Packard Forum Index » General

I know there is another thread about the S-P merger going around, so I thought I would start this separate thread for all you shoulda-woulda-coulda speculation theorists. Maybe you have not seen or heard of this before.

I write a column for our MCP regional publication about what was happening in our club 20 years ago. That brought me to looking at a 20 year old copy of our Packard Digest. Therein was a reprint of a story published in a book "The Cars That Hudson Built" written in 1980 by auto historian, John Conde.

Rather than retyping the story it was easier for me to scan the story - you can see it below. The title of the piece is "Planning for a Merger."

Click on the page to enlarge.

Attach file:

---

  (169.46 KB)


  (174.16 KB)


  (110.74 KB)

Thanks for the post. An interesting read.

I would question the cost of converting E Grand to unibody construction, as well as replacing the Patrician with a tarted up Ambassador, as that would shrink the Patrician. I would also question splitting Nash senior platform production between Kenosha and Detroit as the Ambassador was a stretched Statesman, and that would require double the tooling expense for shared parts, or a lot of shipping of parts between the two plants. But then, this presentation was produced by a Nash team, so it could be expected to be Nashcentric. This level of badge engineering would probably result in the failure of every brand except Rambler, just as the Nash/Hudson badge engineering did in a very few years, and, for that matter, the degree of badge engineering at GM in the 80s and 90s rendered Oldsmobile and Pontiac redundant.

I question the timeline. According to the article, the project started in January 54, and Hudson was added at the last minute. According to the Foster book about AMC, Mason and Barit signed a letter of intent in the Book Cadillac hotel in Detroit in June 53 and negotiations were well underway by fall of 53. It was after the merger with Hudson was announced that Mason made this presentation, or offered to make this presentation, accounts vary, to the Packard board. Every source seems to agree that it was Nance's demand that he be the big shot, that sank Packard's inclusion in AMC.

The approach I would have taken is to build the Ambassador and Hornet on the Clipper platform, at E Grand, leaving the Patrician at a size comparable to Cadillac. The Wasp and Statesman would be built in Kenosha on a stretched Rambler platform. In the late 50s, the Ambassador was indeed built on a stretched Rambler platform, though the stretch, all in front of the firewall, was too long to my eye.

Interesting idea about using the Nash full size body for Packard. In their 1952 ads Nash claimed their Ambassador was 2 inches wider than a Cadillac.

Since width is the hardest thing to change in a car body, this is a good thing.

The cowl, windshield, and front door area is the most complicated, expensive and hardest to change.

Length is easy to change. Packard made different junior and senior bodies by lengthening the same body behind the front doors. The seniors had a different roof and rear window, different rear quarters and slightly different rear doors.

Plymouth and Dodge, and probably others did the same trick.

I can see a senior Packard based on the Ambassador shell with different rear doors and roof line, and different rear fenders.

It is also fairly simple to lengthen the engine compartment and move the front suspension forward as Nash did between the Statesman and Ambassador.

Would it have been possible to adapt the torsion bar suspension to the unit body Nash shell?

I think it would have been possible to make Nash based Packards. Depending on how much they could afford to alter the body. This was common in the industry, GM had been making everything from Chev to Cadillac with just 3 basic body shells since the thirties.

Hi Roger

Thanks for posting John Conde's piece, it's an interesting perspective on the internal goings-on during those turbulent years for the Independents. Reading it, I suddenly recognized I'd read it before...but where...to the stacks! It was included in the 'Personality Profile' feature of "John Conde: Man of Letters" by Patrick Foster in Collectible Automobile, October 2008, Vol.25 No. 3, pages 68-75. Interest article if you have a chance to read it.

As Steve203 points out, a good deal of badge engineering would have happened in a short time to keep all Makes on the market, though to problematic results. The logistics of bodies built here and there, shipping components everywhere sounds like quite the disaster. The idea of a six cylinder Clipper, Hornet engine or not, being competitive in the 1955 market was pretty much a non-starter.

And, frankly, a Patrician built off the Nash Ambassador platform......shudder....!

Steve

The Nance reaction is typical corporate America - to hell with shareholders, customers, reality, and professionalism. He was acting downright childish.

I have always thought Packard's only hope was to sellout to Ford and avoid the Edsel disaster. But with the weirdo management at Packard and the belligerent people at Ford the result would have been rather sad.

Length is easy to change. Packard made different junior and senior bodies by lengthening the same body behind the front doors. The seniors had a different roof and rear window, different rear quarters and slightly different rear doors.

Easy on a body on frame platform. Not so easy on a unibody. Nash/Hudson/Rambler/AMC did their length changes in front of the firewall, where a unibody car has welded on frame rails.

Torsion Level would probably be a no-go on the Nash platform. At that time, Nash made a big deal about their long coil springs at each corner, meaning the unibody was made to bear the suspension loads high in the body, not down where torsion bars are. The trailing arm rear axle setup in the TL cars would probably also be impossible as Nash used torque tube drive.

Going from the existing platform to a tarted up Nash, the Patrician would be the same width and height. 5.5" shorter and lose 5.7" of wheelbase.

Interesting. I looked up some pictures of the Nash and the rear doors are noticeably shorter than the front. It would be possible to make them 5.5" longer without being out of proportion. At the same time you could make a more formal roof line, and change the rear fenders.

Use the stretched body and Statesman front for a Clipper and the longer Ambassador front for the Patrician.

It would have been necessary to completely revise the production lines to go with unit construction, but the Briggs sale meant a complete revision of body procurement and assembly anyway.

Quote:

If it was easy, Nash probably would have done that. As it was, all the extra length of the Ambassador was ahead of the firewall, so the big buck 121" wheelbase Ambassador had no more room in the back seat than a 114" wheelbase Statesman.

The roof is a stressed element in a unibody. While the 56 Rambler went through three different front and rear fender treatments by 62, the roof stayed the same. The 63 senior Rambler went through two front clip changes and 1 rear end change, with two wheelbase stretches by 66, but the roof stayed the same.

Attach file:

---

  (87.12 KB)


  (89.50 KB)

When Nash used Packard engines did they ever put them in the Statesman body?

Quote:

Not to my knowledge. The Packard V8/Ultramatic combination was an option on the Ambassador, in place of an ancient Nash 252 six, and in the Hash Hornet, in place of the 308.

The Statesman used the Nash 196 and the Hash Wasp used the 202 that Hudson had developed for the Jet.

Apparently, there were discussions between AMC and S-P for AMC to buy Studebaker V8s for the Statesman and Wasp, and S-P to buy the 196 to use in place of the Champion 186. That never happened though, due variously to animosity between Nance and Romney, or other things happening to divert management away from that project.

The Ultramatic would probably have been another casualty of Packard joining with Nash, as well as Hudson, as Nash and Hudson both used Hydramatic, maybe not a bad thing given the issues with the 55 TU.