Packard Forum Index » General

Steve laid out the history and its subtle nuances as well as any that I have read. The year 1938, in retrospect, loomed very large for Packard, which had won most battles with Cadillac up until then. Most, but not all as Steve pointed out. Packard missed the $1,750 market completely in the mid-30s, a market Cadillac attacked with the 1936 60 Series. For Packard this may have been a deliberate avoidance, the result of getting burned with such a car in 1932. Fair enough, and Packard did come out with an even lower priced car in 1935 that sold wonderfully. But avoidance turned into dithering and by 1938 it all came to a head. This was the year for Packard's big switch to all-steel bodies, which required longer lead times and greater investment, and demanded fewer models and longer production runs to make the business case work. Packard, in retrospect, placed its bets on the wrong body shape while Cadillac took its $1,750 formula, added a new 3-box shape and $400 to cover the costs of this bespoke body and watched the 60 Special sell in greater volumes than the cheaper 60 touring sedan sitting next to it in the showroom. Then GM really got serious and went all-in with the 1940 C-bodies for Pontiac, Olds, Buick and Cadillac, which sold so well that they forced Packard to short-cycle its product plan and rush out the Clipper. Not good, and from that point forward Cadillac was usually a few years ahead of Packard.

I would challenge the conclusion that Packard understood the 3-box. Yes, they offered it in 1931 as a Dietrich custom and Alvan Macauley had the factory build a similar design for himself. Stutz offered a similar Monte Carlo in 1930, a few others offered similar cars and Packard itself wore a custom 3-box by Graff in 1924. But this doesn't mean they understood its full potential, which could only be realized with a long rear overhang and the large trunk and manageable wheelbase it allowed. And neither of these elements could be made to look right until the advent of streamlining, which tied it all together into a flowing, cohesive whole.

As Steve pointed out, Dietrich (not sure if it was Ray himself or the good folks at Murray after Ray left) produced renderings of a 3-box with full streamlining. It looked fabulous. What did Packard do with it? Nothing. Like the $1,750 market, their heads were either still living in 1932 or they just plain didn't get it. Or maybe they saw the Twelfth Series Senior 5-pass coupe, which was a partial step in the direction of the 60 Special, sell in only modest numbers. Whatever the case, in 1935/6 when planning for such a car should have taken place, Packard failed to act while Cadillac feverishly plowed ahead with its design.


On MIDan's 3 questions, some thoughts.

#1 - I am on board with you and many others who argue that Packard should have focused on the luxury market immediately post-war. But I can only go so far because I don't think they had a luxury product superior or even equal to Cadillac and I suspect they knew they wouldn't sell enough to make their operations profitable. Cadillac had a waiting list for its 1947s. Did Packard with its most expensive models? As long a list as Cadillac?

#2 - Clipper styling was non-competitive beginning in 1948, definitely by 1949. The pontoon look and short drooping rear decklid were done. I give Christopher a lot of credit for trying to go "modern" but must take each credit back for his execution.

#3 - agreed, a V8 was needed sooner. So was an automatic. Over 90% of 1947 Cadillacs had automatics.

Regarding the comments made about the personal characters of all these key historical figures, I would point out that Alvan Macauley was well-respected by everyone in the industry. He didn't let Dietrich go because he was worried about his personal position and he would not have let others below him act out of such motivation. The facts seem to suggest that in 1935 he miscalculated both where the new pricing sweet spot in the luxury market would soon settle and where body styling was headed. In other words, he screwed up. It happens to the best of us. It happened to him. It cost Packard greatly, not terminally but it did set them back a good decade plus.

Paul

The discussion of the 1938 Cadillac 60 Special caught my eye as I am a long-time fan of Bill Mitchell's hand at styling the Riviera (which was initially considered to be a possible re-introduction of the LaSalle, and ended up a Buick, hence the "clamshell" lamps in '63 and '64--and the headlight covers in '65--were initially an homage to the LaSalle's pointed grill). Looking at some history on the '38 Cadillac, it started life as a LaSalle design and then was bumped up the brand ladder to Cadillac when its price was calculated to be too high for LaSalle. History repeating itself in reverse.

Looking at the '38 Cadillac 60 S mindfully for the first time, based on what's been said here, I agree that the front view is really quite ugly... if the goal was an aggressive look, that was achieved at the expense of making it far too truck-like for my taste.

From the side, the most striking thing to someone used to the now-ubiquitous "3 box" style that was so radical then, I see the front fenders as the outstanding styling feature. Not knowing much about these Cadillacs, I don't know if this was a fresh design, but it certainly gives the car an imposing big-car presence, and an elegant sculpted look from the side.

For my money, the '47 Clipper does the same thing, only better, with a much more appealing front view and more integrated yet still massive looking fenders.

Clipper stacks up pretty well eh? Granted it's 9 years later, but there was a war in between. The photo just happened to be sitting right in front of me here on the PMCI sidebar.

(Thought that since we were talking styling so much here, some pics might be in order.)

Attach file:

---

  (3.32 KB)


  (23.55 KB)

Interestingly, Bill Mitchell liked the '38 60 Special styling the best, feeling it was the cleanest and purest of the '38-41s. Apparently the grill design was inspired by the '36 Cord's horizontal air slots. Most historians seem to like the '41 the best.

By the time the 41-1/2 Clipper came out, Cadillac had two 3-box sedans in the line-up, the 60S and 62. Both were very clean and modern looking by this time. Cadillac also had a coupe and convertible (including a 4-dr convertible) based on the low slung 62. This is what Clipper was competing against initially. GM raised the stakes again for '42 when Cadillac restyled both cars. The new 60S also got a big wheelbase stretch that provided limo-like rear legroom, something the One Sixty/One Eighty Clippers never matched. Cadillac also offered an automatic beginning in 1941 which got improved during the war and became very popular once peacetime returned. All in all, GM was on a real tear and it wasn't just Packard that felt the heat. The whole industry was reeling. Only Studebaker and Packard managed to launch a 3-box sedan before the war and by the time they did, Cadillac and GM had moved on to the next phase, which was full showroom coverage with all body styles included and subtle refinements to styling. And they had that automatic.

You have to remember, though, that the Clipper was aimed at the Buick market. I don't know how well they did against that, but it was the seniors that should have been taking on Cadillac, and postwar, for my money, Cadillac had them beat in styling every which way until 1955, except for the Caribbean, which was more a specialty "car for the stars" than it was a mass-produced competitor for the well-to-do "wealthy" market. The '48-'50 was a styling experiment that was very bold but ultimately not very appealing, except perhaps for the "fastback" models, and '51-'54 always lacked that real "luxury" look. It seems that few of these cars could really shout success about their drivers. I think they needed a true limo or at least a "stretch" six-passenger sedan to keep their hand in the ultra luxury market. A small, sporty model priced for the masses, like the "twin six" roadsters of old might have been a very good bet, too.