Re: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the policies of the major brands upon the little guys...

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nash-Kelvinator Corporation and Hudson Motor Car Company merged to form
American Motors Corporation on May 4, 1954.    Studebaker Corporation and
Packard Motor Car Company merged to form Studebaker-Packard Corporation on
October 1, 1954.

The man behind the merger mania was George Mason, head of Nash-Kelvinator.
He approached Studebaker, Packard, and Hudson in 1948 with the idea of
merging to form one company.  He believed the little guys would do well in
the postwar sellers' market, but once demand was met, the end would begin.
Sales and profits were good in 1948, especially for Nash and Studebaker.
Studebaker had spet $13 million to tool for the new 1947 models with Hudson
and Nash each spending similar amounts on their new 1948 and 1949 models,
respectively.  Only Packard continued with its prewar models, reskinning
them in 1948 and planning on using the basic body for a third restyling for
1949.   (Many claim Packard could do it as their bodies were brand new in
1941 - but so were Studebaker and Nash)

When the postwar boom began to sag in late 1950, and the world entered into
the Korean War, sales began to soften.  Nash and Studebaker sales and
profits held up, but Hudson lost money in 1950 and Packard would have except
for the sales of its totally new 1951 models late in the year.  And when the
Korean war ended in 1953, the independents saw Mason's vision come true.
Hudson lost $10 million in 1953 while the others made money, Studebaker $2
million, Packard $4 million and Nash $14 million.  But sale in  the latter
half of 1953 were down hill for all four, meaning the results would be worse
for 1954.   And the rush to merge began.

Mason approached Hudson and the two agreed to merge.  Packard's new head,
James Nance, approached Studebaker and they joined together.  The word was
Mason and Nance had an agreement that once the four became two, the two
would become one.  But no sooner had Studebaker and Packard joined, George
Mason died.     AMC purchased Packard V8 engines for their Nash and Hudson
cars, but AMC refused to sell Studebaker their 6-cylinder engine for the
Champion, which needed a larger, more modern engine.   AMC bid on a number
of stamping contracts for S-P business, but their quotes were far higher
than the industry norm.  Thus S-P turned to sources other than AMC for
parts.

Mason's successor was George Romney, a man Mason had encouraged to leave AMA
and work for him at N-K.  Romney was impressed with the Nash's work on small
cars, one of which became the Rambler.   When Romney succeeded Mason, he
quickly decided the Rambler was the route to follow and that S-P had nothing
to offer.  Thus the proposed AMC/S-P merger died.  And in 1957 Romney killed
off both Nash and Hudson, leaving AMC's future to the Rambler.

Ironically, AMC and Studebaker would suppliers, if not parts - Wagner
brakes, Borg-Warner transmissions, Prestolite ignition, and even the same
seat suppliers (both had recliing seats in the 1960's).

Bill
Vancouver, BC
.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Wm. R. Ulman
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: OIC-Rainbows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the policies of
the major brands upon the little guys...


There were many more factors involved in the 50's besides the build quality
issue that affected trade-in values.  Too much to list here right now, but
in a nut shell:

GM & Ford and possibly even Ma MoPar all manipulated the used car market to
their own advantage.  The big boys squeezed the little, or weaker makes out
of business by just not giving anything for them in trade-in values.

If you traded your '53 Kaiser in for a new '56 Chevy, you got pennies on the
dollar.  That had the effect of making Kaiser, and many other makes
undesirable to purchase new.  If you were trading in your '53 Chevy at the
same day and time, you got much more in trade in value.  This held true even
if you were trading in a Ford at a Chevy dealer.  The small, old, weak
brands were holding on to dear life, and the big 3 squeezed them dry.

A few of the smaller, but not lesser makes consolidated in a last gasp
attempt to stay viable and in the market.  Packard, Nash, Studebaker, and
maybe a few others I can't speak with authority on, but others may.  That is
also how we got AMC, or Ameican Motors Corp.  Which actually was a mix of
several smaller or squeezed brands?  I know it had Nash as the main unit of
AMC, but possibly Packard too, although I think Packard and Studebaker
merged to form one company.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, I know not the
exact lineage.

Off to work all have a great week!

Wm. R. Ulman
Seattle, WA
twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:16 AM
To: OIC-Rainbows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OIC-Rainbows] Mild '57 Bashing

I have to agree with Jeff; '57 was a year of flawed beauty. My father's '57
Plymouth lasted until 1963--it's the only car he ever had for less than
seven years, and that includes his truly awful '80 Olds Omega X-body!

I think people shied away from Mopars because serious problems cropped up
after the short warranty period. My father's Plymouth had a broken torsion
bar within a few months, letting go on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. You only
subject your customers with that kind of problem once because they will stay
away from your product. My father's never owned another Chrysler product
since. And after the Olds Omega, he's never bought another GM product.

Chrysler's big rebound really came when they extended the warranty in the
mid-1960s. While styling may have been a factor, too, I think lingering
build quality concerns made '60-'62 such a dire period for Chrysler and
Imperial. If your '57 is worth nothing at trade-in time in '60 or '61, would
YOU buy another Imperial, or switch to Cadillac, where resale value was
relatively high?

E





-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm