Re: Continuing the Packard

Posted by Fyreline On 2012/9/26 20:52:05

I tend to agree that Mason appears to have been a "take charge" type of guy, and while this is certainly an admirable trait in an auto executive it can be a liability when you're talking merger. Nance would have none of it - as you've pointed out (correctly, I believe) Nance was not overly enamored with "quirky" styling, and letting someone else call the shots at Packard - especially someone from a company whose cars Nance probably didn't care for all that much - just wasn't going to happen. As it turned out, Studebaker was no better a fit, especially when the true state of their finances became apparent. of course, Mason was gone by then and as for Hudson, they were already dead, they just hadn't been given a decent burial yet. Tough sledding for the independents in the mid-1950's, especially as the Big Three heated up their sales race. Too bad, some really interesting cars might have come out of any combination of them. After all, the few cars we DID end up getting from S-P were, at the very least, something a bit different. As for AMC, they did pretty well for what they had. What might a four-make merger have wrought?