The Lamberti papers #12

[Studebaker Wheel]

[BobPalma]

Another interesting installment, Dick; thanks.

Observations as the noose was tightening....

These first two items speak to the cost of having such variety. Nowdays, customers likely have three trim choices, maximum: beige, gray, and black. Back then, consider the multitude of trim color options; terribly expensive to offer with fewer really needed:

b. Next year we want to reduce the trim combinations offered; on some combinations we actually have orders for only one or two units per model year. Mr. Hardig stated that we have 7 basic seats that are different, and those are offered in 4 different cloths and 6 different vinyls, with the result that we are offering 504 combinations. If we went through the records, we would probably find that there are only one or two models sold on some of the combinations.

3. Volume – Prices



OUCH! Mr. Soelch nailed it so hard he drove the nail clear through the board. What a tough job he had as messenger.


And I see the culture nazis were already at work along the coasts in 1963:

4. Avanti Exhaust System

Mr. Hardig reported that the State of New Jersey has demanded that all cars received in that state must have a quiet exhaust system. Since the charge for the quiet system is higher than the other system, Mr. Hardig wondered how this should be handled. Mr. Detzler explained that for the State of California, we converted all the cars to the quiet system and showed the charge on the price ticket. The zones will screen the orders for New Jersey, and Mr. Hardig will answer the letter to the effect that we will comply with their request.



Doesn't sound like Mr. Feuer, here, was much of a fun guy, either...but he would fit right in today:

LEGAL

1. Speed Advertising

Mr. Feuer reported that he disapproved a recent ad showing 132 mph for the Lark and 140 mph for the Hawk because they are advertising raw speed, and he feels the public would attempt to develop these speeds. He pointed out that this type of advertising is undesirable from a legal standpoint because if there were an accident, the lawyer could say the advertised speeds were relied upon. The industry is going to durability and performance, and Mr. Feuer thinks we should use a little more finesse in our advertising. He noted it would also be desirable to have stickers in the cars saying they should not be raced without certain other equipment – as we do with the Avanti. (Mr. Detzler told him these stickers are on all cars that have these engines.)

When Mr. Feuer remarked that merchandising, advertising, and public relations agree we should not make these claims, Mr. Dredge said that PR recommends that the ads on these runs be phrased as performance evaluation tests. He went on: we are in a peculiar position as far as advertising goes because, by nature of our product, we are unable to race it – we can’t announce as Ford did on Daytona – all we can do is run it at Bonneville. Later, maybe on drag strips, but it is not suitable for drag strip racing now. We should talk about it from the standpoint of safer design; however, when we announce that the cars have run that fast, we do say, inferentially, that others can go that fast also. Mr. Dredge agrees with Mr. Feuer – the manner in which it is handled has a great deal to do with it.


Interesting, the pricing discussion on the R3 engine option...and the availability!

They finally priced the R3 at $1,588 with high-performance package, so the $1,588 included more than just the engine itself. It is difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison because of varying items on certain trim levels with certain engines, but here goes:

On a 1964 Commander V8, the R2 High Performance package cost $312 more than the R2 engine alone, when ordered separately. So if $312 of the R3 package price goes for the package, not the engine itself, it means they were "selling" the R3 engine alone for $1,276. (Don't pick me apart on details, here; I realize that's not exactly correct due to equipment variations.)

Anyway, about $1,276 for the R3 engine by itself is about midway between the $1,100-$1,400 that was quoted here to manufacture it...so Studebaker really was offering the engine, essentially, at no profit. Certainly a good move; 'too bad more people didn't take advantage of it!

Gee, these are interesting, Dick; thanks again for all the time typing them. BP

[Jim B PEI]

As ever, many many thanks to RQ for making this information available.

Interesting that the Daytona was not raced at Daytona. Too bad it couldn't be called a Bonneville as Pontiac was using that name in 62 etc....<g>

The R3 option was just about half the price for a new cheap car. (gulp!) No wonder it was rare.

In another thread recently, the lack of power windows as an option for the Larks (and Hawks for many years) seems so odd, especially since the door internals were not very changed from the last time the sedans, both long AND short wheelbases, had them in the 50s. Sourcing a power window motor and related parts for the Wagonaire had to be expensive when it was just an occasional option for a relatively low production model 63-66. Cutting the seat and seat covering materials seems in retrospect to be a more sensible way to save scarce dollars...making power windows standard on a "Cruiser President" would have made for a good halo car, with them optional on the rest of the sedans and wagons.

Its just like the lack of A/C for R2 cars, when it had been available in 57 and 58 with the supercharged Golden Hawks with the special pulley...why not start with a re-popped pulley and go from there?

Still, it is so informative to see the (depressing) decisions that were made to cut expenses in odd ways in line with falling volumes...when the odd lacks of major items--like A/C and power windows/power seats compared to competitors probably led to the falling volumes in the first place.

A current article about the bailout of Chrysler and the difficult decision to save it is instructive--and especially what Chrysler has done SINCE the bailout to avoid the fate of Studebaker. Money put into the important things of do-able future development, rather than JUST making investors happy in the short term with quick cheap fixes and instant profits built on nothing.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110821/BUSINESS0103/108210438/Outgoing-manufacturing-czar-fought-keep-faltering-Chrysler-alive?odyssey=nav|head

[cruiser]

You have 'nailed' the main features from the details of this meeting , BOB .

Once again RICHARD , whatever you are doing to bring this information to
us all , it is received with great thanks . A real insight into the 'workings' of
Management who were faced with higher costs on reduced margins at a
time when the best that they could hope for during 1963 at least was to
try and hold on to 1% of the car business in the North America market .

