ORPHAN CARS

Does anyone share my interest in the great orphan cars? Hudson,
Packard, Studebaker, Kaiser, Willys, Nash, AMC, and the like?

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> Does anyone share my interest in the great orphan cars? Hudson,
>> Packard, Studebaker, Kaiser, Willys, Nash, AMC, and the like?

> Yep. Think I answered you once before and we talked about Crosley.

Yes, a cute little thing. There are a few collectors, they wre fun
little things. Somebody should bring them back.

> I daily drive a '75 AMC Hornet and have a few other AMC/Rambler
> cars. Not show cars, just nice drivers. I was able to make it out
> to the national Studebaker show in September, there were some
> amazing vehicles there.

I have some die-casts of a few Studs. I have a golden hawk and a 53
president. I owned a 68 AMX and a 70 Javelin. I bought both new and loved
both. The AMX was a real screamer. 390 4spd. I used to go hunting Corvettes
and Camero SS's. Took on a few 500KR Mustangs too - the ONLY cars I'd not
race were the big MOPARS. Fords and Chevys were lunchmeat till you got up to
the exotic cobras.

There were TONS of great orphans. Packards. Nashes the Hudsons. Maybe
not race cars but unique and worthy of discussion. The Lowey Studs were a
dramatic design change. Never figured out why they didn't catch on and the
Lark did as ugly and lackluster as it was.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> There were TONS of great orphans. Packards. Nashes the Hudsons. Maybe
>> not race cars but unique and worthy of discussion. The Lowey Studs were a
>
> After World War II, George Mason of Nash wanted to see all the major
> independents merge into a company which was to be called "American
> Motors" in order to compete with the Big Three after the sellers'
> market of the initial postwar period ended. Mason's overtures were
> initially rejected since all car companies were selling everything
> they could pump out of the factories.

I think the jury is out on whether that would have worked in the end.
The problem was **** poor management and a lack of ideas, which Preston
Tucker clearly demonstrated in 1947. Any one of those companies could have
bult cars to compete with Tucker. None wanted to. They all suffered the same
malaise, ALL of them were run by BANKERS and not car people. When the
founders dies off the financial wizards came in and engineerring went oiut
the window. Last to fall victim to that was Studebaker in the early 50's
with the Lowey designs. There was some half hearted futzing with Lowey's
enginering (Hawks) but no real vision to build quality cars. (Hawks due
largely to Andy Granatelli who also spured the Avanti)

> A few years later that happy sales situation had ended. Hudson was
> in bad shape, and wound up being bought out by Nash in 1954. The
> combined companies became American Motors Corporation. As you may
> recall, production of "real" Hudsons was halted and all production
> consolidated into the Nash factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Hudsons
> models continued to be built for a few more years using Nash body
> shells.

Some were nice looking. Ending Hudson was a bad idea.

> Packard bought out Studebaker (a fatally ailing company) the same
> year. Mason's idea was that Studebaker-Packard would would also become
> part of AMC but that idea was abandoned when Mason died unexpectedly
> and George Romney took over the company.

And Romney killed it with the Rambler.

>> dramatic design change. Never figured out why they didn't catch on and
>> the
>> Lark did as ugly and lackluster as it was.

> The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested in
> compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful, small
> imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had compact
> designs in the pipeline.

Yes - the Corvair, the Pinto and eventually the Vega. NONE were with
blowing up. Both the Rambler and Lark were far better cars. The problem is
that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and Ford.

> What's interesting is that looking at the early Larks you can see
> that what was done was to essentially lop off the front and rear
> overhang from a standard-size Studebaker to create a compact. If
> you focus on the center section of those cars you can really see it.
> Lark sales were initially excellent and kept Studebaker afloat for
> a few more years.

I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. I
don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that the Larks were. Look
at the 1955 Studebaker President - I see no similarity.

> AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of the
> Hornet to create a subcompact.

That's true.They had a concept car at the auto shows using the AMX with
that rear end. The Gremlin was an ABORTION at best. I called it at the time;
"design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept car everybody
loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
......

>> The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested
>> in
>> compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful,
>> small
>> imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had
>> compact
>> designs in the pipeline.
>
> Yes - the Corvair, the Pinto and eventually the Vega. NONE were
> with blowing up. Both the Rambler and Lark were far better cars. The
> problem is that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and
> Ford.

The Pinto and Vega came much later (1970) and were significantly
smaller than the Rambler and Lark. It is not reasonable to claim they
were competitors to the Lark or Rambler. The "Big 3" competitors to
those cars were the Covair (at least initially), Falcon, Comet,
Valiant, Dart, Chevy II, Tempest, Skylark, F-85, and later the
Fairlane and Meteor/Montego (although they eventually grew larger) and
I suppose eventually the Maverick.
......

