Packard

That was the day my sister was born, 50 years ago this week, but it was my understanding that production ended in June of '56.

During the Documentary "Studebaker - Less Than They Promised" an interview was done with a former Stude Executive (I can't recall his name, I'll have to watch the tape). He described the merger as "Two drunks trying to help each other across the street".

I think the sudden loss of the body supplier at Packard threw the company into crisis. Studebaker, geared up to do a quarter of a million cars a year, was running at about half capacity. Focus at Studebaker had shifted from the boom war years to finding the break even point in a saturated market. Studebaker saw more volume by bringing in the much smaller Packard volume. The merger made sense on paper.

The reason it didn't work was financial. Packard, being a much smaller company, was overwhelmed by the volume at Studebaker. The dealer force at Studebaker was more powerful than the Packard dealer force. The focus of management evolved into how to preserve the Studebaker volume, and that buried the Packard mentality of high quality and low production. Studebaker-Packard could not afford to do business in the Packard manner. Studebaker couldn't afford to develop an introduce it's own new model, let alone introduce a new Packard. Packard was the purchaser of Studebaker on paper, but that was only to satisfy investors and banks that Packard was in control. The name order of the merged company gives more insight into who really was to end up calling the shots.

Read the book,"The rise and fall of the Packard Motor Car Company"

1. Nance was in South Bend in 55 and 56.
2. AMC wanted to use the Studebaker V-8 and Nance said no, then wanted to use the Nash six for cars and AMC said no. There was to be a sharing of parts but it only went one way at first then not at all.
3. Packard sales collapsed in 56 by 67% over 55.
4. The companies may have made it if they had one or two more years to work it out.
5. Packard sales dropped from around 90,000 in 53 to 28,000 in 54. Studebaker 150,000 in 53 to 85,000 in 54.

What most people do not realize that all the seeds of doom were planted in 1950 when all the independents share was at 15% of the market. There was no need seen to merge then as Studebaker had it best volume year ever. In 1953 two things happened. The first that gets all the attention is the volume production between Ford and Chevrolet. The second thing that happened is the Fed tighten up money supply in 1953 and did not loosen up to later in 1954. The end result was all the independents saw market share drop to less than combined 7%.

Look at the housing market now. Fed has increased the interest rate for the past 18 months. Granted there was investor money that fueled the increase in prices that has now disappeared, but people are not in a hurry to buy, except in certain markets such as Texas right now. The refinance boom is over also for the time being except for people needing cash out from the high equity in there home.

Bob Miles Tucson AZ

I always liked the 55 and 56 Packards. They were more technically advance in many ways then their compeditors. I could never figure out why they didn't sell better. I heard that the Convertibles weren't built until the had the money to build them and by that time the orders were cancelled. Americans want what they want now.

Oh well I prefer smaller cars and couldn't buy what I wanted then. Today I have my 64 Convertible and it is evolving from a fun to drive convertible to the car I would have odrered if Studebaker had bulit them 1 more year with their own egines.

Geno

64 Daytona Convertible

Geno:

The 1955 Packards didn't sell better because they couldn't build them. Complications with an all-new assembly plant (Conner Avenue) that proved to be too small, Packard having to make their own bodies because Chrysler said "no" after buying former Packard body supplier Briggs, and minor issues with the new V-8 and Torsion-Level, all conspired to keep early production 'way down. The dealers just had no cars to sell. I know; I was there.

To wit: As most Turning Wheels readers know, my father was a Packard dealer from 1953 through 1956. He and his brother were real excited about the new '55 Packards; they looked good and finally had a V-8 under the hood...and a good, powerful one to boot.

But umpteen production snafus kept the cars from getting to the dealers...and when they did finally start trickling in, they were plaqued with quality-control issues.

Point: It was either the last week of January or the first week of February 1955 before my Dad got his FIRST -repeat, FIRST- 1955 Packard of any kind. He was so frustrated he wrote his own advertisement (I still have a copy, as printed in the local paper), encouraging customers to wait until they had some new 1955 Packards to show and sell at Palma Motors.

I've heard the following story at least a dozen times through the years, so I am sure it is true:

By Christmas 1954, of course, all the dealers had been selling 1955 everythings for several months. But Palma Motors wasn't selling any Packards, that's for sure.They were doing OK selling Nashes and Ramblers, but no Packards because there were none to be had.

Into the dealership during Christmas vacation 1954 walks an existing Packard customer with college-age son in tow, home from college for Christmas. Son had been given permission to pick out the next family car and really liked the new Packard Clippers, so in they came to Palma Motors to buy one. Oops! No 1955 Packards or Clippers in stock and none on the way.

Before Christmas vacation was over, Dad saw that customer and his son tooling around town in a new Buick Special. Multiply that scenario by several thousand and you get the idea of why 1955 Packard sales were nowhere near as good as they could have been.

Then, by the time the improved 1956s came out, the quality issues of the 1955s were becom> I always liked the 55 and 56 Packards. They were more technically

Right on, Bob! A strong family tie here.