PICKING AN ORPHAN CAR

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:42:54 GMT, "krp" > wrote:

>
>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:41:05 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>>
>>>STRAW POLL
>>>
>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>> manufactured.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hudson during it's glory days
>
>Good choice. Great car until the merger with Nash. Tell us why.

The Packard were turned into Nash's with Packard nameplates. Or do
you mean before that? I liked the styling and their clever
engineering ideas. It's been quite a while since I read much about
them so I don't recall much detail anymore. When I was a kid one of
the neighbors used to buy well used Packard's and I always thought
they looked cool.

"fred" > wrote in message
...

>>>> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to
>>>> the
>>>> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
>>>> letters of its name.
>>>
>>> I don't think that really counts does it? it's like saying Mercurys are
>>> orphans depite Ford Still being in Business.
>>
>> Well given that the Merc was essentially a FORD with a different
>> grille
>> and a HIGH price tag - you can say it isn't an orphan. Not in the same
>> sense that the Saturn will be an orphan. It has a few years of parts
>> availability and then will fade into the dustbin of history along with
>> Packard, Kaiser etc. Since the same engine, trans suspension etc will
>> persist in the Fords and Lincolns for some time to come, the Merc will
>> live on.

> But the company that makes/made Saturns (GM) is still in buisness and
> making cars.

Maybe. The jury is still out on that. However the Saturn was largely a
unique vehicle in the GM line. GM had largely consolidated manufacturing.
The same engine would appear in all the various GM brands, be it a V-6 or
the V-8's, small block, big block. Little difference when you got past the
valve covers. Saturn was out there pretty much doing their own things. While
there is SOME parts interchangeability it is not like Pontiac and Chevy
which are in most respects the same cars. even the loft Cadillac is 65%
Chevrolet. Some models are rebadged. But in the car line, they will be truly
orphans

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>STRAW POLL
>>>>
>>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>>> manufactured.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hudson during it's glory days
>>
>>Good choice. Great car until the merger with Nash. Tell us why.
>
> The Packard were turned into Nash's with Packard nameplates.


No, you mean the Packards were turned into Studebakers with Packard
badges. A little cosmetic sheet metal, but the same car as tghe Hawk.

> Or do you mean before that? I liked the styling and their clever
> engineering ideas. It's been quite a while since I read much about
> them so I don't recall much detail anymore. When I was a kid one of
> the neighbors used to buy well used Packard's and I always thought
> they looked cool.

The 56 Packard was the last PACKARD. From 1957 till they closed they
were Studebakers with the Packard nameplate. The 54 - 56 Packards while
from an engineering standpoint were interesting cars (torsion bar suspension
push button transmission) they were nightmares in production. Unlike all
previous Packards starting in 1954 the cars kept the service departments
hopping with things that went BANG in the night. The cars were lovely to
look at but dreadful to own. Remember - at that point in time the Packard
was considered to have been the superior to the Cadillac and Lincoln as far
as prestige went. It was the limo of choice. But by the end of 1954 the car
had a stench over it that would end Packard as a brand. It was a magnificent
car killed by bean counters. Too many corners were cut on the magnificent
engineered changes. The steel used in the torsion bars did not meet design
specs so that had a nasty habit of snapping or tearing free of their cheap
mounts. Cutting corners on the shielding of electrical wiring meant that
lots of Packards would be sitting DEAD, which was a horrible problem because
the shifting was electrical. They were a nightmare to fix. All because some
jackass bean counter didn't want to spend the money to build them right in
the first place. The company had been badly mismanaged for years. Not a
penny had been re-invested in the company. The factory was badly out of
date, inefficient and in horrible state of repair. Again the BEAN COUNTERS.
Going into WW-2 the Packard was considered a better car than either the
Lincoln or Caddy. Packard during the war built all the Merlin engines for
airplanes and a great deal of other war supplies. They did NOT maintain
their facilities. They squeezed the last penny of profits from it and did
not use it to improve their production as other companies did.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:42:54 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>
>> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:41:05 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> STRAW POLL
>>>>
>>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>>> manufactured.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hudson during it's glory days
>> Good choice. Great car until the merger with Nash. Tell us why.
>
> The Packard were turned into Nash's with Packard nameplates.

