Re: Packard & Hudson proximity

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2013/2/24 12:17:07

An important element of the merger would have been to fully integrate not only operations but dealers and each brand's customer base. It would have been critical that Hudson owners be made to feel comfortable purchasing a Packard-badged car and vice versa. Contrast this to AMC where Nash and Hudson dealers initially remained separate and competed with each other, and only began to merge in earnest once the big cars went away in 1958.

Regarding a Packard in 4dr style only, did some checking of what the intro of a 4dr HT had on Buick, Olds and Cadillac sales. Looks like no difference in take rates for 2d HT vs all 4dr models for Buick or the lower priced Olds but a measurable difference for Olds 98 and Cadillac. For example in 1955, Cadillac sold 45,000 4dr sedans vs 61,000 2HTs while in 1956 they sold 68,000 4dr sedans+HTs vs 52,000 2HTs. Packard would have lost some 2dr HT sales but not all. In Packard-Hudson's favor would have been Jet 2d HTs in the same showroom, albeit much smaller than a full-sized 2d HT. The Jet would have basically been a Mustang sold 10 years earlier and we know how popular that formula proved to be. Would Nance have known it then? He would have needed to work-up a prototype and get it in front of people to test their reaction, the success of the '53 Studebaker coupes being the driver.

After thinking about all these promising product alternatives and comparing to what Nance and Barit eventually chose or were forced into, am left wondering if during the July '53 meeting between these two car CEOs the subject of cars ever came up.