual car manufactures. Take a new company like Tesla, for example. It has a generally positive public image, is of good quality, and is innovative. And it is an American manufacturer. I see no problem with linking various new models with names like Packard or Mercer. If anything I would see it as a compliment to the quality and innovativeness of those companies. I think it would also help Tesla (a retro name in and of itself!) with brand identity, since names are easier to remember than numbers.

Anyway, just my humble opinion. But at least this would revive Packard and other worthy names under the auspices of a high-quality luxury car manufacturer; as opposed to being "honored" as a kit car atop of a Ford or a Toyota!

Your points are well taken. I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that we will see Packard revived in any form. Your point about Studebaker building Packards as a model as opposed to a make and your comment about Studebaker being in the business of selling Studebakers rather than Packards is spot-on!

Next Tuesday on the blog, we will post Richard Teague's idea of a Caribbean that was rendered by Ken Eberts shortly before Teague's death.

All of us here on the forum like Packards and can list off a string of their virtues at the drop of a hat. Out in the 21st century world however their irrelevance is breathtaking. I think a new car with a Packard nameplate would would draw a very small and elderly clientele. The problem is compounded by an elitist aura founded on the illogic that owning something nice makes one a superior person. That is offputting to many people.

Hello Packard5687

Since you quoted my posting from this site about the Auto Art Show at the PPG and you are talking about an updated Caribbean I thought you might like to see this one.

It was done by Joan K. Cramer of the League of Retired Auto Designers. She started full time in 1966 at GM and was their first woman exterior designer - worked in the BOC studios.

Attach file:

---

  (102.93 KB)

Very nice! Thank you for adding this!

"All of us here on the forum like Packards and can list off a string of their virtues at the drop of a hat. Out in the 21st century world however their irrelevance is breathtaking. I think a new car with a Packard nameplate would would draw a very small and elderly clientele. The problem is compounded by an elitist aura founded on the illogic that owning something nice makes one a superior person. That is offputting to many people."

I think you are right, Ross. The time has long ago passed when a Packard revival made any sense. With the '57s they had planned, it's too bad the roof fell in before those cars could be launched. Despite the sharp '57-'58 recession, those cars may well have made the difference in Packard's future.

I think Ross is right about the use of the Packard name on new cars these days. As an example, I am repeatedly asked who built Packards -- "Chrysler? GN? ..." ad nauseum. The fact is, while we on this site clearly know and appreciate cars built by Packard, Studebaker, Pierce=Arrow, etc., the general car-buying public rarely know much, if anything, about these marques.

Worse yet, some folks think that if an automobile company fails, it must have built a lousy car. Grouping Stutz, Pierce-Arrow, Packard, Marmon, and Duesenberg in with the likes of Lada, Yugo, TH!NK, and other such losers is absurd, as we all know.

The reasons car companies fail are innumerable. Mostly it has to do with finance, since it costs a lot to produce cars. In some cases it is management; in others, marketing or supply. And, of course, some do fail due to abysmal quality.

I brought up the idea of Packard as a new car model only because it seems that that would be about the only way I can see the name returning to new cars. Maybe it is better in the long run to remember Packard as an outstanding brand that flourished for almost 60 years, rather than yearn for something that will likely never be.

"I am repeatedly asked who built Packards -- "Chrysler? GM? ..." ad nauseum. "

Yes! I get that, too. People today have NO CLUE as to what Packard was. It's not uncommon to see that on e-Bay, too: Packards listed as being "Ford" "Cadillac", etc.