what the hell is a Packard


crayzayjay
11-21-2001, 07:13 PM
I'm assuming we're not talking PC's here :)

cheers
jay

ZondaFreak02
05-23-2002, 06:24 PM
they are really old cars

Scott 02
01-21-2003, 10:49 PM
I will find a picture of one. From what i head they made good family cars and were real cheap at the time. They are becoming very rare to find in the USA

crayzayjay
01-23-2003, 02:28 PM
Seek, Scott, seek! :D

tigermiata
01-23-2003, 02:34 PM
"what the hell is a Packard "

what the hell is an Abarth?:devil:

I suspect you already know what Packards are...

Deakins
01-23-2003, 02:36 PM
psss, wannabe Rolls-Royce :D

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 03:49 PM
LMAO, wanna be rolls royce. they were just your standard family car with a touch of the true american style.

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 03:53 PM
Not the best looking picture out there, but this can get you an idea of what they looked like.

1940 Packard Touring Edition & Packard 120

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 03:54 PM
This is the touring edition from 1940

hybridsol
01-23-2003, 04:16 PM
Packardís first vehicle was a luxury car built like 100 years ago. The company was forced to close 40 years ago (due to chevy) In 94 (Roy and Barbara Gulickson Gullickson Gullioucson ????? its one of those?) bought the rights to Packard. The company is based in Arizona and is aimed at the luxury low-volume market. The first Packard automobile was built in 1899 in Warren Ohio. The automobile was very popular and brought about the formation of the (Ohio Automobile Company) which evolved into the (Packard Motor Car) Company in 1902. Production of the Packard automobiles ran until around 1958. until 94 when the rights were bought and low production resumed. The new 12's look kinda like a rolls and a jaguar......to tell you the truth they look confused.:D

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 04:18 PM
Well hell, just explain and show the whole history of the packard since you got it started that much.

tigermiata
01-23-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Scott 02
Well hell, just explain and show the whole history of the packard since you got it started that much.

Be careful what you ask for. I just bought/read a history of Packard... I might start typing the whole thing here.:bandit:

Lots of innovations from that company. Maybe R-R's are British wannabe Packards!:devil:

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 05:02 PM
Go for it. Waiting to hear since i don't know a whole lot about them. I found alot of info. I would probably get a PM from a moderator if i list all of it. :D

Deakins
01-23-2003, 06:07 PM
I was refering the the hood ornament.

Scott 02
01-23-2003, 10:12 PM
You want to know what the hood ornament on the packards are huh? Well im not sure on that one, im sure its easy to find what it is. Im waiting to find out myself now that i have thought about it this last min.

hybridsol
01-24-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Scott 02
You want to know what the hood ornament on the packards are huh? Well im not sure on that one, im sure its easy to find what it is. Im waiting to find out myself now that i have thought about it this last min.
He was reffering to the flying lady hood ornament. Otherwise known as the (spirit of ecstacy) which has been a part of Rolls-Royce motor cars since 1911.

crayzayjay
01-24-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by tigermiata
"what the hell is a Packard "

what the hell is an Abarth?:devil:

I suspect you already know what Packards are...

ummm... nope... i didnt know "what the hell" a Packard was...

i suspect you already know about Abarth :p

Deakins
01-24-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by hybridsol

He was reffering to the flying lady hood ornament. Otherwise known as the (spirit of ecstacy) which has been a part of Rolls-Royce motor cars since 1911.

And Packards shameless copy from 1926, the "Goddess of Speed"

Scott 02
01-25-2003, 07:57 AM
Yeah, they were sure not the fastest things back then. The "goddes of speed" ornament looks pretty good.

crayzayjay
01-25-2003, 08:52 AM
The Goddess of Speed?!?! :hehehe:

you gotta be kiddin me!

Thunda Downunda
01-25-2003, 09:50 AM
To my mind, Packard was easily a Rolls Royce competitor. Indeed I've read that the supposedly vaunted R/R Phanton II (I think) was a later and blatant engineering copy of a Packard V12, yet apparently not its equal. Packard had many 'firsts' to their name, including the first vehicle to be air-conditioned. They were always in the upper echelon of fine cars but were like all hit hard by the Depression, which is when they broadened their product lines with a 'Junior' Packard range somewhat downmarket into Buick territory. These saved the company yet cheapened the 'Senior' edition's name in the public's eye.

