Packard Forum Index » General

Indeed Steve, combined with Torsion-Level the new line-up would have made an impact not unlike the original 60 Special. And I like your idea of the Hudson getting the 308 Six in addition to Packard's 320 V8.

According to Richard Langworth, Hudson in September 1953 had around $33M in working capital. This combined with Packard's $40M, which EGB had been carrying prior to its V8 outlay, would have given the merged company a healthy cash position when it approached investors to help fund its 1955 program. True the financials would have fallen apart in 1954 but by then the investors would have been locked in.

I took a cut at a would-be Hornet working in the Italia theme. Elements common with Packard could have included roof stamping (with different backlight cut-out), front and rear doors, window frames and side glass, windshield, decklid, firewall, floorpan and central body structure including roof support. Unique elements would have included backlights, front and rear fenders, hoods, headlights, taillights, bumpers, fascias, grills, exterior trim and interiors. Packard's front axle-to-dash and rear overhang would have been longer than Hudson's. I added 3 inches on both ends to differentiate but not excessively so lest the Hudson look too stubby or the Packard too long. Also added Packard's radio antennas at rear, which look cool.

Moved the steering wheel and front seats forward 3 inches to add same to what was basically the Clipper's rear legroom, the work-ups being based on the 122 inch wheelbase Panther. The Hornet's rear legroom might have been a few inches less because I moved its backlight forward a few inches to thin up its C-piller. Because of all this I also moved the front door's leading edges forward 3 inches to help with ingress/egress. Of course, this would have made the windshield dogleg an even nastier knee-knocker. Perhaps the severely wrapped windshield would have been one design step too far.

Had Nance convinced the investors to go for broke he might have coaxed additional money to productionize a cleaned up Italia in coupe and convertible form. What a shocker 1955 would have been!

Attach file:

---

  (48.15 KB)

Nice job on the Italia flavored Hudson version of a Clipper.

Just one concern: be careful about shortening the engine compartment. The Packard body could just barely accommodate the 308 as it was. I measured the length of a 308 head at 30", and the head of a 54 Packard 359 measured 32 1/4". Obviously, the 308 would be dropped when the new Packard platform came out in 57 as the engine bay of the new platform would be designed for a V8, and not be long enough.

As for Hudson's finances, iirc, at the time of the AMC merger, Hudson had something like $30M in debt, while Nash had closer to $40M in debt. The only reason Romney could get a loan from the same people who turned Nance down a few weeks earlier was that Romney sold them on his turn around plan.

Am surprised the 308 is that long given that it has two fewer cylinders, would have expected more like a 25 inch length. It supposedly fit in the Italia, which had the Jet's firewall, engine frame rails and presumably radiator location. Not a lot of package space to work with.

Your debt numbers sound right, that's what Langworth's book says too. What amazes me is Hudson's postwar earnings. They actually did quite well for most years up to 1954. Did they really look that miserable to investors in late 1953? Certainly Packard didn't, having earned over $5M. Nance secured a $20M line of credit from the bankers to fund his '55 program and didn't seem to break a sweat. The literature mentions it almost matter-of-factly. This is why I think he could have coaxed even more from them had he presented an even bigger 1955 plan, one that worked in Hudson and completely redid the cars. "The Master Engine Builder merges with the Master Body Builder." Would have been powerful news.

Just came across a snafu with Hudson becoming the sole body builder: after the Briggs sell-off they couldn't make bodies. Check page 580 of Kimes book on Packard, lower right. Hudson only did its own stampings. This may not have meant the end for Hudson despite what Kimes' book suggests, only that a body shop would have needed to have been constructed or the Briggs plant bought or leased. Millions for sure but probably less than a new stamping plant. What I don't understand is how Briggs built bodies for them when the body panels were bolted or welded to Hudson's space frame. Didn't Hudson build up their own space frames in-house and affix the panels? Maybe the Briggs bodies came into the plant minus floorpan and dropped onto the space frame.

Mahoning, the Hudson 308 (the largest of the family including the 232 and 262) had a very large bore (3-7/8 as I recall), much larger than Packard's 3-1/2; with the consequent large bore spacing the the block was indeed quite long. Too long in fact to fit into the Italia which was powered by the little 202 engine from the Jet which was not based on the 232/262/308 block.

Quote:

I think his concept is to put a new front and rear inspired by the Italia. around the Clipper passenger compartment, on the Clipper frame. The 308 would drop right in the Packard engine room, which had been designed to take the Packard straight eight, which, by my measure of a 1954 359, was 2.25" longer than the 308.

iirc, the 308 had the same bore spacing as the 232/262. Hudson went to siamesed cylinders and a long long stroke to get that displacement. I have read accounts on H.A.M.B of guys putting the short stroke 232 crank in a 308 block and getting a very lively engine.

Dave - if you have it check Langworth's book on Hudson, pgs 102-103, mentions the 308 fitting into the Italia and it even having been orderable. Not that the written word is always correct but it is, in this case, a good starting point.

