Proto-American Motors: 1938

In 1938, Ford was in shaky condition and was nearly bought out by Studebaker. The old man managed to get it together sufficiently to rebuff overtures from South Bend.

But what if Studebaker decided that, having lost out with Ford, there might be other possible acquisitions--like, perhaps, Hupmobile and Graham, or their erstwhile partners (now on their last legs as an independent), Pierce-Arrow--or even a pennies-on-the-dollar acquisition of the assets of Auburn Motors?

Let's say Studebaker acquired all three of the still-going concerns, and scaled back Pierce-Arrow to one notch above a custom/boutique manufacturer--that is, with just enough units out the door in a year to retain status as a main-line manufacturer. Meanwhile, the assets of the Auburn company would be plowed into Studebaker, Hupmobile, and Graham, including the body dies for the Cord Beverly and Westchester sedans and convertibles. Styling from Graham--the (in)famous sharknose--would also be propagated to Studebaker and Hupmobile. A top-to-bottom overhaul of styling for 1939 would yield some of the more head-turning and popular cars of the late 1930s, as the renovated Studebaker Corporation became an analog to Chrysler Motors.

This would permit all four marques to survive the war, but it might well also butterfly away Kaiser-Frazer: after all, Joseph Frazer was a former executive with Graham who threw in with Henry Kaiser after the war (in fact, the early Kaiser/Frazer products used prewar Graham engines). On the other hand, one didn't say "no" readily to Henry Kaiser, and he might have found an opportunity with Hudson, Nash, and/or Packard. Perhaps a fifth top-to-bottom manufacturer might have evolved after the war, with newcomer Kaiser as the solder to hold together Hudson, Nash, and Packard into a comprehensive line of vehicles (to which would be added the Allstate in the early 1950s as the first reasonable postwar compact car).

If these had come to pass, probably GM would still be on top, but I don't think there would be a clear-cut second banana: I suspect the other four would likely battle neck-and-neck for the second spot perennially. Comments?
 
Being a solid Detroiter, I'd still want to buy a Ford.

For some reason, I imagine your proposed company to sell mostly to metropolitan, middle-class folk. From what little I can recall, those companies in genreal seemed to make slightly more compact-ish cars than the Big Three, although my memory in this area is minimal. I could see them as becoming the 'hip' urban car company from the 1970s/80s onwards, you know, with Bourgoise living in those loft apartment thingies with compact Studebakers or somesuch.
 
I have an idea on how to handle this, but I have to explain the parallel.

The US government would force the merger of a number of bankrupt automakers into one corporation. It would be a crown corporation until such time as it is able to sustain itself on the public market.

American Motors Corporation would be the merger of Nash, Kaiser-Fraser, Tucker, Bantam, REO and Willys.

Studebaker Motors would be formed from the merger of Studebaker, Packard, Hupmobile, Auburn, Pierce-Arrow and Marmon.

All four would have survived the war for sure.

Could such a government-forced merger happen in real life? It did happen with the railroads - hence Consolidated Rail Corporation, or Conrail as it was commonly known. (Which was the merger of Penn Central*, Lehigh Valley, Reading Lines, Erie Lackawanna, Central of New Jersey and Niagara Terminal.)

*NOTE: Penn Central was the merger of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad in 1968, and it absorbed the New Haven in 1969.
 
Interesting topic, I could wonder also what if
A) Henry Ford had died earlier? Instead of 1947, he died around 1940
B) Henry Ford decided to resign and FoMoCo merge with Studebaker?
 
I have an idea on how to handle this, but I have to explain the parallel.

The US government would force the merger of a number of bankrupt automakers into one corporation. It would be a crown corporation until such time as it is able to sustain itself on the public market.

American Motors Corporation would be the merger of Nash, Kaiser-Fraser, Tucker, Bantam, REO and Willys.

Studebaker Motors would be formed from the merger of Studebaker, Packard, Hupmobile, Auburn, Pierce-Arrow and Marmon.

All four would have survived the war for sure.