No, that would be Studebaker. Packard bought Studebaker in '55 but it
was like two drunks propping each other up. Last *real* Packard was
built in '56. '57-58 Packards were Studebaker sedans or Hawks in drag.
The only real goodness to come out of that marriage was the '56
Studebaker Golden Hawk with the Packard 352 under the hood.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 1, 3:33*pm, "krp" > wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
> >>> Plymouth. *And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
> >>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
> >>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with a
> >>> VW Golf.)
>
> >> * *Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
> >> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
> >> letters of its name. When you went into a dealer and saw the salesmen
> >> were in their 60's and the customers called them "SONNY" that pretty well
> >> sums it up Oldsmobile buyers were dying at too alarming a rate. There
> >> just aren't that many people over 90 still driving. As to Plymouth - the
> >> brand fell victim to just having it's name slapped on cars of other
> >> Chrysler brands. Chrysler still suffers from duplication. You see Dodge
> >> and Chrysler badges on vehicles that are essential Jeeps. You see
> >> vehicles bearing the Jeep Badge that are well outside their market. Lots
> >> of confusion at Chrysler. They have NO idea what they want to be..
>
> >> * *Studebaker and Hudson were really fine cars killed by the bean
> >> counters.It is sad that Studebaker and Packard didn't join Nash and
> >> Hudson. The Studs of the 50's were really good cars. I mean the Lowey
> >> cars. Hawks etc.Hudson make a great car - they just held onto the 6 too
> >> long. Nash's problem was that it was a VERY bad car! Ugly as hell and a
> >> horrible suspension. Comfortable as hell, but handled like a porpoise in
> >> a hard turn. The inundations could make you sea sick as it undulated. If
> >> they had seat belts maybe you'd have been a bit nauseous as you tried to
> >> turn a corner.
> > I agree that Studebaker was a fine car but they were hampered by an
> > archaic (but functional) suspension design and terminal RUST. *I don't
> > know that the Hudson six was a disadvantage in anything but
> > advertising/bragging rights - it was plenty quick compared to other
> > contemporary cars (e.g. Fabulous Hudson Hornet) *And as for Olds - well,
> > once upon a time the Cutlass was the best selling car in the US! *Part of
> > the problem was it was essentially the same car as the Chevelle, LeMans,
> > etc. and instead of standardizing on the superior Olds or Pontiac products
> > GM eventually made everything Chevy clones. *I have a similar fondness for
> > the Valiant/Dusters, simple, tough compact cars that weren't too painful
> > to drive and ran forever. *the US mfgrs. lost their way in the 70s and
> > never got it back :
>
> * * The Stud Hawk handled very well for its time. In the 50's EVERYTHING
> rusted. Undercoating was rare. So cancer overtook the bodies of the cars. I
> saw, a few years ago *my old 65 Buick Skylark I had undercoated by the
> Texaco system. Paint sucked but NO body rust.
>
> * * The Hornets did okay against the small block V-8s in the early 50's. But
> Chrysler was eating them alive by 57. The V-8's were just more efficient and
> powerful. *Other than that the Hudson's were an excellent car. I don't
> recall the Cutlass being the #1 seller. *Pretty much they were all what I
> seem to recall being called the "C" body. You left the Buick Skylark out of
> that mix.I think it had the best overall engines. The transmissions left
> MUCH to be desired. Especially the automatics. Pretty anemic. I had a 66
> Skylark Gran Sport with the big block engine and it kept eating
> transmissions. *(Mine came with a 503 CID factory experimental engine.) A
> trans was good for 45 days or until I stood on it. Buick took it back after
> 6 months and gave me a brand new 67.
>
> * * Actually there are a few fairly good cars today. Still have the same
> problem. Detroit is being run by BEAN COUNTERS.

The Cutlass, AFAIR, was the top seller in the mid/late-70's, after
things had already started to go downhill. Even hampered with hideous
color-matched, crushed-velour interiors and anemic drivetrains people
were buying the darned things in droves, because it was a solid,
decent-handling chassis. I believe that that was actually the "A"
platform which became the "G" platform at some point (early 70's?)
just a typical compact, RWD traditional American passenger car with a
live rear axle, but it worked.

