You know you are getting old when:

[BlueTrain]

You miss my point, Miss Lizzie. There were in fact different niches to be filled and my point was that GM, mainly, simply vacated those niches in the name of industrial efficiency. Critics of the automotive industry, meaning Detroit and no where else, weren't in the business of making money by building cars. Once those niches were empty, they were filled by foreign competition. There's more to the automotive industry than efficient factories. But that's only part of the story, of course. The dealer network is a critical element.

Cars are as subject to fads and fashion as anything else. At one time, critics said American cars changed too often. The word was planned obsolescence, the way computer software is today. They did in fact introduce new models every year. But now, the complaint is that they don't keep up because imported models are constantly being updated. Of course, I understand that the critics job is to criticize. It's a tough job, I imagine.

This so-called badge engineering happened in other countries, too, of course, usually with the same results. A critic can easily say that all that is happening is that they're selling the same car with a different grille and a different trim inside and out under different names. But they do manage sometimes to produce a different car one way or another and in any event, there is a degree of brand loyalty that accounts for all of that happening. What you don't know is how strong that loyalty is.

So, a person who buys, say, a Pontiac, wouldn't even think of buying a Buick, much less a Dodge or a Ford. What cars do you imagine people who bought Mercury's or Plymouth's are driving.

Gee, our old LaSalle ran great; those were the days.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The question remains, though, did those niches exist of their own accord or did they exist because the Boys created them? Operationally and for every practical purpose, there was no difference between a Pontiac and an Oldsmobile. Plymouth overlapped Dodge which overlapped DeSoto which overlapped Chrysler. In Canada, you could buy a Dodge which was actually a Plymouth with only the grillwork and the trim changed. The engine and running gear were identical, as were the body stampings. My "Plodge" is one of these, and the only reason it existed was because Chrysler Canada wanted to market a Dodge at that particular price point to lure customers onto their lots. There was no particular public demand for this, so they created one thru advertising. This sort of thing was even more common postwar, as Keats and Packard emphatically point out in "The Insolent Chariots" and "The Waste Makers."

 

[tonyb]

Isn't it that GM dropped some of its brands -- Oldsmobile and Pontiac, most notably -- for pretty much the same reason FoMoCo killed Mercury: because those brands were competing with their other brands. No?

No expert on such things, I.

And what's the deal with Mopar deciding that its trucks are no longer Dodges but Rams? It's a mistake, in my book.

 

[BlueTrain]

The fact that Pontiac was a competition with Chevrolet, although not perhaps with Buick, was probably assumed and thought to be a Bad Thing. But that was still an assumption. When Olds disappeared as a brand, did the consumers shift to Buick? Who knows? Probably someone does but in the meantime, Korean cars got their foot in the door. And is there a real difference between a Kia and a Hyundai? Not very much, really. But to say those different marketing niches are phony or artificial is immaterial. It would be like if GM said that their pickup trucks are okay but those Fords are really, really good and we shouldn't even be trying to sell pickup trucks. As it happens, in the last 15 years, GM discontinued two long time brands, Oldsmobile and Pontiac and in the same period lost 40% of their unit sales.

Please understand that I'm saying all this, never having owned a GM product. I don't care one way or the other. But GM should, don't you think? I drive a FORD!

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "a car for every niche" mentality of The Fifties was exactly the reason the Edsel was created -- and exactly the reason it failed. Ford assumed they needed a car between the Ford and the Mercury that would be targeted explicitly to "the young executive on his way up," but in all their market research and psychological testing, it never occured to them that the young executive on his way up might not actually need or want such a car, and that there was in fact no such niche that needed to be filled. The reach of the Boys was about to exceed its grasp.

The Edsel affair is often treated as a joke, ha ha ha, weren't they dumb-looking cars anyway -- but it was, in fact, a turning point for the American auto industry, and it's unfortunate that its lessons haven't been well absorbed.

Is there *really* any substantial difference between Ford, GMC, Chevy or Dodge trucks? Other than the brand Calvin happens to be peeing on at any moment?

 

[BlueTrain]

When you pose the question, what the difference between a Dodge and a Plymouth, I am reminded of the question, what is the difference between a violin and a fiddle: about $500.

