From: "Wm. R. Ulman" <twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: <OIC-Rainbows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: IML: '57 Build quality, the lingering affects, and the policies of
the major brands upon the little guys...
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:39:04 -0700
There were many more factors involved in the 50's besides the build quality
issue that affected trade-in values. Too much to list here right now, but
in a nut shell:
GM & Ford and possibly even Ma MoPar all manipulated the used car market to
their own advantage. The big boys squeezed the little, or weaker makes out
of business by just not giving anything for them in trade-in values.
If you traded your '53 Kaiser in for a new '56 Chevy, you got pennies on
the
dollar. That had the effect of making Kaiser, and many other makes
undesirable to purchase new. If you were trading in your '53 Chevy at the
same day and time, you got much more in trade in value. This held true
even
if you were trading in a Ford at a Chevy dealer. The small, old, weak
brands were holding on to dear life, and the big 3 squeezed them dry.
A few of the smaller, but not lesser makes consolidated in a last gasp
attempt to stay viable and in the market. Packard, Nash, Studebaker, and
maybe a few others I can't speak with authority on, but others may. That
is
also how we got AMC, or Ameican Motors Corp. Which actually was a mix of
several smaller or squeezed brands? I know it had Nash as the main unit of
AMC, but possibly Packard too, although I think Packard and Studebaker
merged to form one company. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I know not the
exact lineage.
Off to work all have a great week!
Wm. R. Ulman
Seattle, WA
<mailto:twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx> twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:16 AM
To: OIC-Rainbows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OIC-Rainbows] Mild '57 Bashing
I have to agree with Jeff; '57 was a year of flawed beauty. My father's '57
Plymouth lasted until 1963--it's the only car he ever had for less than
seven years, and that includes his truly awful '80 Olds Omega X-body!
I think people shied away from Mopars because serious problems cropped up
after the short warranty period. My father's Plymouth had a broken torsion
bar within a few months, letting go on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. You
only
subject your customers with that kind of problem once because they will
stay
away from your product. My father's never owned another Chrysler product
since. And after the Olds Omega, he's never bought another GM product.
Chrysler's big rebound really came when they extended the warranty in the
mid-1960s. While styling may have been a factor, too, I think lingering
build quality concerns made '60-'62 such a dire period for Chrysler and
Imperial. If your '57 is worth nothing at trade-in time in '60 or '61,
would
YOU buy another Imperial, or switch to Cadillac, where resale value was
relatively high?
E
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network