I mean they had no money to keep two brands at the same time
Studebaker Packard sold 55k cars in 1958，and gave up the full-size line in 1959
Even if Packard sold better in 1958, it doesn't really matter
Automotive AHC - Improve Studebaker's (and Packard's) prospects
- Thread starter Masked Grizzly
- Start date
Studebaker Packard sold 55k cars in 1958，and gave up the full-size line in 1959
Even if Packard sold better in 1958, it doesn't really matter
Why would they pay so much? Did they sell too many shares in their company?
Any number of reasons, it’s a fairly common problem even if Erskine took it to extremes. Conceptually the big advantage of stock financing is exactly that you don’t have to pay dividends if times are tough, unlike debt. In practice 😏.
I think Studebaker paid high dividends in a later period too, although not to such an extent. Some common reasons seen elsewhere.
- Management hold a lot of stock and want some cash/want to keep the price of their investments up
- worry about perceptions of company weakness, esp from customers, dealers and bankers financing the business
- Feeling of obligation to shareholders, who are after all the owners of the business and bought stock in the expectation of a dividend.
- machismo, not wanting to admit poverty in public and/or show off profitability
- management totally divorced from reality or unaware of how accounting works.
If you've every seen American Greed a lot of these reasons sound similar to a lot of unintended Ponzi schemes.
“It seemed like a good idea at the time” covers an awful lot of ground, and a lot of ideas that look very bad with the benefit of hindsight.
Its worth bearing in mind that the decisions Erskine took were signed off by the board of directors, and don’t seem to have attracted significant criticism at the time, so it’s not like he was completely out cycling in the woods. It’s just striking how different their decisions were compared with their peer Nash, or the company Erskine hoped would save them. Apparently White was attractive just because they had anticipated a recession and built up a huge pile of cash to see them through it. Which makes you wonder what would have happened if Erskine had read the tea-leaves better and played “duck and cover” from 1929 rather than flooring the gas pedal and running the company straight off a cliff.
Does Albert Erskine playing "duck and cover" from 1929 ITTL place Studebaker in a better position to bring an earlier Champion into production whose flexible platform is quickly exploited to producing two+ models, followed by possible OHV conversions of their Sixes and modernization of their factory to allow them to make the ATL Studebaker V8 into something akin to an early Small-Block V8 design?
Also interested to know how much longer Erskine ITTL had to live given his health problems, if he maintained his air addition long enough to chose a component successor (and management, etc) that dominates Packard in their merger, enters into an alliance with ATL AMC (as opposed to an outright merger that may still be a possibility at a later date ITTL) on componentry to replace their pre-war Champion/Lark platform with something much newer albeit clothed in new styling by Brooks Stevens and acquires (or merges) with International Harvester (that already acquired Checker Motors)?
What needs to change for Studebaker in ATL seems to be relatively straightforward to fix ITTL depending on how one approaches things, it is Packard that is the issue in this scenario (effectively becoming the weak link of this ATL formation into Studebaker-Packard) since its issues are less well known in comparison to Studebaker's. Apart from Packard being a luxury marque, there is little of note that stands out apart from a post-war White Elephant V8 engine with limited application that besides being capable of high displacements also spawned a post-war V12 project that never reached production.
Also interested to know how much longer Erskine ITTL had to live given his health problems, if he maintained his air addition long enough to chose a component successor (and management, etc) that dominates Packard in their merger, enters into an alliance with ATL AMC (as opposed to an outright merger that may still be a possibility at a later date ITTL) on componentry to replace their pre-war Champion/Lark platform with something much newer albeit clothed in new styling by Brooks Stevens and acquires (or merges) with International Harvester (that already acquired Checker Motors)?
What needs to change for Studebaker in ATL seems to be relatively straightforward to fix ITTL depending on how one approaches things, it is Packard that is the issue in this scenario (effectively becoming the weak link of this ATL formation into Studebaker-Packard) since its issues are less well known in comparison to Studebaker's. Apart from Packard being a luxury marque, there is little of note that stands out apart from a post-war White Elephant V8 engine with limited application that besides being capable of high displacements also spawned a post-war V12 project that never reached production.
