Packard Forum Index » General

Topic: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

Bottom

Previous Topic

Next Topic Register To Post

« 1 2 (3)

R Anderson

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#21

Home away from home

You're quite right Brian, I did get the sequence of events bass-ackwards, been some time since I read through Kimes; relying on memory becomes dangerous as one enters one's 60s. That front end comparison shot is amazing and proves beyond a doubt the proposal would have been a worthy inheritor to classic Packards of yore. What a beautiful evolutionary design.

Posted on: 2010/5/11 11:47

56 Clipper Deluxe survivor

Rusty O\'Toole

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#22

Home away from home

$Rusty O\'Toole$

Quote:

HH56 wrote:
I'm imagining a dealer seeing the writing on the wall for Packard jumping to an Edsel dealership in late 1957, only to be disappointed and seeing the end coming for Edsel in 1960, buying a DeSoto dealership.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if that didn't actually happen. At the risk of being politically incorrect, would he be called a two time or three time loser. Maybe two time. Three would be if he jumped back to Studebaker when DeSoto went away.

Or maybe a Renault franchise. They were the most popular 4 door import back then you know.

Posted on: 2010/5/11 17:43

Packard53

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#23

Home away from home

To all concerning the subject matter about Packard using 56 Lincoln bodies for the 57. I have in my library an article that was given to me several years ago that was printed about this subject.

The article is a memorandum from February 6th 1956 from product planner Roger Bremer to Nance. In the memorandom it explores the possibility of using Ford bodies for both Packard and Studebaker.

Anyone wanting a copy of this article please send me a pm with your complete address. I will check my mail box in three days and try to provide copies for those who are interested.

I do drop by on occasion to see what is going on.

John F. Shireman

Posted on: 2010/5/11 20:15

REMEMBERING BRAD BERRY MY PACKARD TEACHER

ECAnthony

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#24

Home away from home

Roger Bremer's article was published in the Autumn 1998 issue (#92) of the Packard Cormorant.

Posted on: 2010/5/11 20:49

Dan

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#25

Home away from home

Quote:

39super8 wrote:
He was in charge of the "E" car project. The "E" car was a new division of the Ford Motor Company that had been in the works on and off for the prior 10 years. Ironically, by the time this alleged request was being made of Ford Motor Company, a great many Packard dealers were likely jumping ship and taking on "E" car dealerships. Talk about out of the pan and into the fire. Given the fast economic decline by mid year 1957 and how poorly the sales of the then reveled new Edsel Division of Ford Motor company went, I am not sure Packard had much of a chance with that design either way. I think the whole industry contracted much like it is presently.

Isn't it more than a bit ironic that James Nance ended up AT the Edsel division?

Posted on: 2010/5/12 9:03

HH56

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#26

Forum Ambassador

I don't know if Nance deserves all the bad press he gets as he did have a vision and did embark on some good things. Maybe too much too soon, but all the articles point to the fact things were bad and something had to be done by the time he arrived.

At the same time, I also think he surrounded himself with people giving some less than spectacular advice and he acted upon it. I will never understand the move--but then I wasn't there.

As to whether the proposed cars would have sold, anyone's guess. The quality problems and recession hurt but there was still the name.

Posted on: 2010/5/12 9:56

Dan

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#27

Home away from home

Quote:

HH56 wrote:
I don't know if Nance deserves all the bad press he gets as he did have a vision and did embark on some good things. Maybe too much too soon, but all the articles point to the fact things were bad and something had to be done by the time he arrived.

At the same time, I also think he surrounded himself with people giving some less than spectacular advice and he acted upon it. I will never understand the move--but then I wasn't there.

Oh, agreed! I think Nance did a LOT of good things.

In retrospect, the Studebaker purchase was horrible, but IMHO was prompted by desperation.

But we both know that what went right - or wrong - at Packard is a never-ending debate.

I'd never seen the design proposal using the Lincoln body shell until now. It's attractive!

Posted on: 2010/5/13 7:41

Jim

Re: 1957 Packoln/Linckard

#28

Forum Ambassador

Quote:

MIDan wrote:
Quote:

39super8 wrote:
He was in charge of the "E" car project. The "E" car was a new division of the Ford Motor Company that had been in the works on and off for the prior 10 years. Ironically, by the time this alleged request was being made of Ford Motor Company, a great many Packard dealers were likely jumping ship and taking on "E" car dealerships. Talk about out of the pan and into the fire. Given the fast economic decline by mid year 1957 and how poorly the sales of the then reveled new Edsel Division of Ford Motor company went, I am not sure Packard had much of a chance with that design either way. I think the whole industry contracted much like it is presently.

Isn't it more than a bit ironic that James Nance ended up AT the Edsel division?

Indeed it is. I think there were a number of people that moved over to the newly forming Edsel Division from a number of companies at that time.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 10:55

Board index » Discussion » General » 1957 Packoln/Linckard

Top

Previous Topic

Next Topic

« 1 2 (3)

	';
Merry Christmas and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.