 

[tonyb]

The fact that Pontiac was a competition with Chevrolet, although not perhaps with Buick, was probably assumed and thought to be a Bad Thing. But that was still an assumption. When Olds disappeared as a brand, did the consumers shift to Buick? Who knows? Probably someone does but in the meantime, Korean cars got their foot in the door. And is there a real difference between a Kia and a Hyundai? Not very much, really. But to say those different marketing niches are phony or artificial is immaterial. It would be like if GM said that their pickup trucks are okay but those Fords are really, really good and we shouldn't even be trying to sell pickup trucks. ...

Hmmm. Pontiac and Chevrolet were made by the same company. Kia and Hyundai are made by the same company. But GM and Ford? Nope. Unless I'm missing something here, your analogy is, well, not particularly analogous.

 

[Captain O]

The "a car for every niche" mentality of The Fifties was exactly the reason the Edsel was created -- and exactly the reason it failed. Ford assumed they needed a car between the Ford and the Mercury that would be targeted explicitly to "the young executive on his way up," but in all their market research and psychological testing, it never occured to them that the young executive on his way up might not actually need or want such a car, and that there was in fact no such niche that needed to be filled. The reach of the Boys was about to exceed its grasp.

The Edsel affair is often treated as a joke, ha ha ha, weren't they dumb-looking cars anyway -- but it was, in fact, a turning point for the American auto industry, and it's unfortunate that its lessons haven't been well absorbed.

Is there *really* any substantial difference between Ford, GMC, Chevy or Dodge trucks? Other than the brand Calvin happens to be peeing on at any moment?

The FoMoCo order ascendency was Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln. The Edsel was "ahead of its time" and had "parts problems" (logistical difficulties when the product was rushed into production). it is difficult to introduce a new product with new technological advances when there are forces driving you to "homogenize" the product line(s). The Edsel had a rotary speedometer that glowed red when you exceeded the driver pre-set speed A center-of-the-steering-column push-button transmission (among other innovations).

The Edsel wasn't a bad car, but had some assembly-line problems, causing body parts to loosen, and sometimes fall off while driving.These problems gave the car an undeserved reputation as a "lemon".

 

[2jakes]

Could all you guys pull over an allow my VW beetle through?

Sheesh!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Mama Mopar was featuring a "safety signal speedometer" on most of its cars starting in 1939. My '41 Plodge has one -- green below 35mph, amber from 35 to 50, red above 50. Came in handy, I imagine, during the war, when 35mph was the law of the land.

 

[tonyb]

The FoMoCo order ascendency was Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln. The Edsel was "ahead of its time" and had "parts problems" (logistical difficulties when the product was rushed into production). it is difficult to introduce a new product with new technological advances when there are forces driving you to "homogenize" the product line(s). The Edsel had a rotary speedometer that glowed red when you exceeded the driver pre-set speed A center-of-the-steering-column push-button transmission (among other innovations).

The Edsel wasn't a bad car, but had some assembly-line problems, causing body parts to loosen, and sometimes fall off while driving.These problems gave the car an undeserved reputation as a "lemon".

It's pure speculation, but I gotta think that the Edsel's looks put off would-be buyers. That last, and decidedly different, body style, for the 1960 model, wasn't quite so, um, distinctive. But by then that turkey was cooked. Or so that's the version I've heard.

Edsels were much in evidence where I lived throughout the 1960s. So at least some owners had them for several years and presumably put lots of miles on them.

 

[BlueTrain]

My main point was the American car makers gave up market share to imported cars by either ignoring or abandoning certain markets. It was their decision and I'm glad they never asked me. I wouldn't have had any idea what the right thing to do would have been. Of course, ten years after the fact, everybody knows what they should have done--if it were possible. It is, after all, entirely possible for a corporation to make bad decisions. Happens everyday.

 

[tonyb]

My main point was the American car makers gave up market share to imported cars by either ignoring or abandoning certain markets. It was their decision and I'm glad they never asked me. I wouldn't have had any idea what the right thing to do would have been. Of course, ten years after the fact, everybody knows what they should have done--if it were possible. It is, after all, entirely possible for a corporation to make bad decisions. Happens everyday.

Well, okay, but if a customer bought a Chevy or a Pontiac, GM was selling a car either way. Same way with a Kia or a Hyundai. Hyundai Motors sells a car. But if a truck buyer opts for an F-150, GM ain't movin' no metal. Or vice-versa.

