Packard Forum Index » Studebaker Built Packards (1957 - 58)

In 56 Packard made a 21296 car with the 352 engine and 7538 with the 374. In 57 and 58 total of 7431 I do not think any manufacturer would keep about 1/3 of there engine production in storage for future use. The corporation wanted to build more cars than they did in 57 and 58 as all manufacturers wasn't to sell large numbers of cars .
They would also need a supply of transmissions to be used with the engines.
These are only my personal views but most plans by companies that make cars or any product are driven by need to make a profit not build cars or whatever they may produce

Hi

While there were service engines available, management would be reluctant to commit them to a further production series with no back up production taking place without major expense. The additional problem would be what to do about the transmission since Ultramatic production ended at the same time as the engine. The engineering work to adapt the Packard engine to the Studebaker Flightomatic and whether it was up to the challenge of that powerplant was just one more hurdle to clear for such a mate-up.

Mostly it comes down to a company in dire financial straits utilizing what minimal resources they had in hand to try to bridge one of the most difficult periods of their existance. Survival for the corporation was their focus and that met concentrating on the volume sales. As much as we like the special models, the bread and butter cars allowed a car company to survive. In '57 and '58 S-P wasn't completely sure if it could come up with bread and butter cars that would sell enough volume to allow survival. Churchill hit upon the Scotsman concept and it turned out to be nearly their bestseller. They are about the plainest jane cars one can imagine but the market responded and helped them bridge to the Lark era. Initially the Lark sold well and generated $28 million in profit for '59, less in '60. Of course, as soon as the Big Three introduced their compacts, all but Rambler and VW were forgotten about. Any thoughts about continuing Packard or a revival thereof would have had to wait until the corporation itself were back on solid financial ground again.

Steve

Guy - you make a good point about the similar 289/374 engine weights. Also, the '56 Golden Hawk did in fact sell in higher volumes than the '56 Sky Hawk despite its higher price, suggesting that the Packard engine in the Hawk was a winning combo in the public's eye. Score two for your idea. You might need around ten to make this work but let's forget score keeping and just plow ahead and have some fun.

First, just to be clear on what you are suggesting, were the engines that you say "existed" a part of the service pool that OEMs are required to provide for 20 yrs, or were these additional units? If additional, how many are we talking about?

Onward to the '57 woulda-coulda's. If our goal is to explore how the Packard flame might have been kept burning, and if raiding all or part of the service stock was an option (I don't think this was was until years later when Studebaker went out of business), I say let's let it rip and really mine this.

Let's assume that a portion of the service supply was somehow deemed "available", maybe to the tune of a few hundred units per year for 57/58. Let's further assume that this supply included equal numbers of parts for EVERY PART on the '56 Packard series. Let's also for the moment park the question of what to do for 1959 and beyond. S-P could have done a Golden Hawk like you have suggested, assuming the Twin Ultramatic was available in equal limited quantities as the V8. I think it would have been fine as a product but would have still looked like a Studebaker. Why not try to leverage the parts bin even more?

Here's an example. S-P contracts with Derham to hand build a series of custom cars based on the '56 parts. The result is a low slung 4-door hardtop to take on the '57/58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, at a similar or higher price ($13,000+). What would such a car look like? Here's one thought: maximize the usage of existing parts to minimize hand fabrication and ensure the car looks like an evolved Packard rather than something completely off the wall. Section the body several inches, get rid of the body insert between the front and rear doors (move the rear doors forward a few inches), convert the rear doors to reverse opening if need be, use the Four Hundred's pillerless roof, rear quarters and 127" wheelbase, use the grill as is but lower the headlights like Henney did with the Pan American, and allow the exterior paint and interior trim to be anything the customer wants. Finally, and most importantly, make as much hay as possible by advertising the car extensively, thus keeping Packard alive in the public's eye.

Quote:

Thanks for the info on the '56 Golden Hawk. It does give some background figures that tend to at least back up the original idea of this thread. Second, I can't be very clear on the existing engine supply except for the anecdotal evidence that there seemed to be quite a bit of "overrun" at the Utica plant. This makes sense, because if there was going to be an all-out effort for the '57 Packard model, they would've needed to keep producing engines as if this were going to happen. Not an outlandish ideal, considering "Black Bess" was in existence and there was no reason to think otherwise... or any reason to let production know otherwise, more to the point. Now, Utica was going away, which wasn't at all foreseen (Utica was specifically chosen to produce the new Packard V8) but exactly when it was known that it would be shut it down, I don't know.

BUT parts definitely existed to back up the Packard engines for many years. Hell, in the 1960s, you could get practically anything from SASCO catalogs, which were still being printed from South Bend then. In '57 and '58, it wouldn't have been a stretch at all to put the V8's back into production, except stretching the wallets of S-P, which was basically becoming just "S".

SO, I would hypothesize that a lack of corporate will and gumption caused Studebaker to retreat from the Packard brand, circle the wagons, and go into the Compact Car market. Sure, the compact was coming into its own in the late 50's, but c'mon, look at what was built by Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Ford/Mercury/Lincoln throughout the late '60s and early '70s. Even Chrysler, which seemed to lean toward the compacts by the early '60s, jumped back into the land yachts with both feet over this period.

