Packard Forum Index » General

So many great points and very much pinging Packard exceptionalism. Love the rotten marriage comment, sums that little affair up perfectly. Also agree that Christopher's intent with the 48s was well-meaning. and yes, can see the power of a facelifted '47 and engine upgrades. Looking at the raw data it is pretty clear that life at Packard was not operationg in a growth-oriented, progressive/aggresive way by 1950. Take the bump-up from 282 to 288 and 327. Such actions would be considered typical of any car company improving a specific model's engine. The problem with Packard is that they used the bump up to make a new Senior in 1951. That was a Junior engine that should have never been promoted. Adding 9 main bearings wasn't nearly enough for the Parician. It needed what has been mentioned, a unique engine.

Well, I totally agree with Su8 that Packard advertising had problems. I don't find much of it compelling. The only problem is that what I think might be a good ad comes off to somebody else as completely weird. That is where statistics and focus studies come into play. Something that wasn't used much, if any, back then. However, most Cadillac ads from the same period leave me uninspired as well.

Some of the Packard ads like that "Wizards of Aahs" stuff reminds me of Disney and their statement that "Every child's favorite was Mickey Mouse." What? I hated Mickey Mouse. Yet, somehow if you make outlandish statements with a straight face repeatedly they are supposed to come true. At least that's they way it works in politics.

I think a close look at Harley-Davidson might be instructive. When I was a kid I had cycles, but I never liked Harleys. In fact I thought they were junk. Even an antique like the T120 was way better than any HD. But look at Harley today? Somehow they figured out how to get all these people wanting HD motorcycles. So much so that even Japan had to build their own V-twin facsimiles. If Packard could have figured that one out then where would they be?

And don't get me started on the car market today. Name one car that is being built as pure reliable transportation? The closest I can get is the Nissan Sunny (Versa in the USA). Overseas they are all over the roads. They are boring as hell, but they get you where you want to go. Yet the motoring press acts as if using a car to go someplace is a really weird idea. It didn't work for the little Willys, but at least the Nissan Sunny has five continents besides ours to sell cars in.

Hi Gentlemen


Fine in-depth insights shared with civility! What a delight, as has been noted, is the clear-eyed realism freely expressed here, kudos to Big Kev for making this refuge available!

Now, to some points! For my discussion, I'll use the term 'premium' to define that market just above the upper middle segment but just below the all-out luxury one, as generally defined for each period. For example, in the '20's, the upper middle-priced segment was up to $2,000 beyond which a few of their priciest body styles such as seven passenger sedans and limousines arced into the middle of the next $1,000. The luxury segment began at $3,000 on up to rarified levels. Packard redefined the 'premium' market in the mid-'20's by offering the $2,585 Six sedan, something never before available from a luxury car maker. By the late '30's, 'premium' had been redefined as $1,600-$2,200 by the Cadillac 60, 'luxury' from there on up. The former was the showdown arena for volume market dominance, the latter icing on the prestige cake and additional profits in the coffer. Cadillac grabbed the baton........Packard stumbled.


The great irony: The very roots of their volume sales success in the '20's was the development first of the 'premium' Six, then spawning a 'luxury' Eight as an extension, successor to the Twin Six. Really quite a brilliant strategy. The first few years of the Six, they groped their way along, adjusting size, features and prices until they hit the sweet spot, which then blossomed into volume as never before. The Six carried the overhead and the Eight raked in the bucks while both enhanced the prestige handsomely. They were THE aspirational cars of the period. This affirmation of management correctness steamrolled until 1930, then turned to dreck.

That dreck was the next opportunity to repeat the strategy again. This time, first with the 120 becoming the bread-and-butter overhead carrier, and second as springboard for a new, downsized but completely-unique 'premium' Super Eight, something to be truly aspirational, to maintain their dominance in the emergent 'pocket luxury' segment. Perhaps by extension a Twelve for what was left of the true luxury carriage trade. The pale and belated response embodied in the 1939 Super 8 reveals how the wheels had come off management's mojo to meet an emergent market demand, much less lead. Upgrading a '38 Eight Deluxe fitted with a decade-old-technology engine in a one-year-old hand-me-down 120 body, generously copying from the Cadillac 60 playbook, was not what might be expected from a market leader. The 356 did redeem the subsequent Seniors to a degree. Clinging to the separate old Senior format as long as they did, in the face of waning sales, demonstrates management still hoped that type of buyer would revive. The world was quickly moving on, in order to lead, they should have boldly fielded a completely new model line by '37 or '38 at minimum.

