From: "Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the
policies of the major brands upon the little guys...
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:48:56 -0700
George Mason, Romney's predecessor, was the man behind the mergers.
Packard's Nance brought the other two firms together, Studebaker and
Packard, but when Mason died and Romney took over, the grand merger died.
And two years later so were the Nash and Hudson cars.
The merger of Nash and Hudson brought about some major changes. Hudson was
rapidly heading to oblivion when Nash and Hudson merged in 1954. Hudson
production hit a postwas peak of 159,100 for the 1949 model year but had
plunged to 50,550 for 1954. 1949 profits of $10 million had become a $10
million loss for 1953 and a $6 million loss for the first four months of
1954. Given the results of the 1954 model year, Hudson would have lost
about $25 million for the 12 months of 1954.
Thus AMC made the decision to base the new 1955 Hudson Wasp and Hornet on
the Nash body and build it at the Nash plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The
Wasp and Hornet used Hudson 6-cylinder engines while the Hornet V8 used the
Packard V8. Hudson's compact, the Jet, was killed outright. Jet
production
came to 14,224 in the U.S. in 1954 plus a further 654 in Canada. As a
result. the Hudson plant on Jefferson Avenue (across the street from the
Chrysler/Imperial plant) was closed. Over 5,000 lost their jobs. A
further 3,000 or so lost their jobs by the time all the Hudson plants were
closed a few years later, when the firm no longer needed Hudson flathead
sixes or the stamping plants. The Hudson plants were not sold to any
other
firm and, I believe, were demolished soon after AMC abandoned them.
The compact Hudson Jet had bodies built by Murray Body Corporation. Murray
also built bodies for the Willys Aero, whose production came to a halt
early
in 1955. With that, Murray Body closed its doors. And in Canada, Hudsons
were built by Chatco Steel Products (known as Canada Top & Body before
WWII)
in Tilbury, Ontario. Without the Hudson business, Chatco faded from the
scene and was gone by 1958.
By the way, the Chrysler/Imperial plant on Jefferson Avenue was the former
Chalmers plant. And the reason Chalmers and Hudson had plants next to each
other is that the two were started by the same people. Roy D. Chapin and
Howard Coffin designed a car in 1906 and got E.R. Thomas of Buffalo, New
York, to back the firm, which began building cars in Detroit in a new plant
on Jefferson Avenue. By 1908 the Thomas-Detroit firm brought in Hugh
Chalmers to spark sales and the Thomas-Detroit became the
Chalmers-Detroit..
At about the same time, Chapin and Coffin had designed a new, smaller car,
with the help of Roscoe Jackson, and F.O. Bezner. Thomas would not back
this car, but Chalmer bought into it as did a relative of Jackson's, one
J.L.Hudson.
The Hudson Motor Company was founded in 1909 and built a new plant on
Jefferson Avenue at Conner the next year. Just across from the Chalmers
plant. Shortly after, Chalmers sold his interest in Hudson to Chapin and
associates, while they sold their stock in Chalmers to Chalmers and his
group.
The Chalmers company became associated with Maxwell, the firm that Walter
P.
Chrysler was hired to rescue. The Chalmers was replaced in 1924 by the
new
Chrysler Model B (called Model B in remembrance of the still-born 1921
Chrysler) at the Chalmers plant on Jefferson Avenue. The first Chrysler
Imperials were built at Jefferson Avenue, as were all Imperials with the
exception of 1959-61 (Warren Avenue), 1981-83 (Windsor, ON) and 1990-93
(Belvidere, IL).
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Currell Pattie" <currellpattie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the
policies
of the major brands upon the little guys...
> George Romney, the AMC guy, wanted a mega "independent" car company,
> consisting of Packard, Studebaker, Nash and Hudson. Of course, the first
two
> and last two merged, but not all four.
>
> This would have created a lot of problems, especially short term. You
would
> want, for example, one accounting dept instead of four. Lots of
> layoffs...and the suits would be hard hit here, too...
>
> But, who knows? The downsized AMC stuff was ahead of its time, at least
from
> a packaging standpoint. Engineering was pretty mundane, though.
>
> Currell (53 Custom Imperial four door, early automatic)
>
> >From: "Wm. R. Ulman" <twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >CC: <OIC-Rainbows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the
policies
of
> >the major brands upon the little guys...
> >Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:39:04 -0700
> >
> >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
> >
> > <mailto:twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>
----------------- 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
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network