Re: Continuing the Packard

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2012/9/2 15:00:26

Sorry about the previous comments, promised myself would not to go negative on JJN. Let's just say he and Mason had their differences.

Had a thought about product planning, particularly engines, and this is where Nance may have had something important to teach Romney. Nance knew that future Packards and derivative products (Clipper, Studebaker) that used its platform would need to be clearly differentiated in the market. As a result, Packard's powertrain planners developed two V8 engine sizes. Contrast this to AMC under Romney. The inability of he and Nance to forge a sharing partnership led him to order a redundant (to the combined AMC-SP effort) V8 of modern design and settle for an otherwise outdated long-stroke small Six by converting the old L-head engine to OHVs. What he arguably should have done was continue to use Packard's V8 and instead develop two modern short-stroke OHV Sixes that rolled down the same line.

For our would-be plan to save AMC-SP, I suggest that Studebaker's V8 and Six be terminated in April 1956 (the date AMC's V8 was launched) and replaced by these two new Sixes. Also suggest that Rambler get the smaller of the two while Studebaker the larger, and a longer hood to go with it (for style, not packaging). In this way Studebaker would be groomed to become the upscale compact, in keeping with the upscale Packards that would increasingly be sold alongside it in dueled S-P dealerships. There would be no Packard-based Clipper/Studebaker, only the medium priced Packard-based Hudson selling alongside the Rambler.