Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by 58L8134 On 2014/11/18 12:27:25

Hi
An excerpt from Richard M. Langworth's Studebaker: The Postwar Years, demonstates some of the difficulty S-P had trying to do business with AMC.

"Other ideas of Studebaker-Packard/AMC cooperation also came to naught, though it's worth listing them here. Early in 1954, for example, George Mason suggested assembling Packard body panels in Kenosha; this proved uneconomical due to handling and freight cost from Wisconsin and Detroit. Packard also considered the use of AMC air conditioning; but Bill Graves nixed that because both companies already bought their compressors, evaporators and condensers from the same supplier, and the controls had to look different regardless. In August 1954, Packard asked AMC to quote on engine blocks; the figure was $33.48 each against $30.70 from a local foundry, and AMC said it couldn't start delivering for up to nine months. Before Mason's death, Graves and Moore had worked out dimensions for a possible common inner body shell. Studies determined that the AMC integral frame and the Packard separate body-frame were not major stumbling blocks. But this project died with George Mason.


Then there was the body stamping fiasco. Studebaker-Packard had furnished drawing and requested bids from AMC for certain stampings and subassemblies. These were quoted by Hudson - and in nearly every case were way over other bidders:

Item...................................................Hudson.......................Other
Front end cowl top and windshield.......$7.56........................$4.59
Front fender splashers..........................$2.07........................$1.35
Radiator lower splasher........................$1.66........................$1.12
Splasher battery carrier.........................$0.86........................$0.15

"In many cases," wrote W.R. Grant, "we asked them to check their bids because of obvious errors. We did give them the oil pan for both Packard and AMC, together with reinforcements, even though Hudson was not the lowest bidder. It would appear that Studebaker-Packard has tried to keep a spirit of cooperation with AMC, and substantial progress was being made up until Mr.Mason's death, but since that time the progress of the program has been very uncertain." So much for the 'common market' among the remaining independents."

These examples illuminate some of the problems and missed opportunity between the two after the mergers.

Steve