So cool! Wish we could post pics in these comment sections.

That's right.ask the man who owns one.....PACKARD owned a few my favorite!

?9..lm ? ?. 9. ? ??n?. .?.p@@crustycurmudgeon2182m I .?[n ?. k?.m

Thats amazing information about Packard: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdqeitmmytucj2Q.html

@@kevinrice4909 Or better yet, "Ask the Man Who Owned One."😀

Never heard of “packer motor company”. Packard, however…

@@RDAUGIRD greenbay

You're welcome!

Sterling mate agreed!

Survival of the fittest thats why the US still has at least some manufacturing left here. Now we are following your path of propping up failing companies with taxpayer money if this keeps happening we will go the way of the UK. Be forewarned, with the exception of isolated cases, seldom does subsidizing failure ever work.

It's clear you're woefully ignorant as to WHY the great American manufacturing companies went out of business: the market was flooded with cheap knockoff parts and eventually products from overseas. There is plenty of evidence showing this, and the most striking comes from the watch industry. Entire towns were shuttered because the government allowed foreign companies (mainly Swiss, who had stayed out of the war) to sell their cheap goods in America - goods that had been made in the United States and had been considered to be among the best in the world. To add insult to injury, as the companies went bankrupt, they were sold to Swiss conglomerates who wanted the prestige of the brand names we'd developed - this is why Hamilton is now a Swiss company, along with many others. @@jamesoliva9531 I hope you think twice before you spout nonsense again - the fittest in the world were being stabbed in the back by their own government, they never had a chance to compete on an even field.

Glad you enjoyed it!

@Jayson Dillon Who gives a fucking

My grandfather built those engines.

Guess you did not watch the video, they talked about the PT boats!

It's worse than that - the same thing happened to the great American watch companies! The administration at the time allowed cheap foreign goods to flood the market which devalued the goods we made here.

Thank you for your reply. This film was actually produced by the Packard Motor Car company. Packard was treated very unfairly. It is a shame they aren't still around.

They couldn’t compete with Cadillac in both style and performance

I think probably the same thing that eventually happened to all the independents. They just didn’t have the cash to compete with the big three. It’s amazing that AMC was able to hang on as long as it did.

@@bitterclinger5876 - It's a shame that the Nash/Hudson AMC merger didn't include Studebaker-Packard as well as Willys and Kaiser. We would probably have a Big 4 to this day.

Errr no actually! All Rolls Royce assembled engines were essentially blue printed by highly skilled workers as the manufacturing tolerances at Rolls were lower than those at Packard. Packard engines were mass produced by unskilled workers on a production line. Rolls engines were more powerful and reliable but Packard assembled Rolls Royce engines were made faster and cheaper. Packard made half as many engines in one factory as Rolls made in three. Packard made changes to the Rolls design to make assembly faster and lower the cost of manufacture. You can have fast, cheap or good but may only choose two!

@@andrewallen9993 You are only partially correct. Parts on Merlins initially built by RR were not interchangeable because they did not machine to defined tolerances. Each piston, ring, bearing, etc. was individually fitted to each engine. Packard was the only American company willing to build Merlins and they were appalled by the amateurish plans RR furnished. They went over the entire design and produced comprehensive plans with defined tolerances for every part. This dramatically improved production efficiency and resulted in a much better product. RR adopted Packard's specifications and production methods and was able to match Packard's quality. RR's were NEVER better than Packard's by any metric. After the war, these engines became highly sought after for hydroplane racing, and Packard's were everyone's first choice. Packard already had extensive experience with this type of engine from their Liberty engine program. They were way ahead of RR's manufacturing abilities at this time. As a side note, Ford developed an engine to replace Merlins prior to the start of the war that was vastly superior. They made both 8 and 12 cylinder versions, GAA and GAC. Henry, the ardent capitalist, was opposed to US involvement in WWII and FDR, the ardent socialist, and his administration, did not want to do business with him. So they adopted Alison's inferior engine over Ford's. Later, they went with Merlins. Reluctantly, they did purchase some of Ford's engines for tanks, where they preformed far better than any other engine at that time. One of the huge benefits of Ford's engine was that they were aluminum mono blocks verses Merlin's separate castings for the crankcase and each cylinder bank. Also, Ford's were DOHC verses Merlin's crappy SOHC. After the war, these engines became the standard for unlimited tractor pulls. They were beasts capable of incredible horsepower.

