The truth about cars

[clonelark]

Found this while surfing, Interesting, and Stude content

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-studebaker-redux/

[52-fan]

Excellent piece. I was thinking a few days ago about how the automakers would be better off to produce a few cars very well instead of offering so many generics.


1952 Champion Starlight, 1962 Daytona, both w/overdrive.Searcy,Arkansas
"I may be lazy, but I'm not shiftless."

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by clonelark

Found this while surfing, Interesting, and Stude content

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-studebaker-redux/

The paragraphs about adding a second platform in 1953 is rather interesting. It still makes one wonder if the sedan line should have had been based on the aborted Model N project.

Craig

[StudeRich]

This was written Oct. 26, 2004? Holy smoke, you mean these losses and unnecessary platforms at Ford have been going on this long? And they are now the only one NOT asking for bailout money?

Yikes, what are they doing, supporting the business with mafia or scammed money or something, kinda like Avanti Motors! [)]

Actually I think it is their non-US Companies/Divisions that keep them afloat.

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by StudeRich

This was written Oct. 26, 2004? Holy smoke, you mean these losses and unnecessary platforms at Ford have been going on this long? And they are now the only one NOT asking for bailout money?

Yikes, what are they doing, supporting the business with mafia or scammed money or something, kinda like Avanti Motors! [)]

Actually I think it is their non-US Companies/Divisions that keep them afloat.

No Rich, Ford's European division is doing phenomenally well in England and on the continent. The all new Fiesta and the Mondeo has been a great success story over there, with the new Fiesta beating out Toyota and BMW in some of the latest road tests. However, its still not enough to offset the losses of the North American operations, but it is keeping them from having to reach into US Treasury's cookie jar.

Craig

[Roscomacaw]

This guy seems to focus the blame on bad decisions about models offered. He addresses the fortunes turning sour as if there was a stable and steady marketplace that the auto companies were dealing in. WE know that he's practicing tunnel vision.
The market was really tightening by '52 and the new 53 lineup would've debuted into late '52. In spite of Studebaker's reputation, they simply (for several reasons) could not build and sell cars as cheaply as Ford and GM could. This factor really put the squeeze on Studebaker.

Sure, fielding a second line of cars was expensive, but they weren't TOTALLY NEW cars. Alot was shared by both product lines. And again, this guy throws out the BS about the dowdy sedans sitting on lots. Dowdy compared to what of the cars available in 1953??? Only the C-K line.
Heh - the 53 sedans looked downright avant garde next to a 53 Chevy or Mopar offering! It was price that kept the sedans on the lots. An argument can be made that alot of momentum was lost due to the production snafus of the C-K lines, but even if they hadn't been hampered like that, would they have spelled a real turn of fortunes for Studebaker? I seriously doubt it.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[STEWDI]

Craig, I think that was a lucky thing that the sedans were NOT "N"-based. The N had a much higher belt line and it would have been extremely difficult to face-lift that body to be competitive a few years later. By then they would have had NO money for a new inner stucture remake. They had a bad enough problem with the structure they did end up having to use.

I wish they would have gone ahead with the production of sedans using the C and K body-derived study shown on p.58 of Richard Langworth's "The Postwar Years" and discussed on P. 53 and 56 of John Bridges' "Studebaker's Finest". The sedans in '53 and '54 that were produced have been graded stylistically as "not bad", but what if they had been "GREAT"? Then, the Ford-Chevy wars perhaps would not have made as much of an impact on market share (if Studebaker prices were kept as competitive as possible) and maybe there would not have been the "need" by the sales department to "Buick-ify" (read: "uglify", by many tastes) the front end and UltraVista dash of the '55. AND they would have had a lower silhouette (had to look up that spelling) to work with in later years to remain competitive.

Roger "153624" Hill

55 Champion
47 M-5
Izzer Buggy
Junior Wagon

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by STEWDI

Craig, I think that was a lucky thing that the sedans were NOT "N"-based. The N had a much higher belt line and it would have been extremely difficult to face-lift that body to be competitive a few years later. By then they would have had NO money for a new inner stucture remake. They had a bad enough problem with the structure they did end up having to use.

That is the 'great debate'! What if the Model-N based sedans sold in much better numbers than the '53's as we knew it, and made them good money. Then they would have had something 'all new' for 1957.
As has been stated previously (by Otis Romine, I think it was), perhaps the sedan line should have been 'evolutionary'; not 'revolutionary', which the Model-N would have been.

Craig

[STEWDI]

Absolutely - they NEEDED a good-selling sedan.
But they were dithered worse than Paul Martin (thats a Canadian joke, sorry other forum members) on that N. It's a matter of taste, but I've seen only one or two acceptable looking N prototypes and as I've alluded to, they would not have been competitive beyond probably the 1954 model year.
The "C/K-ized" sedan would, in admittedly much clearer hindsight, have been the better way to go. Yes, they would have saved money in the short term by introducing a nice N, but the use of just one wheelbase (want to speculate on what the Landcruiser would have evolved to?) and more commonality with the coupes would have saved funds as well.

Roger "153624" Hill

55 Champion
47 M-5
Izzer Buggy
Junior Wagon

[Dwain G.]

One glaring error near the end of the article is the statement that "Besides the fact that a founding family maintained ultimate control of both Ford and Studebaker".
The Studebaker family no longer owned any part of the company after receivership in the Great Depression.

[img][img]
Dwain G.

[Roscomacaw]

Good point Dwain. This guy makes his case, but what's that worth when the facts it's built on aren't correct???[}]

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[BobPalma]

Good points, Dwain and Bob. I would also take issue with his closing paragraph:

"Few commentators seriously believe Ford will leave the car business. Yet, in 1952, no one thought the renowned Studebaker Company would be nothing more than a fond memory just a few years later."

No one?

Wrong.

There were plenty of industry insiders, not the least of whom was the brilliant George Mason at Nash, who saw the handwriting on the wall after WWII and knew it was just a matter of time unless all the independents banded together when they were solvent and strong.

He was proven right.[V] BP

[Roscomacaw]

Yes, it's a little-known fact that the name American Motors was coined when the vision was of Studebaker - Packard - Nash and Hudson joining forces. Of course, 'twas not to be. Could there have been a Big Four? Maybe next time around!

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[Swifster]

I always wondered about Packard's long term health had they not bought out Studebaker. Losing the Brigg's plant for body building was definitely a blow. But the money invested in Studebaker could have bought them another plant. And allowed them the '57 model they were planning for. While we all concentrate on the Studebaker side of things, what about future plans other than the '57 restyled body? New engines? Transmissions? Many of the companies at the time were bringing out new engine families at the end of the '50's and early '60's.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Mulberry, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2125.60)