Advertising: From "Ask!" to "The One for '51", from tony to tone-deaf, from marvelous to embarrassing! Nothing else I can added to the cogent comments made.

A 120-122" wheelbase Buick Century sparring partner: A horribly missed opportunity, not only in the pre-war market that held the Century a hot car at a great price, but also postwar as proof Packard still was full of stuff for the fight. Packard had great precedence in the Speedsters 626 and 734; hot engines mounted in high-quality, light, compact chassis'. A 356 or 320 version of the 282 in the 110/Six chassis with stylish, unique sport sedan, coupe and convertible, priced to meet the Century would have done wonders for image. A postwar Packard version on the order of the Bentley Continental is lovely to contemplate.

3-Box 'sport' sedan proportions and wheelbase length: As much as I like the 60 Special, GM C-Body Torpedoes and the Clipper, I have to admit there are certain angles from which all can look somewhat "plump and stubby". All three push proportional relationship of the axle-line to top-quarters/trunk intersection to the hilt. All three could benefit from 3-4 more inches of wheelbase committed to the moving the axle reward, allowing less door cut depth and a few more inches of trunk length. Of the surface development, the 60 Special generally the exhibits svelte surfacing of the Cord 810 whereas the follow-ups are expressions of the Rubenesque, full surfaces being popularized by GM. Each has it's appeal. In all cases, the new direction was a breath of fresh air in the stale sickroom of the touring sedan pall.
The 125" to 127" wheelbase shook out as the ideal length to build the owner-driven luxury sedan by the late '30's. Heck, Packard sold it's greatest volumes in the '20's on those lengths. The bit more size 133" wheelbase is about as far as most folks will go when seeking out a luxury sedan to live with daily. All would opine it's for the additional interior room, but few would admit it's the more impressive length that attracted them first! As Beuhrig noted, proportions were all important when making a design work on either wheelbase aesthetically pleasing.


Of the misused term 'sport': generally it was employed as an easy shorthand to differentiate from touring or formal, indiscriminately so. It's simply another term for club sedan, with a dash of cache. As with so many other descriptive automotive terms, use seemed to depend on whatever the maker decided would sell more cars. It is amusing to consider how the prosaic, ubiquitous Chevy sedan could ever be called "sport"!

The functional merits of various power trains: Your experiences and impressions are of great interest since I've never had the opportunity to drive these interesting cars. Thanks so much for sharing them with this novice.

Steve

There was one ad series that impressed me. It was the 1938 ads that offered to let prospects take Packard cars away for the weekend. Of course to get one you had to be in the social register, but letting a prospect take a car for an unlimited mileage test drive is putting your money where your mouth is.

And off the showroom floor the 16th series was good.

Although, that new V-16 from Cadillac just left everything in the dust. A giant that lasted three years.

All of this and other like discusions reminds me of people looking back where there is no future. So, they examine the past with utmost detail; some how thinking with all their rationale they can change it. Let's stop trying to find fault with the past and just enjoy what it has given us. We like Packards, and let us have the benefit of what it has given us. Please.

(o[]o)

Quote:

I'm not sure some dealers didn't do that into the 50's. I remember more than once Dad took his car to Albuquerque for service and sometimes it had to stay a day or two. He drove home in a demonstrator. Of course, he might have told them he was thinking of buying it.

One of those times was the first time I saw a V8 model and fell in lust. Think dad actually wanted it & no question I wanted him to buy it. Mother said it was too flashy and people would be staring at her when she drove. Packard might have been about done too so maybe a partial reason but anyway, back it went and his 51 came home.

Been meaning to ask about several of the considered thoughts on this interesting thread, and doesn't it say oceans for both Packard AND BigKev's stellar site that we can air our laundry free of head in the sand Orwellian Facebook "likes" alone?

Been wondering about Dr. Cole's hands on experience leaving him to proclaim 1938-42 Cadillac V-8s "more robust" than Packards of those years. Maurice Hendry cited a company using both Cadillac V-8s and Packard straight 8s in harsh livery/courier service in the Sahara during the '20s reporting better service with the Cadillacs.

I'm wondering if the reason for Dr. Cole's, and perhaps Hendry's report, is that Packard, being a finer car, gave equal or superior durability ONLY when maintained fully.
We know that Packards, like Rolls-Royce and Bugatti, were "stitched" together using fine-threaded bolts. Cadillacs, like most other automobiles, even other fine ones, used predominately coarse threaded.

