Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,419 Posts
That's a good one but there's a better one at allpar... one which admittedly doesn't go past Daimler. I had to do an awful lot of research to get it to be accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
I have often wondered that if the original plan for AMC had come to pass (the first part on both sides took place, Hudson and Nash to form AMC, Studebaker and Packard to form Studebaker-Packard) the second part was for AMC and SP to merge retaining AMC as a corporate name. If this had been successful, would Chrysler even have survived, let alone have acquired AMC? I really suspect that the "big 3" would have been GM, Ford and AMC, leaving Chrysler, Kaiser-Frazer and Willys ripe for takeovers by the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Dave Z where can I find that chart?
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,419 Posts
What may not be obvious there is that United States Motor was basically Maxwell. All those other companies were purchased by Maxwell. There is probably an error where the smaller companies are shown as being purchased by US Motor when in reality some were acquired earlier by Maxwell. The impetus for this was Ben Briscoe and [first name?] Durant trying to create a company including every major US automaker and most of the minor ones. It fell apart and each went on their own.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
515 Posts
I have often wondered that if the original plan for AMC had come to pass (the first part on both sides took place, Hudson and Nash to form AMC, Studebaker and Packard to form Studebaker-Packard) the second part was for AMC and SP to merge retaining AMC as a corporate name. If this had been successful, would Chrysler even have survived, let alone have acquired AMC? I really suspect that the "big 3" would have been GM, Ford and AMC, leaving Chrysler, Kaiser-Frazer and Willys ripe for takeovers by the others.
While I'm not gonna say that AMC history would've still ended in 1987, to think a merger with SP by AMC would've made them a big 3 would've been quite a stretch. Sure, they would've had volume, but Chrysler was still pretty big. That, and some of AMC's problems, such as their finances, may have been even more apparent trying to build Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, AND Packard all at the same time.
I don't think much would of changed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,021 Posts
I have often wondered that if the original plan for AMC had come to pass (the first part on both sides took place, Hudson and Nash to form AMC, Studebaker and Packard to form Studebaker-Packard) the second part was for AMC and SP to merge retaining AMC as a corporate name. If this had been successful, would Chrysler even have survived, let alone have acquired AMC? I really suspect that the "big 3" would have been GM, Ford and AMC, leaving Chrysler, Kaiser-Frazer and Willys ripe for takeovers by the others.
While it may have been possible, it wasn't very likely. Chrysler at that time was a pretty stable, profitable, and a rather large company. The four companies in question weren't in good shape apart, and if they had merged it may have bought them some time, but I think they too wouldn't have survived. Stellantis can learn from these situations. Chrysler made the same mistakes that other companies do. They spent precious resources in places they didn't understand and had no business in. They took their eyes off their main market and boom they were behind. They've been playing catch up for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I have often wondered that if the original plan for AMC had come to pass (the first part on both sides took place, Hudson and Nash to form AMC, Studebaker and Packard to form Studebaker-Packard) the second part was for AMC and SP to merge retaining AMC as a corporate name. If this had been successful, would Chrysler even have survived, let alone have acquired AMC? I really suspect that the "big 3" would have been GM, Ford and AMC, leaving Chrysler, Kaiser-Frazer and Willys ripe for takeovers by the others.
Studebaker and Packard were both struggling at that time, the merger of those two didn't help. Joining with Hudson/Nash at AMC may have helped a little, but to compete with Chrysler? Not a chance. Look at Studebaker/Packard and Hudson/Nash numbers of those years vs Chrysler and you'll see there was no comparison. Even AMC dropped Hudson and Nash in favor of Rambler pretty quickly, and AMC didn't have strong market penetration ever, even after 1970 when they purchased Jeep. And, even Jeep couldn't keep AMC alive past 1987...

JS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
Lets not forget that all these companies were affected by WW1 and WW11 and could be a huge reason for the mix we have today.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,419 Posts
Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, and Nash, together, would probably have worked, but that never happened. The loss of the Grand Plan leader killed it.
Chrysler could have used Packard as a successful replacement for Imperial; while Imperial was always a fine car, it rarely got any real sales. Packard had the name recognition they needed, and the savings from using Chrysler engines and transmissions in the Packard could have given them real profits, rather than the losses I suspect Imperial brought.

Hudson and Nash, well, they were kinda different. Hudson was a pretty upscale car, playing above Chrysler if I recall correctly. Hudson and Packard would have made more sense to me as a combination. Nash and Studebaker were both more mass-market. Chrysler could have used the Nash small car lineup...

