Studebaker reliability

[Guest straight shooter]

Were the Studebakers of the 40's, 50's and 60's reliable? I have always heard the extreme opposites about them. I have heard from some people that they were totally unreliable, while others have said that they were bulletproof especially the trucks.    

[CarlLaFong]

I doubt that you will find a more reliable car than a Stude. Whoever told you that they are totally unreliable is, quite frankly, FOS. In all of the old mileage and reliability tests, Studes were always at the top of the list. Solid build quality and simple, rugged, engines and drive train. Parts availability for the later models is still very good.

[keiser31]

Another opinion poll? Every make and model has a lover and a hater. Just depends on the experiences a person has had. Mostly, I believe that Studebakers were/are very reliable cars and trucks.

Edited July 3, 2015 by keiser31 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

In their day they were considered reliable, as good as any typical car and better than some. The V8 engine was especially rugged, heavy but very reliable and long lived. The only thing I ever heard of giving trouble was the rear main seal leaking after long service, but this would apply to any car.

 

In the mid fifties they made some tinny bodies and flexible frames. Other than that I have not heard anything against them.

[ghostymosty]

My grandfather wouldn't buy anything but Studebaker until they stopped making them. His last one was a wagon and he used it like a truck on the farm with NO problems until finally replacing it with a Torino in 1971. I would say that he felt they were reliable.

[dictator27]

I've owned Studebakers for 50 years. Reliable to the point of boring because nothing

ever happened. I bought one with 12 thou clearance on #5 rod bearing, 10 psi oil pressure at 50 mph and 0 psi at idle hot, (50 weight oil and STP). I drove it like that for 2 years - it never let me down.

Terry

[cahartley]

^ LOL..........seriously.......   

I have a friend who wound up with his aunt's '52 Studebaker she bought new.

It has around 50,000 miles on it, is original except for the tires and the small V8 in that thing runs like a sewing machine.

At idle you wonder if it IS running.

As far as my friend knows, outside of normal maintenance, nothing else has been done to the car.

Some friends just outside of the village have a '51 bullet nose Studebaker with a 6 banger that is equally smooth (but aren't ALL those straight 6's? ).

Their Dad owned it for years and they still take it our now and then.

Again, I don't believe it ever failed them.

Edited July 4, 2015 by cahartley (see edit history)

[RPrice]

I've always loved Studebakers, both for their styling and their reliability.   My dad owned Studebakers that seemed bullet proof.   I have owned a '59 Lark Regal Hardtop VI for 24 years and it has never let me down.  I constantly get positive comments about its looks.   On top of that, I just love driving it.

Rog

[Buffalowed Bill]

It's not hard to find a detractor for any marque made during the thirty years that you ask about. The fact is that few who seek to defame Studebaker, or any independent for that matter, have ever owned, driven or even ridden in one. I think that it's important to take any negative statement with a grain of salt until you uncover something about the detractor's background and if he has a hidden agenda.

It is hard to argue the success of Studebaker as a vehicle manufacturer. Starting as a wagon builder in 1852, which led to the company becoming the largest wagon builder in the world by the turn of the century, and finally sticking around long enough to become the longest surviving American independent car builder by the time of the company exit from the car industry in 1966. The company didn't stay in business for 114 years by producing unreliable vehicles!

I have driven Studebakers for fifty five years. It's hard to use a broad brush when talking about a company with as diverse as Studebaker offered. Some models were better then others, but overall, they held up well when compared to their competition. Today, "different by design," means as much to us Studebaker owners as when the slogan was used by the company more then three quarters of a century ago. From the standpoint of relative rarity, unique styling, reliability at a reasonable cost it should be a no brainer.

[Studemax]

Grandad used Studebaker trucks on his big farm until they shut down the line in South Bend.

He was a skinflint, and didn't waste money on unreliable vehicles.

[Ed Luddy]

I've had a few Studes back in the 70's when they were dirt cheap orphans. Both the 63 & 64 Larks were decent cars that ran well for less than $200 each. Mechanically they were straightforward and I liked the yellow colour on the engine vs. Chevy orange on the 66's with the transplanted "McKinnon supplied" 230's and 283's.

I currently have a post Stude Avanti II that had a neglected past but came back to life with very little tinkering.

[sebastienbuick]

hello ludy, it's you who pray picture car Forsaken (the photo of your profile)?