Could such a government-forced merger happen in real life? It did happen with the railroads - hence Consolidated Rail Corporation, or Conrail as it was commonly known. (Which was the merger of Penn Central*, Lehigh Valley, Reading Lines, Erie Lackawanna, Central of New Jersey and Niagara Terminal.)

*NOTE: Penn Central was the merger of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad in 1968, and it absorbed the New Haven in 1969.


Your concept is a fascinating one, with a couple of things to consider:

* In the late '30s, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, and Packard were far from on the skids (but Ford was: the war probably saved Ford).

* I believe Marmon was gone as an automotive manufacturer by about 1935. A dim memory suggests REO also made its last passenger vehicle about the same time. Pierce-Arrow put out a handful of '38s, but that's about it. On the other hand Hupmobile and Graham, while not healthy, weren't moribund in '38 (what did in Graham, to a large extent, was the now-lionized shark nose design that was a case of love it or hate it almost 70 years ago).

* Tucker didn't appear until 1948, when that company made all of 52 vehicles (which pretty much all survive), when the Feds went after Preston Tucker for all sorts of fraud, none of which was ever proven in a court of law. (There are those--like my late father--who remain convinced that Preston Tucker was a con man; from what I've pieced together, he got framed.)
 
Was the buyout by Studebaker a hostile takeover?

Is there a good history of Ford Motors that documents the events surrounding the attempted takeover?
 
Was the buyout by Studebaker a hostile takeover?

Is there a good history of Ford Motors that documents the events surrounding the attempted takeover?

I don't believe so but I don't have the reference in front of me. I'd be skeptical of a Ford history lest it turned out to be a front-office approved fluff piece. On the other hand, there's a history of Studebaker that I would suspect is about as even-handed as you'd get; check out More than they Promised: the Studebaker Story for an account.
 
Thanks 1940 LaSalle,

An off the wall suggestion - in 1938 both Britain and France were looking to get US companies involved in manufacturing military equipment, the most famous example being the manufacture of Merlin engines by Packard. Ford USA was approached to build Merlins but no deal was forthcoming (although Ford UK eventually made them).

What if the UK government, perhaps using a front company took over Ford and got them building aero engines? Historically the deal with Packard wasn't sealed until 1940 and large numbers of Packard built Merlins didn't come on stream until 1943.
 
(There are those--like my late father--who remain convinced that Preston Tucker was a con man; from what I've pieced together, he got framed.)
Neither, actually. He was careless of the SEC: he advertised differently from what he actually sold, & got burned.
I believe Marmon was gone as an automotive manufacturer by about 1935. A dim memory suggests REO also made its last passenger vehicle about the same time. Pierce-Arrow put out a handful of '38s, but that's about it.
That sounds right.
On the other hand Hupmobile and Graham, while not healthy, weren't moribund in '38 (what did in Graham, to a large extent, was the now-lionized shark nose design that was a case of love it or hate it almost 70 years ago).
And still.:D It was a desperate attempt revive failing fortunes. By '39, the sharknose facelift was all Graham could afford, & Hupp was buying body dies from Cord & contracting out for production. They weren't all the way under yet, but they needed an angel. Stude could've been.

There's a few problems here, tho. P-A (& Marmon, IIRC) were still batch producers. Luxury brands like P-A, Marmon, & Auburn were sold botique style; attaching them to Stude would kill 'em. (Debasing the currency, in effect; even Auburn's ads calling 'em "lower priced" hurt 'em. Now, if they'd gone after Cad/LaSalle's share of the market...) There's also huge over-supply in the top of the market: P-A, Marmon, Cad, Duesenberg, LaSalle (low end), just to name the ones come to mind offhand; to keep Auburn afloat, you'd have to take a piece out of Cad & LaSalle. (Cord couldn't do it, 'cause the 810 was intro to the carshows before the engineering was ready, & they were full of bugs...) And multi-brand dealerships common now were unheard of, AFAIK, in '30s; if you joined all these brands, you'd have dealers not knowing what to do with 'em. I also wonder if the Stude, Hupp, & Graham dealer networks (to start with) were anything like strong/large enough. Also, Auburn was still owned by Cord in '36 (tho Cord would shortly go under). And maybe the biggest issue is, in the Depression, there's enormous overcapacity & drastic lack of demand... Also, to integrate these companies without massive duplication of effort in chassis & engine, you'd have to do badge engineering to a degree I don't think was even contemplated until GM perfected it in the '70s. It's an intriguing idea, tho...