> I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung
> designs. I don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that
> the Larks were. Look at the 1955 Studebaker President - I see no
> similarity.
>
>> AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of
>> the
>> Hornet to create a subcompact.
>
> That's true.They had a concept car at the auto shows using the
> AMX with that rear end. The Gremlin was an ABORTION at best. I
> called it at the time; "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out
> (The AMX concept car everybody loved) for that slug. It was a poorly
> thought out rush job.

But they sold a lot of them (almost 700k).

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4914647b@kcnews01...

>>> The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested in
>>> compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful, small
>>> imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had compact
>>> designs in the pipeline.

>> Yes - the Corvair, the Pinto and eventually the Vega. NONE were with
>> blowing up. Both the Rambler and Lark were far better cars. The problem
>> is that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and Ford.

> The Pinto and Vega came much later (1970) and were significantly smaller
> than the Rambler and Lark. It is not reasonable to claim they were
> competitors to the Lark or Rambler. The "Big 3" competitors to those cars
> were the Covair (at least initially), Falcon, Comet, Valiant, Dart, Chevy
> II, Tempest, Skylark, F-85, and later the Fairlane and Meteor/Montego
> (although they eventually grew larger) and I suppose eventually the
> Maverick.

Well yes in the aerly 60's, by the mid 60's the GM cars had
bloated.(Skylark, Cutleass etc) But you are right about the Falcon.

>> I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. I
>> don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that the Larks were.
>> Look at the 1955 Studebaker President - I see no similarity.

>>> AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of the
>>> Hornet to create a subcompact.

>> That's true.They had a concept car at the auto shows using the AMX
>> with that rear end. The Gremlin was an ABORTION at best. I called it at
>> the time; "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept
>> car everybody loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job.

> But they sold a lot of them (almost 700k).

I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell. But the
WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER!

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> I think the jury is out on whether that would have worked in the end.

> Hard to say. Certainly Studebaker was in very bad shape, as Packard
> found out the hard way.

Packard was in bad shape too. The cars after the war were, in the best
light, uninspired designs at Packard. The 55 Caribbean was a striking
looking car buy a horrible piece of engineering. Nothing worked. The push
button trans was a nightmare. Was at least a year away from being ready.
Toprsion bar suspension prone to break. Nice looking car it just live in the
repair shop and that killed Packard.

>> And Romney killed it with the Rambler.

> The Rambler carried AMC to its height of popularity in the late 1950s,
> and for a short time Rambler outsold Plymouth. The Rambler's popularity
> continued into the early 1960s.

> AMC sales started suffering after Romney left the company to go
> into politics. Roy Abernethy became AMC president, he was a "big
> car" guy who rapidly diluted AMC's reputation as a compact-car
> specialist and set the company on a suicidal course to compete
> head-on with the Big Three.

Yep instead of carving out their own market they tried to compete with GM
when GM was startuing to build crap.

> A case in point was the Marlin, a sporty fastback originally
> conceived as a compact (called the Tarpon) by designer Richard
> Teague. In response to the wildly popular Mustang, Abernethy
> ordered AMC's fastback to be built as a larger, and much more
> ungainly, car. Needless to say, it was a flop.

It was ugly. Handled like a pregnant walrus.

>> I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs.
>> I

> You have to look at the shape of the doors and windows. It was pretty
> evident at the Studebaker show where one could examine the cars close up.
> The Brooks Stevens restlying of the original Lark did effectively erase
> the visual ties to earlier models.

What they did as an economy move is use the doors from the other cars
that's all.

> FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for the Lark states:

> "The Lark was ingeniously designed around the core bodyshell of the
> full-sized 1953-1958 Studebakers. By reducing the front and rear
> overhangs and shortening the wheelbase, the car could still seat
> six people comfortably and hold a surprising amount of luggage."

I know that is said but look at the two cars. A 55 President and the
Lark. Hard to see.

>> "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept car
>> everybody
>> loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job.

> The Gremlin had its good points. It did not suffer from the
> self-destructing engines of the Vega or the exploding gas tanks of
> the Pinto. Since the front half of the car was a Hornet, it had
> much more front-seat room than most subcompacts. Also more power
> since Gremlins came standard with the Hornet's six-cylinder engine.
> (A V8 was also available for a while, and a four-banger late in
> the production run.)

The 6 was the old Nasg 7 main bearing 6 dating back to the 40's.
BULLETPROOF.

> On the other hand, the Gremlin had practically zero room for rear
> passengers, and was relatively heavy and ponderous being made out
> of the parts of a larger car. It actually *needed* power steering.
> With nearly all the weight up front it understeered like crazy,
> and the light back end made driving in slippery conditions an
> "interesting" proposition.

Then they wrote the PACER!

