1957 Wagons? Gulp: This explains a lot!

[BobPalma]

EDIT Monday, October 31: The Broadmoor info is erroneous; see Post #12.

By way of education: It cannot be overstressed, the extreme disadvantage Studebaker dealers faced as to pricing, and how it contributed to Studebaker's sales problems after the bullet-nose era, getting worse as the 1950s wore on.

To wit: The paperwork with Matthew Burnette's "new" 1957 Boradmoor wagon indictes it had a total retail price of $3,921 when new, which sounds about right. After all, the base price on a 1957 Broadmoor was $3,415, and his has a ton of options on it, plus freight.

Let's compare that with the top-line 1957 Ford V-8, three-seat wagon, the Country Squire.

I ran the numbers on an identically-equipped 1957 Ford Country Squire, and the total MSRP was $3,508! Now that's a Country Squire with woodgrain sides, not available on Studebaker Broadmoors...and a three-seat wagon to boot. [Limited-slip differential was not available on 1957 Fords, so I added in/included the 1959 Ford Equa-Lock price ($39) to keep the comparison as fair as possible.]

A more accurate comparison would be to a 6-passenger 1957 Ford V8 Country Sedan, the same wagon as a Country Squire but with no woodgrain...and with no third seat, since one is not indicated on Matthew's new ride, either. The Country Sedan tallies to only $3,275 when equipped exactly as is Matthew's $3,921 Broadmoor!

Consider: The well-equipped Ford Country Sedan is $140 less than the base Broadmoor with straight three-speed, no power anything, etc.

Ouch.

Not that it makes any difference now, but younger Studebaker students need to know this primary reason (terribly uncompetitive prices) why Studebaker had such a tough time staying alive in the 1950s.

And when you compare the prices, it also helps explain why Ford sold
135,251 1957 V8, 6-passenger 1957 Country Sedans,

versus Studebaker's production and sale of 1,530 Broadmoors.

Gulp. BP

[mbstude]

No guess as to why, but you'll notice on the invoice for my car that the buyer was given a $900 discount before anything else.

[BobPalma]

No guess as to why, but you'll notice on the invoice for my car that the buyer was given a $900 discount before anything else.

True, Matthew, but the numbers suggest the $3,921 was indeed the MSRP, give or take $20.

I've considered that steep discount as well, and it's my best guess the dealer may have felt the 1954 Pontiac wagon trade was nice enough to draw, say $1,995, and he planned to show a loss going in on the sale of the new wagon, and then a good profit going out when he sold the Pontiac trade-in.

I have all such paperwork from my Dad's dealership, and that is exactly what independent (non-Big-Three) dealers often did to move some iron when they could capture a Big Three trade. In fact, they did it just about every time when they could take a Big Three trade that would be much more easily sold than their new independent in stock on which they were paying floor plan interest until it got shipped.

As the Bee-Gees famously said, "Stayin' alive, stayin' alive...."

When you get the Production Order for that wagon, it will be interesting to see when it was built and then speculate how long it was in stock before the dealer had this "take a GM trade" chance to sell it. BP

[JDP]

No guess as to why, but you'll notice on the invoice for my car that the buyer was given a $900 discount before anything else.

Probably because as Bob pointed out in his price comparisons, they may have had too to make a sale on a car priced like a Buick.

[kmac530]

Its a tough road once a company starts to drop in sales, then tries to make cuts to match prices and that sometimes costs in quality, then it is a snow ball.
Even if a car company finds some new technology or makes some stride forward in a design, it is hard to break out of that downward spiral once it gets rolling.

Everyone has ups and downs, but it seems like Studebaker got in a funk that they just couldn't shake.
Even if they had weathered that 60s car crunch, then survived the gas crisis in the 70s that really brought about the imports rise {datsun, toyota, honda..}, then survived the horrible quality control issues that plagued US car makers in the 80s and 90s, they probably would still not have survived this horrible economy that has cost us Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Mercury, Hummer, Saturn, Plymouth, and I am sure a few others.

Studebakers death was inevitable I believe at some point as a small independant car company.

Those $900.00 rebates or price cuts were likely an attempt to keep the dealerships doors open and some cash flow coming in. Someone suggested that it may have been an incentive for a car that had been sitting on the lot for a while, I would agree with that possibility.

I must say, I would not know why that beauty would sit for long on a lot, that color and car are striking looking. You got a nice find there Matt.

[BobPalma]

Probably because as Bob pointed out in his price comparisons, they may have had too to make a sale on a car priced like a Buick.

Yep. I don't have complete option prices at hand for 1957 Buicks, but can confirm that the MSRP for a 1957 Buick Special 6-passenger wagon with Dynaflow and Power Steering was $3,374. Other options would add to that, but Power Steering and Dynaflow would be the only individual options that would be more than $100 apiece.

If you take the Buick's $3,374 and add maybe $40 for Power Brakes, you'd be right up to the base price for the Broadmoor, yet the Broadmoor would still be a straight three-speed with no power anything...versus the Buick with Dynaflow, Power Steering, and Power Brakes.

Groan: This does not bode well for the Studebaker dealer and salesman.

And even though Buick was not known as a wagon specialist (as was Ford in the 1950s), Buick still sold over 7,000 1957 Special 6-passenger wagons. BP

See the problem Studebaker dealers had? BP

[JDP]

Yep. I don't have complete option prices at hand for 1957 Buicks, but can confirm that the MSRP for a 1957 Buick Special 6-passenger wagon with Dynaflow and Power Steering was $3,374. Other options would add to that, but Power Steering and Dynaflow would be the only individual options that would be more than $100 apiece.

If you take the Buick's $3,374 and add maybe $40 for Power Brakes, you'd be right up to the base price for the Broadmoor, yet the Broadmoor would still be a straight three-speed with no power anything...versus the Buick with Dynaflow, Power Steering, and Power Brakes.

