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

Randy: Have you ever read the book The History of Hudson by Don Butler? This book is about the history of Hudson it was first published in 1982 by Crestline Publishing.

Butler was an automotive designer employed after WWII by both Hudson and Nash. His employment with Nash was from 1948 through 1956. After the merger with Hudson in 1954 he was given charge of the interior styling studio for AMC.

On page 312 of the book Butler had the following to say about Nance. On January 14, 1954 the board of directors for Hudson and Nash-Kelvinator approved a plan to merge as American Motors Corporation.

In February 1954 James J. Nance ended efforts to integrate his company with AMC. Butler states that Meade Moore then head of Nash engineering told him Butler that Nance withdrew mainly because he could not be the top man of AMC.

Later I will post remarks by John Conde and what he said was the reason that a Packard Nash merger failed to take place


John F. Shireman

I was at George Romneys house about 23 years ago and asked him about the possible merger. One of the major factors he talked about was the death of George Mason. He said any momentum for the merger died at the same time.

Straight from the horses mouth - probably where that version originated from. Thanks Joel.

John, I take what insiders at N-H said as mostly rumor unless they were in the executive offices. That is the same for any organization. There were times when I could not fathom what my company was doing. But the executives had access to knowledge that I did not have, so sometimes their decisions seemed very wrong, but usually turned out right.
We love Packards and would be glad to say "this is the one reason Packard failed". But there is no one reason - there were many reasons, and perhaps we still do not know all the facts. Looking at Packard in 1955 after the 54 models was exciting. No other manufacturer changed engines, suspension and transmission all in the same year and suffered so few faults. I still think they pulled off a major achievment. Thay just ran out of money.

Randy Berger said:Quote:

I like how you put that. Packard really did a special thing with the '55 change over. It was monumental for an independent to do so much, so fast. If they had more cash, they might have pulled it off.

I don't know as much about it as most here, but I think the explanation that it was a lot of different reasons that eventually ended Packard.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Portlandon, two publications you might enjoy reading on this topic, (1) The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company by James A. Ward, published by Stanford University Press (see the bookshelf feature on this website), and (2) The Nance Papers, as published by The Packard Club in several segments in The Packard Cormorant. Ward's book has received acolades for it's intensive research.

Randy: Your statement about Packard in 1955 having suffered
so few faults with the introduction of a new engine, tranny and suspension makes me scratch my head in puzzlement.

Those called few faults were major ones that cost Packard sales and a lot of money to fix.

1. Major oiling problems with the new V8's
2. Problems with the twin ultramatic
3. Major problems with the quality and fit with bodies produced by Packard in 1955.
4. Rear axle bearing problems in 56
5. Problems in 1956 with the new new button selector.

Those few problems were major ones which Packard didn't have enough money to cover up like GM and Ford did when they had problems.

John F. Shireman

G'day all, Last year i tried unsuccessfully to post the results of a September 1955 Popular Mechanics poll of 1955 Packard and Clipper owners. PM asked owners in 41 States to tell about their experiences with the 1955 Packard. I shall attempt to re-post the article. However the results do not show glaring problems in the Packard, Custom Clipper or Clipper models. Here are a few of the responses.
Overall Rating
Packard............Excellent 97%, Average 3%, Poor 0%

Clipper Custom......Excellent 72%, Average 21%, Poor 7%

Clipper.............Excellent 73%, Average 22%, Poor 5%

Most frequent Complaints
Rattles:.......Packard 14%,.. Custom 33%,..Clipper 24%
Poor Assembly..Packard 11%,.. Custom 23%,..Clipper 12%
Poor gas EConomy.Packard 6%.. Custom 13%,..Clipper 13%
Leaks Dust......Packard 6%......"....0%,....."......0%
Hood latch......Packard 6%...........0%.............0%
Uses Oil........Packard 0%...........15%............8%
Poor Paint,Chrome: .....0%...........12%............0%
Noisy Engine............0%............0%............8%
Would Buy Another Packard..Yes.94%...No..0%..Might.6%
.."...."....."....Custom...Yes.64%...No.11%..Might.25%
.."...."....."....Clipper..Yes.71%...No.5%...Might.24%

Best regards peter Toet.

John, don't scratch too hard - the turf is thin up there.
1. Major oiling problems with the new V8's
Refer to Peter Toet's reprint from Pop Mech
2. Problems with the twin ultramatic
They did have some problems with 55 TUs but no more and probably less than other MFG and they responded quickly - not an excess of TSBs on the tranny though
3. Major problems with the quality and fit with bodies produced by Packard in 1955.
That has been documented, but apparently fixed before the customer bought the car - refer again to Peter Toet's entry
4. Rear axle bearing problems in 56
The axle bearing problems were caused by Dana and fixed by Packard
5. Problems in 1956 with the new new button selector.
I'm sorry - I don't know of any great problems with the pushbutton selector and I drove one as my daily driver from 62-65. I drive one today.

Unfortunately, I won't be driving mine tomorrow. The weathermen here in Pgh refuse to cooperate.

I have to agree with Randy on this one.

Out of my personal experience with a worn out 50+ year old car being driven daily, is that:
#1, the Ultramatic trans is a damn fine trans IF driven conservatively.
#2, the electric pushbutton system is rock solid reliable if maintained properly. Mine wasn't even "properly" maintained and never gave me ANY trouble in the over 2 years I drove it.
#3, the body on my car was well put together and solid. Can't say the same for other mid-'50s cars I've owned.
#4, The Dana axle problem cannot be attributed to Packard like Randy stated.
#5, Yes, the Packard V8 suffered from oiling problems, and IMHO, was the worst thing about Packards from '55-'56. But, we've solved that now so it's a non-issue.

The were, are, and will always be great cars. I hope to own another one someday.