Toyota.

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= >
wrote in :


>
> What ever happened to Studebaker? I always thought they were actually
> ahead of the curve. If they had hung on into the 70's they might have
> fended off Toyota and Nissan in the smaller car market.
>


According to noted automotive historian Patrick Foster, who specializes in
the independents, Studebaker was the victim of their own very serious
errors, and of historical circumstances...

Error 1:
Instead of banking the profits from the immediate post-war sellers'
market, Studebaker gave generous dividends to stockholders. This was
probably an attempt at impressing investors with the health of the company.
But the ultimate effect - after the sellers' market inevitably ended - was
to leave the company with little cash for new development at a time when
new development was the key to sales.

Error 2:
Stude spent huge money developing their modern OHV V8, introduced in
1951. But then they made a huge mistake in failing to consider how large
engines might grow in the future. As competitors' engine sizes crept well
over 300 cu. in., Stude ended up maxed-out at 289, with no money left to
develop a new engine with larger displacement. They did supercharge the 289
in an attempt at matching the competition's horsepower numbers, but it was
too little, too late.

Circumstances 1:
Studebaker was solely a low-end manufacturer (excepting the Avanti). Low-
end sales prices also mean low-end profits. Unless you can sell a ton of
cars to make up the difference, which Stude could not do. It didn't cost
them much less than Ford or GM to bring a new model to market, but they had
far fewer sales over which to amortize those costs.
Ford and GM had several divisions covering different strata of the
market, so they could share lots of parts to cut costs while building sales
to different types of customers. And when Ford and GM used their much-
larger sales volumes to engage in a price-war in the '50s, one-trick-pony
Studebaker just couldn't compete.

Circumstances 2:
The UAW strike of 1962. By that point, the end was probably already near
anyway, but the strike definitely did a lot of damage. Studebaker needed
every sale they could get to help amortize the aforementioned costs, and
the strike cost them - and the strikers - fatally.

Ultimately, what killed Studebaker was bad management, exactly the same
thing that killed Packard.


--
Tegger

On 2011-01-22, Tegger > wrote:

> Ultimately, what killed Studebaker was bad management, exactly the same
> thing that killed Packard.

Looking at it from a modern POV what killed them was not having access
to taxpayer money. Bad management is ok so long as a company has friends
in government.

Brent > wrote:
>On 2011-01-22, Tegger > wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, what killed Studebaker was bad management, exactly the same
>> thing that killed Packard.
>
>Looking at it from a modern POV what killed them was not having access
>to taxpayer money. Bad management is ok so long as a company has friends
>in government.

Nope, that only works for a very short amount of time. But, a loan from
the government sure helped Iacocca clean out some of the bad management
from Chrysler. If only it could have stayed out...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2011-01-23, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Brent > wrote:
>>On 2011-01-22, Tegger > wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately, what killed Studebaker was bad management, exactly the same
>>> thing that killed Packard.
>>
>>Looking at it from a modern POV what killed them was not having access
>>to taxpayer money. Bad management is ok so long as a company has friends
>>in government.
>
> Nope, that only works for a very short amount of time. But, a loan from
> the government sure helped Iacocca clean out some of the bad management
> from Chrysler. If only it could have stayed out...

The fiancial sector has been doing it to various degrees since 1914.

Brent > wrote in news:ihfvrq$11g$1
@news.eternal-september.org:


> Bad management is ok so long as a company has friends in government.
>


And that's a very bad thing indeed.



--
Tegger

On 1/21/2011 8:08 AM, N8N wrote:
> On Jan 20, 10:29 pm, Hachiroku > wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:09:33 -0800, N8N wrote:
>>> I always wanted to build a "Fairmont GT" as well
>>
>> Why?!?!?!
>>
>
> see my reply to Brent.
>
>> Wasn't the Fairmont based on the Mustang of the time, or vice-versa?
>
> Yup, so lots of OTC performance parts easily and cheaply available.
> Sort of like building a Factory Five roadster, but with the exact
> opposite end result. (getting a completely boring looking car to
> drive/handle acceptably well.)
>
> nate

I'll second that. I had a 78 Fairmont wagon with the 302, an ex-fleet
car. Basically a Mustang GT station wagon. Even with the
slightly-less-hot engine, it surprised a lot a people who assumed it was
a 6. I put the slightly-wider rims from a fox-body Tbird and some decent
tires on it, and heavy-duty shocks, and it even handled pretty well. I
was broke at the time, or I would have switched the sway bars and such
with the Mustang pieces. And it was basically invisible to cops.

Sadly, rust got it. The rocker panel box sections, a major component on
a unit-body car like that, turned into swiss cheese. It is one of the
few cars out of my past that I still miss.

--
aem sends...