Packard Forum Index » General

This has been an interesting discussion to follow. AMC certainly had it's own share of troubles as the 1970's US auto market changed around it. I think a good case can be made that an AMC Packard would have added a much-needed cachet to AMC showrooms, although whether or not the existing AMC sales force would have been effective at moving them is another piece of the puzzle. Tooling costs need not have been astronomical, although to be fair they would have been significant and would have represented a higher proportional investment of ever-more-scarce AMC dollars versus the "deeper pockets" of the Big Three. I like the direction some of the "what if" proposals are taking, but in the end it still looks a bit too much like a tarted-up Ambassador . . . and how is that any better (or different) than the 1957-58 Packardbakers?


Food for thought: GM had no use for the Packard line, they had Cadillac. Ford likewise had the Lincoln, which in some instances over the 1950's and 1960's would have made a very nice Packard indeed, but I can't see Ford abandoning the Lincoln marque or worse yet, relegating it to yet another "in between" market niche a la Edsel. Now Chryslet, with it's on-again, off-again Imperial might have represented a happier home for Packard. For many years an Imperial was simply the fanciest Chrysler, and adding a top tier Packard above that could have worked. The obvious Exner connection has some appeal as well. Unfortunately, as the 1970's turned into the 1980's, Lee Iacocca may have had to kill it . . . Which is unfortunate, because if you are a student of Iacocca, it's exactly the kind of car he would have loved.


In the end, "saving" Packard was probably too tall an order for the state of the late 1950's US auto industry. They were all in the midst of compact car mania, Ford would soon be licking its post-Edsel wounds, Chrysler had quality issues to solve, and Studebaker had already made its decision regarding Packard. Which leaves, as you have all pointed out, AMC. Perhaps that would have been Packard's best shot, after all. I can say this without any doubt: It would most certainly have produced some extremely interesting automobiles!

Great insights all. Agreed, the mgmt mindset and customer base were all wrong for a return of a proper Packard. The latter could have probably been addressed but not the former without a very astute board of directors. The level of change needed would have hit every part of the company, extending to the dealerships. Just like Packard in 1933-35 but in reverse.

Here are some pony car sales numbers from the Standard Catalogue for 1970:

Mustang 190,000
Camaro 117,000
Challenger 83,000
Cougar 72,000
Barracuda 57,000
Firebird 49,000
Javelin 29,000
AMX 4,000

The miserable AMC sales numbers had to be sizable factors contributing to its negative cash flow and losses. It's all hindsight now but the money spent on those AMCs could have tooled a Packard coupe and convertible. I keep thinking about the '56 Continental Mk II program and how it helped FoMoCo learn how to make a higher quality car, the practical application appearing in the '61 Continental. Companies need to push themselves to grow. They need to set lofty goals. Abernathy had goals, that's pretty clear. Did he understand what quality looked like? Felt like? Smelled like? Sounded like? Am not so sure based on the cars he put out. Alvan Macauley understood. A company's best product is only as good as its CEO's finest tastes.

BH - your suggestion for a 67-69 T-Bird based Packard revival car is very interesting. The roofline certainly hints at Ex's proposal. The front axle-to-firewall is a bit short, in my judgment. My biggest gripe with these late 60s Birds and related Mk III, and to a lesser extent the '67 Eldorado, is that they seem too wide for their heights, lengths and side profile proportions. That's one reason I like the Ambassador. It has a nice width for a coupe. Add length to the hood, shorten the body a bit and bingo, a sporting luxury coupe.

F-line - yes sir, Chrysler might have benefitted from a Packard in its showroom. Or perhaps a Pierce-Arrow? I don't know, the company just didn't seem to have a handle on things. Some of Ex's ideas for the early 60s cars were too off the wall. Engle was a one-trick pony with his Continental and probably hurt Chrysler in the long run. Who would have penned the great new Packard? Probably Exner once he transitioned to his revival car mindset. That's the one incredible thing about him, he had so much depth, 10 times as much as the others. He continually experimented with design and was the better for it. A constant wellspring of new ideas.

Mahoning63 -

Abernethy certainly fell on his sword, but as you touched on, the direction of any development effort needs the backing of the board, which is, too often, only interested in the immediate bottom-line. Yet, internal politics, muscle-flexing, and conflicting egos run rampant in the business. I wouldn't be surprised if some were hoping or even working to see Abernethy's plan fail, only to step in with a rescue plan - they call it brinkmanship.

As for those sales figures, 1970 must have been a banner year for the Big Three. I don't have hard figures, but can tell you that annual sales of the Barracuda and Challenger fell dramatically after that, and both went out of production after less than a full year of production, in 74. Meanwhile, I believe that annual production for the second-gen 71-74 Javelin and AMX (together) remained in the 25K-30K range.

Nevertheless, I think we all agree that AMC had the resources to build a new Packard, but - market demographics aside - lacked a team with the vision/motivation to recognize and seize such an opportunity and see it through.

On that point think of the team Iacocca had assemble to assemble to pull Chrysler from the brink, but it was until the advent of the minivan (and in spite of several of its shortcoming) that they regained a competitive foothold. That was no easy feat, but a lot of Chrysler's new product that followed went over in the market like a lead ballon.

Having grown up in a GM family, I was never very interested in Ford product, but had an appreciation for the old T-birds - up through 66. I hated the look of the 67-69 models. The dramatic facelift of that shell for 71-72 greatly improved things, and the 73-76 edition was in keeping with the times. Yet, successive restyles have made the 67-69 more appealing.

