Interesting Production Irony: Studebaker vs Chevrolet

[BobPalma]

Almost two years ago, Dick Quinn posted the following on the forum when the topic of total Studebaker motorized vehicle production came up:

I noted the inquiry recently regarding the number of Studebaker vehicles assembled during its long history. I gather from the discussion that the inquiry was referring to self-propelled vehicles only; i.e, since 1902.

Studebaker did keep a running total and had several anniversaries over the years. Each time another million plateau was reached they would commemorate it with some minor ceremony. The last of these was held at the end of final assembly on October 16, 1956 when the total reached 6 million.

Using that date and adding up the subsequent years I came up with a total number of 6,841,438 DQ

In the new, May 2011 Hemmings Classic Car, regular columnist Jim Donnelly writes about Chevrolet's 100th Anniversary Year, that being 2011. Realistically, Chevrolet wasn't the major market maker and player it is today, during the first 18 years of its "life;" 1911-1928.

Ford dominated that period and Studebaker (and others) outsold Chevrolet many years during that time. I'm sure Chevrolet was rarely #2, much less #1, in sales during that period. (I'll stand corrected if someone wants to do the research and prove otherwise. The bottom line is that Chevrolet just wasn't "that big a deal" from 1911 through 1928.)

It wasn't until the famous OHV Stovebolt Six was introduced in 1928, for the 1929 model year, that Chevrolet became the major player it has been ever since. (It was intentionally held back a year to take the wind out of Ford Model A sales.)

Because of that, we'd expect total 1911-1928 Chevrolet sales to be rather ho-hum and of marginal interest to Studebaker hobbyists. Curious, then, that Jim Donnelly points out the following: Chevrolet had already built and sold more than 6,000,000 cars before the 1929 models were introduced!

Personally, I think that's rather amazing: Before Chevrolet became a permanent, major player in the industry beginning in 1929, it had already sold about as many cars as Studebaker did in its entire production life! Talk about economies of scale; whew! BP

[woodysrods]

Numbers can make you think!
When I got into Fordson Tractor history, I couldn't believe the #'s and the scale?? Even the 8N Tractor 1948-52 (4 years)...just 50,000 short of a MILLION! Hard to even think of how this was possible.
Good Roads
Brian

[studegary]

You mention the stovebolt as a means for Chevrolet to take the wind out of the sales of the new Model A. My father's first car was a Model T Ford. He then had several other makes, neither Chevrolet nor Ford. In 1929, he purchased a new Model A Ford. In 1932, 1935, 1938 and 1940 he purchased new Plymouths. The 1940 Plymouth lasted through the War and was replaced with a 1948 Chevrolet, his first stovebolt. This was partly due to his being familiar with the Chevrolet engines from working on them at Texaco Research Center. They used them as one of their standard test bed engines.

[warrlaw1]

The "490" Chev was a four cylinder OHV engine with cone clutch. The price in 1923 was $490 so the name stuck. Not many complete cars survived because Chev used lots of wood compared to Ford, but they sure were competition for the model T.

[Lothar]

In 1932, 1935, 1938 and 1940 he purchased new Plymouths. The 1940 Plymouth lasted through the War and was replaced with a 1948 Chevrolet

OK, Gary, what made 1930s Plymouths better, in your dad's eyes at least, than other brands? I'm not very familiar with pre-war cars.

[8E45E]

Realistically, Chevrolet wasn't the major market maker and player it is today, during the first 18 years of its "life;" 1911-1928.

In that time period, Chevrolet's first V-8 and first air-cooled engines were produced. As BP has stated in the past, they are great trivia questions.

Craig

[Skip Lackie]

I don't wish to derail this discussion, but I have the copy of Studebaker's production reocords that Asa Hall made on a visit to South Bend in the 1960s. It is missing a few pages -- in fact, it includes a short list of years/pages that Asa wanted to go back and get (but apparently never did). In addition, it includes more than one production tabulation for some years -- and they usually don't agree (though they're always close). One reason may be Studebaker's propensity for going back into production of small numbers of "last year's" models, especially of trucks. The prime example of this was the 65 1959-model, 4E-series 4WD trucks built for the Navy during the spring of 1960. How do you count them? The company also made prototype vehicles for experimental and/or promotional purposes. I'm not sure that they considered such hand-built vehicles that were never intended to be sold as "produced".

