Where would we be today if?

[KL15]

KL15,
although most of your post makes sense I personally disagree with the retro styling that seems to be so prevalent recently.
The new (old style) T-Bird
The new (old style) Mustang
The 50's style Chevy truck
etc., etc.

The real problem is this:

After you've re-hashed a previous designer's model and pawned it off as new, where can you possibly go from there?

And don't forget the biggest tragedy here.

In 1957 the Thunderbird was Ford's "look to the future".
45 years later all they could do is give a watered down version of a once fine car.

Best, Toots
[/B][/QUOTE]



Point well taken.

 

[John in Covina]

Retro

US makers are giving a nod to the past because we have a segment of buyers for whom it is the only way they'll get a chance to have something nostalgic from their youthful memories. And it is not a bad thing, we have 100 years plus of autodesign to pull from and all fashion from clothes to furniture to architecture has revivals. Art Deco pulled elements from the Far East and Egyptian antiquities. In a way we often say there is nothing new under the sun, but we can make combinations that haven't been done before such as Fusion influences in cooking. I don't see it as bad but good, we work with what we got.

In the Automotive world the expenses are harrowing and because it costs so much to change we see times before the 1960's where the basic engine remained nearly unhanged for 20 years. Now innovations are coming from all parts of the world and the benefits from them are passed along to the consumer at a staggering rate. Todays motor oil is so much better from 10 years ago and is light years ahead of 50 years ago. We have materials that were undreampt of outside of NASA.

One change is the warranty on cars, I can't imagine a car maker offering a 100K warranty 20 or more years ago, today Hyundai of all makers does just that. And for many 100k miles is only 4 - 5 years worth or driving.

Car makers sharing stuff has been going on for a long time and make models are only emblem changes, but innovation come every year from all sorts of areas both inside and outside the industry so if you don't like what's out there now wait a year or two.

(A note from a previous post as to Hummers. The Hummer was a cool vehicle when it was the military version for civilians, now it is only an upgraded Tahoe.)

Anybody see what the new Dodge Charger is going to look like? It will be a blast from the past 1970's style Charger, and a raw real muscle car from what I read.

 

[Ed Bass]

The "new" Dodge Charger lost me as soon as I saw it was a 4 door sedan.

Best, Toots

 

[John in Covina]

The "new" Dodge Charger lost me as soon as I saw it was a 4 door sedan.

Best, Toots

***********

You need to see what's coming up next.

 

[Twitch]

Instead of endlessly pissing and moaning about which car is better I'd rather the address the original point of this thread regarding independent auto makers.

As a Packard owner I have found that the merger with Studebaker was a dumb one since neither looked at the other's books! Could you imagine that today? This perverted gentlemen's agreement actually brought down the stronger Packard. While both were in questionable shape Studebaker was somewhat worse.

After the merger, for better or worse, the remaining Studebaker enclave carried on for quite a while producing cars like the successful Lark and the Avanti.

The real merger of the 50s should have been Nash, Hudson and Packard. While the story is long as to why they didn't hook up let us suffice to say that they had far more in common automotively and together each would have complemented the other. Packard needed an in-house body maker and Nash needed Packard V-8 engines and there were lots of other positive aspects that could have moved them forward. Remember Nash/Hudson became AMC and existed until the late 1980s alone!

The error people make is in believing the hyperbole they get from the media is real and true. How many people believe Edsel was poor quality yet today? Well they weren't. The failure of Edsel as a separate line at FoMoCo had nothing to do with quality control. It had to do with myriad things involving dealership intricacies in relation to Ford, funding, inventory control, advertising targets, image and the fact the Americans were beginning to consider smaller cars a viable option in their buying choices.

You had a near duplicate to Mercury qualitywise and the introduction of compacts like Corvair, Comet, Valiant, Dart, Lark, Falcon and AMCs all vying for buyers. Edsel didn't stand far enough apart from Ford or Mercury like Linclon did or as Cadillac did from Chevy.