[JV Puleo]

My mom's first car was a Studebaker, a red, bullet-nose coupe. This would have been in '49 or '50. She drove it for 10 years, until our NE winters had taken their toll. When she junked it, it ran so sell that the junk yard turned it into the yard truck... and got another 10 years out of it. I very much doubt it ever had  more than minimal service. She knows nothing about cars and my late father knew even less.

[JACK M]

My first car was a 53 Champion, I was about 14 and had to hide it from the family.

I cost me a whopping $12.00. Ten for the car and two to transfer the title.

It was a smoker but I got ten thousand mile out of it before the clutch went out. I walked away from it with a smile. Saw it a couple of years later in a wrecking yard.

I poured a lot of oil thru that car but it always started and was running when the clutch quit.

[John_S_in_Penna]

I think all cars are valuable parts of history, but sometimes

people of today forget that some cars in the past--just like

some today--were not outstanding.

 

In the 1950's, as today, Consumer Reports tested cars,

and made reliability evaluations based on readers' actual experiences.

Here are their ratings (with my apologies to Studebaker fans)

from their May 1955 issue devoted to Auto Ratings:

 

---Low priced cars--Studebaker Commander V-8 Deluxe:

     "Studebaker's frequency-of-repair record is poor."

     They used descriptive terms in that era, not their

     current colored dot matrix, and "poor" was their lowest level.

    

--Low-medium priced cars--Studebaker President Deluxe V-8:

     "Frequency-of-repair, poor."

 

Of course, no car was all bad, just as no car was perfect.

Studebaker had some good points--but not in reliability.

The 1955 Willys car was worse, and I don't think anyone

reading the Willys report would be running to his Willys dealer.

 

It's interesting that, in that banner year of sales, the lowest rated

cars--including Studebaker, Willys, Nash, and Hudson--were in

the companies not faring well in the marketplace.  Those cars' trade-in

values weren't especially good, either.  Did customers, then as now,

gravitate toward reliable cars, whose companies then profited and grew? 

 

I believe these ratings carry especial weight, probably more than a few people's

remembrances today, since they were based on thousands of people

reporting then-current information.  However, they relate just to the

model years which people reported, and maybe earlier Studebakers were

fine.  I'd love to bear good news, but in 1955, Consumer Reports didn't! 

Edited July 14, 2015 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[Restorer32]

And we all know Consumer Reports is never biased <eyeroll>.

[ghostymosty]

Or gives different results for the same car bearing a different name and trim but identical in all mechanical ways

Edited July 14, 2015 by ghostymosty (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

1955 - 56 were bad years for Studebaker quality. And some 53 - 54 coupes had flimsy frames. Those were the ones I was talking about.

[Guest carlnut50]

I have never owned a Studebaker but made a few observations in the past 65 years. I believe that Generally they were pretty good cars with a few exceptions. I think the small six cylinder cars were bad to use oil after they got some miles on them. I remember several Champions that always blew a cloud of blue smoke out the tailpipe. Also, I have a cousin that is in his eighties and grew up next to a Studebaker dealership. He told me that when he was young he had seen many Champions in the service dept getting an engine overhaul with only 30 or 40 thousand miles. I also heard the bigger cars did not have this problem especially the v 8 engines.

[Buffalowed Bill]

Ask the man who owns one, OK so the slogan is Packard and not Studebaker, but I guess that's me and I better respond. Fifty five years ago I bought my first car a 1953 Starliner htp, My father worked for the US Dept. of Labor as a claims investigator and later as Chief of Claims. During the years that he was an investigator he drove Champions (small six cyl. cars). The majority of the cars with standard transmissions were built with an optional overdrive. Great gas mileage, cheap to maintain and comfortable for long trips. Dad traded his 120K mile cars in after five or six years of highway driving.  The cars looked and drove like they had 20K, but much of this was because of the way that they were used and maintained. All Champions did not fare as well and city driven cars or those with no OD could age quickly. As a young man I was not impressed by the characteristics that endeared the Champion to Dad. How I ended up with a Studebaker is a long story, but it was more in spite of, rather then because of my experiences with Dad's cars. If it hadn't been for the purchase a friends 1955 President Speedster in 1964, that 1953 might have been my last Studebaker. It really wasn't a very good car! The Speedster was a great car that I restored during the 70's and still own today.

 

Over the fifty five years of Studebaker ownership I have driven them several hundred thousand miles. All were bought used, some pampered by previous owner and some outright abused, but they all were reliable transportation. Only once in that fifty five years did one ever leave me stranded because of mechanical failure. Does that sound like lack of reliability to anyone reading this?

