Packard Forum Index » General

John's summary is point on. By the fifties, Packard was turning profits on military goods which did little to burnish their public image. When that stream of cash dried up, they had nothing but their auto production on which to rely. That, of course, had been allowed to languish shortly after the war and left the company to compete in an increasingly difficult market with a diminished reputation among consumers. It must surely have seemed a pretty hopeless situation.

As for Charlie Wilson, I doubt that he randomly decided to destroy Packard. He was a self-interested bureaucrat who directed what he could in a manner that best served those interests (nothing new there). Packard, and any other corporation or individual that may have suffered as a result, was simply collateral damage. In Packard's case the damage was fatal because they had become too reliant upon government contracts.

Also, I don't want to go about blasting holes in anybody's romantic image of World War II, but America didn't really turn to Packard for help. Our government essentially "offered" Packard and other industrial concerns the "opportunity" to assist in the war effort. Had they declined the opportunity, the government simply would have put them out of business by impeding their ability to obtain the materials needed to sustain their enterprise (and by painting them as "unpatriotic" which would've poisoned their brand image). Think of it as a democracy's way of seizing facilities for the production of war materiel.

Consequently, I doubt that the military thought one bit about the Packard of 1941 versus the Packard of 1953. I also doubt that the White House livery played much of a role in any bureaucratic decision making either. The government had an objective to accomplish and, for whatever reasons, Packard didn't fit into Uncle Sam's plans as the Cold War unfolded.

Finally, as John suggested, everyone that has a chance should read Ward's the Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company. It's well written and offers great insights into the collapse of the marque we all love.

Quote:

Line the pockets of GM-- probably correct. Wilson sold the government on something called "single sourcing." Not much question about what that single source would be. (see Kimes)

Risk analysis? Not likely. Politics much more likely. The defense department knew Packard's capabilities. Long before the Utica plant was built Packard showed how much materiel they could manufacture and how well. If a Packard man had got the job in Ike's admiinistration, things would've almost certainly been much different.

Nobody mentioned yet how Lexus ate the Germans' lunch in the luxury market for a long while. The cache of which luxury brand is desirable waxes and wanes. No reason Packard couldn't have gained that position again as a specialty luxury brand, but nobody really knew what "niche marketing" was back then.

I agree with an earlier post that, regardless of the what-if's of survival, I'm glad Packard went out when they did. When it comes to automobiles, it really solidified their mystique. Especially with the promise shown in the V8s.

But I believe the Packard Automobile brand is still available on e-bay, if anyone's interested in making their dream come true!

If we pool our resources we might be able to get it up and running again. Money probably isn't the biggest issue, the club is collectively rich enough to build a prototype and bring a business plan to the investment community. Deciding on what to build is the sticking point. We can't even agree on what happened to the company 50 years ago! That's OK, it's human nature. There was constant squabbling in Ford's planning department over the last decade. Grown men and women at each other's throats, whole careers being made or lost.

I would like to see Packard come back though. There has been some good in this industry of late but much could still be improved and America could be greatly helped in the process.

A good comprehensive analysis of the Gullickson failure would make interesting reading, as it was the most recent and most ambitious effort.

Great suggestion. Would throw in:

Maybach(Mercedes)
Rolls-Royce (BMW)
Bugatti (VW)
Bentley (VW)
Lamborghini (VW)
VW Phaeton (VW)
Maserati (Fiat)
Tesla

Maybach, Rolls (the big one, not the new smaller one), Bugatti and VW Phaeton were failures. Bentley, Lambo and the Maserati Quattroporte have done well so far. Tesla S electric sedan remains to be seen.

Roy G had the passion, an absolute necessity. He tried to create a new car from scratch, almost impossible these days. He was underfinanced and his design was non-compelling.

Bentley used the same approach that Rolls and Maybach did - borrow from the parent company - but has done much better. The main reason is that that they made a hot car and kept the price in check. So two lessons apply now as they did 50 and 75 years ago: don't put out an old fashioned frumpy car in the hopes that stellar engineering and quality will be enough to save you, and don't let your manufacturing footprint get too inefficient.

One thought I have is to approach Marcionne at Fiat/Chrylser. He needs a luxury brand and Maserati is too sports oriented. The Quattroporte platform could be a good starting point.

The PMCC website appears to be gone. I copied some things off of it back when it wasn't being updated and looked like it would be taken down. Here are a couple of images. I might have more. The car's styling was quite controversial (practically anything attempted would have been) but I thought it had a nice combination of retro, such as "bullet" fenders blending into the doors, a nod to another quixotic attemp, Tucker, and a headlight treatment that looks mainstream, yet just exotic enough. I would like to see it sometime.

Here is a link to a Hemmings cover story on the company's search for a buyer:

blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2007/09/26/p ... r-car-co-for-sale-may-have-a-buyer/

Also, the pics page of the PMCC website--which is still there!

packardmotorcar.com/pg.htm

Attach file:

---

Size: 54.41 KB; Hits: 111
Size: 31.69 KB; Hits: 91