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

Posted by Steve203 On 2015/2/24 21:43:23

in this case, Nash and Packard to develop a common shell useful to both, ideal.

What kills that idea is that Nash had switched to unibody construction before WWII. Hudson went to unibody in 48.

Packard and Studebaker both used body on frame.

Any Studebaker/Nash or Packard/Nash or Hudson platform sharing means eather closing one plant and consolidating production, or investing millions to covert to the other construction system.

The main Nash plant in Kenosha was pretty decent. I toured it in 75. The lakefront plant was horrible. It had originally been built by Simmons to make mattresses and furniture. Mason bought the lakefront plant in 52 to expand capacity. The body plant was in Milwaukee, also old, and required rail shipping of semi finished bodies to Kenosha.

I read a piece on line about the Chinese fire drill that AMC did with the Alliance: partly build the body in the main plant, then truck to lakefront. Finish building the body, then elevator to the top floor, where the paint line was. Then truck the painted bodies back to the main plant for final assembly.