Re: One Story Assembly Plant What If?

Posted by Craig the Clipper Man On 2014/5/15 8:17:17

Dave:

I agree almost 100% with what you have asserted. Independents today (with the exception of Porsche) are generally low-number producers of exclusive, expensive cars. Those independents who tried to build and sell medium-priced higher-number production cars, such as DeLorean, exist for a short time and inevitably disappear. This was true in the past century as well, and that Packard, Studebaker, and a few other companies existed as long as they did was a tribute to their ability to adapt and their good overall management.

While often criticized by some for branching out from its expensive luxury offerings, I believe Packard's offerings of the 120 and later 110 "junior" cars re-energized the company, brought middle-income buyers into its dealerships, and bolstered the company at a time when those "uncompromising" luxury manufacturers such as Pierce-Arrow, Stutz, Duesenberg, etc. were closing their doors. The brilliant 1941 Clipper made Packard one of the most desirable automobiles available to the American public.

But as I said previously, independence in the automotive industry -- with the exception of the hyper-expensive peripheral makes -- inevitably leads to extinction. I don't think the design of plant makes much difference to a company's longevity. World War II and the Korean War, along with the demands and income of the post-war buying public, doomed all the independents, no matter what their plants looked like or the genius of their managers.

As I wrote several months ago, the time for the amalgamation of American Motors was not the 1950s but the 1920s, before companies like Ford and General Motors had a chance to become automotive dynamos able to crush their competition.