Re: Packard-Stude Merger vs. Ford-General Motors Merger

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2011/10/13 12:39:06

One big difference compared to P/S was that GM/Ford had complete model overlap with lots of potential synergies, although the cost savings would have taken years to realize and the negative hit on brand authenticity would have been significant. In 1954, Studebaker made mid-sized cars while Packard made full-sized cars. I always wondered about the grand plan to get them all on a common body shell. Maybe Rambler/Studebaker and Packard/Hudson sharing would have made more sense. In that scenario Packard would have needed to merge with AMC first because without AMC, Studebabker was a boat anchor to Packard. Wasn't Nance's need to be CEO the stumbling block?

The fact that GM even contemplated a merger speaks to the dire straights they knew they were in. All this happened a few months before Wall Street collapsed and the government hinted to Detroit that they might offer a helping hand. I have to wonder if GM's going first to Ford was an anticipated prerequisite for that money, to show they tried everything to save themselves. What an interesting situation though... the CEO with hat in hand went to see the CEO with hatchet in hand. There wasn't and isn't a (young) Henry Ford or Steve Jobs in either camp, just as there wasn't at Packard or Studebaker. Without that person how can any company, in the long run, survive?