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> The 6 was the old Nasg 7 main bearing 6 dating back to the 40's.
>> BULLETPROOF.
>
> It was similar in some ways (such as 7 main bearings) to the old
> Nash mill, but was a newer-design engine that first saw life in
> 1964 as 232 CID six in the Rambler Typhoon. It ultimately replaced
> the old 195.6 L-Head and OHV sixes previously used, whose design
> dated to the 1930s.

That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most
reliable in-line 6's ever built along with the Mopar slant 6. Of course
there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't
hurt those things. I know some folks still using their 53 Kaisers as a daily
driver with working on the second million miles. It was also the engine for
some of the old taxicabs becayse it would run forever. Slower than crap but
they never quit.

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

>> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most

> There were some common design concepts but I don't think there was any
> parts interchangeability. Different block design, different head design,
> all internal parts different.

Pretty much the same block. Same cam and crank. Changes were for oil filter
and overhead valves. Very little engineering changes. Minor difference in
bore.

> This contrasts with the 199/232/258 AMC/Rambler six and the Jeep 4.0,
> where
> major components such as cylinder heads and crankshafts can be
> interchanged
> and the engine mounts are in the same place -- a 4.0 from a 2006 Jeep will
> happily drop into a mid-1960s Rambler. (Right up to the end the 4.0 block
> even had the mounting bosses that had been added to the 258 for the 4WD
> AMC
> Eagle's front differential.)

>> there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't
>> hurt those things.

> Funny you should mention Kaiser. The engineer who designed most of
> AMC's engines starting with the 250/287/327 V8 was David Potter,
> who left Kaiser for a job at the then-new American Motors. It
> happens that he had designed a prototype V8 at Kaiser. Given that
> experience, he brought the 1st-generation AMC V8 from drawing board
> to production in less than a year and a half, quite a feat in those
> pre-computer days. Needless to say, that AMC V8 closely resembled
> the Kaiser prototype.

The Kaiser protype was to be aluminum. What REALLY demised Kaiser - a
little known truth - is that a conspiracy went on to put the Oldsmobile V8
into the Manhattan. A deal was made by the manufacturing people to cicumvent
the "orange juicers" (the name for the Kaisers) and try it out. It was a
great deal, even Oldmobile regterred licensing it to Kaiser because it was
so quick. The factory folks quickly built 50 cars and were ready to ship
them when Edgar Kaiser (who was running the company) caught them in the act.
The Kaisers wanted an ALUMINUM V-8. PERIOD. Whern Kaiser saw the Cars, he
ordered them destroyed and padlocked the plant. The company was screwed
financially anyway. It was slowly bleeding the rest of Kaiser industries. It
could have kept on for a little while but Edgar's tantrum ended it.

> The 1st-generation AMC V8 debuted in 1956 in 250 CID form. In 1957
> it was enlarged to 327 CID and installed in the Rambler Rebel, an
> early muscle car. (That car was supposed to get Bendix electronic
> fuel injection, but that's another story.)

That was a very quick car. Supply problems with fuel injection. Early FI
had a multitude of problems.

> AMC had initially entered the V8 world by purchasing engines and
> Ultramatic
> transmissions from Packard. That turned out to be unsatisfactory, partly
> due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard
> reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC.

The Packard V-8 was actually, as the story goes, one that transmuted
from Studebaker engineers. If you notice the AMC engine was a clone of those
engines. They were damn good engines. Lots of people thought the AMC 390
was really a Ford. You could not tell them that not only was the bore and
stroke too different, but the V angle was different. They didn't seem to
know why that would make a difference. Similarly lots of Chevy people SWORE
that was a Chevy 327 in the Rebel. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Hello:

I've been following this thread closely. My father worked for a Bronx, N.Y.
Kaiser/PAckard dealer, when he first came from Italy in 1949.

Then was at a few different places until 1961.

He went to work for a Chrysler-Dodge dealer from 1961 to 1963, then was
solicited by a Rambler/AMC dealer in 1963 and accepted the job. He worked
there till 1977, and was offered a job at another AMC dealer, by the factory
Service Advisor, and stayed there, until his retirement in 1982.

Till his death, he said that Packard and Kaiser had the best engines, and
AMC's blocks were like battleship engines. He said that Packard tried to use
auto level, and the most advanced automatic transmission in the industry.
That lasted for their last two years in business.

He said the all the advances killed Packard, because they added them all the
same year, and they had reserved service bays, for warranty service. Because
the cars were there for months at a time, waiting for parts.

My father was going to buy a brand new AMX in 1970, for a return home
present, and my brother called it: "A POS"

Wally Booth was kicking ass in Pro Stock for a couple of years back then
with his AMX, but then NHRA outlawed welded heads. So that ended AMC's lead
role in early NHRA Pro Stock racing.

Thanks for bringing back memories of my father's favorite subjects, Kaisers,
Packards and AMC.

