Nash-Hudson-Packard merger: observations and work-up
Posted by Mahoning63 On 2019/1/26 22:28:56
Recall reading in a Crestline book on Nash about how in very early 1954 a few of their designers, at Mason's direction, were busy pulling together a merger pitch that included a body sharing proposal with Packard. At some point they were also asked to include Hudson.
Had forgotten about it until I came across a factory photo of a '55 Hudson Hornet last night, then got to thinking: what exactly did Mason have in mind for Packard product-wise when he reached out to Nance in early 1954?
The image and question prompted me to run-out a Hudson-based Packard work-up to explore what was realistically possible. As it turned out, it raised more questions than it answered:
1. Most on this forum have probably read the interviews of Nance and Romney that indicate that Packard would have occupied the top, price-wise, of the merged company, followed by Hudson, then Nash's large cars. Pulling up the rear, eventually Studebaker - or Rambler if Studebaker did not join.
Easy enough to grasp, but given that most of Packard's sales were in the upper medium price range, how did Mason intend for the merged partners to retain those buyers? Would there have continued to be an entry Packard priced just above Hudson? Or would no such Packard have been offered, Hudson instead tasked to secure those sales in addition to retaining its own customers? Would Nash also make a play for Packard's low-end customers? Would any of these strategies have been successful? With what types of cars. How would AMC have afforded to develop them?
2. What changes did Mason envision Packard making to the basic Nash/Hudson to create a Cadillac-level luxury line-up (and possibly an entry car)? How would it have been paid for?
3. We know that Hudson and Nash large car sales tanked between 1955-57. Why? What did they get wrong? What design alternatives might have been pursued to get them right?
Am attaching two image work-ups.
Image 1
'55 Hornet is on left and has optional rear-mount that increases length from 209.25 inches to 219.25 inches. On right is Packard work-up with the following changes to Hudson:
- rear fenders and deck extended 10 inches to connect to Hornet's extended rear bumpers
- 3.75 inch longer front doors and roof to increase rear legroom to Patrician-level
- 4 inch longer hood/front axle-to-dash
- '54 Clipper sore thumb taillights (no time for Teague to develop cathedrals, too many other things needing his attention)
- in front I should have worked in the '55 Packard's hooded headlights (and did so in a work-up not shown) but decided to show extended version of Hudson's front fender theme because it looks similar to a rendering that Teague did that featured a traditional Packard tall grill (blue car, mesh grill pattern). Raised center section of hood suggests such a grill, rest if left to your imagination.
- all new body sides, bowed out as much as possible to increase width-
Final specs would have been 129" wheelbase and 227" overall length, latter almost identical to '55 Cadillac 60 Special.
A 2-door hardtop, not shown, would use carryover Nash/Hudson roof mated to Packard sedan's extended hood and deck, netting a 125.5 wb and 223.5" overall length.
All told, my conclusion is that Packard - were it to have had any chance at seriously competing with Cadillac - would have been in for a heavy investment, at least as much as they poured into the '55 Contour major refresh, to modify Nash's unibody, and a crash program to get it all readied for '55.
There is also the question of where the cars would be built. In the late Forties, Mason approached Packard with a merger strategy that included an earnest attempt to maximize use of existing Packard facilities. By 1954 circumstances had changed dramatically, Conner now owned by Chrysler and Colbert giving Nance one year to either pay up or move out. By then all the Independents were suffering decreasing sales, high fixed costs and financial losses. Would AMC have had the luxury of keeping EGB open, by either shipping whole Packard (and Hudson?) bodies in white, or shipping nested stampings and investing in a body shop at EGB, when all of this could have been done at Nash's plant for much less investment? A sad predicament for Packard employees, most of whom would soon face unemployment regardless.
Image 2
In creating the Packard work-up there was a realization that Hudson may have mis-spent for '55. Rather than tooling two sets of front fenders and hoods to create the 114.25 wb Wasp and 121.25 wb Hornet, Hudson might have been better off redirecting Wasp front fender/hood tooling towards a second set of rear fenders, perhaps 10 inches longer than standard, and a longer deck. In so doing, all Hudsons would have used the 121.25 wb, the lower models using the short deck/rear fenders, upper models using the long.
Why such a strategy? First, because the bob-tailed Nash body needed it. Second, GM's entries in the profitable upper medium field, market segment of which Hudson should have targeted for its profits, offered long decks (Olds 98, Buick Roadmaster). And had Packard merged, a third reason would have been that Packard would have benefited greatly from sharing the investment for its extended deck, trunk floor, etc.
How might Hudson have faired by dropping Wasp and offering only a Hornet short deck and "Super" Hornet long deck? (or continuing to use Wasp/Hornet for these new models)? Probably sales couldn't have been much worse, quite likely better, and with more staying power until the next major redesign in '57 or '58. Perhaps Nash could have used the long deck too for a special model to compete with Olds 98 while Hudson focused on Buick.
For sure Packard would have needed embellished proportions front, center and rear. I never much cared for Nash's reverse slanted C-pillar but on the Packard and long tailed Hudson it seems to hold its own. Come to think of it, the '57 Packard program had a reverse slant C-pillar sedan. For the '55 Packard my feeling is that Nance should have run with Teague's evolving vertical grill theme - tall, proud, tailored and handsome, commanding attention and respect everywhere it went. Cadillac, no matter how it tried, was never able to offer a frontal "looker" in these years.