Now, compare not only the roofline of those Birds, but the doors of the sedan (note the suicide rears) to the one and only 66 Duesenberg prototype that was built (again,http://www.madle.org/edues.htm). Although Ford had adopted unitized body construction for the 58-66 T-birds, they returned to body-on-frame construction for 67. This might have facilitated implementation of a front stretch in actual production, for the Packard - similar to what GM did with the A-body intermediate platform to arrive at the 69 GP, which you cited, previously in this thread.

Not saying that Ford would have been open to the idea of a Packard revival, but only that the shell seems to lend itself to the Packard revival concept.

Looking back, it's amazing how so much of Ex's design work predated what actually made it out of the Detroit automakers' styling studios, and for so many years. Pity that so much of it in recent decades is so uninspired - including Asian cars.

Here's a quick look at a '67 T-Bird mod. I added 4" to the rear door and reshaped its rear edge cut line, added 10 inches to the hood, shortened the front overhang a few inches and made the C-pillar one solid piece. You're absolutely right, it really captures the '66 Duesy look.

Attach file:

---

  (37.59 KB)

Looking at the whole "what if AMC had marketed a Packard" question from a hard headed, costs, business-case point of view - I doubt there would have been much OF a case to do that.

Especially since AMC always seemed to be struggling financially at one point or another.

Even IF a case could be made, what would they have? A repli-Packard, not that far off from a Bayliff recreation, or any other replicar. A Packard in name only.

I think there was a very strong case for an AMC Packard, planning commencing in early 1964 for a '68 or '69 MY intro. Bayliff was a small operation, AMC was a major OEM with a full complement of staff. I would argue that it didn't really matter if the Packard was designed and engineered in Wisconsin so long as the content was right. By the 60s and 70s, OHV V8s had become commodities and AMC's would have worked just fine for a Packard, especially the 1969 390. No new investment would have been needed there. The basic unibody structure was also fine and AMC was intent on tooling a longer hood, front fenders and underhood changes for the Ambassador anyway; the money could have just as easily been redirected to make a Packard.

What were the real differentiators that would have made a Packard stand out had they survived in the first place? Styling was one. Exner created a decent theme that honestly said "Packard" - nothing earth shattering but potentially a stand-out if done right. What else? Two areas that come to mind are interior appointments/quality and chassis. This is where American cars were starting to fall behind. Ex had spec'd out a top notch interior for the Duesy revival so there is no doubt he would have done the same for Packard. With the chassis, an independent rear suspension was the big opportunity. Corvette had it for the 1963 MY, Mercedes for several years prior.

In December 1963 when the Exner renderings appeared in Esquire, Abernathy, on the job now for 22 months, would have (or at least should have) been pondering lots of options and directing his planners to scope them out at a high level, and would have already approved the 1965 MY Ambassador 4 inch hood stretch, possibly the 1967 MY 2 inch body stretch but likely not the 1969 MY Ambassador 4 inch additional hood stretch (they probably didn't realize they needed it at this time).

He wanted to move AMC into higher profit, larger, more luxurious vehicles. He knew that AMC Corp. was one brand going against the Big 3's largely successful multiple brand strategy. He had T-Bird 4-pass's 6-year and Riviera's 1-year sales data through the 1963 MY and 1st quarter 1964 MY sales, all of which indicated that something big was afoot in the luxury coupe segment. Now all of the sudden he had in Exner's Packard rendering an intriguing possibility - a brand, a design language and a car all rolled into one compelling vision and directed at the very segment that was taking off. He knew Studebaker was on its last leg and would have likely sold AMC the Packard name for a pittance. And he should have seen Mercedes out of the corner of his eye and what they were discovering about the American buying public, namely a desire for more sophistication and a willingness to pay for it.

What Abernathy may not have realized was that AMC needed a shake-up in its design and quality control depts., which the new Packard might have inadvertantly forced.

Mahoning63 -

Thanks for the quick mod on the 67 T-bird - quite an improvement.

The 67-69 Birds could have supported not only a two-door Packard, as per Ex's original design, but a four-door version. There's a comparatively low-cost production shortcut to square up the roof and achieve the look of the Packard, as well as the Duesy revival.

Yes, that modified T-Bird looks pretty good from the side. Exner's 1966 Duesenberg is one of my favorite designs, and it's surprising how well this car captures the flavor of that one. It's been noted how wide these T-birds appear, but I consider that a plus. It allows the designer latitude to create a wider neo-classic grille instead of being forced to use the Predictor-like blade design. All in all, it could make a very pleasing Packard.

While all of these proposals are fun to consider, the sad reality is that the US auto business is just that - a business. Any scheme to save, revive or resurrect Packard had to start with a business model that showed some sort of profit. The days of the loss-leader halo car were pretty much gone by the point in time we're discussing. Yes, Ford learned some valuable lessons building the Continental Mark II, as did GM with the Italian Eldorado Brougham and Chrysler with the Ghia Crown Imperial limousines. I just don't see the numbers supporting an AMC Ambassador-based Packard. While it may not have cost them the earth to bring it to market, it would still have taken scarce funds from more profitable lines, and marketing it through what many still thought of as "Rambler" dealers may have been a difficult task at best. in any case, we'll never know, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating.

So we've considered T-Birds, Chryslers and AMCs . . . What else have ya got?