Postwar Packards were very well engineered pieces and, excluding Duesenberg, had what must be the mutha of all straight-8s, a mammoth and milky smooth 357 (?) CID featuring nine main-bearings.

In the early 50s the old firm was revitalised with dynamic new management and tried to again capture its place expressly at the top of the market. Despite dwindling sales they still had sufficient capitol reserves to produce a new (and final) model-series which featured a big new V8, their own automatic trans, and novel torsion bar suspension - interlinked front to rear.

However Studebaker (by then almost bankrupt and hemmoraging cash) in a highly dubious deal took over Packard - in reality to gain access to Packard's financial reserves - and bled it dry. I think genuine Packard product died in 1956 or thereabouts although Studebaker milked the famous old name for a couple of years with Packard-engined rebadged Studebakers. Somewhat mercifully, the marque disappeared altogether in 1958

By no means their finest or largest (it's the only photo I've stored of a Packard) but here's a cute 1930s boat-tail speedster

Hudson
01-27-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by hybridsol
Packardís first vehicle was a luxury car built like 100 years ago. The company was forced to close 40 years ago (due to chevy) In 94 (Roy and Barbara Gulickson Gullickson Gullioucson ????? its one of those?) bought the rights to Packard. The company is based in Arizona and is aimed at the luxury low-volume market. The first Packard automobile was built in 1899 in Warren Ohio. The automobile was very popular and brought about the formation of the (Ohio Automobile Company) which evolved into the (Packard Motor Car) Company in 1902. Production of the Packard automobiles ran until around 1958. until 94 when the rights were bought and low production resumed. The new 12's look kinda like a rolls and a jaguar......to tell you the truth they look confused.:D

What did Chevrolet have to do with the closing of Packard? I think you've mixed up some history there.

The "new" Packard is nothing more than two mockups (one runs). The "company" (technically just the name, logos, and the prototypes and parts) was being auctioned off on ebay last year.

crayzayjay
01-27-2003, 06:33 PM
auctioned on ebay? :hehehe:
somehow i dont see that happening to Rolls Royce anytime soon... hehe..

how much did it fetch anyway?

Hudson
01-27-2003, 10:24 PM
Rolls-Royce is an operating entity. Packard, on the other hand, is not...and hasn't been since 1958.

The owners wanted a million dollars for it...it brought just over 1/4 of that. I never heard if they sold it.

Hudson
01-27-2003, 10:28 PM
Come to think of it...Rolls-Royce was auctioned off a few years ago. In 1998, Volkswagen won the bidding for the company for about $800 million. Unfortunately, that didn't include the grille, the mascot, or THE NAME! BMW ended up in control after paying the owner of those three items about $60 million.

hybridsol
01-28-2003, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Hudson


What did Chevrolet have to do with the closing of Packard? I think you've mixed up some history there.

The "new" Packard is nothing more than two mockups (one runs). The "company" (technically just the name, logos, and the prototypes and parts) was being auctioned off on ebay last year.
Are you farmiliar with James Ward who wrote "The Fall of The Packard Motor Car Company?" He seems to put particular blame on the early development of chevrolet styling. As well as the end of defense contract profits from the korean war, and Detroits big three carrying "loaded cars at cheaper prices".

As for the new packard I was only aware of a prototype, and that the rights had been bought. The Prototype had full time all wheel drive, and a V12 aluminium engine. With 440hp/440ft-lbs of torque.

Hudson
01-28-2003, 01:14 PM
That is the "new" Packard. There is, apparently, another non-running example.

As for Chevrolet ruining Packard, it seems difficult for me to follow that logic. Packard's buyers didn't care about Chevrolet and probably wouldn't even acknowledge that the "lowly" brand existed. Chevrolet (as well as the rest of GM) had started a styling war in the 1940s and 1950s, but CADILLAC should be put more at blame for the intense competition in the styling department. Packard's problem wasn't Chevrolet, it was small size of the company compared to the giants of GM, Ford, and Chrysler who provided the closest competition to one of the last independent US brands.

crayzayjay
01-28-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Hudson
Come to think of it...Rolls-Royce was auctioned off a few years ago. In 1998, Volkswagen won the bidding for the company for about $800 million. Unfortunately, that didn't include the grille, the mascot, or THE NAME! BMW ended up in control after paying the owner of those three items about $60 million.

