Packard Forum Index » General

I'm going to make 2 of my (in-)famous sweeping generalizations... ...

1) The Big 3 SO dominated the American car market by/in the 1950s that NONE of the independents could compete due to economy of scale. Thus, they had to find a particular 'niche' and exploit it to the best of their abilities. Which leads to my next point, that...

2)...IF Packard had avoided the merger with Studebaker and concentrated on the high-end market, they MIGHT have survived. Yes, the 110/115/120 saved them PRIOR to WW2, but times changed and Packard didn't (or the changes that WERE made weren't good. I agree that there should have been more differences between Senior and Junior cars).

As I understand it, PMCC had a fair amount of operational capital as late as 1954. But as we all know, Studebaker's books weren't even examined.

I find a certain irony that the Big 3 NOW are in the same situation Packard was THEN. Times changed, they didn't, and/or any changes they made didn't work well enough.

Clipper47, We are just north of MPLS - Lino Lakes, Daughter had extra blankets on the bed last night. Much colder than Pgh. Wish my old bunk buddy was still with me.

MIDan, PMCC's capitol by 1954 was borrowed, from loans that were secured in 1952-'53. Had Packard avoided the Stude purchase and the defense business stayed constant Packard could have continued to make something, sort of out-of-fashion like Rolls Royce, but the reputation of the early 1955 cars killed any hoped-for volume. THe 1951 body was at the end of its run and they desperately needed a new, updated shell. Had they realized the 1957 body we see in the NAHC photos it would have been stunning, as long and as low as the '57 Chrysler line, with out the tin can body problems they had, maybe.

Pushbutton: None of the big three forced anybody to buy SUV's that quote broke down every month. Your opening statement is without merit.

If producing small vehicles for sale in the USA was so dang profitable for the Big Jap Two. Then look at how Toyota has increased the size of model lines they offer in SUV's over the last couple of years.

John F. Shireman

It would help if we could be a little more respectful in referring to the Japanese auto makers. The term "Jap" is not acceptable in this day and age.

It seems to be a common and persistent opinion that the American public was forced to buy SUV's. I've been seeing this a lot over at a certain Wreath & Crest forum -- you'd think that 1959 Coupe de Ville owners would know their gas guzzlers a bit better than that.

The Big Three never held a gun against anyone's head to make them buy full-size trucks.

For many years Chevrolet dealer's lots were well-stocked with 50 mpg Metros, plus Prizms and Cavaliers, at the same time that they were loaded with Silverados and Tahoes and Blazers. Trouble is, the small cars were welded to the showroom floor, while all the trucks went flying out the door. And these were high-quality trucks, I might add. Even Consumer Reports acknowledged the Chevrolet Silverado in 2007 as its Top Pick over the rival Toyota Tundra pickup.

Who's responsible for this truck orgy? Did Chevrolet have snipers and assassins stationed on nearby rooftops to enforce truck purchases?

And before you claim that GM had only third-rate small cars to offer at the time, allow me to remind you that the Prizm and the later Pontiac Vibe are based upon the vaunted Toyota Corolla, right down to the motors. Why haven't these models sold more examples?

So, who should we blame? Or, who can we blame?

No one can sell what people really don't want -- just ask any VW dealer who had the misfortune of floorplanning (financing) an ill-fated Phaeton. People wanted trucks. We were living in a time where so much of our wealth revolved around our homes. We wanted a hauler we could take to Home Depot or Lowe's so we could load up on home improvement materials to increase our comfort and our equity position.

We then took out home equity loans on our newly augmented abodes so we could buy snowmobiles and jet skis and nicer trucks and more stuff, ad nauseam. And so it went until the "free money" party was over. At the same time, we found ourselves fighting for oil resources with the Indians, who took over a lot of our U.S. tech jobs, and the Chinese, who took a lot of our manufacturing jobs and whose cheap and plentiful crap we seem to have grown addicted to.

So, who is to blame?

As the classic cartoon character Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Shame on GM, Ford and Chrysler for putting all their eggs in one basket and ignoring the realities of our fragile planet and the inevitable end of cheap oil. But shame on the American public for literally mortgaging our and our children's futures simply so we can own more toys and more useless stuff.

55packardconv:

Very well written and the bitter truth. Thanks.

However, your last statement about ''fragile earth' i greatly disagree with and almost contradicts the facts as presented before it.

Quote:

What about "Nip"?

John, et al--my comment re: SUVs and quality was a sarcastic remark that I did not identify as such, in the future I will have to clearly mark all tongue-in-cheek entries. It is based on the hearings our Detroit 3 leaders have been subjected to in Washington and misguided perception that the Detroit companies forced customers to buy SUVs when in fact we make what the market wants--more of what they are buying, less of what they are not. It was also a jab at the outdated perception of the quality and reliability of American autos, which are 15-20 years out of date, especially on the coasts where owning an American car is about as unfashionable as listening to Lawrence Welk records while wearing your bowties.
It has been my observation from before the 1973 Arab oil embargo (notice I used "Arab" as a proper noun and did not say "A-rab") that if given their choice (a concept we hold dear in the US) American consumers tend to want the biggest vehicle they can (barely) afford. Prior to the gas price spikes of '73 and '78-'79 we wanted the biggest Impala, LTD, Bonneville, Grand Marquis, Newport, Fury III we could have. All the while the manufacturers of those models also made Novas, Astres, Monzas, Pintos, Crickets, Vegas and other small four cylinder (more) fuel efficient cars. Look back at the sales figures for those above listed models in your "standard catalog of American cars" and see what the market wanted.
The late 70s price jump scared the crap out of everyone, the Detroit 3 had to play catch-up with the Japanese manufacturers who were already ONLY making small, more fuel efficient cars (due to the conditions in their home country re: roads and the availability/price of fuel) and we suffered through that era in the early 80s of driving anemic vehicles engineered to squeeze every last centimeter out of a drop of fuel, and the companies gave up on styling, such was their funk, and financial mood.
Fast forward to the late 80s-early 90s, the price of gas normalized, and remained somewhat artificially low compared to other parts of the world (who heavily tax the price of fuel) and the American consumer, free to choose the vehicle that meets their needs (wants, desires) again voted with their pocketbooks and lined up to buy the biggest Exploder, Yukon, Durango and those gawd-awful Hummers (which benefited from a tax loophole) and pickup truck with little consideration to fuel economy. Many of those consumers have and need to pull horse trailers, boats, travel trailers, snowmobile trailers, utility trailers (hint: which are all an industry reliant on those vehicles) many do not, they want to drive a "personal tank" in the interest of self-preservation "you won't get me into one of those little things!" or they are just the thing to buy right now.
This last up tick into the $4.25/gallon territory just woke up these buyers as to how high it can go, and could go higher yet, and the bloom is off that rose for now, although while gas was at that price people (type-As) in those 9 mpg wonders were passing me on the freeway like I'm standing still (I was going close to 80 mph).
So I think I understand at least part of this. Not all of it, but at least part of it.
If/when the gub-ment gets their hands into the business in exchange for the loans (if/maybe) we may see them try to tell the marketplace what they can and cannot have.
Fear not, the American consumer always finds the loophole.

AND ANOTHER THING!--yes, you addressed the fact that the Asian competition has been chasing us in the truck/SUV market, making bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles to eat more of our lunch in those segments and no one in DC has said s__t about that. Too busy having lunch with lobbyists from the banking and insurance world.