But in the end, yes, I agree that probably Chrysler's problems of the late 1960s would have hurt them badly even if they had a profitable luxury car. But maybe not. Part of their problem was trying to match GM and Ford car-for-car without the volume needed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27 Posts
Just curious, I know Plymouth was under the Chrysler umbrella, (Chrysler-Plymouth), but where did Desoto fall in the scheme of things. I always thought it was a Dodge-Desoto or was Desoto a separate brand altogether?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,582 Posts
Just curious, I know Plymouth was under the Chrysler umbrella, (Chrysler-Plymouth), but where did Desoto fall in the scheme of things. I always thought it was a Dodge-Desoto or was Desoto a separate brand altogether?
DeSoto was a separate brand but it shared its showroom also with Plymouth as well.(DeSoto-Plymouth) in the US while DeSoto was with Dodge in Canada.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,419 Posts
The showroom sharing started during the Depression and in most cases never ended. Chrysler would have been better off splitting up the brands after that. Chrysler-Plymouth never made any sense after the war — "Here's our upscale brand, with Imperial, and here's our mass-market value brand, in one showroom!" After DeSoto left most Dodge dealers were standalone, so they had some Plymouth trucks (well, the B-vans and Trailduster), and Dodge demanded, and got, one of everything Plymouth had along with some of what Chrysler had.

I do wonder why the GTX didn't catch on when the Cordoba did, - maybe price? The idea of making a relatively compact car (midsize) with the full “luxury” trim took off on the Valiant Brougham, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,582 Posts
The showroom sharing started during the Depression and in most cases never ended. Chrysler would have been better off splitting up the brands after that. Chrysler-Plymouth never made any sense after the war — "Here's our upscale brand, with Imperial, and here's our mass-market value brand, in one showroom!" After DeSoto left most Dodge dealers were standalone, so they had some Plymouth trucks (well, the B-vans and Trailduster), and Dodge demanded, and got, one of everything Plymouth had along with some of what Chrysler had.

I do wonder why the GTX didn't catch on when the Cordoba did, - maybe price? The idea of making a relatively compact car (midsize) with the full “luxury” trim took off on the Valiant Brougham, too.
Maybe it's the name. When the GTX was launched for 1967, it was to compete against the GTO but once the Road Runner arrived, they tried to market it as an upscale muscle-car or "gentleman's hot rod" but most of the sales had gone to the Road Runner and to a latter extent, the Duster. I'm surprised they didn't recycled the GTX monicker for the Duster, "Duster GTX" would ring well besides the 340 and a good consolation prize since they couldn't use the CK nameplate. Belmont (as a nod to the 1954 show car) or even dusting off the Savoy name would had fit what'll became the Cordoba.
Edit: Another name who could have been used is Acapulco, as a not to the Mexican Valiant Acapulco. https://flic.kr/p/8SYCFU
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
That's a good one but there's a better one at allpar... one which admittedly doesn't go past Daimler. I had to do an awful lot of research to get it to be accurate.
Studebaker and Packard were both struggling at that time, the merger of those two didn't help. Joining with Hudson/Nash at AMC may have helped a little, but to compete with Chrysler? Not a chance. Look at Studebaker/Packard and Hudson/Nash numbers of those years vs Chrysler and you'll see there was no comparison. Even AMC dropped Hudson and Nash in favor of Rambler pretty quickly, and AMC didn't have strong market penetration ever, even after 1970 when they purchased Jeep. And, even Jeep couldn't keep AMC alive past 1987...

JS
The reason I read for the failure of AMC to be Studebaker, Nash, Hudson Packard had to do with a key individual. The lineup was to be Studebaker as the entry level (Ford, Chevrolet, Plymouth competitor), Hudson as the step up, and with their near domination of Nascar, a performance name, Nash, with a solid higher price image and Packard as the competition for Cadillac and Lincoln. As was mentioned, Imperial wasn't really a separate marque, but just a higher priced Chrysler.

The plan called for the Nash Rambler and Hudson Wasp to be dropped in favor of the Studebaker Champion. This did not sit well with Mr. Romney, and he pulled AMC out of the merger with Studebaker-Packard. Transmissions would have been interesting, Studebaker was using Detroit Gear units, Hudson and Nash were buying Hydramatics from GM, and Packard had their own design, in the Ultramatic. Both Studebaker and Packard automatics feature lockup torque converters well ahead of their time. Packard had in 1955-56 automatic leveling torsion bar suspension and some of the best chassis wiring in the world (Hypalon insulation).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chebby7
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top