Automotive AHC - Improve Studebaker's (and Packard's) prospects

[Masked Grizzly]

With a pre-war or post-war POD the challenge is to lay the groundwork to improve Studebaker’s (and Packard's) prospects ITTL compared to OTL, whether they remain independent (a bit longer if not as a lower-volume marque) or as a thriving part of another company be it ATL Studebaker-Packard (whilst also finding ways of strengthening Packard beforehand) or a later merger with / takeover of ATL AMC.

The following below is a non-comprehensive list of PODs IOTL so far that could have potentially helped lay the groundwork to resolve things ITTL under better circumstances.

-In-House Solutions-

Partly inspired by potential POD ideas from the following Indie Auto articles relating to Studebaker later Studebaker-Packard with varying degrees of applicability ITTL, depending both on the company’s ATL success and the POD ideas being further refined.

- https://www.indieauto.org/2019/10/01/1951-studebaker-pointing-in-the-wrong-direction/

- https://www.indieauto.org/2020/09/25/1958-studebaker-honesty-is-the-best-policy/

- https://www.indieauto.org/2020/01/01/1963-64-studebaker-avanti-a-classic-failure/

- https://www.indieauto.org/2020/02/01/1965-studebaker-lark-concept-almost-a-baby-lincoln/


-Studebaker V8-

One element that could have potentially been remedied would have to be a different development trajectory for the Studebaker V8 engine, where additional key elements were copied from the Cadillac V8 that specifically gave the Cadillac many of its inherent qualities and scaled it down to reduce the deck height of the block, save weight*, and create a more compact engine to something approaching a Chevrolet Small Block V8 (with a displacement range of 201-343 cubic inches up to about 352-360 at most).

*- From 650lbs IOTL to around 550-535~lbs+ ITTL, with scope for a later additional 50lbs or so reduction by way of thinwall blocks (as was apparently tested at Studebaker IOTL) or newer casting techniques.

To take the Chevrolet Small Block comparison even further with the ATL Studebaker V8, while one could argue the company could have bought an inline-6 from outside or when down a different development path in creating a replacement for the Flathead Inline-6. This ATL also opens up the possibility for an ATL Studebaker V8 analogue of the OTL Chevrolet Small Block V8-based General Motors 90-degree V6 engine displacing around 151-256 cubic inches. - https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/engine-history-the-studebaker-v8/


-The ATL Role of Porsche-

The above would in turn butterfly away the need for the Studebaker-Porsche Type 534 project and its 120-degree V6 engine, while making the 82 hp 2-litre Flat-Four powered Studebaker-Porsche Type 633 appear to be a more valuable proposition as an entry-level model depending on whether the company could afford a smaller model. - https://driventowrite.com/2020/06/23/studebaker-porsche-stillborn-design-project/


-Packard V8-

Have heard the Packard V8 itself was capable of growing up to 400 cubic inches or so, yet do not know how things could have been improved or which closest benchmarks / templates Packard could have drawn inspiration from ITTL.

Depending on how Packard could have improved its own prospects before its merger with ATL Studebaker compared to OTL, it is possible the ATL Studebaker V8 would eventually displace the Packard V8.


-Packard V12-

It seems Packard under Jim Nance looked at developing a V12 based on the V8 engine. Jesse Vincent had been planning a 5068cc V8 of 95.3mm x 88.9mm for the V8 though decided to reduce the stroke to 82.6mm to give 4706cc for the V8 and 7069cc for the V12 as he thought the original stroke (and displacement of 7602cc) would have been too excessive for the equivalent V12.

The idea was later dropped by mid-1953 after other implications had been assessed including vehicle cost and timing, prior to the company being in terminal declined by 1957 IOTL. No clue on whether an ATL Packard that improved its prospects beforehand or a thriving ATL Studebaker-Packard could have salvaged something from the Packard V12 project.


-Talks with Facel-Vega-

There was also the OTL discussions between Facel-Vega and Studebaker-Packard, though not sure how much of a relevant factor they would be ITTL.