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
Here's a possible idea regarding Studebaker although the timeline might be too late to save them.
In 1960, Alfa Romeo sign an agreement with Studebacker to build their vehicles for the US market, some of them will be badged and marketed as Studebackers
The first model released was the 2000 based Flight Hawk
US Sales 11,000
In 1962 & 1963 Studebacker start building their Giulia & GT 1300 based models.
The Silver Hawk
The Golden Hawk
US Sales
1963 - 1976: 255,681
In 1967 they start building the Spider Series
Total US sales:
1967 - 1993: 44,000
In 1968 Studebacker release their 1750 based Sky Hawk
US Sales
1968 - 1977: 191,972
The 71 'Lark'
US Sales:
1971 - 1983: 500,000
Then in 1972, FIAT sign an agreement with Studebaker to produce their X1/9 Series for the US market, the first car coming off the production line in 1973
While this is going on, the revenue from this allows Studebacker to produce around 10,000 Avanti's per year until 1971, taking sales from Fords Thunderbird IV & V and 6,000 sales per year taking sales off the Thunderbird VI series
In 1974 Studebacker release their Alfetta based Champion
US Sales
1972 - 1984: 440,417
In 1977 Studebacker release their Guiletta based Conestoga
US Sales
1977 - 1983: 380,000
Don't know if this would work, as I said I think the timeline might be difficult.
Last edited:
I honestly can't imagine Stude selling that many Avantis, without a serious revision of the front end styling. (The headlight placement is just too bizarre.)
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
Correct
I misread the total number of Thunderbird's sold as the number sold per year!
Post now edited to a more realistic 10,000 & 6,000 sales.
And I didn't even notice.
My previous still stands, unfortunately. The front end of the Avanti is still peculiar in the extreme, IMO, & the C-pillar produces an odd effect. It's easy enough to fix: move the headlights out, & "scoop" the fenders, like the 240Z; the C-pillar just needs a bit of re-raking. (See my {crudely} photoshopped proposal upthread.)
Would likely be too late, additionally even if this TL was feasible highly doubt the company could afford the instability of signing various deals to produce different cars in their factories.
Have looked into ideas on how to improve Packard's prospects ITTL from the 1930s-1950s period up to its possible merger with (a similarly thriving Studebaker) or another company in ATL. not sure if there are any other feasible and grounded POD ideas relating to Packard within the articles below or in other sources to work with.
-Packard-
Manages to expand without allowing the Junior models (beginning with the One-Twenty) to unwittingly redefine Packard as a brand nor squandering the resultant financial windfall, instead taking a similar approach to its Junior cars and expansion in general as Mercedes-Benz did IOTL with its own mass-markets cars by using the sales of the Junior cars to fund the development of Packard’s Senior cars as its styling and technology leaders and then allows those design cues to trickle down to the cheaper models.
Packard also positions the One-Twenty (or a slightly bigger version of same) against the Zephyr rather than Buick or LaSalle whether under its own marque or an earlier version of Clipper, which would have still sold well at that price point and would have allowed Packard to maintain its centre of gravity within the luxury car field. In terms of styling Packard is able to keep pace with the times and by the late forties, successfully adapts its traditional design vocabulary with the emerging post-war aesthetic.
They also bring forward the Clipper by a few years and extended the Clipper’s styling to most of the line, leading to the newly expanded line being a great success and generating significant profits for the company prior to America’s entry into World War II and the cessation of civilian production.
Somehow Packard emerges from the war in much more robust financial shape without its wartime profits had being so tightly constrained, yet like OTL it was still well-capitalized and free of debt. Better still, the end of the war brought a robust seller’s market.
Max Gilman avoids the automobile accident that exposed his possible affair with the wife of another Packard executive, along with his subsequent unilateral firing by Alvan Macauley (despite the board deciding Gilman should stay) and hasty replacement with George Christopher. Whereas Gilman had demonstrated with the Clipper that he understood the market for the Packard brand and could give that market a car that set design trend, rather than following them, Christopher was a production man and had no sense of the market.
Gilman remains President of Packard and keeps Christopher’s excesses in check before being succeeded by Hugh Ferry and/or later Jim Nance, the “Bathtub” models are butterflied away along with Christopher’s OTL reluctance to invest in R&D and his post-war decision to concentrate on the Junior Cars (including six-cylinder models and even taxicabs) over the Seniors that did not reappear for another seven months (causing considerable friction with Packard dealers by costing them a great deal of money and further damaging Packard’s prestige).
Packard also swallows some pride and (like Lincoln until 1955) buys Hydra-Matic transmission or turns to an outsider supplier like Borg-Warner for help, saving the company more than $12 million for development and tooling that amongst other things goes towards an earlier version of the 1955 Packard V8 that is either launched prior to (albeit still post-war give and take a few years) or around the same time as both the Cadillac V8 and Oldsmobile V8 engines in 1949.
Some ATL form of Ultramatic possibly appears later on, roughly resembling the much improved 1956 version that was some 90 lb (41 kg) lighter thanks to the adoption of an aluminium case or an altogether more modern transmission design.
At some point in the 1950s it would merge with an ATL similarly thriving Studeaker to form Studebaker-Packard, with Clipper possibly being discontinued.
Links
Last edited:
I tend to agree. My thought (because, offhand, IDK what the price point was for the Zephyr) is to aim at the middle or upper end of Cadillac with the 120, around US$2500. As it sells (reasonably well, I'd guess), take the "engineering for production" approach to the Senior cars, too, so they can be sold at the same price (or even a touch lower, at need, as the Depression worsens), but higher profit.
Plow back in as much money as available into improving production capacity. (IIRC, Packard was still more/less hand-building in the late '30s; that IMO needs to go.)
Purchasing or setting up a dedicated body supplier, to avoid loss of a contractor, would be a good idea: Buy out Brewster? Or Darrin? Both?
Introducing a lightweight OHV V8 postwar (immediately, or very shortly), capitalizing on the V1650 experience, would be good; beating Olds & Caddy to it would be the ideal. (I tend to think an engine akin to the Rocket would be my choice, but the Caddy plants were lighter then, AIUI, so... As much as I'd love a 4v head & OHC, closely following the V1650, I don't see it likely.)
Hiring younger engineers to staff, & head, their Junior/Clipper production program would be a good idea; I'd love to see what Delorean, frex, might do if let loose on the Clipper.
There is a big problem I see in sales, however: Packard dealers will have trouble knowing how to sell a higher-performance model to younger buyers... It might be necessary to turn over the *Clipper to a new network; at the very least, hire younger salesmen. (Steal them from Buick?)
That does seem to be the general outline for Packard ITTL.
Would have to second the idea of introducing a lightweight (yet Big Block) OHV V8 postwar, something that compares well with the Cadilliac V8 in terms of weight and potential displacement (along with carrying over any worthwhile aspects of the OTL Packard V8) combined with the Oldsmobile V8 in other respects including the ability to easily meet future emissions regulations.
Maybe the Buick V8 is another possible template had it received the same level of development and abiity to remain US emissions compliant over many decades as the Buick V6, a possible non-GM V8 template that might have been feasible for ATL Packard could also be the Rolls-Royce L-Series V8 in terms of refinement and continous improvement (with scope for enlargement up to 7439cc).
A V12 may eventually be on the cards ITTL as was said to have been developed in OTL during the 1950s prior to its merger with Studebaker, though question the neccesity for a V12 since even the likes of Cadilliac and Mercedes concluded it was not worthwhile based on their own 90-degree V12 projects (IIRC Mercedes looked at a V12 based on the M100 V8 for the 600).
Interested to know if Packard IOTL had any post-war plans to update their 6-cylinder to OHV (at minimum) or develop a new six before the formation of Studebaker-Packard or whether they planned to completely retreat from the luxury 6-cylinder segment?
