Packard Forum Index » General

In reply to the "What about Hudson?" remark a few messages back. We know what Studebaker came out with as well as Nash (Rambler). With Packard we had up to 1956 as well as plenty of styling studies as well as pictures of "Black Bess". Hudsons' only future styling I know of was the Hudson Italia and its four door companion. Now if Hudson had to (with its 308 six) borrow Packards' frame with torsion level, 320 V-8, and Ultramatic but put an Italia based body on it, then Hudson definitely would have looked different from the rest of the AMC clan while having a shared underbody. Of course who knows if it would have sold. Hudson had as one of its hallmarks a name for speed and race wins so it would have become the Pontiac (late sixties) of AMC. Hudson seems to be thought of as extra which, given the '58 recession, would definitely have been the end of its production. The 58 recession probably would have ended Clipper production as well if S-P had enough to come out with a full line in 57.

In answer to Bobby's question..

Reading Ward's book pgs 147-158, a couple things jumped out. First, Mason did want Packard to join AMC as a stand-alone and pitched the idea to Nance and Ferry in mid-1954 but never got the chance to pitch to the full Board. Second, Romney reached out to Nance in June 1954 to explore opportunities to cooperate, and Nance "gave him the cold shoulder." And third, Nance asked Grant in July 1954 to study and recommend an S-P position should AMC suggest merger. Grant came back several weeks later and basically said S-P and AMC were sinking and needed to merge asap." He also hinted that S-P would be at a negotiating disadvantage due to its direr situation.

Maybe this last point is why Nance balked about merger with AMC from there on? ...he wanted to buy time to turn S-P around and put it (and his own future) in a stronger bargaining position? He was all about power and control, as were the other Independent leaders. He allowed the new S-P Board to be controlled 8-7 by Studebaker people but made sure he ended up in control of daily operations.

Am not sure why Packard's Board seemed more intent on considering a Studebaker merger than an AMC merger. Prior to Hudson merging with Nash, the Packard Board made it clear that they preferred Studebaker over Hudson. Maybe they liked Studebaker's larger volumes, or felt Hudson was a basket case, or both. Once AMC was formed the Board's logic might have been the same. Or maybe they saw Mason pull the plug on Hudson's Jefferson Ave plant and didn't want the same thing to happen to EGB.

I think the whole episode points to the reality that it was easy for free agent Nance to sit down with Mason over coffee and talk about working together to create a Big 4th but, years later and lost in the fog of war, it was very difficult to follow through on.

Interesting discussion. Don't forget to factor in the recession of 1958.

(o[]o)

My vote for the new '57 Hudson would look like the second image (black car with red interior):

auto.howstuffworks.com/1957-and-1958-packard-concept-cars3.htm

My guess is that the Frank Spring would have had little say, if he were even retained, and that Packard stylists would have somehow gotten the mid-priced design they wanted even if wore a Hudson badge.

Would argue that Hudson would have survived the '58-59 recession. Packard would have needed the car to make the entire platform business case work, even it it meant losses for a year or two. The profits from '57 would have helped balance.

I kinda like the "Batmobile" styling study of that clipper as well. I don't know about the flared front fender and headlight pod, though. One thing about Hudson is that although the unitized body was hard to change year to year, going from 1948 to 1953 without A N Y front or rear changes was just stupid. Not dumb. Not ignorant. But stupid. Even Studebaker knew better and changed its front end twice on its 1947-1952 body. Why Hudson thought it could get away with adding-subtracting a few chrome bits year after year is beyond me. Even the 54 restyle didn't look that hot. Its no wonder Mason looked at what Hudson had to offer and piece by piece cut away till there was only the dealership franchise and the Hornet 308 left to carry over into 1955. I remember seeing a picture of the Hudson 'frame' in a book some years ago and all the fenders, hood, trunk, and door skins could have been altered without any structural changes.

Agreed on all counts.

'57 Hudson w/o those goofy front fenders... The Wild One ... Dodge and Mercury look out!

Revisited the '57 Clipper clay model pics in Kimes' book, pg 624, also shown here.

google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&sa=X&biw= ... bnw=157&start=18&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:18,i:198

No no no. No!! Went from Batmobile to Dorkmobile and one more reason not to include Studebaker in Packard's large platform strategy, would have dragged down Hudson. Apparently both were to use the same bodies, the Clipper getting a 5" longer hood.

Was hesitant to mod this but wanted to see what a more restrained batmobile might look like as a Hudson.

Attach file:

---

  (22.69 KB)

Regarding Steve's recommendation that Fraser lead the company, I think it is excellent. Fraser would keep the company's broad interests in mind while also applying his finely calibrated automotive B-S meter to the ongoing plans proposed by his two underlings. The camel named Nance would have already had his nose in Packard's tent so Packard's or S-P's board would have needed to exert force to make the merger happen in the face of Nance's resistance at being demoted to division head.

Romney might also have initially resisted AMC's board though probably would have fallen in line, comfortable in his conviction that he had the hot hand with Rambler.

Wow! The rendering from Mahoning63 looks pretty good. Kind of reminds me of the early sixties Chryslers.