Good read

[alaipairod]

• Cars We Remember: The demise of the Studebaker-Packard Corporation
• • 
    0
  
  
• Zoom
  
  
  
  
• 
  [*=left]
  By Greg Zyla
  More Content Now
  
  Posted Aug. 3, 2015 at 3:15 AM
  Q: Greg, I am not what you would call a car buff, but I think we are fortunate to have someone who is living in our midst. Each week I read your very informative column in the Pennysaver here in New York.
  A: Thomas, I appreciate your letter very much, especially because you are not a car buff yet did find time to write this letter.
  Thanks again for your great letter.

[BobPalma]

'Probably a better analysis than we might have expected, but off the money in the last paragraph, saying Packards command top dollar as collector cars. Since the whole discussion was postwar only, just try getting your money back on a beautifully-restored 1956 Packard Patrician sedan, as opposed to a comparable 1956 Cadillac.

Really, only Caribbeans command top dollar among postwar Packards, as compared to most other makes. BP

[Lothar]

Bob, you're very generous in your assessment of this article. The numerous factual errors aside, it looks to me like a "smear job" on Studebaker by a Packard partisan. Clearly, mistakes were made in conceiving and executing the Studebaker-Packard merger (on all sides). From what I've read, meddling by the Eisenhower Administration was a major factor in making a merger that made sense on paper go awry.

[StudeRich]

Yes for the Author to agree with the poster about this, is not only not correct compared to similar Cars but a serious exaggeration.

QUOTE: "

[BobPalma]

Gosh, John; I don't see "numerous factual errors" in that piece. It's probably not the way I would have presented the information, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

To the best of my knowledge, the Eisenhower administration had little if anything to do with Packard's 1954 purchase of Studebaker Corporation. That came later when the Curtiss-Wright "management" agreement was put forth to save SP from going under in 1956/early 1957, AFAIK. BP

[StudeRich]

What about this totally WRONG statement, in BOTH Parts: "Nance resigned in 1956 and the Studebaker Company, with the Packard name removed for good in 1959, lasted only until 1962 in America and 1966 in Canada."

The Packard Car was removed, but NOT the Name as it says.

[BobPalma]

Goodness, Rich; I didn't say it was error-free, just that it had fewer errors than I would have expected. Pieces like that inevitably go from one error to another, and this wasn't quite that bad.

I took the "Packard name removed for good" to be the demise of the name on a car, not in the corporation's name. And even at that, the writer should have said, "removed for good on cars for the 1959 model year, when the Packard name did not appear." (Or something to that effect.)

As I said, much could have been worded better and, yes, there are legitimate errors, as you say. BP