Packard Forum Index » General

Quote:
Dave, this time we are confronted with a modified myth and for reasons of entertainment I would like to start with its repugnancy. The mentioned body differences are a perfect fall-back position. Nevertheless thanks for the wonderful one-two pass.

John, let's say, just hypothetically, that:

- Briggs sold the dies,
- Packard lost all Packard business papers,
- [edit:] Packard lost all ZIS papers
- Packard lost all Briggs papers (see footnote 1),
- Chrysler lost all Briggs papers (see footnote 2),
- ZIL lost all ZIS, Packard and Briggs papers,
- the world lost all related photos (see footnote 3)

How could Briggs sell the tools for the engine, the gearbox, the axles and everything else? Now we have two conspirative company removals.

footnotes

1) All of Packard's bodies built by Briggs were made at the Conner Ave. plant. When Briggs disappeared from the market in 1953 it was leased to Packard.

2) Chrysler took over all Briggs plants in Detroit, in Indiana and Ohio.

3) Shiploads of punching machines and molding tools, high as a tower and heavier than the bigest Kremlin church bell must have been dismantled, loaded, shipped, unloaded, installed and modified without American support under the veil of darkness. The complete operation seems to have taken place under exclusion of witnesses.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IhIdNUchmiM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Cologne Cathedral bell

Attach file:

---

  (89.14 KB)

A decade before that the cooperation between Ford and CCCP had resultet in a new Soviet car company (GAZ). I have already seen pictures of:

- the negotiations,
- the Ford trade delegation in Moscow for ceremonial signing,
- the shipment of the machinery, packed in huge boxes with Ford label,
- Ford supervisors at the Soviet building site,
- Ford instructors who retrained Russian farmers.


vintage Soviet camera

Where are the press reports of the Packard/Briggs/ZIS deal? Were all Soviet newspapers in cahoots? Yes. But how about on your side?

Attach file:

---

  (17.97 KB)

We don't have newspaper articles of that event. Articles which we don't have are a silent power. They lie in ambush, lurk beneath the surface but in the very moment when you think you are safe and start to construct a new hypothesis the missing newspaper articles pop up as if they try to hit you on the break.
Nevertheless I will venture an inversion of this lack of knowledge. In my archive are 20 to 25 clippings from various leading US newspapers and known car magazines which oracularly report about obvious similarities between Packard and ZIS and talk about freeloaders and copyism. They wouldn't do that for more than six decades if only one had an eye-opening photo, a related business letter, a short sequence from a documentary film, a cargo list or at least an eyewitness report.

Attach file:

---

  (16.42 KB)

Quote:

Or a matter of license agreements? When Packard did all the costly work on the "conventional" bodies (design process, molding, tool-setting) before moving its production to Conner Ave. plant, Briggs was licensee and just a stamper whereas at least the molding process for the Clipper body was made by Briggs.






[picture source: www.nflfootballjerseys2012.com]

Quote:

Coachbuilt.com say all bodies.

"Their relationship with Packard dated back to their purchase of LeBaron and starting with Packard's all-new 1941 Clipper, Briggs built all of Packard's production bodies up until the Chrysler takeover."

Gerd...you know what they say.... it's no the size of the bell, but how you ring it!

This is pure speculation on my part. But is it possible Packard made the senior bodies and bought the junior bodies from Briggs?

I base this idea on the fact that Packard had their own body production facilities from early on, but they made the traditional metal bodies with wood framing. When the industry went to all metal bodies this required a completely different plant, with a lot more expensive stamping and metal working machinery.

Is it possible they made their own wood framed bodies but bought the all steel bodies from Briggs? When they phased out the traditional senior cars was that the end of the wood framed body and the beginning of all their cars using the all steel Clipper body?

Didn't the first 110 and 120 bodies use wood framing? When did they phase out the wood framed body?

Quote:
Kevin, of course and I won't appear undiscerning. In wartime there is a lot going on. I just tend to believe the obvious but am open for every piece of evidence that changes the state of affairs. To say it with John (JW): "...after all, it is about correct information...".
Here comes the next unproven opinion. The author negates the passing on of the "conventional" molds to Briggs and casts doubt on the passing on to Uncle Joe.

The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company

Author: James A. Ward
Format: Hardcover, 324 pages
ISBN: 0804724571
Publisher: Stanford University Press (September 1, 1995)
Status: In-Print
List Price: $60.00





[source of imprint and pic: Brian (BH)]

Attach file:

---

  (17.41 KB)

In answer to Rusty, excluding wood on station wagons and few (non-structural) small pieces that might have been used in convertibles, 1938 was the last year that all senior cars used wood-frame bodies, and in 1939 only the Twelve used them.

In answer to the overall question about the interplay of Briggs and Packard in producing the conventional-style bodies, I've had conversations with quite a few Packard historians over the last few days. The Packard Board Meeting Minutes of April 10, 1940 seem to provide a reasonably definitive answer. Briggs was paid to develop the tooling and the bodies for the "new" (meaning Clipper style) bodies; Packard continued to build the conventional bodies thru the end of their use in 1942, though production of the doors was sublet to Budd (for both juniors and seniors) as had been the case already for several years. The sole exception was the production of the LeBaron Sport Brougham and LeBaron limo and 7-pass sedan which were converted by Briggs (who owned LeBaron) but were made by converting standard production bodies which Packard had produced. Briggs leased space in East Grand to store the bodies "in the white" and they were trimmed and painted at East Grand, whether by Briggs or Packard employees is not clear. One of the drivers behind the decision to go to Briggs was to clear space at East Grand for war work which at that time was already under way for Great Britian.

My thanks especially to Packard historian A. J. Balfour who has a complete set of Packard Board Meeting Minutes for this analysis. He reviewed the minutes of every meeting from 1937 thru 1942 to find this information.

As to the long-standing myth that won't die about the conventional body dies going to Russia, it's just that and has been rather conclusively proven a number of times by direct comparison of the cars. Some very small parts were identical and might have come from Packard or their suppliers, for example some instrument panel parts. Radio "waterfalls" for example are identical.

PS - should I get hardcopy of the the 4/10/40 Board Minutes, I'll try to quote from them or scan a few lines to put what I think should be the final wrapper on this topic.

Since this topic drifted away from the Merlin's, I went ahead and split it at the request of Gerd.