OK, here we go:

Studebaker

Leadership: Harold S. Vance, Paul G. Hoffman
Product: Champion, Commander, Land Cruiser
Factory: South Bend, Indiana

Packard

Leadership: James J. Nance
Product; Clipper, Packard, Patrician, Carribean
Factory: Detroit, Michigan

Hudson

Leadership: Abraham Barit
Product: Wasp, Hornet, Jet, Italia
Factory: Detroit, Michigan

Nash

Leadership: George Mason, George Romney
Product: Statesman, Ambassador, Rambler, Metropolitan, Nash-Healey
Factory: Kenosha, Wisconsin

Kaiser-Willys

Leadership: Henry J. Kaiser
Product: Special, Manhattan, Kaiser-Darrin, Henry J, Willys Aero, Jeep
Factories: Willow Run, Michigan & Toledo, Ohio


Sure, there's a LOT more pieces of the puzzle than this . . . Who had what for engines, who were the stylists and engineers they brought to the table, and what kind of shape were they in to start with? Feel free to jump in.

Let's see if we can save Packard!


P.S. - Steve, just read your post after I finished typing and posting the above. All good points, and I also had noticed the phenomenon of the 1958 Thunderbird bucking the Eisenhower Recession. I have had some reservations about the AMC dealers being able to effectively market a Packard, but you have shown one possible way it might have been done.

There has been endless speculation over the years concerning what might have transpired if the originally proposed Nash-Hudson-Studebaker-Packard merger had occurred. While certain economies of scale and top-to-bottom market coverage (and a more widespread dealer base) would have been positives, there would have been a lot of problem areas, involving numerous people, places and things. Who stays, who goes? Which plants make the cut, which ones don't? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you build?

Here's a great mental exercise in automotive historical fiction (Is there such a thing? Obviously this group thinks so.). It's time for the 1955 models to be introduced. The new American Motors Corporation, after months of hard-fought negotiations, consists of Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, & Packard. Give a brief overview of the new company. Who runs what, what plants do they use, and what do they build? For some extra fun, you may throw what's left of Kaiser into the mix as well.

I am going to start a new topic entitled Continuing the Packard in order that we may keep the "what if" conversation going. Seems only fair, especially to Gator who started this thread intending it to be about the Renwal Revival Packard model kit. My apologies to him for assisting to hijack his thread.

So if you're up for it, let's see where we think Packard might have gone if circumstances had been just a little (OK, a lot) different. Maybe a four or even five-make American Motors could have done it. Maybe not. Or maybe you have an even better idea?

Let's hear it. See you over there.

There has been endless speculation over the years concerning what might have transpired if the originally proposed Nash-Hudson-Studebaker-Packard merger had occurred. While certain economies of scale and top-to-bottom market coverage (and a more widespread dealer base) would have been positives, there would have been a lot of problem areas, involving numerous people, places and things. Who stays, who goes? Which plants make the cut, which ones don't? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you build?

Here's a great mental exercise in automotive historical fiction (Is there such a thing? Obviously this group thinks so.). It's time for the 1955 models to be introduced. The new American Motors Corporation, after months of hard-fought negotiations, consists of Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, & Packard. Give a brief overview of the new company. Who runs what, what plants do they use, and what do they build? For some extra fun, you may throw what's left of Kaiser into the mix as well.

I guess we've strayed just a bit from discussion of the Renwal 1966 Packard model. Should this discussion be broken out into it's own topic, moderators?

Yes, that modified T-Bird looks pretty good from the side. Exner's 1966 Duesenberg is one of my favorite designs, and it's surprising how well this car captures the flavor of that one. It's been noted how wide these T-birds appear, but I consider that a plus. It allows the designer latitude to create a wider neo-classic grille instead of being forced to use the Predictor-like blade design. All in all, it could make a very pleasing Packard.

While all of these proposals are fun to consider, the sad reality is that the US auto business is just that - a business. Any scheme to save, revive or resurrect Packard had to start with a business model that showed some sort of profit. The days of the loss-leader halo car were pretty much gone by the point in time we're discussing. Yes, Ford learned some valuable lessons building the Continental Mark II, as did GM with the Italian Eldorado Brougham and Chrysler with the Ghia Crown Imperial limousines. I just don't see the numbers supporting an AMC Ambassador-based Packard. While it may not have cost them the earth to bring it to market, it would still have taken scarce funds from more profitable lines, and marketing it through what many still thought of as "Rambler" dealers may have been a difficult task at best. in any case, we'll never know, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating.

