Re:A B C and soliloquy of my own

[John McEwen <moparrr@xxxxxxx>]

Hello John:

What a terrific piece of research and how well-presented.  I consider 
myself extremely knowledgeable about cars - especially American cars. 
It was nice to get and "insider" look at  the Hudson story.  I have 
the books and have read them.  You tied it together so very nicely!

You are quite right, Nash was not really the leading car and neither 
was going to be the style king of the mid-50s when up against the Big 
Three.  Chrysler very nearly bit the green wiener in '54, thanks to 
an attempt to sell the K.T. Keller cars with yet another face lift - 
and without Exner would likely have succumbed in an avalanche of '55 
Chevs and Fords - which were outstanding cars and still among the 
best-styled cars since the '30s.

People bought Hudsons because they were great cars.  They had 
terrific handling, and power.  They were big and luxurious 
automobiles in an age when big usually cost more money and luxury 
went with big.  Their styling was terrific in 1948 but should have 
been gone or radically modified by 1954.  Nash, with their peculiar 
bathtub look, were sold, as were Mopars, on the basis of their 
superior engineering, roominess and comfort.  They were also 
economical and quiet but really quite slow.  Nash especially tried to 
push their cars to the outdoorsman.  Reclining seats made into a bed, 
fitted screens for the windows and a lot of other 'outdoorsy' stuff 
may have appealed to hunters and fisherman but didn't appeal to the 
average woman.  They sold well until GM and Ford tried to bury each 
other.  Of course Ford had already suffered its near meltdown in 
1947/48.

What killed Nash, Hudson, Packard and Kaiser?  The loss of the 
post-war demand and the lack of funds to create what GM, Ford and 
Chrysler had done - which was to build a V8 engine.   The other 
problem was that each of the "Little Four" was stuck with styling 
conceived in the '40s and which was now stale and dated-looking. 
Hudson was in worse shape because its chassis really limited the 
amount of face-lifting which could be attempted.  Nash wasn't any 
better off because of their unit body construction - pioneered by 
them before WW II.  Packard and Kaiser were still flogging their 
1948/49 look and in Packard's case, in spite of the great 
Teague-assisted styling of '55 and '56 the old body was still there 
lurking not far beneath the surface.

Kaiser, after leading the industry in styling in the immediate 
post-war period, simply ran out of market when the hot demand for new 
cars was satiated.  Bad decisions regarding production goals and a 
small, poorly-presented dealer force soon emptied the 
previously-profitable bank account.

And then there were the twin debacles of the Henry J and the Hudson 
Jet.  Partially inspired by the success of the Nash Rambler (to give 
it its full name) and partly by the shortages of the Korean War the 
projections were for smaller more economical vehicles.  Nash, Hudson, 
Kaiser and Willys built them.  The booming mid-50's economy, the 
GM-Ford wars and the major manufacturer's real "dream car" styling 
soon put everyone on the trailer.  AMC was formed and rode on the 
success of the Nash Rambler. Willys died, Kaiser died and moved, 
Hudson, Nash and Packard faded away - and then there was Studebaker.

Studebaker was the styling king but couldn't build enough of the 
right models in '53 and '54 because management simply couldn't accept 
or predict the success of the Loewy coupes.  They did however have a 
V8 - even though the hot setup was to have Bill Frick drop in a 
Cadillac mill to create a James Bond character car, the Studillac. 
In time, Studebaker was able to recycle that great '53 body and use 
it until the bitter end in '66.

Hindsight is always easy, but if we take a critical look back, 
Studebaker produced more memorable cars in terms of styling than all 
of the other put together.  However no company could stand in the way 
of the styling juggernaut created by the Big Three between 1955 and 
1965.  Even though many of the independents were clearly superior in 
engineering they could not succeed as they were.  AMC adapted and 
headed in a profitable direction. Studebaker succeeded for a while 
but couldn't shake the "independent" label in a time when main stream 
ruled.

If you were to ask a knowledgeable car buff to name the great designs 
of the independents between 1945 and 1960 what would you come up 
with?  Here's my list - mentioning only the first year of the design 
and recognizing that the face lifts are sometimes real improvements. 
In some cases I include the face lifts:

1946 Kaiser and Frazer, 1947 Studebaker, 1948 Hudson, 1950 Nash 
Rambler, 1951 Kaiser, 1953 Studebaker, 1955/56 Packard,  1956 Rambler 
Cross Country, 1956 and 1957 Studebaker Hawks, 1957 Rambler Rebel.

There are more which should be considered and there are a lot of 
stinkers which should be forgotten - but contrast these with the 
really great cars of GM, Ford and Chrysler in just 1955 and 1956. 
Never mind the solid styling of GM in 1948/49 and again in 1953/54 
and '55/56 or the great success of Ford and Mercury in 1949 right 
through the great 1952/54s, '55/56s until the unfortunate blunders of 
1958/59.  We also should never overlook the great Chrysler double 
whammy in 1955/56 followed by its dramatic changes in '57/'59 
although the '59 face lifts were not really successful..  It was a 
tough time for an independent on a slim budget to make an impression. 
Economy and low price always sold - but it wasn't a big deal in terms 
of fuel costs of the time.

Enough for now.  Thanks for getting me wound up John.  Much appreciated!!

John McEwen