Had they decided to retain a presence in the luxury 6-cylinder segment. It would probably be safer for ATL Packard to initally play it safe by going with an OHV 6-cylinder if they decide to go down such a road for Clipper. The conservative benchmarks would have to be the 2nd gen Chevy 6-derived Austin Straight-6 as well as the Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire 346 6-cylinder (that via the Sapphire 234 4-cylinder engine spawned an unbuilt related all-alloy V8), whose roots were a OHV redesign of a W.O. Bentley developed Twin-Cam 6-cylinder engine when he was at Armstrong-Siddeley. The latter basically being a Chinese copy of the Lagonda Straight-6 used at Aston Martin and itself redesigned by Tadek Marek with several parts of the Straight-6 being retained for the Aston Martin V8 (a DB4 6-cylinder engine was also developed into a 2.5-litre DP208 4-cylinder and tested in a Volvo P1800).
Another benchmark in terms of longevity and development would be the 4th gen Ford Straight-6 and later Ford of Australia built developments up to the Ford Barra, though with an earlier OHC conversion that unlike the OTL Pontiac OHC-6 precedes the latter as well as receives proper development.
OTOH in the event ATL Packard still merges with a thriving Studebaker ITTL, one who amongst other thing possesses an ATL SBC-like Studebaker V8. It would probably be better for Packard to let Studebaker take over (at the expense of Clipper), especially if the ATL Studebaker V8 eventually spawns a family of engines from analogues of the Chevy 153 4-cylinder / 3rd gen Six and 90-degree V6 to a V8-based 90-degree V12.
-Links-
Last edited:
In reading the pages you linked to, it does look like my $2500 figure might have been too high; maybe TTL's Packard Junior would have to go as low as $2000. It also looks like I guessed right about the Seniors: hand-building may have cost Packard over US$60 million.
It looks to me like Rolls came to the V8 game even later than Packard.
I'm wondering if TTL's Packard couldn't poach some Cad engineers & get their own V8 program going a lot earlier: in essence, rebadge the OTL Cad. (That does create problems for people swapping Packard V8s into Studes, tho: Studackard?
)Free of the GM emphasis on high compression, might this Cad-like V8 take the Chrysler approach to power, instead, and go with bigger displacement? Or perhaps a hemi? (On a Packard, the high cost might be less of an issue...but production cost might still push toward the wedge soon enough anyhow.) The very idea of a Packard Clipper with a 365 or 390 Hemi...
(Or a 429!) Not to mention Packard 390s (or 429s) being the go-to engines for Top Fuel. (I can imagine Packard management having no idea what to say about that. )I do dream of Packard teams in NASCAR, too.
(That's probably ASB, tho.)Cad did imagine a V12 for the Eldo, so it isn't entirely out of the question, IMO. It does depend on being a pretty niche product, though--or a high-premium one, a bit like Packard's answer to the Corvette or Thunderbird. Come to that, having Packard get there first with a V12-powered, 'glass-bodied (to help get around steel shortages) roadster...
I'm thinking, if we're granting them an early OHV V8, keeping a flathead straight six is going to look pretty irrational. AIUI, a big reason for not building V8s sooner was cost; TTL, I'm seeing that less an impediment. (Especially if the Seniors aren't hand-built right til the end.)
Seeing how well the 115 sold, a straight six-engined smaller Packard could be a real success. Introduced around 1960 to answer the Falcon? (Not this one, just to be clear.
)Getting a working automatic trans sooner would be a really big help, IMO. I hesitate to licence from GM, but they seemed to have the best ones; improvements for the (Cad-like) V8, including a fourth (OD) gear & aluminum case, could make it effectively a Packard design & mean an end to the licence cost (not to mention being hostage to GM liking you).
While I'm thinking of it, even though IMO the PanAm lawsuit was pretty frivolous, why not avoid the Clipper name?
Anybody care to suggest if Charlie Wilson would still be SecDef TTL, & if that means Packard ends up building jet engines for U.S. fighters? (A Packard-powered F-4, anyone?