 

The 1953 suffered from some engineering and production line errors that would haunt Studebaker until their last car was produced in 1966. The rubber band frame, poor fit and finish and the Lockheed self adjusting brakes (brake system really started in the late forties and was in its last year in 1953), they also had a reputation for rust, but what cars in the 50's didn't rust! 

 

I think that by his inquiry, Straight Shooter had already decided that Studebaker was a bad car. Strange since he had never owned one and probably never had even ridden in one. We owners of the independent orphans get a good deal of this from people who just don't get it, and would rather believe what someone who probably doesn't know anymore about it then they do says about the car. I think that SS was using his inquiry to pan the car and not really find truth about it.

 

The question that was asked was Studebaker "totally unreliable" and not whether it was even a good car. John S' inclusion of, less then creditable CR. May 1955 article only clouds the original question. How can nine months of production create enough data to provide a profile for the whole years production! I suspect that much of the data used for the report was from 1953-54, admittedly neither of which was a very good year. Sad that they weren't better cars because they were one of the most beautiful cars ever produced! I have found that 1955 Studebakers were very good cars and I have owned plenty of them. The fact is that no matter how good they were by 1955 the Big Three were putting out some outstanding cars. The hand writing was on the wall, the independent car builder was doomed to fail!-Bill 

[Rusty_OToole]

Ring and valve job, or overhaul, at 30000 to 40000 miles was pretty standard on long stroke engines in the forties. Prewar engines were not as long lived as post war versions, even seemingly identical designs. Main reason, chrome piston rings developed during the war, better oils (detergent and multigrade type) and better oil filters and air filters.

 

A typical car would get an overhaul at 30000 - 40000 miles, then at 60000 - 80000 it would be due for a rebuild or the car would be junked. Very few cars made it past 100,000 miles.

 

The new generation of short stroke OHV V8s and sixes, were much longer lived and often went 100,000 without an overhaul if they were taken care of.

 

Here I am talking about ALL American made engines in general, not just Studebaker. I think Studebaker engines would rate "above average".

Edited July 15, 2015 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[John_S_in_Penna]

Buffalowed Bill (or others), how were Studebaker cars,

in your opinion, in the mid-1960's?  I always

thought that the 1966 frontal styling update was a good one.

 

By the way, in 1955 the Consumer Reports review

of Cadillac was so full of praise that the Cadillac men

must have been very happy.  Reading it, one can glimpse

that the Cadillac really was once the "Standard of the World"

and see why it far outsold its competitors.  But I digress--

[Restorer32]

We did a frame up driver quality restoration of a '64 Stude sedan several years ago (sentimental value to the owner obviously). I thought it was a well built car. A bit stodgy for my taste maybe but well built.

[Buffalowed Bill]

John,

As Restored 32 indicated pretty well built but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I doubt that any of the Lark type are going to win any people's choice awards but if I were to start off on a trip across country, I would take one of them.

From 1951 on all Studebakers shared the same platform. The wheel base changed and there were, of course, component updates, but the platform design changed very little. All Studebakers were body on frame, no unibody here. Being able to unbolt everything can be a real advantage when restoring or repairing any non-unibody car. I am not from an area that rust is the first assassin of a car, but comparing one of my sixty something Lark types to my 1967 Camaro or 1965 Buick Riviera, the Lark may be a little behind, rust wise, but not by much. Studebaker never went to the damn GM type set in windshield and back glass, so I count that as a plus for the Studebaker.

Engine wise the V8 has it all over the I6. I have little doubt that the 6's lack of power was a problem for Studebaker. Studebaker redesigned the flat head 6 for the 1961 model, but it was always problematic because of head cracks.

All Studebakers 1965-66 were built in Hamilton Ontario, after the plant was shut down in South Bend. Canadian built cars from 65-66 all used the Chevrolet 283, or the Chev inline 6. No problem with these tried and true power plants. Brakes are decent for the time and Studebaker was the first American manufacturer to offer a front disc option in 1963.

The Studebaker Diver's Club has over 12000 members world wide, which makes it the largest single marque club in the world and with a dedicated network of suppliers, parts and friends are pretty easy to find. The 1959-1966 /lark type cars are cheap, so try one you might like it.

[dictator27]

Reliability had little to do with Studebaker"s demise.  Their cost per car was considerably higher than that of a comparable car from the Detroit 3.  In 1964 my dad was shopping for a new car and checked out a basic Commander 6 four door sedan.  The price was $3000 Cdn.  A comparable Valiant was $1900.  He bought the Valiant.  High unit cost was a problem for all of the independents because they didn't have the capacity to produce cars in the numbers that the Detroit 3 could.