Attach file:
(43.80 KB)
(44.29 KB)
Had forgotten about it until I came across a factory photo of a '55 Hudson Hornet last night, then got to thinking: what exactly did Mason have in mind for Packard product-wise when he reached out to Nance in early 1954?
The image and question prompted me to run-out a Hudson-based Packard work-up to explore what was realistically possible. As it turned out, it raised more questions than it answered:
1. Most on this forum have probably read the interviews of Nance and Romney that indicate that Packard would have occupied the top, price-wise, of the merged company, followed by Hudson, then Nash's large cars. Pulling up the rear, eventually Studebaker - or Rambler if Studebaker did not join.
Easy enough to grasp, but given that most of Packard's sales were in the upper medium price range, how did Mason intend for the merged partners to retain those buyers? Would there have continued to be an entry Packard priced just above Hudson? Or would no such Packard have been offered, Hudson instead tasked to secure those sales in addition to retaining its own customers? Would Nash also make a play for Packard's low-end customers? Would any of these strategies have been successful? With what types of cars. How would AMC have afforded to develop them?
2. What changes did Mason envision Packard making to the basic Nash/Hudson to create a Cadillac-level luxury line-up (and possibly an entry car)? How would it have been paid for?
3. We know that Hudson and Nash large car sales tanked between 1955-57. Why? What did they get wrong? What design alternatives might have been pursued to get them right?
Am attaching two image work-ups.
Image 1
'55 Hornet is on left and has optional rear-mount that increases length from 209.25 inches to 219.25 inches. On right is Packard work-up with the following changes to Hudson:
- rear fenders and deck extended 10 inches to connect to Hornet's extended rear bumpers
- 3.75 inch longer front doors and roof to increase rear legroom to Patrician-level
- 4 inch longer hood/front axle-to-dash
- '54 Clipper sore thumb taillights (no time for Teague to develop cathedrals, too many other things needing his attention)
- in front I should have worked in the '55 Packard's hooded headlights (and did so in a work-up not shown) but decided to show extended version of Hudson's front fender theme because it looks similar to a rendering that Teague did that featured a traditional Packard tall grill (blue car, mesh grill pattern). Raised center section of hood suggests such a grill, rest if left to your imagination.
- all new body sides, bowed out as much as possible to increase width-
Final specs would have been 129" wheelbase and 227" overall length, latter almost identical to '55 Cadillac 60 Special.
A 2-door hardtop, not shown, would use carryover Nash/Hudson roof mated to Packard sedan's extended hood and deck, netting a 125.5 wb and 223.5" overall length.
All told, my conclusion is that Packard - were it to have had any chance at seriously competing with Cadillac - would have been in for a heavy investment, at least as much as they poured into the '55 Contour major refresh, to modify Nash's unibody, and a crash program to get it all readied for '55.
There is also the question of where the cars would be built. In the late Forties, Mason approached Packard with a merger strategy that included an earnest attempt to maximize use of existing Packard facilities. By 1954 circumstances had changed dramatically, Conner now owned by Chrysler and Colbert giving Nance one year to either pay up or move out. By then all the Independents were suffering decreasing sales, high fixed costs and financial losses. Would AMC have had the luxury of keeping EGB open, by either shipping whole Packard (and Hudson?) bodies in white, or shipping nested stampings and investing in a body shop at EGB, when all of this could have been done at Nash's plant for much less investment? A sad predicament for Packard employees, most of whom would soon face unemployment regardless.
Image 2
In creating the Packard work-up there was a realization that Hudson may have mis-spent for '55. Rather than tooling two sets of front fenders and hoods to create the 114.25 wb Wasp and 121.25 wb Hornet, Hudson might have been better off redirecting Wasp front fender/hood tooling towards a second set of rear fenders, perhaps 10 inches longer than standard, and a longer deck. In so doing, all Hudsons would have used the 121.25 wb, the lower models using the short deck/rear fenders, upper models using the long.
Why such a strategy? First, because the bob-tailed Nash body needed it. Second, GM's entries in the profitable upper medium field, market segment of which Hudson should have targeted for its profits, offered long decks (Olds 98, Buick Roadmaster). And had Packard merged, a third reason would have been that Packard would have benefited greatly from sharing the investment for its extended deck, trunk floor, etc.
How might Hudson have faired by dropping Wasp and offering only a Hornet short deck and "Super" Hornet long deck? (or continuing to use Wasp/Hornet for these new models)? Probably sales couldn't have been much worse, quite likely better, and with more staying power until the next major redesign in '57 or '58. Perhaps Nash could have used the long deck too for a special model to compete with Olds 98 while Hudson focused on Buick.
For sure Packard would have needed embellished proportions front, center and rear. I never much cared for Nash's reverse slanted C-pillar but on the Packard and long tailed Hudson it seems to hold its own. Come to think of it, the '57 Packard program had a reverse slant C-pillar sedan. For the '55 Packard my feeling is that Nance should have run with Teague's evolving vertical grill theme - tall, proud, tailored and handsome, commanding attention and respect everywhere it went. Cadillac, no matter how it tried, was never able to offer a frontal "looker" in these years.
Attach file:
(43.80 KB)
(44.29 KB)
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=208935