Packard Forum Index » General

I thought this abomination had died a number of years ago

http://www.packardmotorcar.com/

Seems the website and nonsense about a new Packard is still alive and kicking (the copyright declaration is 2014)

Exhibit A




Exhibit B



I rest my case.

I'm sorry but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out or understand why so many people have their knickers in a knot over this car. Granted it is not a classic 20's, or 30's, nor a 40's or 50's, but it carries some Packard features and it is keeping within the style of the cars of the times. True it uses some of the styling of other cars, but that is what every other car maker does. Granted the price is a bit over the top, but truth to tell if I had the money I would buy one. I think it is stylish and good looking. My only regret is the guy did not have enough money build the other two styles, a 2dr and a convertible.

ALK

I generally agree with Al about the car and the styling, it's not far removed from and consistent with the general style of the era and had some nice styling cues from Packard's past, and a rather potent Ryan Falconer V-12 engine. Whether the venture ever had a chance of commercial success or not, and I think not, he certainly didn't help his cause any by antagonizing the Packard fraternity by his actions, his choice to exhibit the car in Cleveland rather than at the 1999 Centennial where he might have found support and possibly future customers, but more so by his harassment of the hobby clubs and suppliers via his threats to sue over trademark issues and I suspect this is the cause for some of the residual harsh feeling about the venture.

You are comparing a late 90's design with a 2013 range rover. Its kinda like apples and oranges. In the last 15 yrs a lot has changed in the interior. 15 yrs ago we didn't even know what a touch screen was, and a blue tooth was something that required you to go to the dentist

I think that Lincoln and Chrysler are doing a good job with classic style. It would be better if they just started a new car company as the Packard name doesn't mean anything to many people, even some that like classic cars.

You know, if Packard were in business today, its cars would not look anymore like its cars from the 1940s or 1950s anymore than Lincolns or Cadillacs. It is absurd to think that anyone trying to design to modern version of a brand that went extinct in 1956 (for all intent and purpose, apologies to Studebaker). Packard today would definitely be as cutting edge as Mercedes Benz or Audi or Cadillac, with a plethira of state-of-the-art electronics, safety features, and aerodynamic styling. To assume that a 2014 Packard would resemble anything like a 60-year-old antique is unreasonable.

While I am not particularly fond of the 1999 model, I do not think that the attempt was not necessarily a bad one. It is not perfect, of course; but compared to abominations like the Excaliber and Avanti II. Those were truly abominations, compared to what they were based upon.

In 1955, Packard, struggling as it fought to survive, managed to bring out a new V-8 engine, an updated body, a revamped transmission, and, most astonishingly of all, a complete torsion bar suspension. This was not the actions of a company chained to its past, but the actions of a company that wanted to go on living: Innovative, modern, and cutting edge.

This is what Packard's founders and presidents would have wanted: cars that set the standards for their times with a clear eye to the future. Anyone who is willing to try to recreate that concept deserves our respect, not derision.

Well, I can see you guys are in a forgiving mood.

The styling is of course a personal thing. Granted there are the Packard styling cues somewhere in there but IMHO it seems a bit amateurish even given its 1990's origins.

No, its not the styling per se that I find disappointing - its the overall quality and engineering which is plainly woeful and can only be an affront to the Packard name.

As Dave (OD) says, they've challenged copyright issues over the brand etc. Firms do this when they feel the proliferation isn't done is a way that supports their brand value. I think that's quite ironic in this case.

I cant agree that this sort of effort deserves respect.

Well, I understand your point of view. As I said, I am not particularly fond of it either. My point about giving its builder his due comes from the standpoint that at least he was thinking in terms of the present (i.e. 1999) as opposed to "tributes" to the past such as Avanti IIs, Excalibers, and Zimmers. He was trying to fashion something that could exist with a Packard badge. Had Packard survived until today, I am certain that what he came up with would not be what the company would be building. He created his concept car literally from a vacuum; whereas a continuing automobile manufacturer would develop its future models from existing ones. He build the car from the ground up, including its V-12 engine. That is no small feat and it certainly was not cheap. Since it is a one-off car, I am not surprised that there were quality and engineering issues. Packard faced those problems with its cars at various times as well, particularly in the mid 1950s and I would suspect when the company first started in 1899.

My point here is that the 1999 Packard is what it is -- an attempt by an individual to create a current model of an extinct brand. While it may not meet everyone's expectations in terms of styling and quality; this was his vision. He deserves respect for at least being willing to put his money where his mouth is; which is a hell of a lot more than most of us would be willing to do.

Kinda hard to start a new car company when all you can produce in 20 years are some pictures, one car, and a set of 1930's running board mouldings.

Building their reputation one running board molding at a time. who knows, they may expand their offering to tail light lenses? We'd all appreciate more options for quality new parts, right?