A ? for BobPalma RE: an article you wrote.

[BubbaBear]

A couple of days ago I was reading an article you wrote about why Studebaker went out of the car business. In it you named four reasons stating I believe that any two would have done it. The website had only the first couple of paragraphs and then a link to the rest of the article. Unfortunately the link was broken and the rest of the article was unavailable. I would like to read it in its entirety. Can you either send it to me or direct me to a place it can be found. Thanks.

[BobPalma]

Hi, John: 'Happy to oblige if you could tell me about where/when the article appeared. Do you have any additional clues as to where you saw it?

In reality, the "four-reason" premise had more to do with why the pleasantly-restyled 1964 Studebakers did not save the company, not so much why the company went out of business entirely. Of course, the two could be viewed as one and the same, since the failure of the 1964 line in the marketplace was the immediate cause of their going out of the car business a couple years later.

The four reasons why the 1964 models failed to do what was hoped for them in the fall of 1963 are as follows. This is my opinion from watching closely at the time, and in no particular order:

1. The overproduction of 1963 models in the summer of 1963 to keep the production lines running. Too many 1963 models were built against no order. This meant that dealers had 'way too many '63s left over when the '64s came out; 1963 models to be offered at fire sale prices. Hence, when customers came in attracted to the new '64s, many were offered such a super deal on a leftover '63 that they left with a new Studebaker, alright, but not a '64...and the one they did buy made the company and the selling dealer little, if any, money because it was sold so cheap.

2. The unbelievably competitive, dead-sharp, all-new 1964 GM intermediates, the flagship of which was the all-new Chevrolet Chevelle. Those were good cars, attractive, and with thoroughly conventional engineering; no goofy rubber driveshafts, half-V8 engines, aluminum blocks, yadda, yadda, yadda. It was a tough sell to get people to consider a new Studebaker Daytona (and I have three 1964 Daytonas, you'll remember) after they had seen and driven a new Chevelle Malibu, Buick Special/Skylark, Olds F-85/Cutlass, or Pontiac Tempest/LeMans.

Not that the rest of the competition had slacked off for 1964, either. To the contrary: The best-selling compact, the Ford Falcon, was given a thorough freshening to disquise itself, and the Rambler American was all-new (except the engine) and a far better product than its predecessor. The "regular" Ramblers were in the second year of their deservedly award-winning all new design; again, except the engines until the 232 Typhoon came out mid-year. And the MoPar compacts, while still a little odd-looking, had been garnering a good reputation with what was proving to be the bullet-proof Slant Six under the hood.

Still, with Generous Motors controlling half the market, the GM offering in the 1964 Studebaker's size was a killer product for 1964, and it certainly was a primary reason for Studebaker's failure in the 1964 model year market.

3. The grave illness of Studebaker's #1 Point Man and Automotive Division Cheerleader, Sherwood Egbert. With Mr. Egbert's magnetism and enthusiasm increasingly sidelined by stress-induced illness during the fall of 1963, he could be effectively marginalized. Those on the Board of Directors so inclined could procede apace with their goal of exiting the automobile business. Many had been lying in wait for such an opportunity ever since Egbert arrived and lit a fire under the Automotive Division. Without him to stoke it, though....

4. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That event could not have come at a worse time in Studebaker history. You had to be alive at the time to appreciate that event's impact on The United States of America. The country just plain stopped for a couple weeks; only necessities were purchased. Sales of big-ticket items like cars and houses ground to a halt as people stayed glued to their television sets for all the news. Big Three dealers and their supplying companies could weather the loss of sales for what was pretty much a ten-day period. Studebaker was hard against the ropes by Thanksgiving Day 1963 and could not afford such a hit. Note that the announcement to terminate South Bend production came about three weeks after Kennedy's assassination; roughly ten days after the ten-day sales period ended that would have begun the day he was assassinated.

I suppose you could discuss the importance (and even validity!) of each of those four factors for days on end...but taken together, they were the final four nails in Studebaker's South Bend coffin, in my opinion. Indeed, it would have been difficult for Studebaker to overcome any two of them. Overcoming all four was simply out of the question. BP

[BubbaBear]

Thank you. This is the article with the broken link.

http://www.georgiastudebaker.com/Previously.htm

[BobPalma]

Thank you. This is the article with the broken link.

http://www.georgiastudebaker.com/Previously.htm

OK, John. I see that was pulled off an internet discussion, probably the old alt.autos.studebaker newsgroup. No need to try to find it; I repeated the points in my answer to your query.

What is to be taken from that, in my opinion, is that history doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are always factors not readily apparent that influence history. Anyone just looking at the fresh new 1964 Studebakers might otherwise be left scratching their head as to why they didn't sell in far greater numbers than did the '63s. BP

[cruiser]

BOB ,
Some comments on the four (4) points that you raise .

It was my understanding that most of the leftover 1963 cars were still at the factory .
They were mainly moved in bulk either to Dealers who wanted them or Wholesalers
who wanted to sell them for 'Fleet' use . Either way , getting rid of 3,000 old models
is not the best way to give the brand new '64's a flying start .

I think the thing about the '64 GM cars is subjective . Yeah they were good cars but
AMC could never make enough cars to satisfy demand in 1963/4 so if the Studebakers
had a 'buzz' about them , they would also have sold well . It is more important to
remember that the general public thought that Studebaker was getting out of the
Automobile business and the new car buyers did not want to get stuck with an 'orphan'.