The only potentially helpful change would be for Studebaker-Packard to become involved in the Facellia 115 hp 1.6-litre (1646cc) 4-cylinder Hemi-headed Twin-Cam (with one experimental version growing to a 150 hp 1980cc Twin-Cam Twin-Spark prototype engine) that IOTL was built in France by Paul Cavallier of the Pont-à-Mousson company with some involvement by Harry Mundy prior to developing the Lotus Twin-Cam engine, Mundy proposed 5 bearings for the camshafts for the Facellia 4-cylinder though it was not adopted and also developed a 2.6-2.8-litre 60-degree V6 Twin-Cam putting out 200+ hp (280 hp in sport form) that never saw the light of day.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facel_Vega_Excellence#Discussions_with_Studebaker-Packard

- https://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/facel-vega/facellia/1960/656222

- http://www.facel-vega.com/hifrog10.shtml (French link)

 

[marathag]

Merge Packard with AMC in 1955, let the debt laden Studebaker wither and die.

 

[Mark E.]

Merge Packard with AMC in 1955, let the debt laden Studebaker wither and die.

That has been proposed by many, to create a true group of "big four" auto makers. When Studebaker introduced the Avanti line, the new AMC might have chosen to acquire it and drop the Studebaker name down to one or two models.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Merge Packard with AMC in 1955, let the debt laden Studebaker wither and die.

Taking a step back from conventional wisdom IOTL that is not relevant on improving Studebaker's prospects ITTL, where did Studebaker's debts stem from?

Depending on whether a pre-war or post-war POD is required, the In-House Solutions in the Indie Auto articles would appear to provide one way of improving Studebaker's prospects together with other solutions.

 

[Reggieperrin]

A good start would be avoiding Erskine handing over eleven million bucks of Studebaker cash to shareholders in the worst of the Great Depression. Being bankrupt can be a good starting point but there are usually better options.

 

[marathag]

A good start would be avoiding Erskine handing over eleven million bucks of Studebaker cash to shareholders in the worst of the Great Depression. Being bankrupt can be a good starting point but there are usually better options.

If you don't pay dividends, plan on getting sued, and then losing that case.
That's why Henry Ford took FoMoCo private, after losing his shirt to the Dodge Brothers in that court case.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Would better decisions prior to and during the Great Depression have allowed Studebaker to weather the storm during the pre-war period and improve its prospects compared to OTL as the first of many PODs?

Based on what was considered IOTL during the post-war period above and could have been better improved upon, it seems there is something workable there to significantly improve Studebaker ITTL (instead of hastily writing them off).

 

[Driftless]

Is there any way Studebaker could have made better marketing use of their war-time truck reputation in the post-war years? Maybe even internationally? Of course, I'd bet there were thousands of clapped-out Studebakers, GMCs, and IH's scattered across the globe too, to compete with...

A dressed up and tricked out 4x4 Studebaker as a competitor to the Jeepster and its kin.

Similarly, market a Packard V-12 engined car as a Packard "Mustang"? A V-12 Packard engined vehicle at Indianapolis?

Put some combination of Studebaker/Packard on the early NASCAR circuit - with sufficient factory support. (Yeah, I know early NASCAR's popularity was mostly in the South, but it could help)

I don't know what to make of a Studebaker/Porsche, but that does sound like a real missed sales and performance opportunity in the US and Europe.

A Studebaker Avanti with a V-12 marketed to the wealthy and celebrities.

 

[Reggieperrin]

If you don't pay dividends, plan on getting sued, and then losing that case.
That's why Henry Ford took FoMoCo private, after losing his shirt to the Dodge Brothers in that court case.

No-one says how much you have to pay in dividends, and good luck with suing anyone for reducing the dividend in the Great Depression.
Apparently from 1929-32 Nash paid out dividends equivalent to 89% of profits, GM paid out 93%.

Studebaker paid out 708% 😱
Accumulated dividend payout of 30,952,276 on accumulated profit of 4,369,973. Nash paid out less than that on profits of 32M!

For 1930 Erskine paid out 7.5M on profits of 400K, which is nearly 2000% of profits🤬
A million paid out in 1932, on a loss of five million 🤯
So in fact it was even worse than I remembered, Studebaker paid out 26M more than they would have if they did the same 90-100% of profit ratio the other two did. Bear in mind 1932 sales were roughly 38M.....

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Is there any way Studebaker could have made better marketing use of their war-time truck reputation in the post-war years? Maybe even internationally? Of course, I'd bet there were thousands of clapped-out Studebakers, GMCs, and IH's scattered across the globe too, to compete with...

A dressed up and tricked out 4x4 Studebaker as a competitor to the Jeepster and its kin.

