Re: Packard & Hudson proximity

Posted by Mr.Pushbutton  On 2013/2/12 12:51:26

Chrysler had absolutely no reason to pursue that merger, whatsoever. Packard coud not have offered them anything that they did not have already, and in most cases, better.
The Imperial name/brand/model had been in place since the late 20s and was enjoying the fruits of the post-war boom economy, behind Cadillac and Lincoln. Chrysler products did not have the stigma of being "an old man's car" by the mid 50s, as Packard did. Especially after Virgil Exner's "million dollar look" 1955 bodies lowered their roofline considerably.
Chrysler had a great engine, were soon to have one of the strongest, best automatic transmissions ever developed (Torqueflite--mid 1956), chassis and until the end of the 1956 model production, body. They were financially healthy, had a growing and prosperous dealer network and were on their way to having their own finance arm (1961).
Packard had an extremely talented staff, a dedicated work force who knew how to do quality work when managment let them. Aside from that, Chrysler (or Ford) stood to gain nothing from acquiring the Packard name. As for keeping the same body for years at a time "like Rolls-Royce", that would have been suecide by 1955. General Motors was changing bodies almost every year, and in 1957, '58 and '59 did. That became the norm, and to the buying public was the sign of success and progress. To stay with the same old body shell year after year was already a problem for Packard going into 1954. GM almost closed the doors on Pontiac in '53-'54 because of the "old man's car" stigma--which was lethal in the mid-50s. Their V-8, coupled with a massive marketing campaign turned the tides on that decision. Having the Hydramatic trans and a dealer network that could cut prices from list, aided and abetted by GMAC sealed the deal. I love Packard, and I love the cars, all of them, but she was an aging unmarried woman who missed her chance by the mid 50s.