Let me pose another option, originally suggested by C&D some years ago: a company builds one model, say Cord's 810, across an entire price range. Think of GM: how many LeSabres, Cutlasses, LeMans, & Montes do you suppose GM sold combined in '78? Could a company survive selling just a Monte-size model in all these price ranges, plus Cad, offering essentially any combo a buyer wants? (Like, say, the Cad seats & radio in a L6-powered cheapie.)
 
WWII definitely saved Ford. The old man's autocratic, anti-Semitic style would have pushed his company into obscurity if the government had not stepped in and retooled/modernized the plants to produce components for jeeps, planes, tanks, ships, etc.
 
Assuming Studebaker survives to present day, do they rebrand at some point? Studebaker just sounds so...old. "You drive a Studebaker? Geez, grampa!" :p

Maybe they rebrand as Stud in the 70's and produce sports cars, SUVs, and other surrogate genitalia. ;)
 
Even if the Studebaker Corporation remains the name of the holding company controlling all the various concerns they bought (and would still buy in TTL?), maybe if they did retool their core automotive company to establish a new brand identity they might name it South Bend after their headquarters?

So maybe today instead of driving a Benz, you'd be driving a Bend?
 
This sounds remarkably like American Leyland.

And we all know what a tremendous success story the British version was :rolleyes:
 
In the 30s Nash was already teamed up with Kelvinator. Plus Nash was the only company outside of the big three to make a profit every year throughout the Depression. And the only one of the big three was GM IIRC. Now prior to the war Nash was positioned in the market place in basically the same market segment as Buick in terms of product and reputation. Their Lafeyette (sp) was an attempt at a low priced car but the problem was at that price point everybody had trouble making money on cars in the 30s. Now lets say Charlie Nash after seeing the infusion of cash producing Pratt & Whitney R2800s in Kenosha and propellerors at Kelvinator's Michigan plant (by wars end they were the worlds largest manufacturer of aircraft props) gave Nash-Kelvinator the capitol needed to move Nash into the engineering fields required to become the US equivilant of Daimler-Benz. Or better yet buy DB.
 
This sounds remarkably like American Leyland.

And we all know what a tremendous success story the British version was :rolleyes:

Different scenario. The government of the US' work in the railroad industry with Amtrak and Conrail has come to be a success story. Amtrak covers a large amount of its expenses and Conrail went from several flat-broke freight haulers to a multi-billion dollar company that owned its marketplace.

British Leyland was a monstrosity that was beholden to Britain's extremely militant 1970s unions, and as a result they had poor quality and management turmoil because you had car guys, money guys, hard-nosed businessmen, labour and politicians all fighting, and none were very willing to compromise.

Henry Ford himself was something of an anti-semitic megalomaniac, but his biggest flaw was that he was slow on the uptake in many ways (Chrysler and GM had extensive design and engineering staff whereas Ford didn't, and it cost them) and the company had severe internal problems by the 1930s, largely related to Ford's lieutenants (and their Detroit gangster buddies) facing off with the UAW. It took Ford finally realizing he couldn't do it any more and handing the company off to his grandson before Ford finally began to catch up. (Hardly coincedence that Henry Ford II's first act running Ford was firing mob-hubby Service Department boss Henry Bennett.)

The best placed at the end of the war to move into the bigs and make it the big four was Kaiser. I've often figured that if Kaiser and Studebaker had hooked up, they'd still be here right now - Studebaker had lots of engineering resources and Kaiser damn sure had a pile of capital post-WWII.
 
Top