Anyway, the company kept a running tally through December 31, 1929 -- at which time the total production was stated to be 1,453,290. But even there, there are problems. The tally does not seem to include the Studebaker electrics (1841 cars) or the Studebaker Garfords (2481 cars), but DOES include 1908 Wayne (200 vehicles). Maybe Richard or someone else could comment on this. After 1929, there are no running totals.

There is also a poor copy of hand-drawn chart of production by year through 1956, obviously made at the time that the company made its 6 million vehicle claim. I suspect that number included both Packard and Pierce-Arrow production, as there is a separate listing of Packard and P-A production. I question the legitimacy of including the P-A numbers, as P-A's connection to Studebaker was both brief and tangential. Anyway, as to Richard's question about what to include, it is clear that Studebaker did NOT include its WWII-era Army trucks -- the production chart shows 0 in 1943 and 44. If it were up to me, I would include both the Army trucks and the weasels, but not the Wright aircraft engines. They wouldn't seem to qualify as "vehicles".

[BobPalma]

OK, Gary, what made 1930s Plymouths better, in your dad's eyes at least, than other brands? I'm not very familiar with pre-war cars.

I'll not speak for Gary's Dad, but two items that made Plymouth a better buy were 4-wheel hydraulic brakes and the engine being mounted in rubber cushions, as is common today. 'May have had an all-steel body before Ford or Chevy, too, but I am not certain of that. BP

[BobPalma]

I don't wish to derail this discussion, but I have the copy of Studebaker's production reocords that Asa Hall made on a visit to South Bend in the 1960s. It is missing a few pages -- in fact, it includes a short list of years/pages that Asa wanted to go back and get (but apparently never did). In addition, it includes more than one production tabulation for some years -- and they don't agree (though they're always close). One reason may be Studebaker's propensity for going back into production of small numbers of "last year's" models, especially of trucks. The prime example of this was the 65 1959-model, 4E-series 4WD trucks built for the Navy during the spring of 1960. How do you count them? The company also made prototype vehicles for experimental and/or promotional purposes. I'm not sure that they considered such hand-built vehicles that were never intended to be sold as "produced".

Anyway, the company kept a running tally through December 31, 1929 -- at which time the total production was stated to be 1,453,290. But even there, there are problems. The tally does not seem to include the Studebaker electrics (1841 cars) or the Studebaker Garford (2481 cars), but DOES include 1908 Wayne (200 vehicles). Maybe Richard or someone else could comment on this. After 1929, there are no running totals.

There is also a poor copy of hand-drawn chart of production by year through 1956, obviously made at the time that the company made its 6 million vehicle claim. I suspect that number included both Packard and Pierce-Arrow production, as there is a separate listing of Packard and P-A production. I question the legitimacy of including the P-A numbers, as P-A's connection to Studebaker was both brief and tangential. Anyway, as to Richard's question about what to include, it is clear that Studebaker did NOT include its WWII-era Army trucks -- the production chart shows 0 in 1943 and 44. If were up to me, I would include both the Army trucks and the weasels, but not the Wright aircraft engines. They wouldn't seem to qualify as "vehicles".

Good information, Skip; thanks for chiming in.

Interesting; 'goes to show how facts in such matters are rarely absolute. BP

[studegary]

OK, Gary, what made 1930s Plymouths better, in your dad's eyes at least, than other brands? I'm not very familiar with pre-war cars.

I don't think that he saw a lot of difference at that time. In the 1930s, there was a DeSoto-Plymouth dealer between his home and work. I think that was a big factor. I personally only remember the 1940. I think that it was the 1935 that he didn't like because of the Floating Power that kept breaking the exhaust system. Even with that, he traded for a new Plymouth.