I'm partial to Fords myself, although my vehicle buying decisions usually come down to how good a used car I can get for whatever funds I have available. That might be a GM product. I had an Astro van for a dozen years or more. It wasn't a bad vehicle, and was still running when I sold it to Joe Sh*t the Ragman, although it really did need more work than any prudent person would put into it. (It started life as a passenger van, but for the last few years I owned it got used like a truck, so you might imagine what the interior looked like. And the windshield needed replacement, and the front end was gettin' wobbly. And the tranny slipped and leaked. And it had some phantom drain on the battery [I installed a battery cut-off switch, which was much cheaper than buying the shop hours to track down the problem], and ... .) I know a guy who put a fresh engine and tranny in his Astro with something in excess of 300,000 miles on it. He figured it was worth it. Body and suspension and all was still straight and tight.

I've owned more cars than I can remember. Most of them weren't really much to remember. Cars, you know. Tools. Get you from here to there. But there were some standouts. On the short list was a Datsun 510 station wagon, a '71 or '72 model, it must've been, that I owned in the early 1980s. Didn't have a straight panel on it, but it handled like a sports car, was small enough to do urban combat, kept up without complaint on the freeways and the mountain pass roads, and could haul a fair amount of cargo. And got good gas mileage. Wish I could find another one in good shape and at a decent price. But that would be a 45-year-old car at this point, so good luck, eh?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'd give an awful lot to have my 97 Toyota back. I got twelve years out of it before the salt finally killed it, and it's the only car I've ever owned that never once came home on the back end of a tow truck. It had no character or style or fancy gadgets whatsoever, but it always got me where I was going and back again. I can't say that for any other car I've ever owned. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was built in a non-UAW factory in the South.

If some automaker wants to meet my marketing needs, build a simple four-cylinder five-speed manual transmission car with an AM radio, manual windows, and a simple key you can get replaced at the hardware store, and I'll buy one tomorrow.

 

[Zombie_61]

...There were later divisions that were totally new, like Saturn, that somehow went nowhere, even though they had, supposedly, a loyal following...

My wife and I were part of that loyal following for about eight years. We bought a brand-new 1996 S-Series coupe, and it was one of the best cars I've/we've ever owned. The interior was a little cramped for me and we had to replace the clutch every 25-30k miles (a relatively common problem with that model, not due to my wife's driving habits), but otherwise it was an extremely reliable car, the twin-cam engine had more than enough get-up-and-go, and it handled like it was on rails regardless of the weather. We sold it in 2004 not because it was old or had become unreliable, but because my wife was convinced truck drivers and becoming-more-prevalent-big-SUV drivers had difficulty seeing her small car and she wanted something "bigger and safer".

At that time Saturn was still struggling to become well-known-and-trusted in the auto industry, so the sales representatives tried to sell the company as well as the cars. GM attempted to sell it as a "different type of car company", and the representatives we spoke with definitely reinforced that notion. They very much had a "low pressure/relaxed" approach to selling cars; as one rep told us "If you want to talk cars, we'll talk cars. If you want to talk about last night's ball game, we'll talk about that. If you want to stop in just to say 'Hi' that's fine with us." True to their word, they put no pressure on us whatsoever to "make the deal"--they presented the information, competently answered any questions we had, then stepped back and allowed us to decide for ourselves. And their "no haggle" sales approach was very different from anything we had previously experienced. "This is the base model, these are the available options, and these are the prices. Tell us what you want, we'll find or build that car for you, add up the prices, and that's what you'll pay. And if the next customer walks in and wants the same exact car, they'll pay exactly what you paid. GM is tired of losing customers who are angry because they found out they paid more than another customer did for the same car. It's just not good business."

So, okay, maybe we drank a little of their Kool-Aid, but everything they told us turned out to be true. There was none of that "oil slick veneer" associated with most car salespeople, and the dealership treated us very well whenever we brought the car in for service. I've read online that Saturn's demise was not due to disappointing sales or dissatisfied customers, but to GM's decision to focus on their four "core" brands Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. I have no idea how true that is, but we knew a few Saturn owners who were as disappointed as we were when they closed.