I helped a friend replace a clutch in his '41 Cad conv. Two of us, it was an afternoon's job. A full afternoon, but one (1) afternoon. When we put a new clutch/pressure plate in my '47 Super Clipper, it took us two blinking days, what with the senior overdrive alone weighing nearly as much as the Cad's manual transmission;

the Packard's cross member that needs to be removed when replacing the clutch;

Packard's multiplicity of fine-threaded bolts, of overbuilding, over-engineering.

So, we wonder if 1938-42 Cadillacs, and perhaps the '20s models, tho' i know little about them, seem "more robust" and to give better service longer simply as it's easier, less time-consuming, back in the day and since, to service, overhaul, rebuild an 85th percentile car,

than a 98th percentile Packard?

Y'all with me?

Because it's not like 1938-42 Cadillacs had better metallurgy, or huskier build quality. When my '40 One-Twenty's transmission and overdrive were being rebuilt, the
mechanic's mechanic performing the surgery coincidentally had a '41 Buick Roadmaster transmission apart on the adjacent bench. The mainshaft of my "junior" Packard's transmission was HALF AGAIN THICKER IN DIAMETER than the "senior" '41 Buick muscle car's.

And a senior Packard transmission's mainshaft is still thicker.

Most of you know that where a Cadillac or upper echelon GMobile uses a plain bushing, a Packard, junior or senior, uses a needle or roller bearing, and bearings are to an automobile chassis as jewels are to a watch. So a Cadillac could be akin to a high-grade department store watch, a Packard a Rolex.

But a higher range Timex might keep good time longer than a marginally serviced Rolex, if you follow this analogy.

So, i'm intrigued by Dr. Cole's observation, because he's been around the block a few times, knows what he's doing. 1938-42 Cadillacs do have their fans. But i also notice that in a recent Hemmings, there were over two full pages of such Cadillacs for sale, but only half a page of Packards of those years.

Seems like a lotta folks buy old Cadillacs, but are quickly left singing Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is?

Meanwhile, i couldn't agree more with Dr. Cole, in his post #26, this thread, about the Chrysler V-8 from 1951 on being "head and shoulders" above Packard and Cadillac.

I don't discount Dr. Cole's experiences with 1938-42 Cadillacs vs. 1938-42 Packards. Just wondering what's behind them, WHY is this so-- if it's so. Perhaps we might focus on 1940-42 Cadillac V-8 vs. 1940-42 Packards with the 356, since the 1938-39 Packard "Super 8" was just the hoary old 1929 standard eight with a five-inch stroke, two-piece block and crankcase.

?

G'day all, I have just spent the past two hours reading through the hundreds of posts regarding "why are Packards better than other cars". I believe that it is a "human engineering" trait. A reasonable person accepts what exists.... an unreasonable person does not accept this.......and we have invention. Yet we Packard people generally consider ourselves "reasonable" people.

I have a very nice 1966 Silver Shadow Rolls-Royce, and whenever I attend functions with the Packard the Rolls-Royce enthusiasts compliment me on my astuteness of owning the two best cars in the world. I return the compliment with the twist that the Rolls-Royce is the "Packard of England" Peter Toet

Just to rub salt into the wounds....check out this piece of history for around $65K....with scandal involved for god's sake!!!!! I still like my Packards.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ivor-Novellos-1935-Rolls-Royce-20-25-HP-Limousine-GAF55-Thrupp-Maberly-/320946084643?pt=AU_Cars&hash=item4ab9e09b23

The many comparisons to Rolls-Royce in this thread points to the divergent paths that Europe and America were on by the mid-30s with respect to luxury car design. Look at how it all came to a head in 1957. Jaguar and Rolls... tall, traditional lines and grill. Cadillac Eldorado Brougham - a big 4-door Corvette. Look again in 1981. Rolls stagnating, Cadillac softened like an athlete 20 years retired, Mercedes the crisp new flag bearer that reconciled sport and tradition into one car and added German engineering and efficiency.

The industry is still young, car companies are still iterating, still searching for the perfect luxury car. Is it a long, low-slung sedan or a short, tall, roomy, utilitarian crossover? Maybe something in between? Is it a normally aspirated V8 or a more complicated but efficient gas turbo direct injection inline 4 or V6?

Certainly Packard quality and craftsmanship were two things that have always constituted automotive excellence. There were other elements too, areas that proved more challenging for Packard and many others and continue to this day.