Groan: This does not bode well for the Studebaker dealer and salesman.

And even though Buick was not known as a wagon specialist (as was Ford in the 1950s), Buick still sold over 7,000 1957 Special 6-passenger wagons. BP

See the problem Studebaker dealers had? BP

Assuming you were not a die hard Studebaker fan, I'd bet the Buick would seem to be a better deal. It has more luxury appeal, better resale and from GM, the biggest of the big three. Thankfully, someone plunked down the cash for the Studebaker those 50 plus years ago, or Matt would be SOL.

[Blue 15G]

Something our younger members may not realize is that in the 50s a price difference of just a few hundred dollars a car made a BIG difference in what you got. Sometimes that much difference could put you into a brand that was even in a higher price class. Today, if there are two similar new cars on a dealer's lot with a price difference of $300, most people would buy the more expensive one without question if they liked it better. Because, with the price of new cars today, what's $300? But back in Studebaker's day, that much money made a real difference.

[BobPalma]

Something our younger members may not realize is that in the 50s a price difference of just a few hundred dollars a car made a BIG difference in what you got. Sometimes that much difference could put you into a brand that was even in a higher price class. Today, if there are two similar new cars on a dealer's lot with a price difference of $300, most people would buy the more expensive one without question if they liked it better. Because, with the price of new cars today, what's $300? But back in Studebaker's day, that much money made a real difference.

Absolutely. Monthly payments on the average new car were around $60 in the mid 1950s.

One of Lee Iacocca's first big marketing ideas was "$56 for a '56," a plan in which customers were encouraged to buy a new 1956 Ford with payments of $56 per month. It is credited with being his first really good idea.

So if you were considering whether to buy, say, a new 1957 Ford wagon for $646 less than a comparble 1957 Studebaker wagon (the original example in this topic), it could mean stretching out your new-car payments almost another year just to buy the Studebaker!

OUCH. BP

[Bill Pressler]

Maybe I skipped over it, but has anyone actually seen if the $3,900-odd was actually the true Studebaker MSRP of the car? In those days before Monroney stickers, I personally wonder if the dealer 'juiced up' the MSRP to make his $900 discount seem so generous. That seems like a huge discount on a $3,900 car considering I don't think the sale happened at the end of the model year.

[8E45E]

This does not bode well for the Studebaker dealer and salesman.

See the problem Studebaker dealers had? BP

Now factor in cargo room to everything you've said!! Funny no one mentioned that yet, especially with a station wagon! Studebaker used the same 1954 floorpan and only the fenders got extended in 1957. Studebaker and the Packard are the only wagons you can have a tailgate party with it closed with that spacer between the bumper and tailgate opening making a convenient place to sit, or cherry pick: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...art-V-Comments . I believe this deficiency was well noted in a 1957 Consumer Reports or one of the automotive magazines when they compared station wagons.

Craig

[BobPalma]

Bill Pressler, you are absolutely correct and, boy, do I have egg on my face this morning! I was reading the wrong column in The Standard Catalog of American Cars! The 3,415 is not the Broadmoor's base MSRP, it is the car's shipping weight!

E-gad; the base MSRP was only $2,666! 'Probably the biggest embarrassment I've had to endure for awhile, so everyone may disregard all the discussion about Studebaker's 1957 prices.

Oh, well, back to the drawing board. Everyone have a nice day while I hide. (Should've kept working on the 2011 Pure Stock Drags Report for the January 2012 Turning Wheels this weekend! <GGG>) BP

[8E45E]

Bill Pressler, you are absolutely correct and, boy, do I have egg on my face this morning! I was reading the wrong column in The Standard Catalog of American Cars! The 3,415 is not the Broadmoor's base MSRP, it is the car's shipping weight!

E-gad; the base MSRP was only $2,666! 'Probably the biggest embarrassment I've had to endure for awhile, so everyone may disregard all the
discussion about Studebaker's 1957 prices.

Okay, what was the price of a Packard Country Sedan, then? That one had to compete with Buick and Oldsmobile; the Buick which was touched on in post #6.

Craig

[BobPalma]

Okay, what was the price of a Packard Country Sedan, then? That one had to compete with Buick and Oldsmobile; the Buick which was touched on in post #6.

Craig

1957 Clipper Town Sedan figures (boy, did I check these carefully! <GGG>):

MSRP Base: $3,212 (Flightomatic included; standard equipment)

Weight: 3,570

Production: 3,940

Options for comparison/equalization:
Power Steering, $98.
Power Brakes, $38.
Luggage Carrier, $60.

So Craig; you're right: The 1957 Buick Special 4-door wagon with Dynaflow, Power Steering, and Power Brakes ($3,414), was only $66 more (one month's payment) than a comparable 1957 Clipper Town Sedan ($3,348).

For comparison, a 1957 Oldsmobile 88 4-door, 6-passenger wagon with Hydramatic and Power Steering and Power Brakes was only $3,266; about two monthly payments less than the Clipper Town Sedan! BP

[jclary]

Here is another thought to put things in perspective...especially in the south. The prices being discussed are 1957, six years before I graduated from high school and got my first real paying job. The job I got was working in a cloth printing factory at a whopping fifty-five cents per hour! For this region of the country, that was considered decent pay.

By that time, my dad was a teamsters union truck driver with a family of eight. His newest car was a 1940 Chevy. It was little surprise that we did not own a new car and really knew few who did. Within a few months after getting the fifty-five cent job, I managed to land a job making a whopping $1.10 per hour. I thought I was so well off that I traded my 1955 Buick for a 1960 Pontiac!

Of course, I was still broke before every pay-day. The only young guys I knew, back then, with new cars were an only child, still living at home, and paying no rent.