)That could be. I could picture a GM-like merger with Nash, too, where Packard's big cars keep the *Cad V8 & the smaller cars get Stude or Nash engines. Absent that, & even in that event, you may risk a lawsuit over a Packard powered by Stude--even if you don't risk undermining the brand doing it, & you might.
Thx for those. (Like I don't have too much to read now.
)It did appear a few years after the OTL Packard and about a decade after either the Caddy or Oldsmobile V8, yet am thinking in terms of the Rolls Royce V8's attributes on refinement and potential longevity that did not focus on outright power until much later without denting their prestige status.
It would have to possess a lot of commonality with other engines and shared componentry with other products to even be justifed, without the cost of a signficant weight penalty as was experienced by a number of post-war V12 projects. It is rather telling for example that BMW decided to develop a V12 from the M20 rather than the M30 6-cylinder engines. http://www.unixnerd.co.uk/lost_engines.html
I'm thinking, if we're granting them an early OHV V8, keeping a flathead straight six is going to look pretty irrational. AIUI, a big reason for not building V8s sooner was cost; TTL, I'm seeing that less an impediment. (Especially if the Seniors aren't hand-built right til the end.)
Seeing how well the 115 sold, a straight six-engined smaller Packard could be a real success. Introduced around 1960 to answer the Falcon? (Not this one, just to be clear.
Getting a working automatic trans sooner would be a really big help, IMO. I hesitate to licence from GM, but they seemed to have the best ones; improvements for the (Cad-like) V8, including a fourth (OD) gear & aluminum case, could make it effectively a Packard design & mean an end to the licence cost (not to mention being hostage to GM liking you).
While I'm thinking of it, even though IMO the PanAm lawsuit was pretty frivolous, why not avoid the Clipper name?
Indeed, though was envisioning a 6-cylinder OHV Packard or Clipper (or insert alternate name) appearing in the immediate post-war period soon after the ATL early Packard V8.
Do not see a grand merger as it were of the US Independent Carmakers forming ITTL.
Not completely ruling it out, just envision a short-term partnership or alliance between AMC and thriving ATL Studebaker-Packard being more likely ITTL and in the latter's case even advantagous with regards to helping the latter switch from body-on-frame to unit-body construction.
That is assuming of course a ATL Studebaker-Packard combine (or both thriving marques on their own) has not already invested in switiching to unit-body construction or possesses more than enough capitial combined to easily do so if needed ITTL with the sum of both marques PODs.
Thx for those. (Like I don't have too much to read now.
Here is another that relates to another aspect of the US post-war independent automakers. Keen on what beneficial ideas could be drawn that applies to further improving the prospects of TTL's thriving Studebaker-Packard, whilst holding off a merger with AMC for as long as possible (if not butterflying it away completely).
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - Indie Auto
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - History Indie Auto
www.indieauto.org
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - Indie Auto
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - Media Analysis Indie Autowww.indieauto.org
Excellent article that. Enjoyed reading it.
That's more/less the approach I imagine for the factory Packards, too: the "banker's hot rod", not muscle cars or pony cars.
Agreed.
I was thinking, get the V8 sorted, first, but in the postwar sellers' market, a new Junior or two makes more sense. (You're right, there.)
I imagine, as a first cut, the '42 120 restored to production more/less unchanged, with a '47 *110 (six) all-new, with styling (hopefully) akin the '49 Ford or Merc (rather than the bathtub Packard or Nash); follow that with the V8 in '49 or '50, if possible (my goal, beat Olds to it; that may be more $$ up front than Packard can, or will, pay).
Picture, if you will, the '49 Merc with the class of a Packard.
It probably means a lot fewer get built, & almost certainly means the Hirohata Merc never happens, but does mean that body style with something akin to a 331 Cad V8. Being a Packard, more of them probably survive untouched into the '80s.IDK about all of them; I was thinking of an alt-AMC with Packard added, as the Cad-equivalent. TTL's Packard might be strong enough to survive a fair bit longer than OTL, making that less attractive to them; that seems to risk Stude folding up completely.
