Re: Packard & Hudson proximity

Posted by Craig the Clipper Man On 2013/2/12 9:41:12

Packards1: That was something I have heard on numerous occasions and makes sense to me. George Mason succeeded Charlie Nash and one thing is for sure: There were few people ever associated with the auto industry who knew more about cars and people than Mr. Nash. George Mason was a charismatic individual with vision and I think he clearly saw the future for independents and set about to change it. When he unexpectedly died, there was no one to fill the void and the merger of Packard, Hudson, Studebaker and Nash into American Motors fizzled out.

Had Packard not have had to stop automobile production in February 1942, I think the company was on course to prosper with its outstanding Clipper line. If Mason's merger had occurred around 1946, the companies involved might have been able to continue until at least the 1970s when everything went to hell in the car market. They would have had a fighting chance.

The trouble with trying to cobble together four struggling, cash hemoraghing companies into one blanket corporation to compete against a strong, rich corporation like GM was too much to expect.

One last thing: Henry Ford basically lost interest in advancing his automobiles after awhile, expecting unending success with the Model T. It was Edsel Ford who convinced his old man to buy Lincoln, which was the beginning of Ford's entrance into a multi-brand corporation. By 1926 the Model T was so dated that only complete losers were buying them. Chevrolet and other cars were leaving Ford in their dust. Once again Edsel came to the rescue and pushed throuigh the Model A, which was a good stop-gap measure until the company's V-8 came out.

Could you just imagine if Packard had brought out a V-8, automatic transmission, and torsion bar suspension, along with its factory air conditioning, in about 1948? It would have left Cadillac and Lincoln sputtering at the line.