Re: Hudson X-161 as basis for '55 Packard
Posted by Mahoning63 On 2019/8/9 18:14:00
Yes. In this schematic you can see the tall frame in the rocker area.
For the above concepts roughly the bottom half of the structure from rear axle forward would have been carried over, as well as the floor pan. In effect Packard-Hudson would have needed to tool half a car.
What they would not have had to do is tool Hudson's plant to build it, that task done for the 1948 launch and paid for by war profits. This is the great asset that Packard would have tapped. One can argue that Packard could have tapped same with Nash had it merged with them instead, Nash having already set up its own unibody plant. The big difference, and why Hudson was arguably the better choice, was due to a key decision each made in the mid-1940s. Nash chose a conventional floorpan height while Hudson specifically went after a low height that was, for large cars, 10 years ahead of its time. That decision gave the architecture staying power throughout the 1950s.
Nash basically did for 1952 what I am suggesting P-H could have done for 55: tool a new "top hat" on existing platform to give the car modern 3-box proportions. Problem was, the Nash was too tall by 1955/56, offering Packard no improvement over Contour in that critical dimension.
Historians generally say the Step-Down was too costly to modify and held the company back, but one must be careful in jumping to conclusions.
Attach file:
(107.22 KB)
For the above concepts roughly the bottom half of the structure from rear axle forward would have been carried over, as well as the floor pan. In effect Packard-Hudson would have needed to tool half a car.
What they would not have had to do is tool Hudson's plant to build it, that task done for the 1948 launch and paid for by war profits. This is the great asset that Packard would have tapped. One can argue that Packard could have tapped same with Nash had it merged with them instead, Nash having already set up its own unibody plant. The big difference, and why Hudson was arguably the better choice, was due to a key decision each made in the mid-1940s. Nash chose a conventional floorpan height while Hudson specifically went after a low height that was, for large cars, 10 years ahead of its time. That decision gave the architecture staying power throughout the 1950s.
Nash basically did for 1952 what I am suggesting P-H could have done for 55: tool a new "top hat" on existing platform to give the car modern 3-box proportions. Problem was, the Nash was too tall by 1955/56, offering Packard no improvement over Contour in that critical dimension.
Historians generally say the Step-Down was too costly to modify and held the company back, but one must be careful in jumping to conclusions.
Attach file:
(107.22 KB)
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=214179