Splashy new cars often were the biggest disasters during the postwar period

One of the biggest assumptions of U.S. automakers in the postwar period was that they desperately needed splashy new cars. Yet when I think about the biggest disasters of that era, they often involved expensive product launches.

Here I am not just talking about immediate flops such as the 1958 Edsel, 1962 downsized Plymouth/Dodge, 1971 Buick Riviera and 1974 Chrysler Corp. full-sized lineup. One could also add cars that initially sold okay but over the course of their life cycle did so poorly that they likely lost money.

In this latter category could be included the 1970-74 Plymouth Barracuda/Dodge Challenger, 1974-77 AMC Matador coupe and 1976-80 AMC Pacer. These cars mainly failed because they misjudged the market in some fashion, such as they were too big or their styling missed the mark.

Perhaps more insidious were cars that initially sold fine but functioned as a time bomb that subsequently blew up their automaker’s reputation. Here I would place the 1955 Packard, 1957 Chrysler Corp. lineup, 1958 Lincoln, 1960 Chevrolet Corvair, 1971 Chevrolet Vega and 1976 Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen.

Each of these cars had enough problems that their automakers might have ultimately done better if they had instead come out with more modestly updated models that used less exotic technology.

What automotive failures were most unforgivable?

In thinking about failures, what was most understandable was when an automaker misjudged a turn in the market. Because of the lead time required to come out with a new car — which was typically around three years — it was almost inevitable that the market would occasionally shift more rapidly than an automaker could.

For example, one could reasonably argue that the 1958 Edsel sold so poorly at least partly because the market for premium-priced cars collapsed due to a sharp recession (Bonsall, 2002).

However, this kind of excuse can be taken too far. Chrysler might not have made the 1970 Barracuda/Challenger pony cars bigger, more powerful and more expensive if management had paid more attention to soaring sales of small imports in the second half of the 1960s (go here for further discussion).

Least forgivable was when a car suffered from problems that undercut the buyer experience. Here I’m talking about everything from sloppy assembly and premature rust to major mechanical problems with a new engine.

My sense is that quality-control issues had the biggest negative impact on an automaker’s reputation. Yet throughout the postwar period, Detroit tended to place too much emphasis on rushing cars to market rather than getting everything right.

1955 Packard illustrated how too much new was bad

By conventional standards, the 1955 Packard should have been a hit because it had dramatic new styling, a new V8 engine, an advanced new suspension and a brand-new assembly plant. The problem was that so much about the car was new that Packard was incapable of initially producing a quality product (Ward, 1995).

I would go as far as to suggest that if Packard had only restyled its lineup for 1955 but kept everything else the same, it would have sold at least as well. Even more importantly, the 1956 models would not have seen sales nosedive because of the bad reputation of the previous-year’s models (go here for further discussion).

To those who would argue that Packard needed to rush a V8 into production, I would note that in 1955 Hudson and Nash’s six-cylinder models sold much better than their V8 versions (go here). In addition, Packard would not have experienced significant production bottlenecks that initially undercut sales if it had kept final assembly at its existing Grand Avenue plant.

One can make similar arguments for other postwar cars that suffered from quality gremlins. For example, a reskinned Plymouth Valiant/Dodge Dart that drew upon sheetmetal from the automaker’s Australian arm might have been reasonably competitive while not suffering from so many defects as the all-new Volare/Aspen.

This may sound obvious to anyone who owned a bad U.S. car back in the day, but I don’t think it is adequately reflected in automotive histories. They can wave their pom-poms about flashy new cars almost as much as the buff magazines.

NOTES:

Product specifications and production figures were drawn from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Flory (2004, 2009, 2013) and Gunnell (2002).

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
• Bonsall, Thomas E.;  2002. Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
• Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
• ——; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
• ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
• Francis, Devon; 1957. “All About Ford’s Luxury-Loaded Edsel.” Popular Science. September issue: pp. 98-103, 282-283.
• Gunnell, John; 2002.Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Ward, James A.; 1995. The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES

• oldcaradvertising.com: Packard (1955); Plymouth (1957, 1976)
• oldcarbrochures.org: Chrysler of Australia (1976)