I'll give that a read & see if it changes my views (againHere is another that relates to another aspect of the US post-war independent automakers. Keen on what beneficial ideas could be drawn that applies to further improving the prospects of TTL's thriving Studebaker-Packard, whilst holding off a merger with AMC for as long as possible (if not butterflying it away completely).
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - Indie Auto
Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers - History Indie Auto
); I'm on the Poncho 265ci V8, now...Edit:
If this had been the Avanti proposal, I'd have enthusiastically gone along:
Last edited:
It would probably be a good idea for the postwar Senior to reappear / be replaced first before the Junior instead of the other way around ITTL in terms of Packard avoiding undermining and getting itself into a situtation, where there is a perception of the smaller model updates filtering up to the larger models as opposed to the other way around.
IDK about all of them; I was thinking of an alt-AMC with Packard added, as the Cad-equivalent. TTL's Packard might be strong enough to survive a fair bit longer than OTL, making that less attractive to them; that seems to risk Stude folding up completely.
See Clipper or ATL equivlent likely becoming a thriving Studebaker-Packard's version of Chrysler's DeSoto in terms of duplication, whereas Studebaker ITTL can potentially find new purpose within the combine by branching out as a sub-Packard marque producing premium 4x4s and SUVs in the event ATL Studebaker-Packard acquires/merges with International Harevester (plus Checker Motors).
Based on the Curbside Classic article on George Romney and tying into the Willys-Overland thread (as well as other ideas previously mentioned in this thread instead of all PODs just occuring in a vaccum), was thinking of a short-lived alliance and joint-venture between AMC (plus Willys-Overland / Jeep) and Studebaker-Packard (plus IH and Checker Motors) using common platforms to reduce costs with differentiated exterior styling and engines.
Automotive History: George Romney At Nash/Rambler/AMC (1947-1962) - Unflinching Vision and Determination To Take On The Big Three Dinosaurs With Compacts - Curbside Classic
My recent tome on how Rambler survived the 50s focused on the cars, statistics and some commonly accepted snippets of Nash/Rambler/AMC history. It didn’t adequately delve into the key player […]
AMC’s own ATL PODs ITTL would begin with the Metropolitan being of similar dimensions as the pre-Farina Austin Cambridge it was IMHO believed to be derived from IOTL instead of using a rebodied shortened platform that shares the same width and B-Series engine. Which would save AMC the need to temporarily consider the costs of modifying and extending the wheelbase of the OTL Metropolitan platform with a station wagon type roof design to make room for four passengers during the development of what became the OTL Rambler American, the ATL Metropolitan now repurposed as a sub-Rambler American model that forms the basis for a (post-Willys/Jeep-acquired) AMC replacement for the post-war ATL Americar as well as the ATL Metropolitan.
As mentioned in the Curbside Classic article as well as relation to both the Metropolitan along with the International Harvester Scout and Metro-Mite, perhaps BMC could play a minor 3rd party role in the short-lived venture between ATL AMC and Studebaker-Packard via a Nissan-like license agreement for usage of a smaller Cambridge-derived Farina B platform (that included the Siam Di Tella and 6-cylinder Austin Freeway) clothed in a different exterior body as a replacement for both the ATL Willys Americar and ATL Metropolitan (in addition to spawning a possible entry-level Studebaker model powered by ATL Studebaker's own equivlent to the Chevy 153 based on the SBC-like V8) as well as larger 5-bearing versions of the B-Series engine for certain models (e.g. AMC versions of the Americar/Metropolitan replacement, IH Scout, IH Metro-Mite, etc) that is potentially replaced by AMC's analogue of the OTL Nissan J engine (albeit whilst also drawing some possible inspiration from the Volvo B18 and B30).
Another in-house joint-venture alternative for a non-BMC based sub-Rambler American successor to the Americar/Metropolitan from the 1960s that is possibly derived from a shrunken Rambler American platform, would probably be more akin to a shortened version of the OTL 1st generation Nissan Cedric (that replaced the Japanese-built Austin Cambridge) which still roughly retains the same wheelbase.
