Talk:Packard/Archives/2017

Request for identification
Is anyone able to identify this Packard, please? I've no idea whether the image might be wiki-useful, but knowing what it is of would make a good start. And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After a certain amount of googling, I think it is probably a 1938 Packard Eight.  Several of these cars seem to have accompanied the US army to the UK after FDR and the Japanese persuaded the US to enter the Hitler War on the side of the UK:  I guess this is one that stayed behind in the UK after 1945.   Further info or corrections welcome...   Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a 1939 Packard 1700 Six 4 Door Touring Sedan, body style 1282. Wheel covers do not look correct; at least they have wrong paint. Center hexagon is red, surrounded by two black rings; the inner is the background for the stamped script "Packard-Six". 1939 Packard models --Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Regards.   Charles01 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting to read the immediately preceding item which says in 1939 a main dealer had 70 Packards in stock. American cars were well-liked and quite popular 1900 to 1939 see main roads of the period and street scenes in prosperous areas. Eddaido (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Studebaker-Packard
Packard Motor went from 1899 to 1958, 59 years. Three terminal years and I mean terminal in the sense of a dying animal is less than 5 per cent of that period. Five per cent of a whole object is a very small part is it not? Unless that is made clear the impression is given by the lead as it stands at this moment that it might be worth consideration (which it ~5 per cent is) but it should be noted it is mentioned only to be lamented. It needs to be in the lead that the Studebaker-Packard phase was insignificant in terms of time and only matters at all to Packard (and this article) because it finally killed the Packard business. Reading it as it stands suggests Studebaker mattered to the flourishing Packard business and no way did it do that, the wrong impression is currently being given. Has to be changed. Eddaido (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * " Has to be changed." No, it doesn't. SPC's importance to Packard as a company is pretty insignificant; calling attention to it is giving it more weight than it deserves in the lead. Beyond that, the page explains SPC's origins, & the impact on the Packard marque; there's no need to put that in the lead, too: it's meant to be an overview. The SPC takeover deals with just three years (more/less) of the company history, & it doesn't deserve more than passing mention in the lead.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will agree it deserved no mention in the lead. Are we then both content to have it like that? Eddaido (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think no mention is quite right. What about, "Packard was ultimately taken over by (merged into?) SPC" or "merged into SPC in 195x, & ceased operations 195x"? That minimizes SPC's duration to satisfy me, without wiping out an important factor in the end of independent Packard.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmmm except that Packard took over Studebaker!
 * (new paragraph) "Packard managed to lose its luxury image by offering lower priced cars during the Great Depression and began to report losses in 1947. In 1954 Packard bought volume-market Studebaker and they tried to merge Detroit and South Bend businesses but their Studebaker-Packard Corporation closed Packard's own operations in 1956" (in fact they labelled some Studebakers Packard for a year or two and so I reckon the lead should say 1956 not 1958 for the last Packard. I think readers deserve a cursory explanation of the subject's end within the lead.)


 * Re your "new paragraph" proposal: delete "and they tried to merge Detroit and South Bend businesses but" (too much, again), so it ends, "bought volume-market carmaker Sudebaker. The new Studebaker-Packard Corporation ceased independent Packard operations in 1956" (or something close, like delete "volume market" & just link to Stude), & I think you've got it.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (new paragraph) "Packard managed to lose its luxury image by offering lower priced cars during the Great Depression and began to report losses in 1947. In 1954 Packard bought volume-market Studebaker and closed its Packard operations in 1956". I would very much like to leave in volume market because still well-heeled Packard bought failing Studebaker for just that reason, they could no longer sell prestige cars and wished to break into the high volume market. Does that suit you?


