tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729166837877316238.post204691496062886376..comments2024-02-22T04:38:15.816-06:00Comments on Thoughts from a Route 66 Business Owner: Saturday at the StationLaurelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03664721949113509873noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729166837877316238.post-76538612456521379652008-09-20T22:17:00.000-05:002008-09-20T22:17:00.000-05:00Ohhh, I wish! We've talked about renovating a plac...Ohhh, I wish! We've talked about renovating a place on 66, but right now, it's just talk! Fun to think about, though.<br><br>Whoa, hold up! A Packard Hawk?! That looks like a Studebaker to me, and Studebaker is the company that did the Hawk. Studebaker and Packard tried to merge, but that didn't work out so well..but I've only studied Studebaker, not Packard, so there may be stuff there that I don't know!<br><br>All my best,<br>Beth<br>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729166837877316238.post-67880806605032411532008-09-21T06:08:00.000-05:002008-09-21T06:08:00.000-05:00Beth,Packard and Studebaker did merge, and the ...Beth,<br>Packard and Studebaker did merge, and the '57 and '58 Packards were made in the Studebaker factory. The merger couldn't help the Packard Motor Car Co., which was already in trouble as a result of producing cars that were too costly for the public taste at that time. The '58 Packard Hawk was indeed made on a Stude Hawk body. Packard added a lot of "luxury extras" to brand it as a Packard. Didn't work out so well. The downfall of Packard was actually more complicated than that, but that's all I have time for now. The resulting car is now pretty rare.<br>LaurelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com