Re: What SINGLE factor MOST contributed to the demise of Packard?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/2/22 18:19:04

While it might have been possible that Nance either "misremembered" or flat out lied, am not sure Pat made a slam dunk. Recall reading something, I think it was Frederick Rush's break with Nance in 1954 and the stockholder revolt he led (Steve K - am I getting this right or "misremembering" the article you sent me a few years ago!). What I took away was that Nance wanted to be the auto industry's salvation and had no interest in reporting to a higher pay grade. And he and the BoD were consumed with the idea of "bigness" as he called it.

So while Pat's evidence suggests that the grand merger may have been a myth, I think the possibility that it was a reality was also plausible, that Mason and Nance did indeed talk but neither showed all their cards, particularly the one called "who will lead." This omission, were it and the initial merger talks to have been true, would help explain why EGB entertained all merger options when the seller's market collapsed in the first half of 1953. It also seemed apparent that the BoD and probably Nance were mesmerized by Studebaker's volume potential to the point where they couldn't see the company for what it had become.

I too think salvation was possible as late as 1953, particularly had Packard simply gone it alone. In this scenario the company may well have weathered 1955-56 and raised the capital needed to launch the '57s.

Merger with Hudson would have been a tougher road particularly since the ink would not have been signed until say, January 1, 1954 which would have been the earliest realistic date given Barit's intractable independence (he only began talking merger when the Jet failed). By then Hudson was losing money by the millions, had no clue how to design an attractive car and was facing (and someone please correct here if wrong) a loss of Jet body stampings because Murray was getting out. The 1955 Hudsons would probably have become "Packsons" or "Hudards" i.e. Clippers with a Hudson face job, or perhaps they would have been the actual Clipper, Nance deciding he didn't need Clipper now that he had Hudson.

And so... Packard would have lost tons more money in 1954 than it did with Studebaker, the latter vamp not sucking the blood from EGB's coffers until October of that year. But the flip side would have been that 1955 would have seen less of a drain since the Jefferson plant would have been scuttled save for stamping operations. One unknown would have been whether Nance would have been as cold-hearted as Mason in shutting down Hudson operations. The warmer his heart, the more Hudson would have bled it.


Edit: "Hackard!"

Edit: Recall the Rush article suggesting that Nance thought he would soon be running Chrysler.

Edit: Under a Hackard scenario where the Clippers were instead Hudsons and sold by Hudson dealers, Packard may well have come to the realization that a 122" wheelbase Executive was needed for 1955 to give Packard dealers sufficient volume in the absence of Clipper. I always liked the Executive, thought it was the right entry car for Packard.