 

Terry 

[Ariel Red Hunter]

I bought Studebakers second hand, because they were cheaper than big three used cars, but just as good.  Not only very reliable but easy to work on.  I didn't pay much attention to Consumer Reports back in the day, they were wrong too often to suit me.  I had Comanders, Champions, and Larks.  I liked the Larks the best.

[plymouthcranbrook]

I can only say that if I had space and extra money i would love to have a Studebaker Lark from the early 60's V-8,three speed manual and OD. As I am now Old and Stogie we would be a perfect match.

Edited July 14, 2019 by plymouthcranbrook (see edit history)

[Peter S]

Just to amplify John S’s information from consumer reports - during that period CR noted Studebakers had the highest or one of the highest incidences of defects recorded for new cars. 

[Bloo]

1 hour ago, plymouthcranbrook said:

I can only say that if I had space and extra money i would love to have a Studebaker Lark from the early 60's V-8,three speed manual and OD. Asni am now Old and Stogie we would be a perfect match.

 

Me too, except make it a 66 Commander with a V8, stick, and overdrive. 2nd choice would be a 58 or 59 Lark VIII, also with overdrive. I think the best looking front end is the 61 single headlight version. It's too bad they never used that with the 58-59 roofline.

 

The 58-59 would have a real Studebaker V8, so there's that, but the 66 Commander is sort of unfinished business for me. I had one years ago (a six) and due to unforeseen circumstances, was not able to restore it.

 

I wouldn't put much stock in Consumer Reports. When I was a tech their automotive picks were the source of endless laughter at work. It really made it hard for me to take them seriously about anything else. Maybe they were better in the 50s or 60s, but I am skeptical.

 

I drove a 63 lark V8 to work for a while. It was reliable enough. It never had to be towed.

 

[Buffalowed Bill]

Four years hence, I don't know how someone digs this stuff up. Here's some more useless observations from me. As a kid  who was into Studebaker, I didn't have much use for the boxy little Lark, when it came out. It simply did not have the styling that I had come to expect. It was obviously designed for a different demographic then this teenager.

 

Fast forward almost thirty years. It had become all too apparent that I would be getting my Dad's 1963 Lark Daytona htp when he passed. The car was a nicely optioned car, V8 auto, and only had 63K miles on it. I had driven the car some, but I had never warmed up to the Lark. Named the car Malarkey, when I got it, because it was to be my only Lark, and I only took it because it was a family member.

 

For the next twenty five years I drove that car all over the western part of the US, Mexico and Canada. It has been my trusted companion and simply a joy to own and drive! With about double the mileage on it, that it had when I got it, it has become less used over the road, but I have little doubt that with a little attention, it would carry anywhere I wanted to go. The upshot is that my collection contains four Larks. It took me a good long time to figure it out!

Edited July 15, 2019 by Buffalowed Bill (see edit history)

[capngrog]

My Dad was a Studebaker dealer in the early 1950s, and he did not consider them to be reliable.  I was at the local unveiling of the 1953 Studebaker and fell in love with the styling.  I owned a 1953 coupe while in the military, and it was a piece of stuff; however, that was not the fault of the car but of the previous owner's botched re-build of the flathead six engine.  To this day, I like Studebakers, and a car I'd really like to own is the 1955 coupe.  I really liked the Lark line and was upset when Studebaker went out of business.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[Ed Luddy]

On 7/16/2015 at 12:15 PM, John_S_in_Penna said:

Buffalowed Bill (or others), how were Studebaker cars,

in your opinion, in the mid-1960's?  I always

thought that the 1966 frontal styling update was a good one.

 

By the way, in 1955 the Consumer Reports review

of Cadillac was so full of praise that the Cadillac men

must have been very happy.  Reading it, one can glimpse

that the Cadillac really was once the "Standard of the World"

and see why it far outsold its competitors.  But I digress--

 

[Ed Luddy]

The above pic is of my current 1966 Studebaker Commander. It has the Chevy 194 inline 6 with a 3 speed "bolt action" column shift and overdrive. Lack of horsepower is my only complaint.