I briefly recall reading about the sale of Rolls in passing. I think theres an article about it in a recent mag i bought... i remember there was some other interesting stuff :)

crayzayjay
01-28-2003, 01:55 PM
Hybridsol>

that is one ugly looking thing!

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?postid=747138

:apuke:

Deakins
01-28-2003, 02:01 PM
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/packard1.jpg
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/packard2.jpg
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/packard3.jpg
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/packard4.jpg

crayzayjay
01-28-2003, 03:04 PM
Deakins! :mad:

Are you trying to make me puke? :hehehe:

Scott 02
01-28-2003, 03:45 PM
LOL what the hell is that a picture of?

tigermiata
01-28-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Scott 02
LOL what the hell is that a picture of?

That's definitely supposed to be a Packard grille.

The rest of the car? Purina Coral Reef Chow. :bloated:

DblOvrhedCamron
01-28-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Hudson
That is the "new" Packard. There is, apparently, another non-running example.

As for Chevrolet ruining Packard, it seems difficult for me to follow that logic. Packard's buyers didn't care about Chevrolet and probably wouldn't even acknowledge that the "lowly" brand existed. Chevrolet (as well as the rest of GM) had started a styling war in the 1940s and 1950s, but CADILLAC should be put more at blame for the intense competition in the styling department. Packard's problem wasn't Chevrolet, it was small size of the company compared to the giants of GM, Ford, and Chrysler who provided the closest competition to one of the last independent US brands. Chrysler put out prototypes in late 50's(earlier models unsuccessful), GM, chevy, cadillac (what do you think GM is?) had cars designed by the late 40's and packard was put out of buisness by 56.

He's quoteing a noted historian.

Hudson
01-28-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron
Chrysler put out prototypes in late 50's(earlier models unsuccessful), GM, chevy, cadillac (what do you think GM is?) had cars designed by the late 40's and packard was put out of buisness by 56.

He's quoteing a noted historian.

I know the book...and I'm a published automotive historian as well.

I'm not talking "prototypes" since they don't affect the competition significantly. Chrysler, Lincoln, and Cadillac were the primary competition for Packard after WWII. And Packard stopped making cars after the 1958 model year.

hybridsol
01-29-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Hudson


I know the book...and I'm a published automotive historian as well.

I'm not talking "prototypes" since they don't affect the competition significantly. Chrysler, Lincoln, and Cadillac were the primary competition for Packard after WWII. And Packard stopped making cars after the 1958 model year.
He's right, but the last "true" Packard automobile was produced June 25, 1956, marking the end of production at Packardís Connor Avenue plant in Detroit. Although Packard continued to manufacture cars in South Bend, Indiana until 1958, for some reason the 1956 model is considered the last true Packard car. But production continued until 1958.

BTW- Hudson I'm not in any way, doubting your knowledge of automotive history. I was only quoting a noted historian, who holds a masters degree from perdue, and a docterate from LSU. To my knowledge he is (one of) or "the most recognized packard historian". I'm not an automotive historian. I'm a mechanical engineer major who appreciate's fine automotives, and makes a point of learning more about them.

hybridsol
01-29-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
Hybridsol>

that is one ugly looking thing!

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?postid=747138

:apuke:
sorry jay not the prettiest thing.

crayzayjay
01-29-2003, 03:09 PM
lol! i coulda chucked up ! :apuke:

tino
07-19-2003, 04:29 AM
go packard

tino
07-19-2003, 04:30 AM
:loser:

tino
07-19-2003, 04:31 AM
loser

DblOvrhedCamron
07-19-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by tino
loser
yes you are for posting in an ancient thread. :biggrin2:

Tiburon99
02-17-2004, 04:31 PM
so actualy ford was not americas first automakr right?

Tiburon99
02-19-2004, 05:35 PM
well, packards mustbe real fast or soething, because my grandfather used his to outrun the police back in 1940's or 1950's! really dont know true years.

sub006
03-01-2005, 12:58 AM
Packard hood ornament looks like a swan (bird). They called it a "cormorant".

Twitch1
03-01-2005, 01:01 PM
This is my Packard
http://www.aaca.org/photopost/data/504/2136500leftfront1-med.jpg?2419

proudfordowner
07-25-2005, 10:06 AM
This is my Packard
http://www.aaca.org/photopost/data/504/2136500leftfront1-med.jpg?2419


wow twitch you got some nice oldies :naughty:

Curt J
07-26-2005, 10:32 PM
And here is my 1939 Packard 1700 Series Touring Sedan

img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/astuteobserver/1939Packard1700SeriesTouringSedan.jpg

GPFred
07-25-2006, 11:20 AM
I helped my father restore a 37 super-eight touring. Ended up selling it as the body was cracked and he couldn't fix that. Have a lot of good memories, for the most part, of going to various auto shows around the country to find parts and manuals, etc. I hated the process of restoring the chassis, a lot of rust to be ground off. :)

MagicRat
07-25-2006, 08:29 PM
Nice cars. I regret the Packard that I let get away; a 1951 in unrestored, good driving condition, owned for 45 years by a church, for $1200.

Ralph Marontate
03-28-2007, 10:21 PM
The cars produced in the 1930's were mostly family sedans or business coupes with some convertibles being offered. Sports cars came years later.
Before the WWII Packard had a loyal following. As the depression ebbed Packard needed to expand its market so in 1937 it brought out the 120 Series. A true Packard but priced to compete with more middle priced market cars which sold in far more numbers than Senior Packard's competition which were the Pierce Arrow, Cadillac, Imperial, and Lincoln.
Packard introduced the Clipper in 1941 and was an outstanding style leader. The 1951 and 1956 Packard models were styling sensations and had many engineering features like a reversible seat cushions, V-8 engine, Ultramatic transmission, and a motor driven load leveler.
In 1946 George Mason, Nash CEO, predicted the independents could not survive without consolidating. He wanted Nash, Packard, Studebaker, and Hudson to merge into one company, United Motors, to share parts and to each build for one market price segment. All four cars would be sold at each existing dealership and they would cover 100% of the price market.
No body listened all believing their new postwar models would win consumers over. They each had thier own great plans for the future but they were rooted in styling and design and that is only part of being viable.
They forgot the unions would be unwielding in their demands that they pay the same benfits as the "Big Three." To end or avoid a strike they gave in to the unions but it required taking money from engineering, designing, and dealership development.
Soon the dealer's losing money gave up thier franchise and the ones that stayed could not afford to modernize their operation.
As the number and quality of thier dealerships declined the Big Three opened scores of larger and more modern retail facilities.
GM Ford and Chrysler built cars in all price classes and reaped substantial savings in using the same parts across the various car lines.
The independents suffered with duplication of departments and using parts over far fewer cars. Their manufacturing, advertising, and sales costs were much higher making their break even production higher when compared to GM Ford or Chrysler. When the companies went out in the 1950's the unions blamed "weak management". The public bought their cars but not enough of them as the cost of doing business required more and more be built each year against a hopelessly shrinking market for other than the cars of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
So in judging the Nash, Hudson, Packard, or Studebaker cars of that time remember their demise was due to economic pressures beyond the control of the managers, not the cars themselves, they were great.
Also know that from 1930 to 1950 the Big Three held a 90% market share, leaving only a 10% market share among the independents.
Auburn, Pierce Arrow, Reo, Continental, Marmon, Graham, Hupp, and Willys were forced out of the market by 1940 leaving only Nash, Hudson, Packard, and Studebaker as the last four independents.
After the war, with a pent up demand, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Willys, and newcomers Kaiser, and Frazier sold cars for a while but by the mid 1950's all the independents were all but done. In 1954 they had less than 4% of the market. Nash lived on as AMC until 1987.
Now GM. Ford, and Chrysler are battling for survival. Their 90% market share, they once had, is now at 49%. Union demands since the 1930's have forced upon them high wages, healthcare obligations, and retirement income burdens, and profit sharing.
Regarding profit sharing, I always felt if someone wanted profits of the company they would purchase shares in it.
Unions also believe the managers of a company are way overpaid and get obscene bonuses. Well, let the workers form and run their own car company. They can then distribute the profits to everybody and be as generous to themselves in benefits as they want.
Will the unions wake up to the realities of the 2007 market and curb their demands or destroy GM, Ford, and Chrysler by demanding benefits and wages affordable in the last century when foreign competition did not exist?
The car companies future is in the hands of the union and that future is independent of the cars the companies offer. Unrealistic demands by the unions will determine the fate of GM, Ford, and Chrysler as the independents car makers of the last century found out.
As someone once said, "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it"

CoriolisSTORM
05-25-2007, 05:36 PM
The cars produced in the 1930's were mostly family sedans or business coupes with some convertibles being offered. Sports cars came years later.
Before the WWII Packard had a loyal following. As the depression ebbed Packard needed to expand its market so in 1937 it brought out the 120 Series. A true Packard but priced to compete with more middle priced market cars which sold in far more numbers than Senior Packard's competition which were the Pierce Arrow, Cadillac, Imperial, and Lincoln.
Packard introduced the Clipper in 1941 and was an outstanding style leader. The 1951 and 1956 Packard models were styling sensations and had many engineering features like a reversible seat cushions, V-8 engine, Ultramatic transmission, and a motor driven load leveler.
In 1946 George Mason, Nash CEO, predicted the independents could not survive without consolidating. He wanted Nash, Packard, Studebaker, and Hudson to merge into one company, United Motors, to share parts and to each build for one market price segment. All four cars would be sold at each existing dealership and they would cover 100% of the price market.
No body listened all believing their new postwar models would win consumers over. They each had thier own great plans for the future but they were rooted in styling and design and that is only part of being viable.
They forgot the unions would be unwielding in their demands that they pay the same benfits as the "Big Three." To end or avoid a strike they gave in to the unions but it required taking money from engineering, designing, and dealership development.
Soon the dealer's losing money gave up thier franchise and the ones that stayed could not afford to modernize their operation.
As the number and quality of thier dealerships declined the Big Three opened scores of larger and more modern retail facilities.
GM Ford and Chrysler built cars in all price classes and reaped substantial savings in using the same parts across the various car lines.
The independents suffered with duplication of departments and using parts over far fewer cars. Their manufacturing, advertising, and sales costs were much higher making their break even production higher when compared to GM Ford or Chrysler. When the companies went out in the 1950's the unions blamed "weak management". The public bought their cars but not enough of them as the cost of doing business required more and more be built each year against a hopelessly shrinking market for other than the cars of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
So in judging the Nash, Hudson, Packard, or Studebaker cars of that time remember their demise was due to economic pressures beyond the control of the managers, not the cars themselves, they were great.
Also know that from 1930 to 1950 the Big Three held a 90% market share, leaving only a 10% market share among the independents.
Auburn, Pierce Arrow, Reo, Continental, Marmon, Graham, Hupp, and Willys were forced out of the market by 1940 leaving only Nash, Hudson, Packard, and Studebaker as the last four independents.
After the war, with a pent up demand, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Willys, and newcomers Kaiser, and Frazier sold cars for a while but by the mid 1950's all the independents were all but done. In 1954 they had less than 4% of the market. Nash lived on as AMC until 1987.
Now GM. Ford, and Chrysler are battling for survival. Their 90% market share, they once had, is now at 49%. Union demands since the 1930's have forced upon them high wages, healthcare obligations, and retirement income burdens, and profit sharing.
Regarding profit sharing, I always felt if someone wanted profits of the company they would purchase shares in it.
Unions also believe the managers of a company are way overpaid and get obscene bonuses. Well, let the workers form and run their own car company. They can then distribute the profits to everybody and be as generous to themselves in benefits as they want.
Will the unions wake up to the realities of the 2007 market and curb their demands or destroy GM, Ford, and Chrysler by demanding benefits and wages affordable in the last century when foreign competition did not exist?
The car companies future is in the hands of the union and that future is independent of the cars the companies offer. Unrealistic demands by the unions will determine the fate of GM, Ford, and Chrysler as the independents car makers of the last century found out.
As someone once said, "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it"
I love you for posting that brilliant essay, others will argue with me, but I believe it is true.

mark glicker
06-02-2012, 11:01 AM
Looks like they are finally razing the old Packard plant.

Add your comment to this topic!