So we've considered T-Birds, Chryslers and AMCs . . . What else have ya got?

This has been an interesting discussion to follow. AMC certainly had it's own share of troubles as the 1970's US auto market changed around it. I think a good case can be made that an AMC Packard would have added a much-needed cachet to AMC showrooms, although whether or not the existing AMC sales force would have been effective at moving them is another piece of the puzzle. Tooling costs need not have been astronomical, although to be fair they would have been significant and would have represented a higher proportional investment of ever-more-scarce AMC dollars versus the "deeper pockets" of the Big Three. I like the direction some of the "what if" proposals are taking, but in the end it still looks a bit too much like a tarted-up Ambassador . . . and how is that any better (or different) than the 1957-58 Packardbakers?


Food for thought: GM had no use for the Packard line, they had Cadillac. Ford likewise had the Lincoln, which in some instances over the 1950's and 1960's would have made a very nice Packard indeed, but I can't see Ford abandoning the Lincoln marque or worse yet, relegating it to yet another "in between" market niche a la Edsel. Now Chryslet, with it's on-again, off-again Imperial might have represented a happier home for Packard. For many years an Imperial was simply the fanciest Chrysler, and adding a top tier Packard above that could have worked. The obvious Exner connection has some appeal as well. Unfortunately, as the 1970's turned into the 1980's, Lee Iacocca may have had to kill it . . . Which is unfortunate, because if you are a student of Iacocca, it's exactly the kind of car he would have loved.


In the end, "saving" Packard was probably too tall an order for the state of the late 1950's US auto industry. They were all in the midst of compact car mania, Ford would soon be licking its post-Edsel wounds, Chrysler had quality issues to solve, and Studebaker had already made its decision regarding Packard. Which leaves, as you have all pointed out, AMC. Perhaps that would have been Packard's best shot, after all. I can say this without any doubt: It would most certainly have produced some extremely interesting automobiles!

As I said, For an all-too-brief period, the entire archives of Studebaker-Packard were stored in a warehouse here in Syracuse, New York . . . as others have already pointed out, the entire collection was in fact donated to the Studebaker National Museum (and rightfully so) - I believe the actual date was around 1979 or 1980. At any rate, that's when a series of trucks began hauling it away. I do indeed count myself fortunate to have had access to the entire collection at all, although there's no way one person could have viewed every piece of paper and every photograph in the collection in one lifetime. There were a few surprises hidden in there - at least they were surprises to me. To the rest of you, probably not so much.

OK, I'm taking a leap of faith and making this my very first post since joining the site this week. I should start by saying that I am also "not an expert", but as a serious and long-time student of automotive history and being a particular fan of Packards, I have enjoyed this particular discussion immensely.

For an all-too-brief period, the entire archives of Studebaker-Packard were stored in a warehouse here in Syracuse, New York which was one of many such facilities owned by Syracuse University. Whether the material was donated or not and if so, by whom I do not know. But in any case, fortunate circumstances gave me access to the stacks of material while it was here.

You gentlemen all have some correct pieces of the puzzle. The move to Conner, the perceived profitability of continued auto production, even your discussions of some viable options all reflect actual corporate discussions contained in the archives. You guys know your Packards, what motivated the company, and when you ask, "What were they thinking?", you've pretty well answered that, too.

Obviously not everyone agrees on what could have been. The mixture of nostalgia, respect for the Packard marque, and the changing nature of the automobile industry tend to color our thinking. We tend to think more in terms of what we think SHOULD have been . . . But in the context of the late 1950's, Packard realistically had little or no chance. Business decisions were responsibly made, and a grand old marque died what most consider an ignoble death. That's pretty much it.

I am so glad to have found this site, with the wisdom and passion you all so obviously feel for Packards. I intend to eventually read every post in every thread, especially those involving "what if" discussions and/or proposals. So hello all. I'm already glad to know you.