[Buffalowed Bill]

The best place to start and maybe finish your ownership of a Studebaker is with it's V8. The absolute worst would be a post war six cylinder Champion. Studebaker's model for success, following the successful debut of the little Champion in 1949, became fuel economy. In subsequent years the Champs weight tended to increase as performance suffered. Today fuel economy is one of the last boxes that we check off when considering a collector car. Please do not get caught up in judging Studebaker by it's six cylinder offerings of the post war era (this does not include the Commander six used<1951 and in some trucks, which make for a more pleasurable drive).

[John S.]

I have owned two Studebakers over the years, one a 1959 Lark 4 door sedan, and, currently, a 1949 Champion. 4 door sedan. Both cars were equipped with a flathead six with overdrive. I used the Lark as my daily driver  in New York City traffic for over a year, and it was  one of the most dependable cars  that I have ever owned. 

        I bought the 49 Champ at Hershey 7 years ago, and it is a driver. I put work into it, rebuilt carb, new fuel pump, and drained and sealed the gas tank. It is a nice running car. The cars do benefit form having Overdrive. As far as comparing Studebakers to Ford and Chevrolets from that era, I would say that they are evenly matched. I owned a 49 Ford Club Coupe, and it was typical of the era. No better, no worse. I think the best out of the lot is a Plymouth. I owned a 53 Cranbrook. Could not kill it. Hope this helps. Thanks. John

[Ed Luddy]

I've owned a few Stude's with inline 6 power. The Stude 6 was a more powerful engine than the 194 "McKinnon" Chevy junior stovebolt in my '66.

 My 63 Hawk GT with 289 4 bbl, dual exhaust, Twin Traction much better. The 1979 Avanti II equipped with a post "McKinnon" Chev 350 was also very satisfactory performance wise. My family had a lot of Studebakers when I was a kid and before I was born. The most outstanding for me was the 1963 Hawk Gran Turismo my uncle Wayne had when I was 13-14.

This is my former 63 GT now undergoing a restoration by the new owner.

 

 

[Spinneyhill]

22 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

Today fuel economy is one of the last boxes that we check off when considering a collector car.

LoL! You clearly don't have petrol prices like we do!

 

The Dodge 8 will do 10 mpg (UK gallons). It costs me $30 to drive into town and back, a total of 50 km = 31 miles. If I go rural, I have to take note of where I can get fuel: range is 120 miles.

[Buffalowed Bill]

Spinneyhill,

 

Exception noted. Certainly a different level of commitment to drive your Dodge. I didn't want to give the impression that the Studebaker V8 was a gas hog. On the contrary, in it's day the Studebaker V8 was very satisfying from a mileage standpoint.

In our mountainous western North America, it was at least an equal to the six cylinder Studebaker. 

 

Last weekend we had "Humphrey," 1960 wagon out (259cu" V8 auto). About 250 miles, mostly hwy driving, with some starts and stops, mixed in. Got a satisfying 21+ mpg (25+Imperial gallon). Over the years I've done better, and some worse, but it was what I had come to expect.

[froze]

I know this is an old post, but people are still buying Studebakers for an investment, or to collect.

 

Here's my take on Studebaker reliability.  The only Studebaker I owned was a 63 Avante R2, but since I owned it, and other classic cars, I went to a lot of car shows in the 35 years I did this stuff and talked to a lot of people.

 

Studebaker had spotty quality control, as did a lot of car companies back then, this was not a unique problem, some models were sometimes very good, and other times very bad. Let me explain.  Avanti's, as did the Golden Hawk, and the Hawk series, had issues with the frame flexing and eventually allowing water from rain to come through the windshield and back window, but not all of them did that, but enough to make customers upset. My Avanti was one of those that never leaked, and I had it for a long time selling it about 6 years ago.  Some of the people I meant along the way would discuss why some leaked water and others didn't, we did know that they all used the same type of window seals, so nothing was different in that regard that anyone knew about, so the only thing we could think of was that some of the cars had better frames, probably came from a different frame builder then the weaker ones.   That is subject to argumentation because the internet will tell you that the seals were not made well and that's why they leaked, but those of us who discussed this stuff in-depth think it was a combination of issues, the seals may not have been the best, but if the car didn't flex as much the seals could and would hold up, but since the seals were not made well and a frame would flex it would separate the seals, eventually the seal would fail which would lead to major rusting.  Not saying I'm 100% correct on this, but something was going on that caused the majority of the windows to allow rain in but in some, they never had any issues, and the only thing we could come up with was the frame.  Those frames in most of the Hawks and the Avanti's were known to flex

 

Another issue they had was that their V8s would leak oil right from the factory, mine was no exception, shortly after I bought the car, I replaced all the seals with modern seals and the engine never leaked again.