 

[BlueTrain]

There's more to the car business than selling the most cars. They're really in the business to make money, although not necessarily for the stockholders. It's really more about making money for the upper (meaning upper, upper) management. But there's a whole bunch of business equations that never make into the pages of Car & Driver. Return on Investment, things like that. But I still believe that they, American Car Companies and GM in particular, simply refuse to compete with imported cars like they should. You could probably find a dozen examples of that easily. But on the other hand, GM, at least, has had over a couple dozen other brands over the years that are long gone. GM's been around for a long time. But why should I care?

Let me put it this way again: Say GM was selling a Chevy or a Pontiac. Then one day they quit selling Pontiacs. It doesn't follow that the fellow who always bought Pontiacs would go buy a Chevrolet next time. The dealer starts selling something else and he decides to try something different next time he wants a new car. Traditionally, many dealers sold Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs. Two down and one to go.

It sounds like the car that Miss Lizzie wants is someone's base model, which has a time being sold around here, like a Volvo wagon with a manual transmission. Every line, except may Cadillac and the like, have a base model, the smallest, least expensive car they make. But they typically sell fewer of them than anything. The reason, I believe, is because they sell at a price that puts them in competition with much nicer used cars. There used to be what might be called practical cars or base model cars but they typically had six-cylinder engines (when most cars had V-8s), either a three or four-speed transmission, sometimes with a three on the column, manual everything (automatic transmission was always available) and probably no air conditioning, bucket seats and maybe even just a two-door. They had their following. I don't know if they still do.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's pure speculation, but I gotta think that the Edsel's looks put off would-be buyers. That last, and decidedly different, body style, for the 1960 model, wasn't quite so, um, distinctive. But by then that turkey was cooked. Or so that's the version I've heard.

Edsels were much in evidence where I lived throughout the 1960s. So at least some owners had them for several years and presumably put lots of miles on them.

Of the hundred thousand and something Edsels built, ten thousand and something of them survive today. Be interesting to know how that survival rate stacks up against the other bechromed dinosaurs of that era.

The thing with the Edsel is that it was the first car to be born entirely of focus-grouping, motivational research, and psychological marketing. Ford spent the better part of a decade data-mining public opinion about what kind of car "the young executive on his way up" really wanted, and based pretty much every stage of the development of that car on the results of those studies. This was to be the Boys' magnum opus, and Ford made sure everybody knew it. Turns out they came up with a car that was ugly, unreliable, a gas hog, and confusing to drive -- as the drivers who kept accidentially shifting into neutral when they meant to honk the horn made very clear. It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons from long ago, where Homer, as the "typical American schmuck," is invited to create his own dream car and the result is pretty much a 1991 Edsel. As the Boys must've said, "doh!"

 

[tonyb]

I'd give an awful lot to have my 97 Toyota back. I got twelve years out of it before the salt finally killed it, and it's the only car I've ever owned that never once came home on the back end of a tow truck. It had no character or style or fancy gadgets whatsoever, but it always got me where I was going and back again. I can't say that for any other car I've ever owned. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was built in a non-UAW factory in the South.

If some automaker wants to meet my marketing needs, build a simple four-cylinder five-speed manual transmission car with an AM radio, manual windows, and a simple key you can get replaced at the hardware store, and I'll buy one tomorrow.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd guess that the more basic cars have almost always outsold the fancier ones. Ford Model T. VW Beetle. Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant. And, in more recent times, the Toyota Corolla and Camry.

I gotta part company with you in that I've come to quite appreciate power windows and A/C and a good stereo. And I do so much stop-and-go city driving that a lack of an automatic transmission and power steering would remove a car from consideration as a daily driver.

It's getting harder to find cars (in the US market, anyway) without automatic transmissions and power windows and power steering and A/C. So "basic" isn't quite so basic as it once was.

As to keys ... Yeah, I declined the lock guy's offer to duplicate the ignition key for (gulp) 70 bucks. I instead had him make me a key that is good only for opening the doors. That set me back, I dunno, a few bucks. I keep that key in my billfold. I've locked myself out of cars a couple three times in my life. It can be a costly PITA. And decidedly inconvenient.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Power windows are my bete noire. When you live in New England, and ice storms and sleet followed by immediate plunges to below zero as common as road salt, the surest thing you will ever experience is power windows freezing solid on you. It's no fun burning out the motor trying to get the frigging window open to pay for your sausage-egg- and-cheese-on-an-English at 630 am in the drive thru at Dunkies.

 

[vitanola]

I understand that.

So do I. Have you SEEN the two cars?

1941 Packard:

1947 Ford: