(first posted 7/14/2017. Updated 7/14/2023)
(Edit: The original version of this post misidentified the feature vehicle as a 1951 Packard.)
My wife Kristen and I recently spent a weekend in the Youngstown region of Ohio with our SLK Roadster to celebrate 17 fabulous years of marriage. While the details of my trip will likely not be of interest to this crew, the fact that Mahoning County is a goldmine of derelict cars surely will be. I’ve already previously posted one of my finds from this trip: The Brain Melting cars of CARS, LLC in Beloit, Ohio. Next up, this 1952 Packard 200 Deluxe I spotted on the same trip.
1951 marked a watershed year for Packard. These were the first postwar Packards, replacing the much-derided “bathtub” models, whose platform dated to 1941. Financial constraints forced Packard to stretch their prewar tooling longer than just about any other manufacturer: Other makers had launched their new postwar cars several years earlier, in 1949. However, this “late mover” advantage gave Packard fresh product in the showroom when most other makers were on the tail end of their previous product lifecycles.
This generation of Packard marked the end of any significant visual differentiation between the “Junior” 200 line and the “Senior” 300 and 400 Patrician lines. This lack of differentiation is illustrated by my challenge in pinpointing the exact model of this car: The low hood ornament, non-wrap around rear window and single spear of chrome trim on the side identify this as a 200 series car. The toothy grille, three “jet louvers” on the side and chrome wheel covers further indicate that this is a 200 Deluxe model, whose upgrades from the base 200 model seem to be limited to the aforementioned trim bits.
About those three “jet louvers:” In 1951, they were exclusive to the 400 Patrician model. However, Packard dealers sometimes applied higher-end trim bits to lower-end cars to spice them up, which is what I first thought I was looking at here. But no, in my research, Packard made the louvers standard on the 200 Deluxe in 1952, further cheapening the currency of the Senior models in the process.
1951 would also be the last time Packard sold over 100,000 units in a single model year. While this sounds impressive, the break-even point was likely 50% higher than that. Sales dropped to less than 70,000 for the 1952 model year, beginning Packard’s long sales decline from which it would never recover. Due in part to the lack of distinction between the Junior and Senior lines, nearly three-fourths of 1952 models were the Junior 200 series models, making this 1952 200 one of the most common Packards made that year. Packard’s quest for volume unfortunately meant that its resulting descent from prestige automaker to mid-market was well underway by this point, probably past the point of no return.
This particular example appears to be a reasonably well-equipped model, sporting such options as Ultramatic Drive automatic transmission ($189), Two-tone paint ($20), and backup lights ($14).
Prior to about 1950, Detroit did not put much effort into styling the rear end of their cars. Most of their styling effort was applied to front, while the rear usually got generic tail lamps and uninspired bumpers. Next time you are at a car show and you see a lineup of pre-war cars, look at them from the rear and you will see what I mean. They all look pretty much the same.
Harley Earl changed all that in 1949 with the first post-war Cadillacs and their (emerging) tail fins. Unfortunately, Packard did not have the resources of GM, and in 1951 their cars were still leaving the factory with frumpy, unstyled rear ends like the one pictured above. Packard didn’t really pick up their rear styling game until the 1955 models with their now-iconic “Cathedral” tail lights.
This car was somewhat challenging to photograph. The rear end is, to be polite, bulbous. Close-up shots (combined with the 28mm focal length of my iPhone 7 camera) tend to exaggerate the curves and make the rear end look bloated. Longer shots like the one above using the 56mm lens seem to flatter the shape of this car better.
For some reason, cars from the 1950s always appear to be smaller than they actually are in photographs – maybe it is all the curves, or maybe we are not used to the different proportions of cars of this era. Make no mistake: This is a massive car. For starters, it towers over modern cars. As you approach it, the roof is easily at eye level, like a modern CUV. Its 122 in. wheelbase eclipses a late-model Town Car (117.7 in), and puts it on par with the long-wheelbase Lexus LS460 (121.7 in).
Note the SLK photobombing in the back
The other thing this part of Ohio seems to have in abundance (besides derelict cars) is seedy roadside motels, of the kind preferred by Sam and Dean Winchester in Supernatural. So it is only fitting that this particular find combines both.
This part of Ohio, being only about an hour from Pittsburgh, used to be a steel manufacturing behemoth. Unfortunately, it has suffered greatly over the past several decades of recessions, plant closings, and population loss. The Packard, like the motel it is parked in front of, have both seen better days, and alas their best days are probably behind them.
Update 7/14/2023:
According to Google Street View, the Packard (which was parked in the same spot since at least 2013) is now gone as of October 2022.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1951 Packard 200 (And Packard History) – Falling Down(Market) PN
Now I’m sad!
I still remember my piano teacher, residence was next door to dad’s Chevrolet dealership, had one of these parked in the carport out back. By the time I was taking lessons, she was already in her 60’s (she was a student of a student of Mendelsson’s – a big deal back then), and her physician husband was already long since retired.
About one a year, one of their sons would come to visit, get the car started up again, and use it for his transportation around town during his visit. Then it would get parked under the carport again, to sit there until the next year.
Never did find out what happened to the car, always assumed the son took it after they died.
This is a sad sight. The upshot is this deterioration is being offset by a similar Packard where I live that is slowly being refurbished. I will periodically see it being driven near my house and it’s been painted and the chrome reinstalled so far this summer.
For some odd reason, the area near my house is a hotbed for seeing attention getting cars in motion, with a Lamborghini Aventador passing in front of me yesterday. Somebody else has a pristine Corvair. Not sure why as I don’t live near any thoroughfares.
These must populate the CC universe pretty evenly, as I have been sitting on some shots of one too. These were a definite improvement over the 48-50 bathtub cars.
I’ve always wonder how things would’ve turned out had Ford acquired Packard at some point between 1953 and 1955, instead of Ford forming the Continental and Edsel divisions, and Packard waiting for a deal with AMC and Studebaker (which, for various reasons often discussed, was not to be).
Alas, ’twas not to happen for at least a couple of (and probably many more) reasons. At that time, I’m not sure that Packard’s leadership was convinced they couldn’t make it as an independent maker, and perhaps more importantly, Ford was getting ready to go public in early 1956. I don’t know if Ford had enough cash prior to going public, and a stock deal would’ve been difficult, if not downright impossible.
Among the many more reasons is the “Whiz Kids factor.” Could you imagine the reaction of McNamara and his bevy of efficiency experts, once they analyzed the production methods at Packard’s antiquated (although beautiful) East Grand Avenue Plant? Or the power struggles that might have ensued?
McNamara would have never made it to Washington DC. He would have died of apoplectic shock after touring Packard’s facilities and examining their books.
I wonder how Packard would have faired if they stayed independent and not succumbed to the merger fever that was sweeping the US independent automakers at the time. Buying Studebaker sunk them. Until then, they were reasonably healthy. Porsche survived on their own for decades selling as many cars as Packard typically did each year.
I wonder about this, too. Packard as an individual entity surely would have outlived Studebaker, maybe as a domestic version of Rolls-Royce. What the merger essentially meant was it gave Studebaker enough money to bring out the Lark which, in turn, allowed Studebaker to limp along for another five years before the inevitable.
So, Packard gave up its life for the Lark. I can’t say it was worth it.
Count me in also. I can tell you that Packard was a respected company outside the US too – it was accepted in the UK during the 30s-40s as a R-R equivalent and not seen as tacky as a Cadillac for example. The same applied for the colonies and ex-colonies: in 1950s Israel a Packard (with the Chrysler Imperial) regarded as the best car you could get. We had one 400 in my home town and even in the 60s people considered it as something special. I really wish they had the money to produce the below as a US version of the Bentley Continental…
What an absolute knockout. A modern recreation of a Pininfarina proposal apparently.
Myself, I see Chrysler as the “natural” fit for Packard. Both companies had a proud tradition of engineering excellence and in the late 1940s Packard would have filled a gaping hole at the top of Chrysler’s corporate lineup. Surely a rejuvinated Packard would have performed better than Imperial did in the luxury class.
Chrysler’s purchase of Briggs Body would have then been seen as a natural evolution rather than the wrenching disaster that added to Packard’s woes.
The Forward Look Packards would have been fun. But a K car Packard…shiver.
Well, at least in Chrysler-Packard (say, in 1949 or 50), each had something the other might’ve wanted. Chrysler’s new V8 was just around the corner, unlike Packard’s, and as you correctly point out, Packard outsold Imperial by a large margin every postwar year until 1956. In that year, the Imperial outsold the senior Packards by only about 300 cars, and when you count the newly-separate Clipper sales (it was really a Packard), Packard over Imperial was almost 3 to 1. Even in ’55, facing the new Forward Look, Packard still outsold Imperial by almost 5 to 1. So Packard strengths may have been name and dealer organization. Another slim possibility might have reunited Packard with Dutch Darrin, arguably the best Packard stylist ever. That would have been a Packard-Kaiser-Willys merger, which if it happened before Kaiser’s disastrous commitment to the Henry J, would have offered the possibility of a modern compact (the F-head Willys Aero), a well-styled mid-price effort from Kaiser, and eventually, a V8 range topper from Packard. The Jeep business kept Kaiser going longer than most independents, and might’ve done something similar for a merged PKW. Anyway, we might have enjoyed a 2 passenger Packard Caribbean V8 a bit more than the underpowered Darrin 161…
iirc, producing the Henry J was a condition for Kaiser receiving yet another loan from the government. Someone in the government kept harping on the idea of an automaker producing a small car for low income people. Problem is, the small cars were produced by small manufacturers, so their low volume resulted in high amortization charges per car, so the compacts, be they the Jet, Aero, Rambler or Henry J had a very small price advantage, if not actually costing more than a larger, nicer, Ford or Chevy.
The Packard brand had been significantly damaged by the low priced models. Packard dealers were being offered sweeter deals by the big three and they were jumping ship.
Jim Nance had consultants studying every possible merger partner, even Kaiser. I expect that the reports on Kaiser said something to the effect of “Henry Kaiser will never give up the reins to anyone else. He will always insist everything be his way, but he doesn’t know diddly about the car business”.
One alternate reality that would have helped Packard would be to merge with Hudson as Hudson had both an established mid-market brand, and a body plant. But when Ed Barrett tried to shop Hudson to Packard, he was brushed off.
The merger with Studebaker could have worked out better if it had been done a year earlier. Then Packard production could move to the modern Chippewa plant in South Bend. The Studebaker President and Commander could return to their prewar mid-market position and take the place of the cars that were sold as Clippers in 55. Champion could have been split off as a stand lone low priced car, using the existing Studebaker platform and the old plant downtown.
When the S-P merger closed, the train had already left the station. Packard had already contracted with Lakey foundry for castings, instead of using the Studebaker foundry. Packard had already leased the Conner plant and invested millions in it. Packard had already installed the new V8 line, as well as moving the Ultramatic and rear axle lines to Utica, instead of South Bend. As a result, the synergies of the S-P merger were near zero.
Here’s a blurb about the Utica plant from 54. $26M in state of the art equipment. And it was all ripped out 2 years later and sold for little more than scrap.
Here’s a blurb about the Conner plant. Another $13M poured into fixtures in a leased building.
End of the 1940’s. Packard with the Ultramatic and Ford dropping their V-12 would have maybe been a good time to merge. Packard taking top of the line, building transmissions and doing development work. I think Ford was in trouble at the time though. A deal with Hudson would have been interesting too. Buying Studebaker late in the ’40’s as well. Later on, there were 2 V-8 development programs, 2 automatic transmission development programs. Studebaker also had their own mechanical power steering that was expensive to produce.
I think Ford was in trouble at the time though.
I have read the same things, that Ford’s products were getting obsolete and Henry had really lost his grip and the company was drifting. HFII had his hands full for a while just addressing immediate needs.
Studebaker also had their own mechanical power steering that was expensive to produce.
iirc the mechanical power steering was a failure. It was installed in a few early production 53s. but was withdrawn because it was so noisy.
Buying Studebaker late in the ’40’s as well. Later on, there were 2 V-8 development programs, 2 automatic transmission development programs
Studebaker would have been a tough nut to crack prior to the 54 price war bringing them to the table. Studebaker had a huge pile of war profits, and both Goldman and Lehman had their hooks deep into the company. The bankers would not have let go until they had drained all the war profits out.
I’m sad too 🙁
The condition is just good enough to be all there and interesting, and just bad enough that it needs everything and is uneconomical to restore.
I may be incorrect, but a Lamborghini Aventador strikes me as the wrong car for Missouri. This car (fixed up) would look much better passing in front of Jason’s truck in traffic.
The Lambo struck me as odd also; however, go 45 minutes south to Lake of the Ozarks and you’ll see Bentleys, Vipers, and even a Plymouth Prowler for sale alongside the road. Missouri is deceptively diverse, although you’ve had a bigger taste than most.
There’s a used car lot here in Murfreesboro, TN that aspires to be a new car dealer. A short time ago, I noticed a Packard very similar to this, except it had the swan hood ornament. There’s always been something intriguing to me about the possibility of buying a vintage car from a thriving (not fly by night) used car lot. Then, lo and behold, a similar vintage Buick showed up right next to it on the lot. It was early Sunday evening and I could not resist–the dealership was closed so I pulled in, got out of my car, and checked them out. I gingerly tried the door handle of the Packard, and presto, it opened! I sat in it and took it all in. It was in very good original shape. Then I tried the Buick. It seemed to have more going on with the dashboard, maybe being a more premium model, though the Packard and the Buick were quite similar overall. I couldn’t stay inside the Buick for long because it had a really horrible smell unlike anything I’ve smelled before. I think I’ll take the Packard!
Yes, there are many cars like this in the so-called Rustbelt. I saw many of them on a recent road trip to Las Vegas. Just about every small town I passed through in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania had a few. Some looked like they were fairly clean,and driveable, but many looked like like they were abandoned years ago. Relics from a past age like old fossils.
The comments about lack of brand differentiation at the back of post war cars could be said about today’s cars, too. I often have to REALLY look at a car as I pull up from behind to tell if it’s a Ford, a Honda, a Hyundai or a Toyota as all their mid-sized sedans are so similar.
As for the proportions of the pre-57 model cars….I used to describe the seats in our old 49 Plymouth as being as high as dining room chairs, or maybe even higher. Those cars were many times as high as 90s pickup trucks. And being so tall, a huge trunk didn’t need to be long or wide to be as roomy as the trunks on many of these cars.
I would say at least 75% of the Packards I’ve seen in the last 30-40 years were twins of the car pictured. But then, I grew up in Pennsylvania.
Amen, Howard. Universal tail lights for all.
Was in back of a LaCrosse recently that looked like a bloated 96 Cavalier or 90s Corolla.
Variations of that theme have entrenched themselves in current design.
I think the origins of the shape are in the 58 Edsel, actually.
The irony of it is, this Packard’s tail lights would look fresh, modern and different if they were used today on anything.
The toothy grill was standard on the 300 and 400. The 200 had a similar grill with no teeth.
Like a grand dame of an actress who can’t get work anymore and needs some cosmetic surgery… just sad.
I dunno, are there any of those left? I thought they all had too much cosmetic surgery and look creepy now.
This car would of course get some astonishingly successful cosmetic surgery in 1955 that somehow made this car, which already looked a bit dated when new in 1951, somehow look as up to date as Cadillac’s mid-decade offerings (courtesy of Dick Teague) as well as far snazzier looking inside and out. Had it looked that way in 1951 things may have turned out better than they did for Packard with their staid ’51-’54 models.
Given the dent in the fender, the cosmetic work needed is quite literal.
I somehow didn’t even notice the dent…
Kinda like Norma Desmond in ‘Sunset Boulevard”
Like Norma Desmond, except she was driven around in an Isotta Fraschini:
poeschloncars.blogspot.com/2016/09/forgotten-classic-isotta-fraschini-8c.html
Somewhat in keeping with the dilapidation theme of this Curbside Classic feature, the Isotta was towed around the movie set in all the driving scenes, not because it didn’t run, but because “chauffeur” Eric von Stroheim did not know how to drive…
Sad to see this car unloved…..
-Nate
Wasn’t there a barbed quote from either Harley Earl or Bill Mitchell (GM styling heads), when looking at a new, awkward Packard face lift that went something like “If you don’t change body styles often enough you forget how to do it”?
🙂
This car is just sad. Such bland styling, they hardly recall the glory years of the 1930s when Packard was “The” premium brand. It’s amazing what Teague did with the ’55 models. As a side note, why are the steering wheels on these old cars always so big? Is it to give the driver more leverage whether the car had ps or not?
I maybe in the minority here but I really don’t see that car as looking too bad. It is 66 years old and has probably been out in the elements for decades(if not since new), that is pretty good for a car in ether the rust belt or mid Atlantic(where I live) where rock salt is king in the winter.
With all its tires filled up(the car looks like it was parked in a spot where the road has a depression in it) and newish looking license plates, I’d say this car is still being driven regularly.
This is a true survivor with the natural patina that comes naturally to a 66 year old car that has been outdoors for decades. A much more honest car then those restomods or garage queens that only get driven from the garage to the trailer and back off the trailer into the garage.
Just ask the man who owns it.
Agree the car looks to be complete and in really fine original condition for it’s age. The historical plates lead me to believe this car was driven at least occasionally until recently.
If it’s not rotted out down below, it could easily be used as a driver just as it sits, and with (fake and real) patina being a thing today, it has potential.
It is a survivor that deserves to be looked after.
This particular example is nice and complete and obviously a survivor, running or not. I would return it to running shape and just drive it. I find the car’s styling dull, but handsome dignified, as awkward as that sounds.Packard maintained their quality but not their styling leadership. Moving downmarket was really a bad move, but they desperately needed the volume. Did you know that the engine alone weighed one thousand pounds?
I have my own 1951 model resurrection project underway.
I’m bursting with curiosity to see it now. Just picked up a series 1 XJ6 project.
Considering the 1939 Packard I reviewed that was a whopping 12 years older, this is a sad, sad vehicle. I can’t really tell the difference between this and a Ford, Chrysler or even a Kaiser of the same year considering I was born 13 years later. This really brings home to me the loss of cachet and prestige that Packard suffered…and it was self-inflicted. Perhaps _all_ the independents should have merged with Packard at the top and oh…Kaiser (put your fave loss leader if you’d like) at the bottom. What would have been a good name instead of AMC?
Compare today’s post to this:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/car-show-classic-surprise-airshow-unicorn-by-packard/
Even if today’s car was restored to that level, it wouldn’t have the presence that the ’39 does.
Tom, forgive my insouciance, but as a former resident of Youngstown, what the heck is there to do? It’s probably the last place I would celebrate my wedding anniversary… LOL!
There’s a lot of sadness in all of those areas decimated by the loss of heavy industry. We at one time made so much steel, specialty metals and lots of stuff related to transportation of some kind (i.e., cars, trucks, rail cars, etc.). When the stuff hit the fan 40 years ago in September of this year, we had no idea of how far down it would take us. Like many others my age, I got my education (at YSU) and left. I may go home again someday, but then again, I’ve grown fond of the beaches of West Michigan.
One thing you didn’t mention is that the Packard brothers were from nearby Warren, Ohio and got their start there making automobiles. It seems kind of fitting that you found this old Packard near it’s spiritual home…
The Butler art museum in Youngstown is a surprisingly delightful place to visit, and well worth the trip. This museum has a open, free, no expense, admission policy. The building was built in about 1919-1920, designed by McKim Mead and White funded by the early 20th century industrial wealth of Youngstown. It is a gem . From Youngstown, it is a reasonably short drive to Warren, Ohio to see the Packard museum.
Additionally about an hour drive from Youngstown will take you to Cleveland’s Museum of Art and MOCA or further south to see Akron’s Museum of Art. These are all Northeast Ohio treasures funded and well endowed by the rich industrial past, and all are must see, pleasurable venues to visit.
Although I’m not a resident of Youngstown, my visits there have always been agreeable with interesting surprises.
Just noticed the clever way thay positioned the door handles in the moulding at the beltline, Chrysler did something similar in 1965.
But that is one homely front end for a top line car. I think the rear end is quite handsome compared that awful front.
Bathtub styling was a thing in the late 40s. The classic stepdown Hudsons and Lincolns looked somewhat like a Packard from the rear.
Thank George Christoper for Packard being repositioned in the mid-market. He openly said he wanted to compete with Buick. After so many years selling cheap Packards, starting with the 120 in the 30s, through the late 40s with various mutations of the mid-market Clipper, the senior Packard tooling having disappeared during the war (I have a theory about that), I would think Packard’s prestige had been so destroyed that no-one would buy the brand as a topper for their own line.
If Packard had used a separate brand for the 120 and other cheap cars, like Lincoln used Zephyr, Cadillac used LaSalle and Chrysler used DeSoto, they could have kept the Packard image intact. As it was, the brand was so tarnished that, when Christoper was fired, it took Hugh Ferry 2 years, and perhaps some embellishment, before he was able to recruit a new President.
I lived in Poland, Ohio until I was fourteen. That looks like the motel in Canfield, Ohio.
Pity the poor 200, the Rodney Dangerfield of Packards! Its true the company was casting its lot almost completely with the medium-priced segment but had done so since the 1935 120 introduction, doubled down with the 1937 115 Six.
On the luxury segment participation, more significantly, management never created a unique Senior series sufficiently differentiated from the Juniors after the last Twelve was built for 1939. Every Senior from the 1939 Super 8 to the end shared major stamping with and was an extension of the volume Junior cars. Of course, this was generally the same approach Cadillac practiced from 1936 on but being a separate make, could always sufficiently differentiate its cars from Olds and Buick, though developed largely from common GM parts bins.
Packard also never developed an independent, in-house design group powerful enough to overcome engineering and management conservatism. When the 1940 GM C-Body Torpedoes models became the sensation of the industry, Dutch Darrin described Packard management as “running scared from GM”. The ’41 Clipper, the Bathtubs and these Contours were a joint effort with Briggs Body, their body supplier until they had to take over their own body operations for 1955.
Development of the “Contour-Styled” 1951 was a crash program, precipitated by essentially a ‘palace’ coup in 1949 which ousted pinch-penny president George Christopher. He intended to have the bathtubs restyled again for 1950 and beyond. A group of major players revolted, plus dealers were screaming for a new car. For the last of the bathtubs, the low-priced Eights and Eight Deluxe comprised over three-quarters of the volume; the 1951 200 and 200 Deluxe would continue that emphasis.
Of the 1951-’54 Packards themselves: mechanically, they tend to be bullet-proof, even the Ultramatic is when driven reasonably and maintained properly. Body construction is as good as any and better than some in the era. Drivability is quite decent, handling nicely for a large car, coil springs only front, not as wallowing as a Buick. Manual shift with overdrive teamed with the 327 cu in straight eight in the 122 inch wheelbase 200/200 Deluxe/Clipper delivers the best performance.
The survival rate seems to be relatively high, parts availability and technically support first-rate. Best-of-all, as long as one can live without a convertible or Caribbean, sedans in ready-to-enjoy good condition still sell for reasonable prices (under $10K) . Even hardtops can be found for much less than the highly-popular makes. Word of warning: weathered, rundown examples such as the feature 200 will take you under financially very quickly. Best to search for and wait until the best example for the price comes along, even if you have to have it shipped cross-country.
Lastly, this 200 is 1952 MY, identified by the hood ornament and Packard crest replacing the individual hood letters of 1951. The ‘toothy’ grille was optional, dealers liked to doll-up the 200 with them.
I guess Packard with Briggs Body did well enough in the beginning, and maybe that was the problem. Packard management, apparently, couldn’t bring themselves to spend the money to divest themselves of Briggs and, in the long run, it cost them the company. Yeah, there was some bad luck around WW2 and bringing out some down-market cars but, to me, the thing that was the eventual slow death of Packard was Briggs. If not for the Briggs situation, Nance never would have went merger shopping.
Rudiger
Packard had sourced a percentage of their bodies from Briggs since the 1920’s but with the advent of the 1941 Clipper and the end of the old-style body with the cessation of 1942 car production, beginning in 1946, all bodies were supplied by Briggs, except the lwb Clipper models by Henney.
The Clipper development took place heavily in conjunction with Briggs, in terms of styling and body engineering. Briggs had the huge presses to stamp major panels which Packard lacked. Walter Briggs and Alvan Macauley were old friends and business associates, so no doubt the close coordination and eventual dependency of Packard on Briggs was perceived as advantageous to both companies.
The situation soured quickly postwar when unit prices escalated, chronically missed production quotas developed and quality workmanship suffered. Throughout the bathtub era, all three difficulties made for missed sales, operational headaches and unhappy dealers and customers. Trouble was, by then, there was no other independent body maker to turn to, Murray was at capacity, others such as Hayes were gone.
On the question of bringing body production back in-house, the BoD wrestled with that discussion multiple times, finding that now it was prohibitively costly to re-set up such an operation. Some of the stamping presses and tooling which Briggs had moved into their plant had been ‘loaned’ by Macauley to Walt Briggs since Packard had no need of it once Briggs was exclusively supplying their bodies. No documentation was keep on who owned what so Briggs more or less ‘appropriated’ it as their own.
Nance realized very shortly after taking the helm that Briggs dependence was a major bombshell just waiting to go off. By then, W.O.Briggs had passed on, the family grappling with the disposition of the body company and estate taxes. Chrysler, which comprised 80% of Briggs body production, acted first to protect its supply, leaving Packard very much in the lurch….and at their mercy.
Some of the stamping presses and tooling which Briggs had moved into their plant had been ‘loaned’ by Macauley to Walt Briggs since Packard had no need of it once Briggs was exclusively supplying their bodies. No documentation was keep on who owned what so Briggs more or less ‘appropriated’ it as their own.
Not surprisingly, I have a theory about that. Considering the cost escalation that took place after the war, my hunch is the Packard body equipment was bartered to Briggs for a discount. After the war, the time period of the barter discount had expired and prices shot up. No documentation because the parties were “gentlemen” and did it on a handshake.
McCauley resigned from the BoD in 48. Max Gilman got the heave ho during the war and George Christoper was given his walking papers in late 49, so if Briggs went outside of the “gentlemen’s agreement”, there was no-one, except maybe Hugh Ferry, that would have been in a position to know the details of the agreement in 41, who was still around in 50.
Otherwise, a lack of documentation would point to a horrendous lack of internal controls at Packard. That is a possibility as the senior series tooling also went missing somewhere during the war, with no documentation of what happened.
The question of the professionalism of Packard management overall is an interesting topic. After the Liberty, none of Packard’s aircraft engines were a commercial success, yet the company continued to pour resources into aircraft engines until the realities of the depression brought a halt to indulging Jessie Vincent’s whims. How much did they drop on a new building for final assembly of their diesel aircraft engines, engines which they only built about 100 of?
Nance realized very shortly after taking the helm that Briggs dependence was a major bombshell just waiting to go off.
Walter Grant was giving Nance glowing estimates of the millions that could be saved each year by bringing bodybuilding back in house, but, as you said, the company never had the capital to build a body plant.
Walter Briggs died at the end of 52. You would think the word must have been on the street by spring 53 that the Briggs heirs were shopping the company. Yet when Ed Barritt tried to shop Hudson to Packard, he was brushed off, while Hudson would have provided both the body plant and established mid-market brand that Nance wanted.
The other opportunity, which would have been a double edged sword, was Willow Run. Kaiser had accumulated a significant number of presses as well as a modern body assembly and paint line. By July 53, Kaiser had resolved to get out of Willow Run. Packard would have been buried by Willow Run however. Kaiser estimated that their break even in that plant was about 200,000/year, a number Packard was not anywhere close to meeting….though the way Ray Powers was pushing for a “single story plant” it’s a wonder Packard didn’t try to buy it.
I’d like to come to the US to buy a 200/300/400 to ship home to Europe – these are fascinating cars – really the US equivalent of Mercedes Benz quality at the time – such a pity they got so lost in the mix in the later ’50’s. A real ship of the road – I’m going to look around.
Mark:
There is a great selection still available! Check the Packard Automobile Classics (PAC) and Packards International club websites, each has a Cars For Sale section. Also, sign onto the following site for a daily dose of an active and lively Packard Forum:
http://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/
You’ll find a cars for sale section and a thread named “Various CL Pickings” where we regulars search Craigslist and post cars which are noteworthy for consideration, or other reasons but always with the hope more cars with find good owners.
You’ll also find contacts for Packard Club of Europe on all three, who will no doubt help you find a car to fit your interest. Good Luck and glad to have your aboard.
While not as iconic as Packards from the 30’s-40’s, as 58L8134 says, the 50’s Packards are solidly built and basically well-engineered cars.
Personally, I find them attractive. There are also a couple of different ‘what-if’ designs out there, built for a collector that are VERY attractive (the one I’m thinking of has a fastback roof line, and a 5-speed trans adapted to the straight 8).
Should I ever find myself with garage space and the necessary funds, I’d look for one in a heartbeat
Being originally from Y-town and still going back occasionally to visit family, have great pride in the area and can say it has always been entrepreneurial and is tapping those roots to grow new companies, and the business incubator downtown has been a wonderful success. And of course, folks there love cars. The annual cruise on Rt. 224, though not Woodward in size, has always been a big draw.
I like the Packard 200, only wish it had been finished nicer on the inside with 400 Patrician trim. To the end Packard never lost its ability to deliver luxury on the inside.
As for mergers, I think Packard could have married any of them and done OK – or not – depending on the strategy and execution. Or they could have gone it alone. The key to luxury car success from the mid-Thirties on was sharing with a volume line. Packard had actually been doing this since 1924 when it replaced its aging and expensive to build Twin Six (V12) with a straight Eight based on its recently developed, much less expensive to build Six. Same bodies as Six, 2 extra cylinders, 10 extra inches of hood. From that point to 1930 the company printed money at will.
First good merger opportunity might have been Hudson in 1941, the year Packard introduced the Clipper. Hudson could have made the bodies and offered its own version, relieving Packard of the necessity of selling a cheaper car under its own name.
Next opportunity? Again Hudson, to replace Clipper in 1948 with a potentially much better bathtub, Packard helping Hudson out with styling; see work-up. The Monobilt would have been completely redesigned around 1952 or 1953 to bring Packard-Hudson up-to-date in styling, at which time a Packard-designed series of V8s would have powered all cars. By then the unibody might have been replaced with body-on-frame but still step-down. Barit had been thinking about this since around 1951.
For the all-new 1951 Contour cars, Packard dropped its Custom Eight line because the planners couldn’t figure out how to build it profitably, thinking the car needed its own styling and advertising. In retrospect, this may have been a missed opportunity big enough to bring Packard down.
Consider this update to a work-up that I showed recently at the PackardInfo site. Depicts a sleek sedan that would have cost no more to tool than the 300/400. Would have been at least 1-1/2 inches lower and featured a stylish hardtop-like roof and window frames. No, it wouldn’t have had a V8 initially but that would have come soon. The ad copy is from a 1951 Packard ad. They were talking the right talk, just needed a better car.
It wouldn’t have mattered how Packard found its way to a car like this by the early Fifties, only that it did. The car could have been based on a unibody stamped and built in Wisconsin via merger with Nash, or step-down Monobilt or body-on-frame stamped and built on Jefferson Ave via merger with Hudson, or stamped and built on Conner Ave or East Grand Blvd as an in-house effort. The key was that Packard needed to economically deliver a luxury car that sold well and generated healthy profits.
From the right distance, this could be taken for a “50’s, Pontiac sedan”.
Both Sudebaker, but perhaps more-so Hudson had progressive ideas.
I like the way you think, and a “Packson” may have made for a heck of a car!
Such a shame. all these orphan brands made cars as good, and sometimes better than The Big Three.
They just didn’t have the economic power to survive the smack talk salesmen dished out on the car lots.
The horrible 200 – later renamed the Clipper. Launched in 51 to give Packard volume production, it was like a Chevy Deluxe carrying a Cadillac nameplate. And, the public never forgot. President James Nance of Packard tried to rectify this gross injustice to the Packard name starting in 52, but the damage had been done. Even the Clipper had stopped being called a Packard ( officially ) by 1956 when it was a separate brand. Had 1957 happened, the bodies would finally be completely separated into the Packard-Clipper Division along the same lines as the Lincoln-Mercury Division at Ford.
I would have been with Leon in 2017 when this first posted. It’s six years later now and I wonder if anyone has taken on this car and worked on saving it. At least it escaped the “Cash for Clunkers” vandalism, but maybe it didn’t run back then so was ineligible.
We also don’t know how rusty the undercarriage is.
Just hope it got saved “all, or in part”. Sad to see it just festering all that time.
Before I bought my first COAL I drove a 1953 Packard Clipper in the same colors to high school after my father switched to commuting by train.
The Clipper model, re-introduced in 1953 as the lowest priced Packard, was a bit cleaner that the post subject with no grill teeth and no “jet louvers”.
Rust had completely consumed the rocker panels on both sides but the engine was so quiet one might rev it at a stop light in Neutral to be certain it was still running; the two speed plus lockup Ultramatic transmission was as smooth and unobtrusive as the engine.
The glove box was a large drawer that slid out on ball bearings and the starter button was under the gas pedal (just like contemporary Buicks).
It wasn’t a bad looking car compared to Chryslers and Fords, but GM’s models had more modern and attractive designs.
And yet, still in high school, I bought a 1953 Chrysler and then helped my father sell the Packard.
Go figure.
These were very good if not very flashy cars, it’s amazing how many survivors there are.
Unfortunately, the styling was rather bland, which was a mortal sin when compared with Harley Earl’s Cadillacs. That would have been o.k. if it wasn’t preceded by the Elephantine styling of the 1948-1950’s.
The bigger problem was that William Christopher who was running thought Packard was competing against Buick and Oldsmobile, so didn’t care that there wasn’t enough of a difference between the 200 and the 400, the latter being what should have been competing against Cadillac.
Packard turned cheap in the ’50s. Note the sharp-edged trunk lid with the panel welded in under it. Most other cars, including the low-priced three, had rounded edges on the lid and a properly formed curve around the lid. Less prone to rust and fatigue.
Also note the vent panes without a crank. All GM cars had a cranked vent through the ’50s.
Our “70 AMC Rebel” had vent windows with “toggle fasteners”. No “winders”.
The “71 Vdub fstback” did I believe, have winders. H’mm
Packard had a good thing going with Dutch Darrin before the war, and they soured that relationship. Imagine what would have happened if they could have had Kaiser’s body designs postwar. No Elephants! Especially if they had let Darrin keep his fender kick that Kaiser deleted from their first postwar bodies.
But Alvin MacCauley’s son Ed was “in charge” of design. Harley Earl I am sure had a laugh every time he heard Ed MacCauley’s name.
One interesting thing is that Packard made money in the early 1950’s, though not a lot of money, about $5m per year every year through 1953. Part of that was defense contracts, but it was really Studebaker that brought them down. Packard itself only had 6 losing years from 1907 onwards – 1921, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1938 and 1946. I attach a file that was originally posted to the Packard Club discussion forum here:
https://www.packardclub.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4055
Neil and Polistra above make good points. The rest of this What If is comical and from those with no feel for the tenor the times. Packard had made junior and senior cars since 1905, just never anything under a grand before ’35. The Company sold five funky sixes for each long, lithe eight in their 1920s heyday, 1929 Packard’s most profitable year ever.
The snappy 303-ci ’27 LaSalle V-8 forced Packard to switch their six to a 320-ci eight. Cadillac’s V-16 forced them to enlarge their 376-ci V-12 FWD Buick 90 contender into the existing Custom chassis underscored by early cooling problems.
Cadillac debuted SynchroMesh a couple years earlier, as big a deal as their HydraMatic a decade later, which, with their racy new C bodies, made all Packards but the drearily upholstered debut Clipper box office poison in ’41.
Packard was able to command up to 42% of the fine car market (above $2,000 base price) through ’36 because refinement was in their DNA, and the ex-cash register and Hudson execs running Packard since the early teens knew how to milk tooling, allowing heftier profit margins than Pierce, unable to launch their intended 25,000 Hayes-bodied juniors for ’38 at $1,200 FOB Buffalo. And, thanks to Werner Gubitz’ chiseled apart from the crowd understatement, abetted by outsiders Ray Dietrich and Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky.
So Packard was a long time on the skids, their dominance of the early ’30s fine car market a minute sliver of the car biz.
Packard produced their Dynaflow w/ lock up torque convertor simply because GM would not allow them to use HydraMatic for an entire year after making any improvement. Packard’s sole hit of the ’40s was from a theme offered by another outsider whose ego akin to Jelly Roll Morton saying he invented jazz and Little Richard’s insistence he created rock ‘n’ roll.
Packard made a bundle on War II work, redrafting the Merlin for Detroit methods at taxpayer expense. The gas-powered PTs were simply as there was never a gas shortage here and such fuel made for simplified logistics.
Spoilt by less hassle jet and govt. work, Packard increasingly phoned in the cars 1948-on, blowing as much clobbing 200 lbs. deadweight on the Clipper Reinhart and others wanted to retain and “sweeten” as an entirely new body would’ve cost. Then, when Olds, Cad, Chrysler, even Studebaker about to unveil OHV V-8s, introduced a pair of versions of their 1935 engine, the 288 and 327, good tho’ they were and at the very least should’ve been but more “so what?”
The ’51 Packard the result of their tiny styling dept. told to use a Chevy-based ’49 Olds’ cowl and roof heights as guide, the “high pockets” look Reinhart decried because steel cheaper than glass.
I had a sound CA 48,414-mile ’51 200. With stick/OD it would’ve been a better road car, but its body not as good as an Olds or Hudson Hornet, drab as an ordnance vehicle inside. My ’40 120 was terrific despite a bucket mill mien with those tinny hood louvers lifted from the ’38 Buick that ended Packard’s three-year Gallup Poll Most Beautiful Car.
But it was both lightened and cheapened over a ’39 120. My ’47 Super Clipper is a Roadmaster according to Packard; no bad thing since R-R was disassembling a new Limited in the years just before the war to glean the latest Detroit production tips.
Both those Packards retained the best chassis from either side of the Atlantic or Channel through the ’40s, but the writing was long on the wall as the big BOPpers brought in to cost the new ’35 120 were now running the Company. That, and these fellows knew production, but n o t m a r k e t i n g.
This fancifal what if could/shoulda/would palaver reminds me of a bright girlfriend from hell’s advanced degrees in deconstructing such and such a poet. To what avail?