More 20's and 30' Fords than GM's Survived - Reasons

[Guest imported_JPIndusi]

I asked a fellow old car owner (1931 Pontiac) why there are so many more Fords from this era compared to GM cars and his answer was that the GM cars used wood as structural members in the body and frame whereas Ford used very little wood. When the wood rotted in the GM cars they were scrapped while the Fords were fixed up as needed. Does this sound plausible?

I think the Fords were also very simple in their design; for example Ford used gravity feed from the fuel tank to the carb whereas GM used a mechanical fuel pump. Ford used the solid front axle and transverse leaf spring whereas GM used independent front suspensions much earlier..

Any opinions?

Joe, BCA 33493

[supersix]

I've heard the same reason, as to the wood-framed bodies on GM cars. As you said, when the wood rotted, they were scrapped.

[Guest BJM]

As far as the 20's goes, the number of cars built by Ford had to exceed all of GM's output through maybe 1925-26. Ease of operation would be number 2 reason, Ford's were simple to run and repair - you kind of mentioned that aspect. During the thirties, GM's numbers easily caught up to Ford's, but then Chrysler was a major producer in the 30's as well, fielding 4 lines. A lot of independents did OK in the 30's, such as Nash, Hudson and Packard.

[Dave@Moon]

When I first got into this hobby in the 1970s the Ford section of Hemmings Motor News was still more than 1/2 of the magazine. In the 1960s it was 3/4 of the magazine. There was a very simple reason for it.

Whatever body construction advantage Ford <span style="font-style: italic">may</span> have had was gone by 1936, yet GM cars were and are still collected with less vigor than Fords through 1955--20 years after the supposed body construction advantage disappeared. If you doubt it, ask yourself this: Would you rather have a 1949 Ford or Chevy with Cherry Bomb mufflers? I even have an old Bill Cosby album where he makes fun of the blipp-blipp sound made by an old Stovebolt 6.

In 1955 GM finally bested Ford's horsepower advantage in the popular price car class with the Chevy small block, but it wasn't until the 1970s that it was really old enough to have a hobby following. (Kind of like Honda engines in the late 1990s, or is that going down a path we'd rather not face?)

The flathead Ford motor did more to build interest in both hot rodding and antique restoration than any single development of the post-brass car era.

[51dyno]

Many junkyards crushed buicks-olds & pontiacs because they were some of the heavier cars and brought more $$$$$$$$$$$.This was their reason for not hanging on to them.

[NTX5467]

I might get some people riled-up, but I suspect the Fords were better designed and more durable vehicles back then. Quite simplistic and easy to repair, too. And affordably priced for the multitudes.

One huge thing that Ford did back then was be pretty much self-sufficient in their manufacturing processes. Even to the extent of having their own rubber plantations in South America, plus supplying tool kits with the Ford logo on them.

And, too, there was the agricultural tie-ins. Early Ford vehicles were pretty adaptable to use on the farm, plus having to get to and from the farm itself on somewhat "trail-like" roads. Plus, Ford built farm tractos and such up until the early 1970s, when they sold that part of the company to New Holland. In general, if you had some agricultural tie-in outside of the city, you either got a Ford pickup or a GMC (and their open driveline and better-than-Chevrolet motors). If you had a Chevy, it was obvious that you were not a "serious" farmer or lived in the city with a small plot of land outside of town--by observation.

I'm not sure the body w/wood issue might be the full story, though (although the wooden shipping crates had sections that were used for the floorboards on the early Fords). I suspect it had more to do with the design and durability more than anything else. Plus, Ford had only Ford until the later 1930s, so it was more of a full line manufacturer with the total of GM production probably being less, all things considered. Plus, every small town/community usually had a Ford tractor dealer that also sold Ford cars and trucks, which would mean a much more wide-spread distribution network than GM had back then. Lots of manufacturers back then too, but not with nearly the volume that Ford had, I suspect.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Mark Shaw]

NTX,

I'm not "riled up", but I do have a different opinion.

I believe Ford focused on the working man's needs & supplied lots of cars in lots of versions for farm, city, & utility. The simple light weight designs of early Fords along with "integrated manufacturing" enabled Ford to very effectively penetrate mass markets for their products.

GM, Chrysler, and others continued to manufacture their products with many components from other manufacturers and produced more made-to-order vehicles targeted at the smaller upper middle class and luxury markets. Their manufacturing methods along with their heavier and more labor intensive designs forced them into these smaller markets.

The wood bodies, wartime metal drives, and high cost of repairs also contributed to a limited number of survivors.

[NTX5467]

I'll concur with that, Mark.

NTX5467