“I do think Packard would have been the more salvageable of the two brands, but Packard was already having trouble making ends meet (which is why they went looking for a merger with another company offering greater volume), so I agree that their future probably wouldn’t have been that rosy. Best case, they might have limped along into the early ’60s and then either folded or gone back to the table with AMC, perhaps after both Romney and Nance were gone. Packard might have survived as a brand in that scenario, but more likely as a restyled, fancier Ambassador than a really separate entity.”
— Aaron Severson, Ate Up With Motor
RE:SOURCES
- Severson, Aaron; 2014. Commentator in “The Once and Future Coupe: The Studebaker Hawk.” Ate Up With Motor. Comment posted December 25; accessed January 4, 2015.
With the right historical points of divergence for both Packard and Studebaker beginning in the 1930s prior to their merger into Studebaker-Packard in the 1950s, would they be strong enough to be both a competitor to AMC as well as well-capitalized enough to switch to unibody construction on their own or would a thriving alternate Studebaker-Packard combine have had to expediently embrace a short-term alliance with AMC (proposed by Romney himself in lieu of a grand merger) in order help it move to unibody construction quicker?
Despite what ultimately unfolded in real life with Studebaker-Packard being described as two drunks trying to help each other cross the street, it seems that under the right circumstances both marques had the necessary ingredients to be more then what they amounted to with a later acquisition of Kaiser-Jeep or International Harvester (plus Checker) further solidifying things.