Similarly, market a Packard V-12 engined car as a Packard "Mustang"? A V-12 Packard engined vehicle at Indianapolis?

Put some combination of Studebaker/Packard on the early NASCAR circuit - with sufficient factory support. (Yeah, I know early NASCAR's popularity was mostly in the South, but it could help)

I don't know what to make of a Studebaker/Porsche, but that does sound like a real missed sales and performance opportunity in the US and Europe.

A Studebaker Avanti with a V-12 marketed to the wealthy and celebrities.

Cannot really answer much, though it seems both Studebaker and Packard ITTL could have significantly improved their respective engines (along with the latter's V8-based V12 project) and general prospects under the right PODs to be provide viable GM 90-degree V6/SBC V8-like Studebaker V6/V8 and Packard V8/V12 engine alternatives for the Chrysler V8 engines used by Facel Vega IOTL.

Thereby leading to further involvement between ATL Studebaker/Packard/Studebaker-Packard and Facel Vega ITTL with the former being more involved earlier in the development of the the Facellia 115 hp 1.6-litre (1646cc) 4-cylinder Twin-Cam that IOTL was built in France by Paul Cavallier of the Pont-à-Mousson company with some involvement by Harry Mundy as well as the 200 hp 2.8-litre V6 Twin-Cam engine project at the lower end of the range (with scope for capacities to 2-litres for the Twin-Cam four and 3-litres+ for the V6 respectively).

Even a SBC V8-like Studebaker V8 ITTL would have been an improvement for the ATL Avanti and other models compared to OTL, especially if the Avanti was a Lark variant as opposed to a standalone halo coupe (that is not to say however there would not be a role for some OTL Avanti styling to appear in an thriving Studebaker-Packard - whether independent or eventually part of ATL AMC from the 1960s onwards if the constituant carmakers made better decisions beforehand ITTL with a number of early PODs beginning pre-war if necessary).

What if the Avanti had been a Lark variant?​

Might a more competitive line of family cars have been financially feasible if they had been spun off a steel-bodied Avanti? With some tweaks the Avanti design was arguably versatile enough to have spawned a new-generation Lark sedan, wagon and notchback coupe.


For example, the below-pictured Lark two-door hardtop carries over the Avanti’s 109-inch wheelbase, doors and bumpers but has a more upright front, a much bigger trunk and a less-sloped rear window. A four-door “sedan” and wagon would have looked similar to the notchback coupe but given a four-inch-longer wheelbase and a pillared-hardtop design.

1964 Studebaker Avanti: The more spinoffs, the better by Olympia, Earth, on Flickr

If this scenario was deemed too expensive, a lower-cost option would have been to more substantially restyle the Hawk. Picture a more contemporary hood and grille design, new rear sheetmetal with a shortened wheelbase, and perhaps a semi-fastback roofline. With an under-$3,000 base price, the new Hawk could have tapped into the Mustang’s market.

Stevens’s proposed 1965 Hawk hinted at the potential for a lower-cost alternative to the Avanti. The side sheetmetal was kept but the fascia and trunk were restyled

Although a facelifted Hawk wouldn’t have looked nearly as advanced as the Avanti, you could pretty much guarantee that it would have sold much better. That, in turn, might have given bankers more confidence in funding a redesign of Studebaker’s family cars, which could have transferred to the lower-slung Hawk platform.


The key goal needed to be a much higher level of body-part interchangeability for all of Studebaker’s passenger cars. Instead, Egbert sought to make the Avanti a stand-alone halo car that reflected a pure and uncompromising design statement. Loewy and his design team certainly accomplished that mission.

https://www.indieauto.org/2020/01/01/1963-64-studebaker-avanti-a-classic-failure/

 

[Coiler]

Increasing federal regulations and the inevitable market downturn are going to destroy an independent Studebaker by the 1970s even if it performs better.

For Packard, the best way to keep the name is to actually have the company itself collapse earlier and quicker so that its reputation stays intact and its viewed as a victim of circumstance (ie, "of course a super-luxury car maker wouldn't last in the Depression"), and have someone more successful get the rights to the brand name for their top-end trims.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Increasing federal regulations and the inevitable market downturn are going to destroy an independent Studebaker by the 1970s even if it performs better.