AMC ITTL were also able to more quickly streamline costs and avoid the loss of $6.9 million in 1955, by amongst other things selling off excess plant capacity in California and Detroit, along with the Nash Ambassador based the 2nd generation 1955 Hudson Hornet and Hudson Wasp being distinguished at a much lower cost by sharing almost identical sheetmetal similar to the approach Chrysler achieved with the 1955-1956 Chrysler and DeSoto yet like the latter because of unique grilles, taillights and trim, etc.
AMC would also set about fast-tracking an early AMC Straight-4 (plus an AMC V8-based V6 if required) into production as well as consolidating its line-up on the Rambler American platform much earlier from 1963-1964 (itself benefiting from improvements such as rack-and-pinion steering, a front sub-frame, more glass area and a taller greenhouse for sedans, etc) allowing the company to offer a full range of cars that varied by length rather than width as well as additionally even getting away with more evolutionary and cheaper changes such as new sheet metal and reworked greenhouses, similar to the approach Ford successfully used in squeezing more years out of its Falcon and Fox platforms allowing continued production models of the alternate AMC Hornet / Concord platform to similarly be produced from the early/mid-1980s to around the late-1980s up to the early-1990s at minimum (if not up to the mid-1990s to early/mid-2000s at most with more extensive redesign and modifications akin to the real-life 4th generation Ford Mustang).
That does not quite butterfly away the OTL Rambler Classic and Ambassador platforms however, that ITTL would instead be possibly utilized by Packard in some altered form with different engines and exterior styling by Brooks Stevens. Whereas Studebaker would likely make use of the ATL Rambler American platform prior to the alliance / joint-venture between AMC and Studebaker-Packard dissolving around the mid-1960s with both companies going down different paths. AMC entering into an earlier equal collaboration with Renault from the 1960s at the lower-end of the range in its transition to a longlitual FWD layout for the successor to the Americar/Metropolitan replacement (via early AMC involvement in the development of the Renault 12 that is adapted for the Americas - including ATL AMC’s South American division* aka OTL Ford Corcel), whilst Studebaker-Packard takes a more American JLR-meets-Monteverdi/De Tomaso approach at the premium end of the range (specifically their saloons, 4x4s) that taps into the popultarity of the premium 4x4 and SUV segments.
*- See Willys-Overlands Brazilian and Industrias Kaiser Argentina aka IKA operations that would be part of ATL AMC ITTL.
Last edited:
I'd be fine with that. I'd only say, don't try & introduce both new Junior & Senior the same year, because you probably can't afford it.
I can believe that. TBH, tho, much as I hate to say, it makes more sense to me for Packard (minus a stubborn Nance) to join with Nash into AMC & let Stude go under. Then have alt-AMC buy out Jeep & make it & the Ramblers cash machines for the Packards, which are individually more profitable (given they're not hand-built, as they need updating.
I could believe most of that. I don't see a need for Austin, & in this era, they're too small anyhow.
I like a Monteverdi-style Packard GT.
I also like the South American access.
As noted, I'd go all the way to merger with W-O/Jeep. I'd also stuff the alt-AMC V8 in the 100" Rambler early ('57 would be a bad year, but '58 or '59, maybe), to beat Pontiac to the GTO (& Ford to the Mustang, too, if I could).
Curbside Classics also suggested a really interesting angle, a joint venture with Japan. AIUI, there was one planned, but a corporate lawyer advised talking to both Nissan & Toyota, & that blew up any deal with either. The lawyer's name? Richard Nixon. Getting a deal with Toyota, IMO, would ultimately be better than one with Renault or BMC, not least because the Japanese figured out improving quality control and controlling costs better than just about anybody.
Driftless
Donor
From way out in left field, have Nash stay in the four-wheel-drive business from back in the '10's and '20's. Nash took over the build of the Jefferey Quad, the supremo 4WD vehicle of WW1 and after. Technology advanced for its day and built like brick out-houses. Merge that alternate home-grown Nash talent with this version of Jeep.