RK
"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-11-09, krp > wrote:
>> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most
>
> There were some common design concepts but I don't think there was any
> parts interchangeability. Different block design, different head design,
> all internal parts different.
>
> This contrasts with the 199/232/258 AMC/Rambler six and the Jeep 4.0,
> where
> major components such as cylinder heads and crankshafts can be
> interchanged
> and the engine mounts are in the same place -- a 4.0 from a 2006 Jeep will
> happily drop into a mid-1960s Rambler. (Right up to the end the 4.0 block
> even had the mounting bosses that had been added to the 258 for the 4WD
> AMC
> Eagle's front differential.)
>
>> there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't
>> hurt those things.
>
> Funny you should mention Kaiser. The engineer who designed most of
> AMC's engines starting with the 250/287/327 V8 was David Potter,
> who left Kaiser for a job at the then-new American Motors. It
> happens that he had designed a prototype V8 at Kaiser. Given that
> experience, he brought the 1st-generation AMC V8 from drawing board
> to production in less than a year and a half, quite a feat in those
> pre-computer days. Needless to say, that AMC V8 closely resembled
> the Kaiser prototype.
>
> The 1st-generation AMC V8 debuted in 1956 in 250 CID form. In 1957
> it was enlarged to 327 CID and installed in the Rambler Rebel, an
> early muscle car. (That car was supposed to get Bendix electronic
> fuel injection, but that's another story.)
>
> AMC had initially entered the V8 world by purchasing engines and
> Ultramatic
> transmissions from Packard. That turned out to be unsatisfactory, partly
> due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard
> reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC.
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)

Hello:

An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC
engines.

The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts
holding on the valve covers.

No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but the
Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the timing
chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.

RK
" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most
>
>> There were some common design concepts but I don't think there was any
>> parts interchangeability. Different block design, different head design,
>> all internal parts different.
>
> Pretty much the same block. Same cam and crank. Changes were for oil
> filter and overhead valves. Very little engineering changes. Minor
> difference in bore.
>
>> This contrasts with the 199/232/258 AMC/Rambler six and the Jeep 4.0,
>> where
>> major components such as cylinder heads and crankshafts can be
>> interchanged
>> and the engine mounts are in the same place -- a 4.0 from a 2006 Jeep
>> will
>> happily drop into a mid-1960s Rambler. (Right up to the end the 4.0
>> block
>> even had the mounting bosses that had been added to the 258 for the 4WD
>> AMC
>> Eagle's front differential.)
>
>>> there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't
>>> hurt those things.
>
>> Funny you should mention Kaiser. The engineer who designed most of
>> AMC's engines starting with the 250/287/327 V8 was David Potter,
>> who left Kaiser for a job at the then-new American Motors. It
>> happens that he had designed a prototype V8 at Kaiser. Given that
>> experience, he brought the 1st-generation AMC V8 from drawing board
>> to production in less than a year and a half, quite a feat in those
>> pre-computer days. Needless to say, that AMC V8 closely resembled
>> the Kaiser prototype.
>
> The Kaiser protype was to be aluminum. What REALLY demised Kaiser - a
> little known truth - is that a conspiracy went on to put the Oldsmobile V8
> into the Manhattan. A deal was made by the manufacturing people to
> cicumvent the "orange juicers" (the name for the Kaisers) and try it out.
> It was a great deal, even Oldmobile regterred licensing it to Kaiser
> because it was so quick. The factory folks quickly built 50 cars and were
> ready to ship them when Edgar Kaiser (who was running the company) caught
> them in the act. The Kaisers wanted an ALUMINUM V-8. PERIOD. Whern Kaiser
> saw the Cars, he ordered them destroyed and padlocked the plant. The
> company was screwed financially anyway. It was slowly bleeding the rest of
> Kaiser industries. It could have kept on for a little while but Edgar's
> tantrum ended it.
>
>> The 1st-generation AMC V8 debuted in 1956 in 250 CID form. In 1957
>> it was enlarged to 327 CID and installed in the Rambler Rebel, an
>> early muscle car. (That car was supposed to get Bendix electronic
>> fuel injection, but that's another story.)
>
> That was a very quick car. Supply problems with fuel injection. Early
> FI had a multitude of problems.
>
>> AMC had initially entered the V8 world by purchasing engines and
>> Ultramatic
>> transmissions from Packard. That turned out to be unsatisfactory, partly
>> due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard
>> reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC.
>
> The Packard V-8 was actually, as the story goes, one that transmuted
> from Studebaker engineers. If you notice the AMC engine was a clone of
> those engines. They were damn good engines. Lots of people thought the
> AMC 390 was really a Ford. You could not tell them that not only was the
> bore and stroke too different, but the V angle was different. They didn't
> seem to know why that would make a difference. Similarly lots of Chevy
> people SWORE that was a Chevy 327 in the Rebel. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
>
>
>
>
>