Re: SP merger

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/3/22 11:13:06

Great conversation on the T-L, hope the exploration continues. Seems there might have been a package work-around provided the rear footwell height above ground stayed the same as '48-54 step-downs. Of concern would have been overall vehicle height, which needed to be very low for the times to render Chyrsler's '55 overtures to lowness insufficient and to completely demoralize GM and Ford. Hornet and Wasp were 60.4 inches tall and the Hollywood hardtops were less but I can't find a number. The work-ups that I show translate to roughly a 57 inch height. If Hudson's floorpan couldn't drop lower because of T-L, something else would have needed to give such as seat height or headroom. Trade-off studies are part of any new vehicle program so the challenge would have been to develop a balanced plan.

On the Jet, I think Europe needed to be its prime target and the next Jet redesign perhaps needed to include production in Europe, maybe even an engineering and design center. This is of course purely hindsight, knowing the beating the U.S. auto industry eventually took at the hands of M-B, BMW, VW and the Asian competitors. I wonder if clues of what was to come existed at the time. Packard-Hudson would have needed to adopt a global perspective. This was arguably a strength of Mason's.

Did Hudson really have a production facility in S. Africa?