(EXPANDED FROM 8/15/2023)
I wanted to more significantly expand on my discussion about two articles posted at the Automotive History Preservation Society’s virtual library. Alas, I can no longer access either story. I can still find a listing for each article, but when I click on the “view” button I am dumped onto the website’s front page.
This is only the latest problem I have had at the society’s website. I have still not been able to access a goodly number of the brochures that were available on their old website. When I previously mentioned this, Dawn (2023) stopped by to ask that folks “be patient with us as we upload massive amounts of documents over the next few weeks.”
That was May 2023. So I wonder whether the society is having chronic staffing trouble. If they need more volunteers, why not make a more prominent pitch on their website? I would be happy to post a blurb at Indie Auto.
With that, here are quick overviews of two historical features I came across on the society’s website back when it was somewhat more functional a few years ago. I have added a section that builds on the discussion in the comment thread.
Hudson experimented with radical WWII designs
One of my all-time favorite Motor Trend articles is a piece by Michael Lamm (1969) that shed light on a handful of Hudson experimental cars developed during World War II. They included a mid-engined sports car with a “four-square” engine as well as a front-wheel-drive compact car with gullwing doors and a horizontally-opposed engine designed to be offered in four-, six- and eight-cylinder versions.
Arthur H. Kibiger, Hudson’s assistant director of styling, led the team that developed these concept cars. Unfortunately, only a few innovations managed to make it into production. They included the step-down chassis, albeit without a “honeycomb” floor. Note that when Lamm interviewed Kibiger for this story in 1969, he was the “technical manager of styling” at American Motors.
Also see ‘Richard Teague’s styling helped to kill American Motors’
Think about that for a moment. Even though Hudson’s engineering legacy appears to have been largely ignored after the automaker merged with Nash to form American Motors, it still had people like Kibiger around. Imagine the kind of cars he could have helped develop if AMC had placed more of an emphasis on advanced engineering rather than trendy styling.
In saying that, I grant you that financial limitations may have been a limiting factor for the automaker. As a case in point, perhaps a front-wheel drive might have been a bridge too far in the early-70s. However, AMC arguably could have afforded more sophisticated suspensions and internationally competitive packaging.
Pierce-Arrow didn’t get a chance to go downmarket
Jeffrey I. Godshall (1969) shed light on a failed attempt by Pierce-Arrow to follow Packard into the premium-priced field in 1938. The luxury-car maker was unable to secure enough funding to put into production a new lineup using the body dies of a 1935-36 Reo. That body had also been used on the 1936-37 Graham. Interestingly, the article was published in Car Life magazine.
The new Pierce-Arrow would have been priced around $1,200. That would have put it a notch above Packard’s lowest-priced sixes. However, the car would have competed more directly with Packard’s eights as well as the LaSalle and Lincoln Zephyr. Moving into the premium-priced class represented a major pivot for Pierce, whose prices in 1937 spanned from around $3,200 for entry-level eights to upwards of $7,000 for top-end twelves.
Also see ‘Lincoln-Zephyr was a first step in Ford surpassing Chrysler’
Despite sharing a body, the Pierce-Arrow might have avoided the taint of badge engineering by using a stretched, 125-inch wheelbase and the automaker’s own 385-cubic-inch straight eight. The wheelbases of the Reo and Graham had been 118 and 120 inches, respectively, and both brands were powered by sixes.
One irony of this story is that if Pierce had managed to get its new car into production and survived a short but punishing economic downturn in 1938, it might have had more staying power than the disastrous 1938-40 “sharknose Graham.” Well, at least if Pierce had enough dealers to support the premium-priced field’s promise of higher volume. Godshall noted that the luxury-car maker had a tiny and “moribund dealer organization” (1969, p. 63).
Could the smaller automakers have survived?
In the comment thread we have discussed the prospects of smaller automakers such as Pierce-Arrow surviving the late-30s. Perhaps the most interesting development was merger discussions among Auburn, Pierce-Arrow, Reo, Hupp and Graham. According to Leigh Dorrington, nothing came of those talks except for Reo sharing with Graham its Flying Cloud bodies for 1936-37 (2021, p. 64).
I am not surprised that the merger discussions didn’t go anywhere. For example, Reo sharing its body with Graham was merely buying time given that Reo-badged cars ceased production in 1936. Even so, let’s play out a counterfactual.
Perhaps if the two had merged, Reo could have concentrated on trucks and Graham on passenger cars. Add Pierce-Arrow and the group could have come out with a LaSalle competitor. Some economies of scale could have been achieved by building all of the passenger cars in one plant and integrating dealer networks.
Graham didn’t just shoot itself in the foot with the weird styling of its 1938 models. It also arguably undercut its volume by shifting upmarket (go here for further discussion). What if Graham had stayed in the lower reaches of the premium-priced class and Pierce-Arrow was positioned above it? This would likely have been a case of too little, too late. However, a body shared by multiple brands might have had less “distinctive” styling.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Aug. 15, 2023 and expanded on Oct. 13, 2025. Product specifications were from Kimes and Clark (1996).
