Packard Forum Index » Studebaker Built Packards (1957 - 58)

John, I disagree with both your conclusions.
The first decision was not to go into a merger with Nash just because he couldn't head of all AMC.

When the Pres of Nash, George Mason died, the merger was off. Nance didn't call it off - Romney did.

The second was buying Studebaker.
Packard didn't "buy" Studebaker. It was a stock deal. Unfortunately the corporation Studebaker-Packard owned Stude and it was saddled with debt. That stock buy-out was the first step in the chain to merge S-P and N-H. When part of the chain failed, so did some of the participants rather quickly. The remaining chain dangled precariously for a while and they too went into oblivion. Romney gutted Hudson very early which had been a great automobile.

The majority of Packard historians, after having had time to study the mid-50s and the various problems that manufacturers had, have concluded that Nance did his best to resurrect a company that was failing in 1948. It's a shame Nance didn't come on board sooner. Things might have been different.

Randy: I will change my second statement to merge instead of buying Studebaker.


As to my first statement about Nance I stick by it. I used to believe all that crap that Romney killed the merger, but no more. I have done some interesting reading on the matter and will give some reference sources I have to back up my statement about Nance.

Romney gets unfairly blamed by Packard people for the failure of a possible merger between Nash and Packard.


John F. Shireman

I don't believe Romney is unfairly blamed. He may have made that decision because he had inside info from some Packard people that the Stude merger was now a dead weight around Packard's neck and he decided to go it alone. I can't blame him for that. His job as chief exec was to do what was best for his company based on the info he had. No one knows exactly what that was - least of all the history writers who tried to figure out what went wrong. I doubt that anyone has ALL the facts.

Being no expert on finanical matters especially large corp. But all the car companies Hudson Nash Kaiser Packard Studebaker and now Chrysler and General motors fail or are failing for one reason customers are not buying the cars being produced. No company can survive if they do not have enough people buying the products they produce. The stock holders want a return on the investment they make no profits no company. Unless they get backing from the government and that did not happen until recently.
Having been associated with C W they are not on my favorites list