Packard Forum Index » General

I can't comment on why Studebaker might have waited until the late 30s, but the early to mid-20s and perhaps a bit later were devastating to US truck makers, driving Packard, Pierce-Arrow, and many, many others from the marketplace. Following the end of WWI the US government decided to bring back from Europe the thousands (tens of thousands?) of trucks manufactured and shipped to Europe for the war effort. These vehicles were either sold at bargain-basement prices or even given to Federal, State and local highway agencies and cities/towns which essentially destroyed the domestic market for new trucks for at least a half-decade, maybe longer.

Quote:

Interesting, and something I had not considered. Of course, if a lot of those army trucks had been Studebakers, they would have provided significant service parts business for the company. iirc, many of those Army trucks were from Mack, and Mack survived the industry shakeout.

The government also sold off it's huge inventory of Liberty engines and parts, which destroyed the market for any new production engines near the V-12 Liberty's size. I admire Hall-Scott's solution to that problem: they produced a new 6 cylinder engine, so it's size did not compete with government surplus Libertys, but they designed it to use the Liberty parts that were available below the cost of production. The crankcase and crankshaft were new, but cylinder barrels, heads, pistons, rods, cams were all purchased from government surplus.

Which brings up another question that occured while I was reading "Master Motor Builders": why did Packard persist in making V-12 aircraft engines, with the market flooded with Libertys? The appendix of the book lists a long series of 1300-1500 cuin V-12s produced in the early-mid 20s, each produced in tiny numbers. The sense I got was that Macauley was indulging Jesse Vincent's curiosity, and subsidized the aircraft engine operation until auto profits evaporated in the 30s.

The sense I got was that Macauley was indulging Jesse Vincent's curiosity

I've suggested that as well, that's always been my take on it.

Quote:

So, to answer the question posed in another thread, Packard may have failed due to hubris. Throwing money away on a line of aircraft engines that were consistently commercial failures would point to that. Throwing more money away building Building 82 for the DR-980 program is another case. Granted, it turned out that the 4M-2500 came in handy, but management could never have foreseen that when it was subsidizing Gar Wood's racing more than a decade earlier.

Imagine if Packard had taken the money that went into the aircraft engine programs, and put that into growing the automotive side instead.

Of all the motors Packard worked with the diesel radial is my favorite. The thing was great. Winton was doing diesel research during that period and went on to become a very prosperous company - EMC then EMD - Electro Motive Corporation. Rolls-Royce went into aviation and is still around. I always liked seeing the Rolls-Royce logo on the engines of the planes I boarded for London Heathrow. Not everything good goes to waste.

Finally found the pic I was looking for a while back, illustrating how small Studebakers were in the mid 50s. Here's a shot of a 53-55 Studebaker parked next to what appears to be a 55 Plymouth. The point being there was such a gulf between the size of a Clipper and a Studebaker, that the chances of a single platform serving both clienteles is a bit of a stretch.

Attach file:

---

  (47.92 KB)

Hi Steve203

That view really points up how much undersized the Studebaker was versus what was accepted as a standard, full-sized car then. A shared shell with Clipper sized appropriate for its segment would disadvantage Studebaker for its intended target. The difference in customer preferences was simply too great for a one-size-fits-all platform.

What is telling about how relatively narrow Studebaker's "full-sized" cars were then was that when the Lark was being the developed on the carry-over 1958 shell, no narrowing was necessary, only shortening overall length. Width nearly matched the popular Ramblers exactly.... Probably stretching things bit to say management was being prescient when developing their '53 line.....more like dumb luck!

Steve

Probably stretching things bit to say management was being prescient when developing their '53 line.....more like dumb luck!

I call the 59 Lark a masterful job of making lemonade. Making compacts was the only thing Studebaker could do.

I think it's in the book about Harold Churchill were the discussion is reported about carrying on the Packard name after Detroit was closed. iirc it cost something like $3M to make the 57 Packardbaker. It would have cost millions more to reconfigure the body plant to make the 8" wider existing Packard body.

As the Packard body was not excessively wide, but rather the Studebaker body was excessively narrow compared to Ford, Chevy or Plymouth, by the mid 50s, and there was no money to reconfigure the body plant, going to compacts exclusively was the only option other than throwing in the towel.

Which brings us back to Nance's fantasies about platform sharing between Studebaker and Packard. E Grand could handle Studebaker's volume and South Bend couldn't built Packard's bodies.

pictures not a real measurement as a tape from Popular Mechanics 1955 car specs
make -- wheelbase ----- Length----width

Ford ---------- 115.5 ---- 198.5----75.8

Chevrolet------ 115 ------ 195.6----74

Plymouth ----- 115 ------ 203.8----74.6

Studebaker--- 116.5 ---- 202.2----70.4

Studebaker--
President ---- 120.5-- --- 206.3----70.4

These are four door sedans

The vast difference in size between Packard and Studebaker Products, makes it seem that Packard+Hudson and Nash+Studebaker might have been better combinations.

John