Why would Mercury be remembered as a Hudson or a Studebaker?
Those two marques were independents who always marched to the beat of a different drummer, whereas Mercury was always just a slight variant on standard Detroit fare.
Sure, at some points in its history, you could get a Mercury with a somewhat larger engine than a Ford, but it was essentially the same engine bored-out slightly. The engineering was the same, and underneath the skin, most other components were the same. And of course, during its last 20 years of existence the only difference between a Mercury and a Ford was usually only the grill and the tail lights.
By comparison, Hudson was innovative with both engine design (better, more durable alloys in the engine block; much lower height and much better handling; “fail-safe” brakes [which unfortunately became less safe due to rust on the mechanism] are just a few examples)
Studebaker frequently had unique styling. Whether you liked their first post-WW II styling or not, it was unlike anyone else’s styling, and the '53 Studebaker coupe is considered to be one of the best-styled, most beautiful cars of all time. If you compare the wheelbase, length, height, and engine displacement of that '53 coupe, you will find that the “new class of vehicles” that the Mustang represented was actually identical in all of those measurements to the '53 Stude coupe.
When Studebaker was faced with a lack of adequate funding for truly new models, they worked miracles in design by making the Gran Turismo Hawks of the '60s look new and different, even though that model was just a slight reworking of the '53 coupe. They were the first to offer disk brakes as an option on all model lines. They held land speed records at Bonneville that were not broken for decades.
They alone had the “hill-holder” for manual transmissions. They pioneered the concept of a sliding roof in the rear of the station wagon, a concept that was copied by GM a few years ago for a GMC model. I could go on and on regarding Studebaker’s innovations.
By comparison, Mercurys, while nice cars, traditionally had little innovation other than the reverse-slant retracting rear window–and that was back in the '60s! If Mercury had actually been unique in some significant way, perhaps there would not have been a need for eliminating this redundant brand.
What led to the demise of all of the independents was simply bad business decisions and the increasing cost of product development, post WW II:
As examples of bad business decisions, Hudson’s limited funding gave them the choice of developing a much-needed V-8 or building the ill-fated Hudson Jet compact car. While the Jet was actually a very good small car, the styling turned off potential buyers. In retrospect, a V-8 would have brought many more customers into the showroom. Studebaker made the decision, prior to production of the all-new '53 Stude, to concentrate on manufacturing 4-door sedans, with the 2-door coupes playing second fiddle. This wrong-headed move cost them thousands of potential customers, as supply of the coupes could not keep up with demand.
Later, Studebaker was presented with the offer to construct some small cars from Japan, but they turned this down. Just imagine if they had opted to build those Toyotas for the Japanese parent company! Also–their role as the North American distributor for Mercedes-Benz would have paid off if they had stayed with it, instead of opting out of the deal after a few years.
Without the funding to compete–technological advance for technological advance–with The Big Three, independents had to essentially keep recycling old designs while trying to make them look new and exciting. Their difference in designs retained old customers, but frequently failed to attract new ones. When Hudson merged with Nash, Hudsons became just rebadged Nashes and even loyal Hudson customers walked out of the showrooms.
Studebaker was saddled with the incredibly high overhead costs of operating the South Bend factory that dated back to the 19th Century, and was actually the largest auto factory in the US–despite no need for a plant that large. The plant was designed to make wooden wagons in the 19th Century, and was vastly oversized and inefficient for mid-20th Century car production.
Additionally, they paid higher wages than the other car makers–for some unfathomable reason. When they closed the South Bend plant and consolidated their production at the small Hamilton, Ontario factory, they actually began making a profit again. However, the NY banks that essentially controlled the company at that point decided that they would rather run the other companies that Stude had bought or developed during the '50s & '60s–Worthington Pump, Franklin Appliances, Clark Floor Machinery, Graveley Tractors, and STP–and to shut down the now-profitable auto business.
Hudson and Studebaker will be remembered as unique, independent designs, and that is totally unlike the thinking behind the Mercury.