RE:SOURCES
- Godshall, Jeffrey I.; 1969. “The Pierce-Arrow that never got a chance.” Car life. July issue: pp: 61-63.
- Kimes, Beverly Rae and Henry Austin Clark, Jr.; 1996. Standard Catalog of American cars 1805-1942. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WA.
- Lamm, Michael; 1969. “Hudsons that might have been. . . .” Motor Trend. March issue: pp. 84-86.
- Dorrington, Leigh; 2012. “1936-37 Graham: Reaching for a Foothold.” Collectible Automobile. Published April; pp. 59-69.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Hudson (1948)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Graham (1937); Pierce-Arrow (1935); Reo (1936)
what is the source of the above painting? The article had only sketches by the author of possible Pierces. No other comment, the article covers it all. Regarding the Hudson article, I am surprised that the three wheel design got as far as it did. It looked like a Fuller Dymaxion knockoff. The Dymaxion was well known to have horrible, nay deadly handling.
The banner image is a 1935 Pierce-Arrow from a brochure in Old Car Brochures. This particular brochure has some lovely artwork (go here).
Wasn’t the 1963 Rambler Classic right=sized and commercially on-target upon its introduction ? True, the spin-off 1964 American was too-heavy for a “compact”. Plus, A.M.C.’s trunions would have been a deal-breaker for me.
The inclusion of the impact of the 1938 economic downturn would have likely killed Pierce-Arrow. as it mortally wounded Graham and Hupp. Studebaker might have been a goner if it had not been for the 1939 Champion. I wonder what kind of economic shape Pierce was in when it was cut loose when Studebaker’s control ended ? Albert Erskine’s corporate mismanagement of Studebaker in the early thirties had to have impacted Pierce. On paper, Studebaker eights in the 1930s would have been an ideal “down-market” partner, as the Studebakers of that period were well-built.
Pierce-Arrow was in serious financial trouble when it merged with Studebaker. Its cars were viewed as stodgy, and the company was still using costly and inefficient production techniques. The company needed money to roll out the new models it had developed, and the merger deal gave it the funds to do just that. Without the merger, Pierce-Arrow likely would have gone under by 1933.
The all-new 1929 cars were fully competitive and initially a success, but the ongoing Great Depression hit Pierce-Arrow as hard at it hit the other luxury marques. If anything, Studebaker had been propping up Pierce-Arrow by the time the corporation regained its independence.
Thank you, Steve for this very interesting piece. Had the Pierce-Arrow plan come to fruition, what might have happened to REO and Graham? Is there any historical evidence of a planned merger or a “joint” venture?
An article by Leigh Dorrington in Collectible Automobile stated that “merger discussions were taking place among Auburn, Pierce-Arrow, Reo, Hupp, and Graham. The talks bore no results, save this: Graham and Reo concluded an agreement for Graham to share Reo’s Hayes-built all-steel Flying Cloud bodies for 1996” (April 2021, p. 64).
I haven’t come across more details. If I may speculate, it’s hard to see how Hupp and Pierce could have survived under any conditions, but perhaps a Reo-Graham tie up might have had some short-term potential.
It’s interesting how merger talks were noted but no record of the parties involved or when they took place seems to exist. There would have been precious little time for any mergers to be able to save these stories makes. The logistics would have been very difficult to manage, which makes me wonder if the discussions were just ideas floated over cocktails at lunch or wishful thinking.
CJ, the only information I have about merger talks comes from what I have already presented. If you know of additional sources, do share. I agree that the logistics of a merger would have been difficult — and the later in the decade, the more difficult simply because both money and time was running out.
My guess is that the most likely scenario for a merger might have been if Graham had taken the lead simply because it would appear to have had access to more capital than the others (it was able to fund the 1938 sharknose redesign). I would also think that the resulting combo would have been far too small to have included multiple brands that had been competing in roughly the same price class.
A Reo-Graham combo would seem to have been the most promising because it would have offered a more diversified portfolio — trucks and passenger cars. Toward the end Pierce-Arrow was apparently desperate to find a buyer, so it might have been an easy pickup if the new automaker thought it had the capability to also offer cars in the upper range of the premium-priced class.
Up through 1937 Graham had been selling around 20,000 units per year, so if it hadn’t moved upmarket and had fielded a more conventional design from 1938 onward, it might have had more of a chance to grow as the overall automotive market recovered prior to WWII.
That said, it is hard to see Graham surviving very much longer unless it meaningfully boosted its production. The only independent brands that managed to do that in the pre-war period were Studebaker (with the Champion) and Nash (with the 600). Both were smaller, lighter alternatives to Big Three cars. Might there have been room for Graham to have tried something vaguely similar? I don’t know but would guess that it could have worked better than going upmarket with the sharknose.