What Packard and Studebaker had together was a pretty good marriage of good cars with a reputation in the low-priced, compact field with Studebaker, and great legacy cars that would fit the mid to large size/price and prestige field with Packard. It really could've worked if it hadn't been for the short-sighted timidity that seemed to rule the S-(P) boardrooms in the late 50s IMO.

Even if there had been no feasible way to go forward with Packard, I still believe that there could've been a Packard "swan song" that was much more worthy of the name than the Studebaker-engined morphodites of '57 and '58. Not that I hate those cars, but I wish they would've been better, designed and powered to the standards that would've evoked a legacy, rather than an awkward footnote at the end of Packard's storied history.

Quote:

Sitting in on a board of directors meeting of any corporation would disabuse one of such a notion. It's about ROI to the stockholders. In a sinking ship such as S-P, deciding what song the orchestra was to play as the ship slid under the waves was not on their agenda. They were just making sure the rich guys got in the lifeboats.

As a GM Chairman Thomas Murphy once said. "General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money."

jack vines

Strong, if opposite, arguments from all. Car companies need to be run and in large measure owned by car fanatics, and it seems that S-P's board could have cared less where the ROI came from so long as it came. They apparently wanted out of car production completely, not just Packard but Studebaker too.

I never understood the merits of bringing back the Clipper name as a unique marque. It's a somewhat weak name, a model name at best, not a brand name. Were the name "Packard" not to have been attached to it, it would have meant nothing - as Nance learned in 1956. My feeling is that Studebaker needed to get rid of it in 1957 and leverage the Packard name to the greatest extent possible. I can't quite warm up to the Loewy coupe, not by 1957. It was 5 years old by then and getting long in the tooth. Some have suggested selling a medium-sized Packard based on the Studebaker that could run with Mercedes. Not a bad idea.

Here's another: forget the 4-doors and sell only a mid-sized 2-door coupe and convertible. Such a size in 2-door form need not have been a detraction for a luxury marque in 1958, if the success of the '58 Thunderbird was any indication. Packard could have used the new Studebaker hardtop coupe, which looked genuinely fresh, as the base and added several inches to the hood/front axle to create an elegant long hood/short deck car with bucket seats and a center console. Coupled with a Packard V8 such a car might have been viewed as "truly Packard". It still wouldn't have solved the larger problem of Studebaker wanting out of car production but at least the Packard name might have been kept alive as it continued searching for a new home.

Quote:

Mahoning63.

I'm not sure the argument/opinions presented here are exactly opposite. I wouldn't argue against Jack's point about the unforgiving and unsentinmental nature of most board meetings. I just decry what could have been either a better final tribute or a better transition model (if salvation were to come about) than the Studebaker-powered "Packards." Also, a fairly hard-nosed case could've been made for reducing inventory of the Packard V8 (if there was even much to reduce) by using it in the Packardbakers, IMO.

Your comment on "It still wouldn't have solved the larger problem of Studebaker wanting out of car production..." is kind of puzzling. It's not apparent to me that they wanted "out" but wanted to salvage what they could, and it just wasn't feasible in their minds to salvage two brands.

Interesting thing about the Mercedes connection. S-P actually had a distribution agreement with Mercedes Benz. It was in the late 50's, not sure how or when it started or even if it was implemented, but I clearly remember seeing an S-P ad about it in an old National Geographic when I was a kid (yes, I was more interested in the car ads than the native pics--don't know what that says about me).

Wish I could find that ad somewhere and lay out some bona-fide proof. Someone else here probably knows more about it, as per usual, because I'm not an expert.

Guy - you are quite right about the M-B connection. Here's an informative link:

http://jalopnik.com/5770530/a-studebaker-300sl

My comment about Studebaker's board wanting out stems from the events that immediately followed the '59 Lark's success. Harold Churchill fathered that car and wanted the brief but healthy profits directed toward a new design. His plan was rejected by the board. From what I have read, they just didn't see the value in car production anymore.

My comment about opposites refers to the idea of a fitting farewell for Packard. In the eyes of the board, Packard was done. The ensuing Packardbakers were, from what I understand, simply an anti-dealership lawsuit tactic and were never meant to honor anything more, certainly not the grand old marque. Perhaps the deal with M-B was the next step in this strategy. All pretty sad because Packard, imho, still had control of its destiny as late as 1952-55 but it's president in those years was in way over his head.

While I think the OP makes a good case, sadly, the odds were COMPLETELY against Packard...

1. The Utica engine plant was gone. Therefore, no more Packard V8s.

2. Despite sticking the Packard name/accouterments on the President body shell, by 1957 the LAST thing S-P wanted was to associate the Packard name with ANYTHING. The only reasons for "Packardbakers" were legal reasons (this is IMHO).

Let's not forget that despite technical innovations for '55-'56, Packard production and sales went DOWN in a time period when US automobile production was at record HIGH levels.

Who wants to associate with a loser? Despite OUR fondness for the marque, this was the perception of Packard AT THAT TIME.

As we all know, had company executives made different decisions...what might have been, indeed!

3. Also, even with (for all intents and purposes) Packard's complete demise, S-P was still struggling. They had to make business decisions quickly that would cost them as little precious operating capital as possible.

MIDan,

I think that sums it up pretty well.