Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Came across this interesting article on the X-161. The prototype sat atop the original Step-Down underbody and represented Frank Spring's proposal for an all-new '57 Hudson (prior to the Nash-Hudson merger).

wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/Aardvark ... _1954__Hudson_X-161_Exposed_1-4.pdf

There were many intersections between Packard and Hudson in the last half of 1953 that got me wondering what a Packard might have looked like. Most notably, according to Jim Ward's book Hudson officials met with Packard in early August '53 to discuss merger, Hudson's financial health severely weakened by the Jet. Packard rejected the idea but perhaps Nance and the Board underestimated what Hudson had to offer. A shared body would have given Packard a sedan 4 inches lower than the '55 Patrician and several inches wider, the Conner crisis would have disappeared and there would have been no build issues for '55, Hudson handling production. Lots of hurdles too such as massive Hudson loses for '54 and the need to raise additional capital to fund the effort, but Nance was still seen as industry wunderkind so he might have convinced investors.

Teague's period Panther proposal is used as guidance for the work-up. Interestingly, it was Teague who bought Mrs. Chapin's Hudson Derham sedan in 1954 upon her passing. Clearly he was into the Step-Down. We can also assume that Allison's torsion-level would have packaged, having originally been developed at Hudson.

Attach file:

---

  (7.41 KB)


  (79.74 KB)

Here's the Panther theme with X-161's greenhouse. Side profile is starting to look like a '57 Cadillac.

These cars would have had lots of advanced features had Frank Spring had his way. Flow-through ventilation, doors cut into roof for easy entry, individual front seats contoured for better support. Packard would have been walking away from an older clientele and going after a more youthful market interested in performance and handling. The biggest issue with the carried over Step-Down underbody would have been the narrow rear track. Spring fixed some of the other issues such as beltline height and front and rear overhang, which appear to be several inches longer than the '54 Hudson standard line.

Here's another good article on the Hudson prototype, and page 12 has info on all the 1954 cars including Packard, as rated by Consumer Reports.

heths.info/assets/hs15-1m.pdf

Attach file:

---

  (79.79 KB)

Hudson might have been a better merger partner than Studebaker was.....

Hudson may not have been too much better than Studebaker but it could hardly been worse! After all, rundown or not, Hudson had one thing Packard needed in the absolute worst way in 1953-54: a functional body plant!

The clean Panther styling, with a finessed and less heavy-handed grille, would have been head and shoulders better than Spring's gorpy hodge-podge Italia/X-161 work.

Steve

The only thing both Packard's Clipper and Hudson would have been competing in the same middle class market. And Hudson needed an updating all the way around in both body and engine. Probably would have still drained resources Packard couldn't spare.

Mahoning63, I enjoy your series of what-ifs styles. I have been wondering how a Packard Hawk would have looked with the Studebaker Hawk front end styling, but with a Packard style grille. Seems this would have been a good choice to keep the Packard look while using the Studebaker bodies. Looking forward to your next styling exercises. JWL

Glad you enjoy them, JW. There was a gentleman who actually modified a Studebaker somewhat similar to what your are suggesting:

56packardman.com/2016/09/13/gear-head-tu ... -could-this-car-have-saved-packard/

Had Nance chosen to merge with Hudson and pulled off a win in '55 there would have barely been a blip in the history books: "In October 1953 after Chrysler informed Packard that it would only guarantee production through 1954, Packard merged with Hudson and introduced heavily revised Step-Downs for 1955. Total Packard-Hudson sales exceeded 120,000 units and profits were fairly healthy, which held steady for several years thereafter. During this period Studebaker sales continued to decline, leading to bankruptcy in 1957. Meanwhile Nash in 1956 introduced a new Rambler that, along with a revised Hudson Jet a year later, helped establish the compact car boom of the 1960s."

Modern day what-ifs of Packard turning Hudson down and instead face-lifting Contour, paying millions to Chrysler to lease Conner, moving all assembly there for millions more, creating a separate Clipper brand and merging with Studebaker would have sounded kooky.

Hudson pricing would have been in traditional Hornet range with 308 Six, a rung higher with optional Utica-built 320 V8. Decision of continuing 5 inch shorter-hooded Wasp version would have come down to investment affordability and marketability, Wasp sales deteriorating somewhat in 1954. Those cars ran with a 232 and 262 Sixes and all Hudsons were flat heads.

Packard pricing would have started in '55 Packard Executive range, powered by the 260 HP 352 V8. Torsion-Level could have been a Packard exclusive and standard equipment, one of its "pluses" over Hudson. Other Packard-only features could have included a 4-way power front seat and higher end radio. Interiors would have been generally nicer than Hudson and the highest level trim, the Caribbean, could have featured beautifully crafted leather, broad cloth or a combo, artfully wrapping a pair of Frank Spring-designed individual contoured bucket seats, between them a nice center console with storage. Other Caribbean exclusives would have been the 275 HP V8 and striking two-tone paint separated by the side trim.

To save on investment both cars could have used common door sets and as Steve mentioned, styling across the board needed to be refined to optimal state. Spring's gorpy theme survived only because Barit left him alone as consolation for Jet meddling and because Italia was not a volume car and Hornet Italia was just a prototype. No doubt Barit would have resumed his snoopervising had a mass production body been developed. In the end, thankfully it would have been Nance and his team who had final say on styling, because Nance would have been running the company and would have known full well that a Hudson failure would have meant corporate failure.

The real test of this proposed strategy is how the cars would have stacked up against the competition in 1957 and 58, because there would likely not have been an all-new design until 1959 or 1960. With 14 inch wheels the P-H cars' overall height would have been reduced to around 57.5 inches, right in the thick of it. Length that would have started to hold Packard back, being around 215 inches. But then again, Packard (and Hudson) need not have danced to Detroit's traditional tune, instead establishing a middle position between Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial and Mercedes-Benz. That long range strategy, more than anything else, would have helped Packard be with us still, imho.

Here's a look with common doors including beltline kick-up, which Hudson needed. I didn't know what to do with those silly Italia headlights so I hid them like Cord and got rid of the brake vents above them.

Attach file:

---

  (79.63 KB)

Here's greater differentiation in length, the Hudson now on Wasp's 119 wheelbase and with rear overhang more like the original Step-Down. Packard still on 124 wheelbase but now with even more rear overhang. Finally one can see difference enough to clearly position Packard above Hudson, but would Hudson's size have been sufficient? Probably not.

Note that I went with '54 Hudson front fender/headlights styling on this version, a default design for lack of anything better to suggest.

Attach file:

---

  (80.00 KB)

Is it because of the stepdown body that makes them have such a wide looking rocker panel? John