Packard Forum Index » General

Great post, Roger and thanks for sharing that wonderful historical account.

On the timeline, the Standard Catalogue says that on January 14, 1954 the Hudson directors approved the merger, on March 24, 1954 the Hudson stockholders approved it and on May 1, 1954 Hudson officially became part of AMC. I have also read that while Barit went forward with merger negotiations throughout the last half of 1953, he held back final approval until it was clear that the '54 Wasp/Hornet freshening would not turn things around. If this is true it would make sense that Hudson suddenly joined the plan in early January, 1954, at least from the vantage point of Conde and possibly Packard. Mason, of course, was courting Hudson and Packard simultaneously.

On the product, the 1955 Packard sales versus large 1955 Nash+Hudsons were similar, the AMC cars selling around 10,000 more but with lower average transaction prices. I think the Nash would have been the more risky platform because of its odd greenhouse, the windshield shaped oddly and the C-pillar not very inspiring or American mainstream. On the other hand the cars had more interior space when the 121.5 wb cars were compared with the 122 wb Clipper. The plan to sell the shorter 114.5 wheelbase Statesman, Wasp and Clipper needed to be scrapped because their stubby proportions made them PUG UGLY. That Mason saw such cars attractive - and with enclosed front fenders!! - tells me he was tone deaf in matters aesthetic and therefore disqualified from remaining CEO unless he kept his meat hooks off Design. Nance had the best eye, Romney somewhere in between. Had Nance's new studio team taken responsibility for all AMC design they might have cleaned up the '55s enough to coax total 1955 sales over 100,000 and half as many in 1956. The '57 redesign would have been the big bet.

Regarding the plan's 121.5 wheelbase Patrician... no frigg'n way. It needed at least 7 to 8 more inches both up front and in back. I monkeyed around with a revived Pierce-Arrow on a Nash body shell a few years ago doing just that and working in a taller grill, archer, open front fenders and 16 inch wheels. That's what these AMC cars needed. Also tried an extra long wheelbase Town Car that used longer front and rear doors and carryover roof top, cut short (so much for the unibody).

Attach file:

---

  (20.40 KB)


  (22.22 KB)

Looking at these old Nashes am reminded that they had a cleaner window frame and nicely chromed compared to Packard, and no body insert between front and rear doors. Score one for Mason, maybe he wasn't as aesthetically challenged as I made him out to be.

<i>I think the Nash would have been the more risky platform because of its odd greenhouse, the windshield shaped oddly and the C-pillar not very inspiring or American mainstream.</i>

That greenhouse was pinched from Studebaker. Compare this 55 Wasp (Hudsons thankfully got open front wheelwells) and a 53 Studie hardtop.

As for Hudson's place in the timeline. Supposedly Barit and Mason signed a letter of intent to merge in June 53 and were in active negotiations that fall. It would have been foolhardy to not have included Hudson in the product plan blueprint well before the start of 54. Actually, Mason should have had that blueprint laid out, then presented it to Barit at their June 53 meeting. The plan should have had the layout for the merger of all three, with an appendix for product plans for Nash and Hudson only and an appendix for Nash and Packard only.

My real suspicion is the author's memory is faulty. I bet they were working on the plan in early 53, not 54. Nance was looking for a merger partner as soon as he landed at E Grand, while Barit apparently wasn't thinking merger until the Jet bombed. That would fit with the author's timeline of first Nash and Packard, as Packard was definitely being shopped, then add Hudson when Barit called Mason a few months later to arrange the June meeting.

Attach file:

---

  (102.70 KB)


  (19.30 KB)

Ah ha!

Which in turn was pinched from the '51 Rambler Country Club?

route66hotrodhigh.com/ID-Cars/NashRamblerModels.html

<i>Which in turn was pinched from the '51 Rambler Country Club?</i>

Breaking: Loewy underling rips of Pininfarina!

And shows how that roofline would have looked nice, without Studebaker going to the expense of a completely separate body for the hardtop, and encumbering the sedans with a too small trunk, in an effort to mimic the hardtops.