For Packard, the best way to keep the name is to actually have the company itself collapse earlier and quicker so that its reputation stays intact and its viewed as a victim of circumstance (ie, "of course a super-luxury car maker wouldn't last in the Depression"), and have someone more successful get the rights to the brand name for their top-end trims.

The aim ITTL is to lay the foundations to improve both Studebaker and Packard's prospects with a pre-war POD (if deemed necessary) prior to an ATL thriving Studebaker-Packard merger in the post-war (sans the debt and any other constrains or limitations compared to OTL), with better decisions and products (including significantly improved engines with much longevity) in ATL allowing them to hold out as an independent carmaker until around the late-1960s to early-1970s where they are acquired by ATL AMC.

The ideal would be to have an ATL thriving Studebaker-Packard hold out as an independent for as long as possible, yet the most plausible fate for this ATL company at minimum would be roughly akin to Kaiser Jeep who were acquired by AMC in 1970 IOTL though with Studebaker-Packard being a significantly more attractive proposition ITTL (as opposed to the indebted mess it was in OTL).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Have Packard keep building Merlin engines, and drop a derated 'Meteoite' engine that will run on car gas into their cars....

 

[TheMann]

Make Packard join AMC as an equal partner at its formation in 1954 and when Studebaker finally fails let it's remains become part of AMC.

That's about it.

Once the price war begins among the Big Three it's going to be absolutely devastating to the smaller makers, let alone whenbinports start becoming something to think about a decade down the road. Realistically Studebaker's debt is not something AMC is going to want to deal with for what the company brings to the table, but Packard is another story. They would be AMC's answer to Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial and have proper designs and production capacity to make it possible.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

What pre-war or even immediate post-war steps could Studebaker have taken to resolve the debt issue, so it is not the limiting factor should some form of merger between Studebaker and Packard still happen in ATL with the adoption of a number of the aforementioned PODs in mind (whereby making ATL Studebaker significantly less of a liability)?

Was under the impression of the debt being a post-war issue rather than something stemming from the interwar period where the company never recovered after its pre-war bankruptcy and suicide of Albert Erskine, yet it seems (from a non-US perspective at least) the company did rather well prior to WW2 and the immediate post-war period before the price war between the Big Three.

Again do not really expect a thriving ATL Studebaker-Packard to remain independent by the late-1960s or early-1970s even with the aforementioned PODs that would have potentially enabled them to improve their prospects, rather that the company would have significantly much more to offer compared to OTL.

 

[TheMann]

Again do not really expect a thriving ATL Studebaker-Packard to remain independent by the late-1960s or early-1970s even with the aforementioned PODs that would have potentially enabled them to improve their prospects, rather that the company would have significantly much more to offer compared to OTL.

The problem there is that by the time of the energy crisis AMC was in serious financial trouble and thus you'd be merging Studebaker-Packard into a very troubled company in any case. Realistically, the earlier they go the better for their assets, because if you wait until the 1970s dissolution would be the only available option and their assets wouldn't be bought by an American automaker, if they weren't simply abandoned.

The price war not only had the effect of ruining the sales of the smaller makers but also ruining their per-unit profits. Simply put, it's join AMC, preferably with everyone else who can - Nash, Hudson, Kaiser-Fraser, Willys and Packard - and use rationality and economies of scale to get back into the game against the Big Three.

 

[MatthewDB]

Merge Packard with AMC in 1955, let the debt laden Studebaker wither and die.

How does that improve Studebaker’s prospects?

My proposal, move Studebaker to Canada in the mid-1960s per OTL. Continue making Canadian Larks, find an engine, and ideally a new buyer for the company. Sign a US distribution agreement with AMC or another dealer network. Next, design and produce a fuel efficient, modern compact in time for the 1973 fuel crisis.

Studebaker should also use its Auto Pact cross border trade advantages to partner with European or Japanese brands. Instead of Volvo assembling their cars in Nova Scotia, Canada they can have Studebaker in Hamilton, Ontario make them. And there’s British cars that are getting killed by the high Pound and US import tariffs. Assemble the new monocoque Triumph 2000 and Spitfire (or TR6) at Studebaker to enable easy access to the US market. Best of all would be Studebaker gaining access to the superlative Rover (ex-Buick) small block V8.

 

[marathag]

How does that improve Studebaker’s prospects?

Bankrupt in 1955-56, before the 1957 Recession.

somebody may want to pick up the Bones for the Dealer Network and the South Bent Plant,Not modern, but adequate.
and not AMC They already have enough small dealers and old plants.

volvo would be an interesting choice, it's not threatening, like some other countries picking them up. Volvo could use the sporty Hawk series

 

[TheMann]

How does that improve Studebaker’s prospects?

My proposal, move Studebaker to Canada in the mid-1960s per OTL. Continue making Canadian Larks, find an engine, and ideally a new buyer for the company. Sign a US distribution agreement with AMC or another dealer network. Next, design and produce a fuel efficient, modern compact in time for the 1973 fuel crisis.

Studebaker should also use its Auto Pact cross border trade advantages to partner with European or Japanese brands. Instead of Volvo assembling their cars in Nova Scotia, Canada they can have Studebaker in Hamilton, Ontario make them. And there’s British cars that are getting killed by the high Pound and US import tariffs. Assemble the new monocoque Triumph 2000 and Spitfire (or TR6) at Studebaker to enable easy access to the US market. Best of all would be Studebaker gaining access to the superlative Rover (ex-Buick) small block V8.

An interesting idea (particularly the part about British auto manufacturers using Studebaker production as a way of bypassing the problems with importation), but I think the company's debt load would be too high for that to work without the company being recapitalized in some form or another, and no way is anybody like Volvo or British Leyland going to do that as Renault did with AMC unless Studebaker can lower its debt load by quite a lot. It's possible that the parent company could sell off the Canadian operations to a new buyer as part of them bailing out of the car business and go with everything else becoming part of another company.

And if you are going this route, go to a Japanese automaker - and ONE automaker, which is what got them in trouble IOTL - early on. Nissan probably offers the better option here as the Cedric (which was talked about) was redesigned for 1965, the Sports 2000 (from 1967, followed by perhaps the 240Z / Fairlady Z from 1970) and you may also be able to get the Nissan/Prince Y40 V8 for Studebaker cars. The British option is available, but that would be a tougher sell I would think as British Leyland (and both BMC and Triumph before then) both wanted to sell cars on export markets and both would get union trouble for getting Studebaker to assemble cars for them in Canada for the American market. As Nissan was still selling cars as Datsuns in North America at the time, it's not impossible to make a "Datsun by Studebaker" arrangement, and indeed you'd want the light trucks made by Studebaker to avoid the chicken tax, ideally starting with the 620 in 1972. Studebaker would have to design a unique assembly line for the ability to sell any combination of the Cedric, 510 (which was Datsun's major money-maker in North America), Sports 2000 / 240Z and 620 pickup, but I can see that being possible. Making the Lark work would have its benefits, but the Avanti might be the ticket if you can make it look more like a traditional pony car and produce it in enough numbers - remember that the original Mustang was a pretty body on a Falcon chassis, and an Avanti II (or whatever badge you go for) could easily enough be that on a Lark chassis.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The problem there is that by the time of the energy crisis AMC was in serious financial trouble and thus you'd be merging Studebaker-Packard into a very troubled company in any case. Realistically, the earlier they go the better for their assets, because if you wait until the 1970s dissolution would be the only available option and their assets wouldn't be bought by an American automaker, if they weren't simply abandoned.

The price war not only had the effect of ruining the sales of the smaller makers but also ruining their per-unit profits. Simply put, it's join AMC, preferably with everyone else who can - Nash, Hudson, Kaiser-Fraser, Willys and Packard - and use rationality and economies of scale to get back into the game against the Big Three.

So the best bet for a thriving ATL Studebaker-Packard (via a number of pre/post-war PODs) would be to eventually become part of AMC either from the latter's formation in 1954 (especially if George Mason lives a bit longer compared with OTL) up to before AMC acquires Kaiser-Jeep in 1970?

Using the earlier OTL POD for ATL Studebaker-Packard to join AMC as a rough guide, that just leaves:

- A more Chevrolet Small Block like Studebaker V8 (and later a related 90-degree V6) and any improvements for what became the Packard V8 including related V12 project reaching production as part of AMC as mentioned in the first post.

- Any other pre/post-war PODs for Studebaker to resolve the debt issue and improve its prospects up to the suggested improvements mentioned in the following article prior to the formation of ATL Studebaker-Packard and followed by soon joining AMC. - https://www.indieauto.org/2019/10/01/1951-studebaker-pointing-in-the-wrong-direction/