The Lamberti papers #10

[Studebaker Wheel]

[doug]

Thanks again Richard for the insight, answers to many questions and interesting information.

[HAWK64]

i just wonder what "the new computer system" comprised of back in 1963???

[BobPalma]

This does not bode well: 1,030 Larks and Hawks built against orders, versus 1,308 built just to keep people busy, with nowhere to sell them except to the dealers, later, at fire-sale prices. Gulp:




Larks and Hawks 1,030
Avanti 51
Trucks 122

3. Built for Stock

Larks and Hawks 1,308
Credit Holds 414



Larks and Hawks 683
Avanti 92
Trucks 111



....And it looks like someone didn't get the memo:

8. Axle Ratios

Since we are going to use a flange axle for 1964,

[8E45E]

i just wonder what "the new computer system" comprised of back in 1963???

IBM 7070 perhaps? One was featured in an Avanti brochure targeted to computer programmers.

Craig

[stupak]

Richard: As usual, fascinating reading. One question. Under 6. R-3 Engine, 4th paragraph, it states "Dr. Dredge" - should that be 'Dr. Lamberti', OR 'Mr. Dredge'? I do not believe that Dredge was a 'Dr'. Thanks for the clarification. stupak

[raprice]

I just want to take a moment to thank Richard Quinn for publishing the Lamberti papers on this forum. It's given us an unusual insight into the executive meetings at Studebaker during those difficult days. Dick, again, please accept my thanks.
Rog

[Studebaker Wheel]

Richard: As usual, fascinating reading. One question. Under 6. R-3 Engine, 4th paragraph, it states "Dr. Dredge" - should that be 'Dr. Lamberti', OR 'Mr. Dredge'? I do not believe that Dredge was a 'Dr'. Thanks for the clarification. stupak

That was a typo. It should state Mr. Dredge.

[FlatheadGeo]

Yes, Mr. Quinn, thank you for taking the time in posting these. Very, very, interesting as Artie Johnson used to comment on Laugh-in. I would like to reiterate, as said by others, that I find these most informative re-the inner workings of what once was one of the US' top manufacturing concerns!

[Blue 15G]

I laughed out loud (but also felt sad) at this passage under "Legal":

"The present industry franchise permits cancellation of a dealer only if the dealer is doing less business than dealers generally. In the Studebaker situation, this may mean a common level of mediocrity."

Studebaker's weak dealer network has often been cited as a significant factor in their demise as a car company. To see it stated so bluntly in the meeting notes is quite interesting.

I am enjoying the Lamberti papers very much. Please continue, Richard. I thank you for your time and hard work to present these reports.

Dave Bonn

[2R2]

I think BP pretty much hit the nail on the head....anytime over half of your production is for cars without customer orders, you're in trouble. I have to give everyone involved credit though. I am sure they could all see how desperate everything was, and continued to try to improve the product. Good to see they finally decided to look for a solution to oil leaks - maybe in an upcoming thread, there might be something about front fender rust!

Another point - think about the cost pressure they were under. Venders would not give them a price break unless Studedbaker committed to producing X amount of units. Both GM and Studebaker could be using the same shock absorber on a car, but Studebaker's cost was going to me more. Every decision they made, they first had to see if there were any pennies to make it.

Richard, I echo others when I say thanks for posting these notes, to me, they are some of the most interesting readings about the Studebaker history I have ever come across. Looking forward to the next episode!

[studegary]

I think BP pretty much hit the nail on the head....anytime over half of your production is for cars without customer orders, you're in trouble. I have to give everyone involved credit though. I am sure they could all see how desperate everything was, and continued to try to improve the product. Good to see they finally decided to look for a solution to oil leaks - maybe in an upcoming thread, there might be something about front fender rust!

Bob Bourke did not like the design of the front fender with the trap area. It came down to cost, as most things did. The cars were only planned to last for about five years, not 50 years.

[stall]

Richard, Thanks for these very informative posts. I was especialy interested in #6 OIL LEAKS. The facts are that Studebaker engines are less than pristine in oil leakage. I'll bet that these leak problems were constantly on Engineerings "things to so list" yet I think they never really got in front of this problem. I suppose it could be a lack of resources or maybe an inherent design flaw. I wonder which.

[Johnnywiffer]

Bob Bourke did not like the design of the front fender with the trap area. It came down to cost, as most things did. The cars were only planned to last for about five years, not 50 years.

I read somewhere that when a Prez of Studebaker was asked about the fender rust, he told the questioner something like "Let 'em rust. Gives people a reason to buy a new one."

Dunno if it's true but if it is, that might explain a lot of things.

They seem to be so very conerned with pennies per unit, when I'd think it wouldn't have take much to fix the fender rust prob--some good sealant or a simple redesign. Maybe there is no such animal as a 'simple re-design'

After all, this was 12 years after the V-8 engine was installed in cars and they were still looking for a good oil seal.

John

[Gunslinger]

I read somewhere that when a Prez of Studebaker was asked about the fender rust, he told the questioner something like "Let 'em rust. Gives people a reason to buy a new one."

Dunno if it's true but if it is, that might explain a lot of things.

They seem to be so very conerned with pennies per unit, when I'd think it wouldn't have take much to fix the fender rust prob--some good sealant or a simple redesign. Maybe there is no such animal as a 'simple re-design'

After all, this was 12 years after the V-8 engine was installed in cars and they were still looking for a good oil seal.

John

Back in the day a GM CEO or some other senior official supposedly said that Americans will buy whatever they build, so apparently quality wasn't high on his mind. I do know that the Corvette people in GM were constantly trying to improve the car...better performance and better features...they were told "Why? You're selling all you can build now." So...that attitude was apparently pretty pervasive through the American auto industry for years.

When it comes to Studebaker, it seems that while they knew they had certain problems, they simply didn't have the financial resources to properly address them. I doubt if it was lack of engineering talent, but economic driven. They couldn't sell enough cars to be profitable which left no money for fixing problems. That not fixing known problems gives potential buyers no reason to purchase a Studebaker seems to have gone unsaid or unrecognized. It helped create a downward spiral of sales and profitability.

In some of these fabulous Lamberti papers it's mentioned that Chevrolet or some other maker has some of the same problems in some issues. The difference was Chevrolet had the financial resources to correct them and Studebaker didn't. Also...just saying that other makers have the same issue is just an excuse to not do anything about it..."everyone else has the same problem" or similar attitude.

I also wonder about the Studebaker Corporation Board of Directors...it's known that for some time they wanted to diversify and get out of car making altogether. How much of that attitude and stingy budgets created the scenario of no effort to fix issues such as rust problems and oil leaks? How intentional was that?