The ‘talk’ of a merger seemed so nebulous, which is what I was trying to say and sorry if I didn’t make that clearer. I can imagine how frustrating it is when doing your research and you can’t find anything to substantiate things like “merger talks”. This is a good example of automotive history not being properly documented. Then, as now, there are many people who don’t understand or appreciate the historical significance of rumours, plans and events that shape/d the North American car industry
One basic challenge is that the auto history field relies so heavily on for-profit publishers who seem to see their role more as entertainment than advancing knowledge. So the article in question discusses merger talks in only a parenthetical fashion. To make matters worse, it does not use a scholarly citation method that would allow one to track down its sources to get more information.
In light of that situation, I am faced with the prospect of having to trust that the writer didn’t overhype what actually happened. I haven’t seen all that much writing from this author to judge his competence, but my general experience with the publication he wrote for is that they don’t make shit up. In addition, what he wrote doesn’t sound unbelievable to me. Indeed, a partnership did actually result (Reo shared bodies with Graham) and apparently was willing to do so with Pierce-Arrow as well. It also makes intuitive sense that these companies would have been motivated to have merger talks but that a variety of considerations worked against them bearing fruit.
I think that it is also reasonable to assume that each potential merger partner would have been judged by what they could add to a combine, e.g., a better-selling brand, up-to-date bodies and major mechanical components, a more efficient assembly plant and/or a stronger dealer network. And even an automaker with attractive features may have been too burdened with debt to “pencil out.”
The devil was in the details. For example, a Reo-Graham merger might have initially looked promising but fallen apart for reasons ranging from financial to political (who would have the most control of the merged company).
Thank you, Steve.
From the copy in the Pierce Arrow brochure – it is almost heartbreaking. It appears the Pierce was willing to go down with the ship – as the Pierce had always been constituted – As Americas Rolls Royce and it was generally regarded as so. The car of A listers and European and Asian crowned heads would NOT go the path Packard forged. It is sad that the market was gone by this time – and the money to purchase them also. The company was bankrupt – America had turned a page. Another classic car publication declared that the 1948 Lincoln Continental was retired WISELY. And then said – there will never be another car quite like the original Continental. Today – the luxury market is one the hottest segments. Can anyone revive the Pierce- Arrow from the misty ruins of a long ago summer? Is todays Buick esp the Enclave – the closest we have to the undead spirit of the Great Pierce ?
Someone has very recently tried to revive Packard again, this time with a hideous (IMO) facelift on a contemporary Bentley sedan. Leave well enough alone, I say.
Maybe you are right. As the other classic car mag said – with a name change:
There will never be a car again – quite like the Pierce Arrow
Speaking of revivals, I saw some pictures of a scale model made by Renwal who was based on some illustrations then Virgil Exner did for Esquire magazine where he imagined how Pierce-Arrow would have look in the 1960s.
https://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/178454-renwal-peirce-arrow-concept-by-virgli-exner/
Still, it would have been interesting to compare with the Stutz revival but that’s another story.
Interweb images are replete with photos of A listers and big shots with Packards, Cadillacs and Duesenbergs. Not a whole lot of Pierces.
I checked out the Pierce ads of the era. My take is they were aiming for noveau riche who were trying to look like old money. BTW how many articles are on Indie Auto either in the body or comments bemoaning how the Packard reputation was cheapened by the 120, and later 110. Guys, I saw the ads. Pierce was making frakking DUMP TRUCKS.
Packard produced large trucks through 1923, so it wasn’t unheard of for a luxury car manufacturer to produce commercial vehicles. Both Pierce and Packard trucks had very good reputations. And the Pierce-Arrow V-12 was used in fire trucks well after Pierce-Arrow cars ceased production.
Pierce-Arrow had been one of the fabled “Three Ps” – Packard, Peerless and Pierce-Arrow. These marques were among the most prestigious American cars prior to 1920.
Packard pulled away from its rivals by first introducing the Twin Six, followed by the Single Six and then the Single Eight, while modernizing its production methods. Pierce-Arrow fell behind as it retained its outdated six-cylinder engine, and continued to use construction techniques that were expensive and a hindrance to productivity.
Without the Studebaker merger in 1929, Pierce-Arrow would have gone under by 1932 at the latest. The company was in trouble by 1928 – and this was during a strong market for new-vehicle sales.
I came across this video online and found
it informative. There are also some authoritative books about Pierce Arrow (I Googled) available. Packard gets more attention than Pierce Arrow but not because they were lesser cars, but rather because they simply faded too fast.
https://youtu.be/cWsffXIuUGM?si=UBpj809zLVAa6oyX
Tom Mix – the Tom Cruise of the day – had one – and Al Capone kept one at his Florida estate. F Scott Fitzgerald possibly did not own one – but the car is mentioned in his novels.