 * I seem to have developed major email problems in gentle stages over the last six months. I always respond to the notifications from WP and WM because if I don't I lose the contact. See, it isn't because I fail to set the flag by responding. I have never received a message that you have responded here I always find it by scanning my watchlist. What do you think I should do about this? Your assistance please. Eddaido (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ♠I don't think "volume market maker" is warranted, because a) it's in the body of the page & b) anybody who doesn't already know can read the page or use the link; the lead is only for the essentials, IMO. Why Packard bought Stude is more complicated than the lead can deal with in any case.
 * ♠Your getting no notification isn't a problem with your email; unless you've watchlisted the page, or I ping you with each reply (which I almost never do), you won't get word. On your own talk page, yes... (I notice your replies the same way, on my watchlist, & AFAIK, that's the only option.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ♠(part 2), but I always used to! I'd get many messages each day of changes in articles etc where I'd recently been active and they were not on my watchlist. I think there's an explanantion under preferences. If you didn't know, you really were missing something.
 * ♠part 1. Well. (in theory) its all in the article. I think that buying Packard was a strange thing to do unless you realise they have been panicked into trying to move their capital into a quite different sector. You want a mention of Studebaker (which to my mind is over-detailed for the lead (it just meant the final curtain for mid-price and luxury Packard) and yet you want no explanation at all in the lead for buying Studebaker. I don't follow your thinking. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ♠"You want a mention of Studebaker" I'm fine with how it is now, a passing mention of the merger, & no more details; you're not, apparently.
 * ♠I don't check email all the time, so if there's a notification function, I've never paid any attention to it. Checking my watchlist is easier.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's say a certain biography was given a lead like this: Eddaido was for very many years a successful and productive much-loved American Wikipedia editor, and confused in his dotage he tried to get 7,000 seriously scrambled new articles accepted in WP. The first Eddaido edits were produced in 1899, and the last after his final 3 years mindlessness in 1958, with one of his last serious insightful articles published in 1956, re Packard Predictor.

Does it not seem to you this "draft lead" seems to focus on my last pathetic years irrespective of my marvellous achievements? And I think this is very unfair. Same with the too rough, bald, Packard article lead. Eddaido (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (PS this is all true)
 * I'm not the one that wants the emphasis on the last three years. I never was. I did, & do, think that puts too much weight on the terminal period. I'm not seeing the objection to it being the passing mention, which is what I've proposed from the outset. Saying there were marvellous achievements, & then a partnership with a mediocre collaborator that helped drive both into penniless obscurity, with a mention of who the partner was & no more detail than that (in the lead), is what I've been trying to get at from the beginning, over your objections.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've actually amended the lead because it seems to me we are getting very close to agreement. What do you think of my latest try? By the way it might have been described as merging two businesses but this can be very difficult to achieve - see British Leyland - and to do it they just closed Detroit - so I've deliberately tried to make it clear that financially Packard was in charge. Lets know and if it upsets you please just revert my change to the lead. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ♠I'm more/less okay with that, except to say something like "financially-troubled Stude" & something about not being aware how bad things were, leading to the failure of Packard as a marque. Is it too much to mention the 120 & cheapening the brand? Or saying something about the apparent squandering of the wartime profits from the V1650?
 * ♠OT. Is it me, or does the '41 Packard front end look like a '58 Edsel?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:32 & 05:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edsel first viewers described its central air inlet as being like an Oldsmobile sucking swallowing an orange, surely Packard did better than that or am I wrong. Seriously, please adjust the lead to suit. If I am truly badly upset I'll come back here but I do think we're much in line with each other's thinking. Best, Eddaido (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Packard's leadership of the luxury car field was supreme.
Is this actually true? What about Cadillac, Dusenburg, Auburn, etc? I'm just asking in case someone knows, since this smells like NPOV to me. Mjl0509

Yes, that's a fact. Packard was the biggest luxury car builder worldwide in the 2nd half of the 20s. I still have to approve that it held a market share of over 50% in this segment of the market. Auburn built fine cars for sure, but most were middle-class models. Duesenberg, one of the best cars ever, was too expensive to produce larger quantities but that was never intended. Cadillac took over in the 2nd half of the 30s when Packard built more cars but most of them were middle-class One-Ten and One-Twenty. Packard went further down-market after the war, thus giving up real competition to Cadillac. President Nance wanted to correct that, but it was too late.

I highly recommand this books about Packard's history: Packard, A History of the Motor Car and the Company - General edition - Beverly Rae Kimes, Editor – (1978) Automobile Quarterly", ISBN 0-915038-11-0

Ward, James A.: The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company; University Press (September 1, 1995), ISBN 0804724571 --Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bletchley Park
At the start of WWII, the UK's SIS Section VIII bought up the whole stock of the main UK dealer, Leonard Williams Ltd. These were modified to carry radio equipment for the Special Liaison Units (SLU) that were used for the transmission of Ultra traffic from Bletchley Park to commanders in the field. It is believed that they had at least seventy Packards. --jmb (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Packard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112213125/http://www3.lehigh.edu:80/engineering/meche/news/events1.asp to http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/meche/news/events1.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090624003559/http://www.petersen.org:80/default.cfm?DocID=1008&index=5 to http://www.petersen.org/default.cfm?DocID=1008&index=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)