 

With my Avanti the engine seals were the only problem I ever had with the car, it was extremely reliable, and if I had the car today, I would think nothing of it to jump into it and drive across the nation.  I also know from others that the Studebaker pickups, and the Hawks were very reliable as well, but the Lark and the Scotsman were not that great of cars, but they were intended for people who couldn't afford a better car.  Of all the cars made in the USA Studebaker overall was the most reliable.  Again, keep in mind that cars made in the 50s and very early 60s did not last long, they were considered past their prime by the time they had 50,000 miles on them and so the value of those cars that had over 35,000 miles plummeted on the used car lots, and by the time they got to 50,000 miles it was well known to most people to avoid those.

 

The reason Studebaker failed wasn't due to them making poor-quality cars, it was due to bad financial handling, and poor management, which was the downfall of many car companies from back then, up to our current era.

 

[Larry Schramm]

15 minutes ago, froze said:

I know this is an old post, but people are still buying Studebakers for an investment, or to collect.

 

Here's my take on Studebaker reliability.  The only Studebaker I owned was a 63 Avante R2, but since I owned it, and other classic cars, I went to a lot of car shows in the 35 years I did this stuff and talked to a lot of people.

 

Studebaker had spotty quality control, as did a lot of car companies back then, this was not a unique problem, some models were sometimes very good, and other times very bad. Let me explain.  Avanti's, as did the Golden Hawk, and the Hawk series, had issues with the frame flexing and eventually allowing water from rain to come through the windshield and back window, but not all of them did that, but enough to make customers upset. My Avanti was one of those that never leaked, and I had it for a long time selling it about 6 years ago.  Some of the people I meant along the way would discuss why some leaked water and others didn't, we did know that they all used the same type of window seals, so nothing was different in that regard that anyone knew about, so the only thing we could think of was that some of the cars had better frames, probably came from a different frame builder then the weaker ones.   That is subject to argumentation because the internet will tell you that the seals were not made well and that's why they leaked, but those of us who discussed this stuff in-depth think it was a combination of issues, the seals may not have been the best, but if the car didn't flex as much the seals could and would hold up, but since the seals were not made well and a frame would flex it would separate the seals, eventually the seal would fail which would lead to major rusting.  Not saying I'm 100% correct on this, but something was going on that caused the majority of the windows to allow rain in but in some, they never had any issues, and the only thing we could come up with was the frame.  Those frames in most of the Hawks and the Avanti's were known to flex

 

Another issue they had was that their V8s would leak oil right from the factory, mine was no exception, shortly after I bought the car, I replaced all the seals with modern seals and the engine never leaked again.

 

With my Avanti the engine seals were the only problem I ever had with the car, it was extremely reliable, and if I had the car today, I would think nothing of it to jump into it and drive across the nation.  I also know from others that the Studebaker pickups, and the Hawks were very reliable as well, but the Lark and the Scotsman were not that great of cars, but they were intended for people who couldn't afford a better car.  Of all the cars made in the USA Studebaker overall was the most reliable.  Again, keep in mind that cars made in the 50s and very early 60s did not last long, they were considered past their prime by the time they had 50,000 miles on them and so the value of those cars that had over 35,000 miles plummeted on the used car lots, and by the time they got to 50,000 miles it was well known to most people to avoid those.

 

The reason Studebaker failed wasn't due to them making poor-quality cars, it was due to bad financial handling, and poor management, which was the downfall of many car companies from back then, up to our current era.

 

 

I would argue that the reasons that a most of the car companies went out of business after the war was because of the price war between GM & Ford.  The smaller manufacturers could not compete on price because they did not have the economies of scale GM, Ford, and Chrysler had PLUS those three were vertically integrated manufacturers, not assemblers.  They could better control their costs and subsequently prices.

 

Example on economies of scale.  Say it takes $1mil to build a die to make a fender. Make one fender and the tooling cost for that fender is $1mil.  Make 2 fenders and the tooling cost is $500K/fender.  Make 500,000 fenders and the tooling cost drops to $2/fender.   Material is generally a fixed cost.+-.  Think about the millions of Tri-5 cars GM made in the mid to late 50's.  Their tooling costs would have been in the pennies/part.

 

Multiply that example by the thousands of parts on a vehicle and you can see where a manufacturer making a couple of hundred thousand vehicle could not compete with the big three.  That is the biggest reason they went out of business.

 

You are seeing that today in the electric vehicle world with the small manufacturers.

Edited March 23 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)