The later saturation by Japan with mini trucks in the early 1980s should have been addressed. They illegally dumped vehicles at below manufacturing costs in order to get a market share. It was simply a game of having deep pockets at the time and being in the red for a while in this market until a following took hold. World wide interests propped up the losses in the US.

Like the VW, MG and previous popular foreign car phases Americans went through mini trucks were simply the next thing. Pretty simple to fast forward to see the US manufacturers' response and evolution on the streets around you now. The whole Edsel scenario repeated when American manufacturers saddled by the EPA and the safety nazis produced interum junk cars in the 1980s when the Japanese were in their final kamikaze dive into the carrier that was America auto sales.

To carp about independents not existing is senseless since they were replaced by foreign entities filling an alternate line of vehicles at retail. Basically if we had nurtured our independents, instead of Toyota and Nissan we'd have AMC and Studebaker at least. We all talk a good game of how we encourage independent this or that in other aspects of human nature yet we fail to perform when it means the survival of 100 year old indigenous companies.

The real lesson here is that we gave away the farm willingly...stupidly. We know the signs from when the Japanese made their 1st inroads but are we willing to learn from that and recognize the next Autogate where some other industry begins to go bye-bye due to greed and apathy on the part of consumers.

While we have become unwilling to pay $1.99 for a American Barbie, Chinese Barbie can be had for $.99 and Mattel makes about the same profit. If we project this to autos we would have seen Plymouths retailing cheaper than Hudsons and the volume going to Plymouth. The Plymouth suited most drivers needs and basically they were cheapskates unwilling to pay extra to get extra in the far more solid Hudson.

Instead of supporting a local industry where, say, wood-carvers shape unique pieces at appropriate prices we gleefully buy look-alike Chinese crapola mass produced in plastic.

One of the main problems is you, the consumer, is a cheapskate.

 

[John in Covina]

There was an economic downturn at the time of the Edsel's release and consumers were reluctant to buy.

 

[imoldfashioned]

Trust you guys have seen what Holden Australia (our version of GM) have made, recently: And, yes, it's "only" a concept, but it's clear that some people still have great taste in design...

I want that car!

It's like the sport version of the Batmobile.

 

[Ed Bass]

Twitch,
With the (minor) exception of the non-capitalized "Nazis" and misspelled "interim", that is an extremely well written, well thought out and lucid post. My fedora is off to you.
Best, Toots

 

[dhermann1]

If we're going to get into picayuny spelling issues, I think that the GENERIC sense of Nazi is appropriate to NOT capitalize. I'm not sure if the term has fully entered the lexicon as a permissible word, soup nazi notwithstanding. The usage that bugs me most is the confusion of ITS meaning the possessive of IT, and IT'S, the contraction for IT IS. Thus endeth the lesson.
I think Twitch knows what he's talking about, but I can't get too judgmental about people going cheap. It's just human nature. The average human intelligence just isn't capable of seeing the long term benefit over the short term.
Now, about Holden. Very interesting company! In the 1930's the home GM firm tried to stop them making all steel bodies, when GM itself was still using wood for part of the body. They were ahead of the curve.
Another example. They, on their own, created some much sexier designs for their Buicks in 1936 than Detroit. They predated Detroit with the "fast back" or "torpedo" shape by a couple of years with this design. They were produced ONLY in Australia, with right hand drive:

Pretty cool, huh?

 

[ScionPI2005]

Trust you guys have seen what Holden Australia (our version of GM) have made, recently:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ijy&um=1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And, yes, it's "only" a concept, but it's clear that some people still have great taste in design...

Wow! That is Gorgeous!!!

 

[Ed Bass]

If we're going to get into picayuny spelling issues,

Actually, it's "picayune".

No offense intended to Twitch. My compliment was sincere. After scanning his proflie and discovering he is a writer, I was certain he would pick up on the intended humor.