Steve203 - what I was trying to show, working from a Clipper-based Panther image, was what a Packard and Hudson sedan might have looked like had they been built with a Hudson step-down unibody. Because the beltline height and many other dimenions would have been different than the 48-54 Hudsons, the only hardware that had any chance of being carried over would have been the 48-54's floorpan and frame side rails from the firewall back to the rear wheels. The bodies would have been engineered and built by Hudson while Packard would have supplied the V8s and Ultramatic. The rest of the content would have been a combined effort.

The engine frame rails would have been new, designed to accomodate the new V8's mounting locations, and to enable a lower cowl. Two versions of front frame rails would have been created, the longer for Packard and the shorter for Hudson (in my work-up, 3 inches shorter which you can see if you toggle between the two images). Hudson would have had no problem with this level of complexity, the Wasp having been 5 inches shorter than the Hornet.

When one adds up the conributions both companies could have made - torsion level, A/C components 100% underhood, flow through ventilation (Spring used this on the Italia, years ahead of everyone) - the cars would have leaped to the front of the pack. And when one considers the pooled engineering resources developing the car, perhaps design flaws such as with the V8 might have been caught during testing by Hudson engineers doing road testing to confirm body durability.

Factor in the pooled studio talent too. Teague was a true designer, young, a great eye and lots of fresh ideas. Spring was a design engineer focused more on functional elements - flow though ventilation, air ducting for brakes, multi-density foam for seat cushions. Working together and properly directed, these guys could have kicked butt!

<i> the only hardware that had any chance of being carried over would have been the 48-54's floorpan and frame side rails from the firewall back to the rear wheels.</i>

That might not work. Putting TL in the Packard frame was easy because the frame members were so tall. Just a matter of putting a hole where it's needed to clear the bars, and welding in a brace to hold the leveler and the trailing arms. No so much room to work with on the Hudson.

There are some nice pix here of a model of a Hornet being built, that gives some good views of the frame.

modelcarsmag.com/forums/?showtopic=47477

<i>... the longer for Packard and the shorter for Hudson (in my work-up, 3 inches shorter which you can see if you toggle between the two images). Hudson would have had no problem with this level of complexity, the Wasp having been 5 inches shorter than the Hornet.</i>

The 308 used in the Hornet was about the same length as the 262 used in the Wasp, and, as you say, the Wasp was shorter ahead of the firewall than the Hornet. There are a Hudson and a Wasp at the Hostetler museum with the hoods up, so I got a good look at how they got the engine in the Wasp: the firewall is dished about 5" to clear the engine. I'd say making the Hornet shorter than the Packard, and still using the Hudson 6 is a no go.

<i>When one adds up the conributions both companies could have made - torsion level,</i>

Recall that the inventor of Torsion Level, William Allison, was a Hudson engineer. Hudson didn't have the money to develop the concept, so they lent Mr Allison and his patents to Packard.

<i>...perhaps design flaws such as with the V8 might have been caught during testing </i>

The oil aeration problem with the V8, and the weak Twin Ultramatic would have been revealed by anyone who did adequate testing. When Packard was proposing the 352 to the government as a truck engine, the government required a standard 500hr run on a test stand. The engine failed, due to oil aeration (iirc, that episode is in "Master Motor Builders") Another case of Packard trying to cut corners, and shooting themselves in the foot.

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder about Allison. It seems the two companies were destined to be linked despite any formal merger. The 1955 Packards road on a Hudson suspension. The 1955 Hash, or had Hudson gone it alone and survived a few years, the step-down Hornet, was or would have been powered by a Packard V8. Interesting how the only remnant of Hudson left by 1957 was in the proposed Packard program. Hudson was a very innovative company, would have been a natural fit for Packard. Torsion level, on the other hand, would have been a tight fit but Packard had figured it out for the only slightly more accommodating '57s, see images of demo frame:

packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/myalb ... cid=64&num=10&orderby=dateD&pos=140

The torsion bars were of small diameter, perhaps could have been routed under the step-down's cross members. The rest of the assembly would have needed to find a home under the rear seat, probably driving a new floorpan with kick-up (fuel still being packaged aft of rear axle in those days). Maybe Spring's multi-density foam ideas could have led to a thinner but still comfortable rear seat bottom, freeing up more space underneath. The engineers would have figured it out, they are a clever and tenacious breed, especially Allison who had probably thought long and hard about a step-down application when he was at Hudson.

Regarding the 308 Six, would have been nice to have in the lowest priced Hornet but if it had to go, no major harm would have come. Hudson would have been powered by the 320 V8 only, that engine in time becoming linked to Hudson just as strongly as the 308 had been.

Another thought comes to mind: post-war Europe was well along in rebuilding itself by the mid-50s and the Jet might have been well received as an export. Would not have been too great an expense to create a right-hand drive version. There might have been 5-10K sales on the table and a bright future for Hudson, and Packard too since Europe had long been a destination for its cars.

Revisiting the Six, Hudson engineers by all accounts liked this configuration and were supposedly indifferent to V8s. Nance would have done well to tap their passion and act on his own instincts for an overhead cam engine, tasking Hudson's engineers to create a new OHC Six that was smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the old ones, to power all future Jet-based cars including a cleaned up, mass produced Italia. It wouldn't have necessarily meant an expensive new plant, just retooling of the old one. (am of course forgetting about my earlier Studebaker proposal... ah how the mind wanders)