I've always thought that if the Avanti was really 'ready' at introduction , they would have
sold well and dragged people into Studebaker Dealerships . Those people who did place
an order had too long a wait , and at the same time , the "best" Corvette ever WAS
available , so orders were cancelled . I'm always surprised that Studebaker managed
to sell as many Avanti's as they did in the end up against THAT competition . In the end
all of Avanti's sales just led to a reduction in the number of Hawk's that were sold .

Points three (3) and four (4) , I agree with you 100 % . Most of the Board and the
shareholders couldn't wait for Studebaker to exit the Automobile business . As soon
as they did , the shares shot up in value . Studebaker Management made so many
critical mistakes from the 1953 models onward that it was only a matter of time
before the inevitable decision to withdraw from the Automobile market was made .

IMHO of course !

CRUISER

[BobPalma]

Good points, Bruce.

The only real caution I would have would be about the Avanti. The Avanti's contribution to the end-of-production problems had really taken place in mid-to-late 1962, not 1963. You're right; the 1963 Corvette came out (still with drum brakes all around, ironically!) when Studebaker's Avanti production problems were ham-stringing the car's acceptance and, most importantly, sales.

But all that had already taken place almost a year before the do-or-die, bread-and-butter, "regular" 1964 Studebakers were introduced. So while the Avanti problems did play into the big picture in the fall of 1963, my opinion is that those problems had made their negative contribution long before the "regular" 1964 Studebakers were introduced.

Good discussion. BP

[cruiser]

Yes , I hear you Bob .

I guess that I was trying to build a 'picture' about what happened in a short time line.
After all , nobody was sitting around at Studebaker just 'waiting for the day' . Sure
the thing with JFK was the catalyst that brought everything to a head . But if the '64's
were selling at all well , they would have just kept on going . The thing was , they were
not hitting their 'targets' , so faced with the need to find two new Presidents , ( one
to replace Sherwood Egbert and another to replace JFK ) Studebaker Management
seized the moment and took the decision that they had held off while waiting to see if
the '64's would find their target audience . By the way , I think the Brooks Stevens re-
design for the '64's was brilliant , especially given the time and money constraints .

I only mentioned the Avanti side of things because automobile sales is all about
building up momentum over a period of time . If you can get people in to look at
your products , some ( hopefully many ) will buy . The Avanti was not ready at the
time of introduction , so the build up of momentum stalled and maybe if the buyers
did go over the road to buy a Corvette in '63 , they went back to GM to see the '64's.

Anyhow , everyone was soon to get blasted out of the water with the '64 and a half
Mustang which sent Everyone back to the drawing board . In that environment ,
Studebaker sales would have stalled in any event . But they made some great cars .

CRUISER

[studegary]

Bob P. - I don't agree that "...the MoPar compacts, while still a little odd-looking...". For 1964, I purchased a new Fury hardtop, but later, I bought a 1964 Valiant Signet hardtop with 273 V8 and Torqueflite with low miles from the original owner for use as a second car. We kept the Valiant for years before selling it to our next door neighbor. At the same time, we had a low mileage 1964 Daytona hardtop with 259 V8 and AT. The Signet and the Daytona were quite similar in size and looks. If I was in the market for a new one of these, I would have purchased the Signet over the Daytona even though I was a Studebaker fan at that time. I agree that the first series of Valiants were a little odd looking (I like them for that reason), but not by the 1964 model, which is what you are discussing.

[BobPalma]

Bob P. - I don't agree that "...the MoPar compacts, while still a little odd-looking...". For 1964, I purchased a new Fury hardtop, but later, I bought a 1964 Valiant Signet hardtop with 273 V8 and Torqueflite with low miles from the original owner for use as a second car. We kept the Valiant for years before selling it to our next door neighbor. At the same time, we had a low mileage 1964 Daytona hardtop with 259 V8 and AT. The Signet and the Daytona were quite similar in size and looks. If I was in the market for a new one of these, I would have purchased the Signet over the Daytona even though I was a Studebaker fan at that time. I agree that the first series of Valiants were a little odd looking (I like them for that reason), but not by the 1964 model, which is what you are discussing.

An opinion, of course, Gary. IMHO, the Valiant/Dart line was "less odd" in 1963-1966 than 1960-1962, but didn't really come into its own until the well-done 1967 model....which, of course, served them well until replaced by the Aspen/Volare twins. BP

[Gunslinger]

Aspen/Volare? Those names should send shivers down the spine of anyone who sold them or owned one! While they might have been nice conceptually the product as built were some of the worst cars ever built.

A friend's parents owned a Volare...it wouldn't stop using oil. After lots of trips to the dealer someone at Chrysler regional got involved they agreed to tear down the engine to find the problem. They found the ring gaps on every piston were lined up vertically...that had to be deliberate sabotage on the assembly line. That engine would have never stopped using oil.

My buddy's parent's next car as an Oldsmobile.

[studegary]

An opinion, of course, Gary. IMHO, the Valiant/Dart line was "less odd" in 1963-1966 than 1960-1962, but didn't really come into its own until the well-done 1967 model....which, of course, served them well until replaced by the Aspen/Volare twins. BP

The 1967-1969 Valiants were more conventional. I had a 1969 Signet that was a national winner (NCPC). Cathy and I both prefered driving the 1964 to the 1969, which was also a 273 V8, AT and had ps, pb, A/C. Both cars were low mileage at the time.