Re: Packard & Hudson proximity

Posted by Craig the Clipper Man On 2013/2/22 14:32:59

Mahoning:

Your last dialog between Nance and Mason is what I think Mason had in mind prior to his death. Keep in mind that Nance was not a car man; he basically knew how to run other corporations of the time. Whether Nance would have possessed the vision that you stated about Hudson producing bodies and Packard the powertrains and Nash producing the small-car lineup is debatable. After all, Nance was the one pushing to separate Clipper from Packard for God knows what reason. The dealers went totally balistic over that idea. By the mid 1950s, it would have made no sense. Besides, after the Light Eight and 110/120 models, Packard was too far committed to a lower cost model than to try and separate from what made them money in the first place. Not only that, the Clipper in 1941 was certainly not a low-priced model: it cost almost as much as a 160 and was similarly equipped. Clipper represented the future of Packard design.

So here we are: It is 1954 and all of the independents are suffering. Willys will soon drop its Aero and put all of its fortunes and future in its Jeep; Kaiser is on the verge of shuttering its plants; Hudson, Studebaker, Packard and Nash are simply stumbling along. Despite all of the interesting scenarios that you and the others have presented, it still gets down to the fact that it was too late to change the course. In 10 years American Motors would be doing OK selling Ramblers, while Studebaker would be slowly heading toward its grave. All the while, Ford, Chrysler and GM would continue to dominate the market and continue to bring out new models like the Thunderbird, 300, Falcon, Edsel (gag), Corvair, etc. Even when DeSoto and Edsel disappeared their losses didn't make a dent in the overall market supremacy of the Big 3.

Even if Packard, Hudson, Nash and Studebaker had merged in 1954, I don't think American Motors would have had the capital and resources to substantively compete againt the Big 3.