Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1939 Car Market Share

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1939 Car Market Share

    In 1939 Chrysler, Ford and GM combined for 90 percent of the US car.. The 10 percent divided between Hudson, Nash,Packard, Studebaker and Willys.

    John S

  • #2
    How about Bantam, Crosley, Graham, and Hupmobile?

    studedick from the lower Ozarks

    Comment


    • #3
      Dick : I guess I could have included the other minor makes of autos you listed. The point of the post was to show how little market share the independents realy had and with such small sales how could they actualy hope to compete wth the Big Three.

      John S

      Comment


      • #4
        It only got worst after the "Seller's Market" after the war. Look at this graph from 1955 !!!!!

        http://books.google.com/books?id=u-E...-1&output=html

        Murray

        Originally posted by Packard53 View Post
        Dick : I guess I could have included the other minor makes of autos you listed. The point of the post was to show how little market share the independents realy had and with such small sales how could they actualy hope to compete wth the Big Three.

        John S
        Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain !

        http://sites.google.com/site/intrigu...tivehistories/

        (/url) https://goo.gl/photos/ABBDQLgZk9DyJGgr5

        Comment


        • #5
          Stall: Thanks for the link. Total production in 1955 for Hudson, Nash, Packard and Studebaker was 323,718 cars. Which still with that combine number would have only been good enough for 8th place in 1955. That number meant that the independents had a market share of 4.3%

          John S

          Comment


          • #6
            Having the highest percentage of sales means very little.
            That McDonalds sells the highest percentage of lunches on a given day, does not make their food any good.
            The question is more if the company can make a profit at its sales level.
            You can't serve fillet minion at McDonalds prices and quantity.

            If Studebaker could have been profitable with the number of cars they made each year, they could still be in business.
            Rolls Royce, Tesla, Brabus, Ferrari--none of them have the highest number of car sales, but they manage to make a profit on the few they make.
            (Not to say that one has to make a luxury car to make a profit. Yugo must have made some profit too, even though they made crappy cars. A war killed them before their quality could).

            Comment


            • #7
              Aenthal: Lets get a few things straight. Rolls has been on the brink of going out of business a few times. Rolls is currently owned by a German car firm BMW. In the past Rolls was owned by Vickers. I doubt very much without the deep pockets of VW and BMW that either Rolls ar Bentley would be in business today. Tesla that last I checked has never turned a profit and before thier IOP they are $250 million in debt.

              I know that Ferrari makes some profit but has been under the protective wing of Fiat for many years if not for that they would have been history long ago. Studebaker like Packard and the other independents couldn't make a big enough profit to stay in business and compete with the former Big Three bacause of R&D costs that was required to keep the product fresh and current.

              John S

              Comment


              • #8
                Studebaker had a tough hand to play but they played it badly. IMHO the adoption of the Lowey style coupe as a sales main stay flew in the face of logic; coupe never outsold sedans no matter how pretty the coupe. By trying to maintain there role as the only "Full-line" independant was an impossible task with their very small market share. Trucks were a distraction and they should have sought the safety of a niche market and cut production and offerings to a level that matched cash flow from sales. Just my thoughts.

                Murray
                Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain !

                http://sites.google.com/site/intrigu...tivehistories/

                (/url) https://goo.gl/photos/ABBDQLgZk9DyJGgr5

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stall View Post
                  Studebaker had a tough hand to play but they played it badly. IMHO the adoption of the Lowey style coupe as a sales main stay flew in the face of logic; coupe never outsold sedans no matter how pretty the coupe. By trying to maintain there role as the only "Full-line" independant was an impossible task with their very small market share. Trucks were a distraction and they should have sought the safety of a niche market and cut production and offerings to a level that matched cash flow from sales. Just my thoughts.

                  Murray
                  Studebaker did NOT plan for the "LOEWY coupe" to be a big seller. They expected the sedan to be the big seller, as in the past. Sort of like having a convertible as a builder of showroom traffic. It turned out that the 1953 C/K models sold almost as many as the sedans combined and more than four door sedans, considered to be the mainstay. If Studebaker had planned and geared up for the 1953 C/K models, they would have sold even more. People looked to the independents for something different in features and/or style. They could get a plain four door sedan anywhere. In 1953, they sold one truck for every three four door sedans, not a bad ratio.
                  Gary L.
                  Wappinger, NY

                  SDC member since 1968
                  Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X