I never owned one or got much exposure to one but from hearsay I'm
given to understand that the G-platform actually handled better than
the old A-bodies, but obviously the cars are today much less appealing
to collectors because of the questionable 70's styling (both interior
and exterior) and complete lack of power and performance options.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message
...
> >>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
> >>> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
> >>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
> >>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with
> >>> a
> >>> VW Golf.)
>
> >> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
> >> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
> >> letters of its name. When you went into a dealer and saw the salesmen
> >> were in their 60's and the customers called them "SONNY" that pretty
> >> well
> >> sums it up Oldsmobile buyers were dying at too alarming a rate. There
> >> just aren't that many people over 90 still driving. As to Plymouth -
> >> the
> >> brand fell victim to just having it's name slapped on cars of other
> >> Chrysler brands. Chrysler still suffers from duplication. You see Dodge
> >> and Chrysler badges on vehicles that are essential Jeeps. You see
> >> vehicles bearing the Jeep Badge that are well outside their market.
> >> Lots
> >> of confusion at Chrysler. They have NO idea what they want to be..
>
> >> Studebaker and Hudson were really fine cars killed by the bean
> >> counters.It is sad that Studebaker and Packard didn't join Nash and
> >> Hudson. The Studs of the 50's were really good cars. I mean the Lowey
> >> cars. Hawks etc.Hudson make a great car - they just held onto the 6 too
> >> long. Nash's problem was that it was a VERY bad car! Ugly as hell and a
> >> horrible suspension. Comfortable as hell, but handled like a porpoise
> >> in
> >> a hard turn. The inundations could make you sea sick as it undulated.
> >> If
> >> they had seat belts maybe you'd have been a bit nauseous as you tried
> >> to
> >> turn a corner.
> > I agree that Studebaker was a fine car but they were hampered by an
> > archaic (but functional) suspension design and terminal RUST. I don't
> > know that the Hudson six was a disadvantage in anything but
> > advertising/bragging rights - it was plenty quick compared to other
> > contemporary cars (e.g. Fabulous Hudson Hornet) And as for Olds - well,
> > once upon a time the Cutlass was the best selling car in the US! Part of
> > the problem was it was essentially the same car as the Chevelle, LeMans,
> > etc. and instead of standardizing on the superior Olds or Pontiac
> > products
> > GM eventually made everything Chevy clones. I have a similar fondness
> > for
> > the Valiant/Dusters, simple, tough compact cars that weren't too painful
> > to drive and ran forever. the US mfgrs. lost their way in the 70s and
> > never got it back :
>
> The Stud Hawk handled very well for its time. In the 50's EVERYTHING
> rusted. Undercoating was rare. So cancer overtook the bodies of the cars.
> I
> saw, a few years ago my old 65 Buick Skylark I had undercoated by the
> Texaco system. Paint sucked but NO body rust.
>
> The Hornets did okay against the small block V-8s in the early 50's. But
> Chrysler was eating them alive by 57. The V-8's were just more efficient
> and
> powerful. Other than that the Hudson's were an excellent car. I don't
> recall the Cutlass being the #1 seller. Pretty much they were all what I
> seem to recall being called the "C" body. You left the Buick Skylark out
> of
> that mix.I think it had the best overall engines. The transmissions left
> MUCH to be desired. Especially the automatics. Pretty anemic. I had a 66
> Skylark Gran Sport with the big block engine and it kept eating
> transmissions. (Mine came with a 503 CID factory experimental engine.) A
> trans was good for 45 days or until I stood on it. Buick took it back
> after
> 6 months and gave me a brand new 67.
>
> Actually there are a few fairly good cars today. Still have the same
> problem. Detroit is being run by BEAN COUNTERS.

The Cutlass, AFAIR, was the top seller in the mid/late-70's, after
things had already started to go downhill. Even hampered with hideous
color-matched, crushed-velour interiors and anemic drivetrains people
were buying the darned things in droves, because it was a solid,
decent-handling chassis. I believe that that was actually the "A"
platform which became the "G" platform at some point (early 70's?)
just a typical compact, RWD traditional American passenger car with a
live rear axle, but it worked.

===================

Yet the Tempest based on the same chassis had independent rear
suspension. I liked the Buick engines better. But in 15 years ALL of GM
would be using the Chevy blocks.