@@EDesigns_FL Modern automotive engines are made to far higher/tighter tolerances than Packard Merlin's in WW2, when used for standard class racing the way to get far higher performance and reliability over a stock engine is to hand assemble and "blueprint" everything, in other words take something made to Packard standards and then assemble it to Rolls Royce standards. It's how a 300 horsepower engine is able to pass scrutineering the same as a 260 horsepower engine and they are both "identical"

@@EDesigns_FL which two did Packard choose, fast, cheap or good?

@@andrewallen9993 You are conflating standards and have made some incorrect assumptions. The engines RR built for WWII were built to EXTREMELY LOW STANDARDS, not "blueprinted" to a .001" as is typical today. They were only expected to last a few short flights. Prior to Operation Barbarossa, Germany had a HUGE advantage in the air and the British were rightfully scared that they were going to be overrun like the French. They were just trying to get equipment into combat. To illustrate the awful shortcuts the British made in the Spitfire, the main wing spare is made from STEEL. They took roll formed steel plate and made box sections. Several of these boxes where shoved inside one another and then it was bent to create dihedral and hold them together. Aluminum would have been a much better choice, but it was more expensive than steel and harder to work with. Beyond the weight penalty of using steel, there was another problem with it: rust. It's one of the primary reasons there are so few Spitfires airworthy today. The British had a very different attitude about the general quality of military equipment at that time verses the Germans and Americans. While the Germans were building extremely complicated and intricate equipment like Tiger tanks, the British were mass producing crappy Sterling SMG's. America was making Thompsons and BAR's, which are works of art in comparison to Sterlings. British solders loved our equipment, but their government bitched that it was too expensive. So their government gave them crap. It was the same with their airplanes.

And also the mayor of Mayberry on the Andy Griffith show beginning in Season 3.

Do a "Packard Automotive Plant" search on Google Earth and KZfaq...very interesting stuff...

The old Packard factory on East Grand Boulevard in Detroit sits crumbling in a largely abandoned area of town like an eerie skeleton of a bygone era. If only Packard had merged with Nash, Hudson, and Studebaker. They (AMC) might still be around today.

In the video, it mentions at 17:44 that in the year 1937 the soon to be famous Packard plant bridge was built. That bridge unexpectedly collapsed in the year 2019 (after 82 years), so that's not there anymore but some of the ruins of the long abanded plant still remain - but for how long one wonders.

Packard would have been much better off if they had continued using GM's Hydramatic transmission instead of designing their own which cost the company around 10 million dollars to build and of which they also got sued by Buick. The case was dropped after they stopped making Packards. 😒

They should have merged with Nash and Hudson when they were forming American Motors!!

When this video was made in the year 1949 celebrating its half-century Packard was at that time still selling more cars than Cadillac, and Lincoln sold a surprising 73,000 models that same year. The next year everything changed in Cadillac's favor and permanently.

AMC did pretty well for itself until they were eventually bought out by Chrysler in 1986 for around 2 billion dollars.

@@8176morgan AMC did struggle for a lot of years. Chrysler only wanted the Jeep brand. The rest of AMC was disposable.

@@robj2704 The 1980's were pretty lean years for AMC. Before that they were doing alright. Our family bought a 1976 Pacer, it was a pretty good car. After that in the 80's my parents went European - as did a lot of people.

what the Hell you talking about ? did you watch the movie ? it was about the history of the packard motor cars first 50 yrs from 1899-1948

Lol

Welcome to the prehistoric world of Filmstrips! That's how the operator knew when to change the frame.

Originally the films were shown on a projector and the beeps indicated to the projectionist to change to the next slide.