Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

Steve did a fabulous job dissecting 1954, the first year Packard lost lots of money as a result of Nance's decisions. In hindsight he invested in the wrong things IMHO.

"It's the greenhouse, stupid!" is the first remark I wish someone would have left on his desk in May, 1952 when he arrived, referring to need for pillared sedans with hardtop appearance. He should have had a 127 wheelbase model readied for Spring, 1953. He would not have know this in late '52 when the plan came together but its timing would have been perfect, arriving just as the market began to tank and giving Packard a needed edge against the competition. He also needed to get as much of these new parts into the 1954 Clipper sedan.

"It's also the rear deck length and overhang!" should have been scribbled on the flip-side of the note, pointing to Cadillac CdV and 60 Special. If Nance was really serious about Packard being seen as "the best, Mister" then he needed to take this action for 1954, improving on his flagship pillared hardtop sedan and adding a coupe and convertible.


"Is all this enough for people to take notice of Packard? Haven't seen a front end drawing of the above proposed car. But isn't the public going to think this Packard is just pedaling last years cars for 1955 with straight 8's as obsolete tech?"

Lincoln sales dropped from 37,000 to 27,000 for 1955 on carryover "old" styling. Packard would have had a V8, Twin-Ultramatic and Torsion-Level to sell that year so maybe they could have broken even or eked out a small profit. There were many ways Nance could have played 1955 once he got news from Colbert that he needed to be out of Conner end of 1954. Leasing was probably what Colbert hoped for but Nance could have also merged with Nash and shared its body, or merged with Hudson and developed a new body on Step-Down, deferring the V8 to 1956.

Below is a collage of the major body shells offered that year and the volumes that each enjoyed. Look at the differences in scale! I have included the Italia X-161 to show potential of new tophat on largely carried over Step-Down underbody. Have changed the car to unify the split windshield, remove the black stripe on hood and roof and change Spring's odd headlight/brake vent ensemble to a conventional arrangement, all so that you will take the car more seriously. Hudson and Packard collectively sold 250,000 cars in 1949 so it is not inconceivable that this new body could have found 100-150K buyers spread between the two brands in 1955, increasing in 1956 with intro of V8 family.


"...Christopher stuck with the straight eight because Buick was sticking with the straight eight. In the same vein because Buick was developing Dynaflow, Christopher had Packard develop Ultramatic."

That's a very interesting theory. If true I wish Christopher would have gone all in and converted the Eights to OHVs to keep them competitive longer.


"A step toward that for '54 could have been a Studebaker-like tilt to the front door vent wing while leaving the windshield alone"

Nice job with the mod, would have been an easy change. By 1955 the greenhouse was old and stale and should have never been included in the '55 major refresh in either Clipper or Patrician form. Packard got away with it for '55 but it blew up in Nance's face in '56 with intro of SdV, Imperial 4-door hardtop and new Lincolns. The sedans needed to be pillared hardtops at minimum and Patrician needed to have Four Hundred's trunk volume, which means it probably needed to sit on a 132 wheelbase.

Attach file:

---

  (138.14 KB)

I have a theory, newly formed.

Had Nance and Barit chose to commit in principle to merging and scrambling to tool a cleaned up version of X-161 for 1955, they could have gone on the offensive and brought the case for merger to Mason rather having him come to them dictating HIS terms. They could have said look, if you REALLY want to merge here is the strategy:

1. Hudson builds the big car bodies, Packard builds the big car engines, transmission and Torsion-Level suspension and Nash builds the small car bodies and engines, and all HVAC systems.

2. All three companies get a series of cars based on the big and small body shells. Hudson markets a Hornet and Jet, Nash an Ambassador and Rambler and Packard a Caribbean and Clipper (or other names).

3. All three companies go en masse to the investors to request a BIG LOAN to get the all-new large body and V8 into production for 1955. Total plant volume targeted at 150-200K predicated on low slung cars with most powerful engines in the industry.


What could Mason do other than accept? Turning it down would condemn his plants to insufficient volume, and Hudson and Packard could still go to the investors and make an argument that they could get scale without Nash.

This all came down to Nance. Barit was desperate and would have rather seen his plant and the Hudson name survive but was in no position to dictate terms, being the weakest of the three. He would almost certainly choose Packard over Nash. So Packard was in the catbird seat.

The worst thing Nance could have done was walk away from Hudson and let Nash gobble it up. By doing so Packard became the large car maker with no scale and no body plant, and therefore a weak case to bring to the investors.

Mason had already died by 1955 hadn't he??

I don't think Hudson had much left in the coffers by 1954.
It would have saddled Packard with much of the cost burden to develop and fund building anything. If Hudson was building their own bodies in house this could have been beneficial for Packard.
Not sure a Packash would have gone over to well with their buyers. Even Nash was tight on money I believe, the 1955 Hudson pretty much shared the Nash body from the cowl back. They did get their own front end styling based on drawings done by Hudson of a purposed 1955 Hudson. Different trim and the dash was modeled after previous Hudson layouts.

LOL on "It's the greenhouse, stupid"

yes it is. The gallery really shows this. The Olds hardtop is clearly the winner, and I think the Clipper has by far the clunkiest. (That wide vertical B-pillar again)

The Mercury approach with B-pillar applique is help on the cheap, as has been discussed. This gallery shows I think another effect - how the colors draw your attention to the B-pillar or not. Choosing and promoting in ads color combos that minimize the effect, like the DeSoto's, would help. Also where the color break is at the roof line and the belt line.

The "new top hat" on an old lower is to me a new way to consider the Italia. If doing it, go all the way to a true hardtop if the structural bracing can be worked out. The "production Italia" is a very interesting shape. Much cleaner than most of the era, but I don't know if it would have been seen as too plain in its day.

