A Different American Motors Corporation

I'm looking at building a slightly different American Motors Corporation (AMC) based around Chicago. It certainly wouldn't be a challenger in size to any of the Big Three, I was thinking of it more as the Big Three and, then, AMC behind them. The bare bones of it is

  • Thomas Jeffery buys a Chicago based firm rather than the Sterling Bicycle Company up in Kenosha.
  • Former General Motors president Charles W. Nash buys the company and renames it Nash Motors after himself.
  • Packard purchases Studebaker out of receivership when it goes bankrupt for nine months in 1933.
  • Nash merge with Kelvinator to form Nash-Kelvinator Corporation, household goods production concentrated Grand Rapids.
  • Purchase of Hudson Motor Car Company and formation of American Motors Corporation.
  • Military contracts are concentrated at former Hudson site in Detroit, car production moved to Chicago.
  • AMC merges with Packard-Studebaker, car production moved to Chicago. To curry political favour South Bend plant remains open with truck and military production - M113 APC, Humvee, Bradley IFV etc. - there.
  • International Harvester purchased at some point.
  • Kaiser Jeep purchased by AMC, production remains in Toledo.

I do however have several question and I know that we have a number of motor enthusiasts around here. Would Nash be as willing to buy the company if it's not in Detroit? My general idea was for Packard to use Studebaker as a more mass market to avoid the 120 and taking the brand downmarket. The 120 worked however by being able to offer the prestige of the Packard name at a cheaper price, would Studebaker's be able to sell as well? If not Pierce-Arrow is a possible sacrificial lamb to see them through. The general line-up was going to be AMC building the smaller compact sized vehicles, Packard the full-size prestige ones, and a full-sized mass market marque between them. With AMC and Packard at the two opposite ends where do people see Studebaker and Hudson sitting on the scale relatively speaking?
 
With AMC and Packard at the two opposite ends where do people see Studebaker and Hudson sitting on the scale relatively speaking?

My personal opinion (based on little but small readings and feelings) on the scale of this maker:

AMC-Hudson-Studebaker-Packard.

(Also, is this going to avoid AMC's OTL fate? Being at the bottom does mean it's the most vulnerable to any crisis in the whole industry).
 
My personal opinion (based on little but small readings and feelings) on the scale of this maker: AMC-Hudson-Studebaker-Packard.
That matches up with what I figured. Probably drop Hudson though since it would likely be too difficult to challenge the Big Three in that mass production territory. AMC the compacts, Studebaler the upper-mid full-size, and Packard the top end.


Also, is this going to avoid AMC's our timeline fate? Being at the bottom does mean it's the most vulnerable to any crisis in the whole industry.
Haven't decided that yet. PhilKearny has given me several very useful suggestions for companies in the region that could be folded into a conglomerate/holding company and be rather profitable, at least up until the 1970s, without any major changes.
 
Hudson might be a sports line. Early1950s Hudson Hornets were NASCAR favorites.

Nash was the economy line--the Rambler, later the AMC Rambler.
 
Last edited:
Top