Your choice of the '36 turret top Buick is a fine example of Detroit's ability to innovate. In fact I owned a '36 Special until a short time ago (see pic). Along with the '38 Buick it is always one of my favorites.

Best, Toots

 

[MrNewportCustom]

One wonders what might have happened if Packard had held off merging with Studebaker. They might have survived.

If you have the October issue of Hemmings Classic Car, there's a column by Patrick Foster about Packard and how they may have survived had they merged with Nash, rather than Studebaker.


Lee

 

[scotrace]

GM Ford Chrysler Face Perception Gap. Press.

 

[scotrace]

There was an attempt to revive the Packard nameplate several years ago. But I don't think it ever got beyond the prototype phase.

 

[Flivver]

GM Ford Chrysler Face Perception Gap. Press.

That's exactly the problem I was referring to in my prior post. I certainly hope the Detroit three can overcome it.

Regarding the demise of the independents in the 1950s, intense competition was one problem they faced, but they also each made strategic errors that contributed to their demise.

Hudson locked themselves into a unitized platform in 1948 that was hard to freshen. They also chose to introduce the ill-fated Jet in 1953 instead of using the resources to develop a modern V8 engine.

Nash was arguably the healthiest of the group but they too dragged their feet on developing a modern V8. And their enclosed front wheel designs were not universally well received.

Packard's biggest strategic error was dropping its senior lines, the 160 and 180 after the war. This turned them into more of an Oldsmobile competitor rather than a Cadillac competitor. And, it allowed Cadillac to run away with the postwar U.S. luxury car market. Packard, also, waited too long to introduce a modern OHV V8 (1955). And the styling of their 1951-54 models wasn't all it could have been.

Studebaker introduced a modern V8 in 1951, but held itself back with the now beautiful but then curious 1953 Lowey designed models. Those '53s were beautiful as coupes but the styling theme never translated well into 4-dr sedans and station wagons.

And, on top of all this, all 4 companies were saddled with overcapacity issues. Studebaker-Packard was a mess from the start. At AMC, the Hudson and Nash nameplates were gone by the end of 1957...only the Rambler allowed AMC to survive into the 1960s. But once the compact car craze ended in the late 60s, AMC was in trouble again until they got bought out first by Renault and then by Chrysler.

 

[scotrace]

Highly recommended is The Fall of the Packard Motorcar Company.

Packard's last CEO, James Nance, was precisely the sort of guy Packard didn't need at the time. He became the guy who had no feel for what "Packard" meant to consumers, made all the wrong moves and sent Packard to its death.

 

[dhermann1]

There was an attempt to revive the Packard nameplate several years ago. But I don't think it ever got beyond the prototype phase.

Gak, there's that UUUGGGGGGLY grill! It was great in 1938, but after 1951, YUK!

 

[jamespowers]

GM Ford Chrysler Face Perception Gap. Press.

Where's the group that I fit into? US made car owner who wouldn't even consider a foreign car.
I ain't forgiving the Axis powers no matter how much time passes and they sure aren't going to get my money either if I can help it.

 

[Flivver]

Highly recommended is The Fall of the Packard Motorcar Company.

Packard's last CEO, James Nance, was precisely the sort of guy Packard didn't need at the time. He became the guy who had no feel for what "Packard" meant to consumers, made all the wrong moves and sent Packard to its death.

That's a great book. I read it several years ago when it came out. Nance came from Hotpoint as I recall. And you're right, he just didn't understand what Packard meant to it's customers.

Unfortunately we have similar situations going on today at Ford and Chrysler who have hired guys from Boeing and Home Depot to run things. I certainly hope they do a better job than Jim Nance!

 

[Flivver]

Where's the group that I fit into? US made car owner who wouldn't even consider a foreign car.
I ain't forgiving the Axis powers no matter how much time passes and they sure aren't going to get my money either if I can help it.

That's the group I fit into as well...but I'm afraid we're a dying breed!