Re: SP merger
Posted by Mahoning63 On 2015/3/24 19:44:45
I now understand what you are proposing. My feeling is that had Packard made perfect cars in 1955 and never merged with Studebaker they still would have run into a sales wall in 1956, the Sedan DeVille was that strong and Packard's own appearance that middling. I think they needed to make a bold massive move while they were still able to borrow money in late 1953.
Schematic below shows Hudson's seating strategy. Front and rear footwells are same level. Rear seat bottoms slope down to maintain rear headroom under sloping roof.
Realized the '54 Panther's suspension was too low for production so I increased the '55s ride height a good inch, putting it around 58.2 inches tall or 2.4 inches less than the 48-54 Hudsons. Given the abundance of headroom in those cars and how the '55 Montclair and '56 Sedan DeVille each dropped their roofs several inches, I think we're packaged and have a car that would have been competitive through 1958. New front and rear appearance in 1957 and provision for quad headlamps would have kept them looking good while displacement and power increases kept them fast.
Attach file:
(62.85 KB)
Schematic below shows Hudson's seating strategy. Front and rear footwells are same level. Rear seat bottoms slope down to maintain rear headroom under sloping roof.
Realized the '54 Panther's suspension was too low for production so I increased the '55s ride height a good inch, putting it around 58.2 inches tall or 2.4 inches less than the 48-54 Hudsons. Given the abundance of headroom in those cars and how the '55 Montclair and '56 Sedan DeVille each dropped their roofs several inches, I think we're packaged and have a car that would have been competitive through 1958. New front and rear appearance in 1957 and provision for quad headlamps would have kept them looking good while displacement and power increases kept them fast.
Attach file:
(62.85 KB)
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=159445