The Pierce Arrow illustration looks something like what they might have done for a Patrician, if you give it a full roof and shorten the front end back to a normal wheelbase ( Ambassador front). It would have needed a Packard grille and Packard tail lights of course.

I just noticed the jarring note struck by the door recesses. A distinctive Nash feature that does not suit Packard.

Rusty - here's a crack at it...

Attach file:

---

  (20.61 KB)

"I have always thought Packard's only hope was to sellout to Ford and avoid the Edsel disaster."

Tim - interesting comment, got me thinking...

What if The Deuce had concluded that "Continental" would not be enough for the high end 1958 Lincoln and that after seeing Nance's '57 Packard proposals based on the Predictor in mid-1956 when Nance went begging, concluded that FoMoCo could pick up Packard for cheap, redo the sheetmetal on the '58 Lincoln to make it look similar to the Packard proposal, and use the Packard name as the company's highest priced car. The new Patrician would be made in Wixom alongside the new Lincoln and T-Bird. Maybe a Packard coupe and convertible based on T-Bird was also in the cards, with all the same Predictor elements and also its C-pillar port hole and hidden headlights.

Alrighty, let's keep going. What if The Deuce also concluded that the new Packard would still be sold in stand-alone dealers and would therefore need a lower priced car for volume. Nance's Clipper theme was ugly and Ford would have no interest in tooling another car anyway. What about the new Edsel?

More, more. What if The Deuce also concluded that Edsel might not make it as planned, being shoe-horned between Ford and Mercury. Why not make it a bit more upscale and pricey, in keeping with the Packards in the same showroom? And as he pondered, might have concluded that the big Edsels would be too close in size to the Packard and that what the market really wanted was an up-scale medium sized car, an American Mercedes. "Yes, the Edsel Pacer has the right stuff! If two things are changed. We'll give the interior leather and broadcloth and we'll clean up the rear quarter. And then we'll leave the styling alone for three years to give it lasting value and make the business case work on the lower volumes."

But wait... one more! What if The Deuce concluded that making the new Edsel was going to be a problem, the volume-oriented plant managers not wanting to give the car due care and attention. And what if he looked around for a body-on-frame plant that was up-and-running, with a 100,000 unit capacity, putting out good quality and ready to take the car. And what if the new Packard purchase came with such a plant (Conner) for pennies?

And so the Packard-Edsel Division would be born.

Work-ups, we need work-ups! See Lincoln-Packard progression and Edsel clean-up.

Attach file:

---

  (9.91 KB)


  (10.04 KB)


  (40.95 KB)

Hi Paul

Amazing how much better the Airflyte looks with just some judicious clean up. The lengthened proportions help greatly as well. "Pug Ugly" is the right description of those short front-end Statesman models, something of a Nash obsession since the '41 600 introduction.

Of those short frontal proportions, the proposal to include a Clipper on the Statesman/Wasp platform would have run into a roadblock if the Packard V8 was to be included: it wouldn't fit into that truncated space! Just an "eyeball" measurement, but next time you come across one, check out how short the engine space is a Statesman. For an 'Airflyte' Clipper to have any chance, the 121.5" wb Ambassador platform would have had to been its basis.

Hmmmm, short cowl-to-front axle proportions....sounds like most all cars today....maybe Nash was just ahead of its time.....way ahead!

Steve

Agree Steve, the Nash body shell had potential. The problem with the short wheelbase car was the tall height, a situation not totally unlike the Jet although the Nash had proportionally more width.

Re: Packard-Edsel idea, threw some numbers in a table to see what the alternate history might have looked like. The volumes would not have been high but profits might have been respectible. Would have largely been an effort to chase the upper end of the market to give Ford Motor Company more prestige, chip away at Cadillac and act on a hunch that Mercedes might have tapped something.

In terms of the actual historical data at top half of table, look at what Ford tried to do... insert Edsel just below Mercury, with little daylight between the two. And look at the $4000 - $5000 price range... no product. Maybe that's where this would-be Edsel should have played.

I gave Mercury 40,000 more volume in the alternate because the Edsel had probably cannibalized that many.

Attach file:

---

  (31.20 KB)