Post Number: 101
|Posted on Friday, 21 January, 2005 - 17:57: |
"For years Packards business philosophy was built on the foundation of thought that high priced car buyers did not care for radical change on an annual, model year basis. The directors of the company felt that such customers preferred a quality product that could retain its style value one season after the next. This was no longer the case in the industry after 1949, when style consciousness came to play an ever more important role on a high volume basis. Also contributing to the eventual demise of the Packard nameplate was the company's independent status. Without full range market coverage and the resources of a giant corporation to back it up, Packard was unable to adjust very quickly to postwar trends". Unquote; Source: "Cataloque of American Cars, 1946-1975" by G. Marshall Naul at page 519. A sad ending (circa 1956) for what was once regarded as "the American Rolls-Royce" and in some ways not dissimilar to events leading to the eventual sale of Rolls-Royce in recent times. I refer to their need to comply with ever changing safety, fuel consumption and emission requirements, despite being able to retain a fundamentally static design style as accepted by willing buyers during the Shadow to Spirit period, a time span of some 32 years. It wasnt the R-R company directors or their loyal customer base who bought about R-Rs eventual fate, but rather a pathetic and motley collection of "touchie-feelie" safety nazis, Pecksniffian "do-gooders" and "greenie" enviro-freakers who seem to influence the most sanctimonious of pen pushing bureaucrats. I have previously alluded to such individuals and may the most virulent of pustules descend upon them. All of them.
Post Number: 54
|Posted on Friday, 21 January, 2005 - 20:26: |
I couldn't have put it better myself John.
Things do come full circle (look at the re-emergence of the Bugatti name-another Volkswagen initiative), but as usual too little too late.