I have no doubt that these Managers had no conception that their activity
would be subject to scruitiny , forty eight years after their due consideration .
They did get it RIGHT with the pricing of the "R3" as part of a package , but
now we all know why these vehicles were and are such rare commodities .

From a 'marketing' point of view , they sure seemed to be exploring all of
the available avenues to try and increase their share of automobile sales .
Sure , mistakes were made , such as refusing to divulge HP Ratings , but
the sheer volume and variety of issues to be dealt with would have taxed
to the limit , any other company placed in a similar position .

The preparation work for the '64 Line was well in hand at this early time
and we now see that just prior to 25th March 1963 , the decision had
been made to tool the '64 GT Hawk with a smooth decklid , deleting the
need for an upgraded aluminium overlay panel . A good move I think !

By this time , Studebaker had two out and out "personal luxury cars" in
the Hawk and the Avanti , but it is clear that a lot of the dealers were
not set up to deal with these specialised cars and so too it would be true to
assume that they would also have trouble with the 'performance program'.

Interesting times indeed , a snapshot of the digging of a bigger hole !!!!!!!

CRUISER

[stupak]

Under "2. '64 Avanti", 2nd paragraph - is this the first ever reference to the name AVANTI II ? And this was March 25, 1963. stupak

[COMMANDERPINK1]

Still enjoying all the Lamberti Papers read. Thanks Richard
Tom

[8E45E]

Under "2. '64 Avanti", 2nd paragraph - is this the first ever reference to the name AVANTI II ? And this was March 25, 1963. stupak

It is the first time I have read mention of the Avanti as we know it with the Lark-based chassis as an "Avanti II". The all-new Avanti-inspired car with the new all-coil sprung chassis also referred as "Avanti II", but that must have been months later. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...light=reynolds

Craig

[Welcome]

<<<And I see the culture nazis were already at work along the coasts in 1963:

4. Avanti Exhaust System

Mr. Hardig reported that the State of New Jersey has demanded that all cars received in that state must have a quiet exhaust system. Since the charge for the quiet system is higher than the other system, Mr. Hardig wondered how this should be handled. Mr. Detzler explained that for the State of California, we converted all the cars to the quiet system and showed the charge on the price ticket. The zones will screen the orders for New Jersey, and Mr. Hardig will answer the letter to the effect that we will comply with their request.

They were ILLEGAL in INDIANA too!!!

I've told details on this Forum before of my personal experience (getting a ticket) with these Avanti "take-off" round glas-pack type mufflers on my '57 Hawk. I bought a pair at Studebaker Salvage Dept. back in 1963. These Staff Meeting minutes (thanks Richard) sure help explain why "used" Avanti mufflers showed up in their Salvage Dept.

BTW, they were $1 each!

[Blue 15G]

I liked the statement where they said that they previously got around the issue of the Hawk hoods flying open by blaming the service man for not closing them properly. I guess they were only able to use that excuse for so long!

[clonelark]

Studebaker was on the right track offering high performance products, IF they could have held on a little longer and got the cars at the drag strips i think things would have helped turn around for the younger generation. 64 and 65 were great performance years and if Studebaker was doing good on the drag strips (which we all know would have happened) and they had released the hp #s to NHRA. Got the Cubic inches up some, The 340ci would have been good enough for 1965. Maybe that could have helped sales. The C/SA convertible was in the 11s and coupes could have probably been pushing high 10s with racing teams like Chevrolet, Chrysler, & Ford had in the stock classes. Then again we wonder what NHRA would have done with Studebaker tearing up the stock classes. Just my thoughts. It's hard to do ANYTHING when your broke. Studebaker really needed a bailout.

[COMMANDERPINK1]

Mr. Dredge commented that everyone talks about a racing program, but there is no racing program. It will take changes – a lot more than changing the front end – for these cars to be racing cars, even for drag racing.


They are high-performance, boulevard automobiles. I like that
Tom

[studegary]

Studebaker was on the right track offering high performance products, IF they could have held on a little longer and got the cars at the drag strips i think things would have helped turn around for the younger generation. 64 and 65 were great performance years and if Studebaker was doing good on the drag strips (which we all know would have happened) and they had released the hp #s to NHRA. Got the Cubic inches up some, The 340ci would have been good enough for 1965. Maybe that could have helped sales. The C/SA convertible was in the 11s and coupes could have probably been pushing high 10s with racing teams like Chevrolet, Chrysler, & Ford had in the stock classes. Then again we wonder what NHRA would have done with Studebaker tearing up the stock classes. Just my thoughts. It's hard to do ANYTHING when your broke. Studebaker really needed a bailout.

I don't agree that "340ci would have been good enough for1965", unless they planned to supercharge it from the beginning which would have required tougher transmissions, etc. For example, for 1965 I bought a new 1965 Plymouth Fury hardtop with the hipo 383 cubic inch engine and four speed (My 1964 Fury with hipo 383 was quicker due to weight difference.). Ford/Chevrolet/Plymouth had (IIRC) 406/409/426 available by 1965.

[8E45E]

I don't agree that "340ci would have been good enough for1965", unless they planned to supercharge it from the beginning which would have required tougher transmissions, etc. For example, for 1965 I bought a new 1965 Plymouth Fury hardtop with the hipo 383 cubic inch engine and four speed (My 1964 Fury with hipo 383 was quicker due to weight difference.). Ford/Chevrolet/Plymouth had (IIRC) 406/409/426 available by 1965.

I tend to agree with that; especially when the GTO had a 389. The car Studebaker was working on was supposed to be intermediate-sized, and would have directly competed with GM's A-bodies, Ford's Fairlane/(1966) Comet, and Chrysler's B-bodies. By 1967, all these intermediates could be had with over 400 cubic inch engines from the factory, and again, Studebaker would have been left out of what was a hot market in the mid-to-late sixties.

Craig