I regretfully agree with the rear deck comments. My engineering side keeps saying that overhang is functionally bad in every way, but from an advertising and proportion side, the case needs to be made for the extended deck. The short deck could still be a "city model" like Cadillac did with the DeVille Park Avenue in the 60's, but I don't think the volume is compelling once the old tooling can no longer be used.

With my eclectic tastes I would be sore pressed to pick one of the six new for 1955 cars shown a few posts back but am favoring the Hudson (and maybe the Nash) for their unusual styles. However, I don't think that either one would have made a good Packard!

"The "new top hat" on an old lower is to me a new way to consider the Italia. If doing it, go all the way to a true hardtop if the structural bracing can be worked out. The "production Italia" is a very interesting shape. Much cleaner than most of the era, but I don't know if it would have been seen as too plain in its day."

I find it interesting that the Italia sedan's greehnouse was very similar to what Packard had planned for 1957. That design appears to have used a common backlight and roof stamping for the sedan and 2 and 4-door hardtops, the hardtops having more surface on the C-pillar, sedan's C-pillar trimmed to create reverse slant. The Italia sedan could have done same for its 2 and 4-door hardtops, see image.

Attach file:

---

  (22.99 KB)

Let's run out a different play. What if Nance had a moment of clarity and realized, like Mason, that Studebaker was a basket case and that Hudson's large cars were hopeless and Hudson's plant was old and inefficient (which it apparently was). And let's surmise that Nance didn't like Mason driving the merger process and felt threatened by Romney. And the big one... Nance's Hotpoint wunderkinds were able to convince him that creating a stand-alone Clipper brand would be a tough row to hoe and it would be better to use Hudson to cover that market, and doubly better were Packard and Hudson dealers to dual where it made sense so that both could sell more cars.

This would mean that Packard would have to turn the '54 Clipper into a '55 Hudson. Assuming Nance wanted to keep Jet for the small car he always wanted and to compete with Rambler, what options did he have for the big Hudsons?

Here's one: lower the sedan greenhouse to remove beltline, and lower the door handles. This would lower the '55 sedan's height from 61.9 to 60.5 inches by my pixel count, which would have been only 0.2 inches higher than outgoing Hornet/Wasp. That's pretty good stuff, certainly better than what Nash did.

Let's keep the '54 windshield because it would be easier to mount it at hood and deck's surface level and because it would make the car look like a big Jet. And let's shorten the axle-dash by 3 inches because it didn't need to package a straight Eight and because it would get the wheelbase to 119 inches, identical to '54 Wasp. So it would become the new Wasp, with '54 grill melded in and a new Hudson-style hood tooled to connect it all together.

For the 124 wb Hornet let's not add 5 inches of hood length as Hudson had always done, instead add the 5 inches to the body by re-purposing Patrician's roof and melding in Clipper's backlight.

No hardtops, just a Wasp and Hornet Sedan and maybe a Wasp 2-door club sedan. Maybe the Wasp would get the 308 Six and Hornet the 320 V8. Both would get Torsion-Level because they would need a good why-buy.

Italia coupe would continue but powered by the 308 Six and marketed as its own brand.


4/24/2020 EDIT: updated images to raise seats and steering wheel to standard height, other clean-up.

Attach file:

---

  (84.73 KB)


  (84.91 KB)

"My engineering side keeps saying that overhang is functionally bad in every way..."

Let's work with the standard rear overhang and see what was possible by focusing on greenhouse. A 2-door hardtop coupe and convertible would have been easy while a 127 pillared hardtop-style sedan would have needed a new roof or lengthening of 2-door's roof. The cars could have stayed high pockets and still looked good. Am including a 4-door on 122 wb but it would have required tooling changes to rear door, now a few inches narrower than Clipper, and door jams. Overall I think its a strong line-up even without the long deck or 127 wb version of Four Hundred hardtop, the series needing only a Request grill to stay relevant in 1956. One could argue that the convertible go on 127 chassis if it would have enabled use of standard deck.

Appreciation to owner of the beautiful Four Hundred hardtop that these are based on, is a great color and the wire wheels work perfectly. Pure luxury.

Attach file:

---

  (27.18 KB)


  (27.41 KB)


  (27.61 KB)


  (27.67 KB)

My understanding with Hudson was they were unit body and the way they were built made it hard to update the body much without having all new tooling.
Hudson's stepdown come back to bite them in the end. The Jet was never a big seller to begin with and was no competition with the Rambler.
How much heavier would the 308 engine been than the 202 engine used in the Italia?

Really having just Nash and Packard joining forces would have had enough range with the Nash Rambler, Statesman, Ambassador, Clipper and Packard.
Plus both companies had some reserves of money. Hudson and Studebaker were both in need and would have been a drain on what money was available.

I believe Hudson worked with Touring on the Italia. Nash was working with Pinin Farina and had a prototype sedan that would work very well here as the basis for an Ambassador/Clipper. It is more mainstream in its details than the Italia.

I'm not sure I follow the path to modify the Clipper to a Hudson as far as lowering the beltline.If the pillars are shortened, then the windshield, back lite and door stampings need to be new. If the beltline is to be dropped, doesn't that necessitate a new cowl? I missed something - the idea of modifying the body on frame Clipper instead of the step down Hudson is interesting.

Nice use of C Pillar appliques to make the rear wrap around look more severe without getting into major problems with the glass.

Packard - Nash did make sense, but the ego's at the top were a problem. for all Romney's objections, he left for politics anyway. Perhaps a new CEO from neither of the companies would have worked.

In the new Packard-Hudson company, does the Nash-Healey have a twin called Panther?