The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.

[Gunsmoke]

In preparing this topic I followed my own philosophy about what a great car should be. My template likely comes from my Architectural training where phrases like form follows function, less is more, and truth will garner appreciation. As an example, when Ettore Bugatti set out to design the Type 35, he knew his car was to be a grand prix racer. He designed the chassis and running gear accordingly. He designed the engine to withstand the rigors of racing. He sheathed the rolling chassis with a minimalist skin, and a rad shape easy to make and a signature. If you look at the cars, there is not a part out of harmony with the whole car. "Pur Sang" or pure blooded, thoroughbred. Even as he moved on to later models including tourers, he followed the same careful script

 

In compiling my Companies List, I applied this regimen. Did the company typically design their cars for a specific use (racing, touring, luxury cruising, utility, carrying many people, speed, longevity), and how well did they deliver on their intention. The biggest problems many companies had is they tried to create one vehicle model that would do everything (the old Camel versus horse adage). As a consequence, the end product did not reflect a solid answer for any of the intentions, no thoroughbreds. 

 

For example take a 1956 Chevrolet (and I'm not picking on them for any specific reason). GM delivered the same basic chassis with maybe 10 different bodies, 3 different power plants, 2 transmission options, 2dr, 4dr, hardtop, soft top, 50 different paint options, and endless accessories and interiors to choose from. Great for a mass market, but did the car excel at anything. No. It's best use in the day was as a grocery hauler.  This does not mean GM's business model was not sound, it was very sound. Their primary interest was not in designing and building great cars, it was in selling cars. 

 

So many cars of the Big 3 suffered from this same issue: designed for mass market sale, and not for being a great car. "Jacks of all trades, masters of none". 

 

But occasionally they would devote a sliver of their business profit to try to create a much better car, such as GM's early work on Corvette (it follows Bugatti's model to some extent, i.e. very purposeful, a 2 seat sports car end to end, top to bottom, and with no other use in mind). Same for 55 T Bird, Continental, 1931 Chrysler Imperial Roadsters, Ford GT40, maybe even the Viper. But these slivers of their business output don't overcome the much bigger picture: these companies have always been about producing for the masses average quality, multi-use platforms delivered with no goal other than sales. 

 

Finally there is the quasi-legitimate vote for Cadillac. This brand never likely achieved more than 1% of GM's total production (I don't know the correct #). The 1930 era cars were certainly among the best in the luxury field, but with the exception of the V-16s and some open cars, looked pretty much like everything else. Consider their competition, PA, Duesenberg, Cord, Auburn, Packard, Imperial, Franklin, Lincoln, did they really stand out? Their other time in the limelight was the 50's. What was their then claim to fame. They were the epitome of flash and dash, a mediocre platform  (designed solely for cruising but poor road handling or MPG), and gussied up with every conceivable cosmetic one can imagine, inside and out (power everything, chrome, fins, length, exclusivity). I consider them the "hooker" of the era, and the Johns that drove them were not really car people. A bit harsh, maybe, but who can disagree. Today, they do draw crowds, but usually because today's younger car enthusiasts marvel at the excess manufacturers went through to sell cars 60 years ago. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[8E45E]

6 minutes ago, Gunsmoke said:

If you look at the cars, there is not a part out of harmony with the whole car. 

That is why I despise the majority of mid-to-late 1970's cars.  Those ghastly 5-mph bumpers are VERY out of harmony with nearly every make & model of car sold in the U.S. and Canada from that era.

 

Craig

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Gunsmoke said:

 

 

For example take a 1956 Chevrolet (and I'm not picking on them for any specific reason). GM delivered the same basic chassis with maybe 10 different bodies, 3 different power plants, 2 transmission options, 2dr, 4dr, hardtop, soft top, 50 different paint options, and endless accessories and interiors to choose from. Great for a mass market, "but did the car excel at anything". No. It's best use in the day was as a grocery hauler.  This does not mean GM's business model was not sound, it was very sound. "Their primary interest was not in designing and building "great cars", it was in "selling cars". 

 

So many cars of the Big 3 suffered from this same issue: designed for mass market sale, and not for being a great car. "Jacks of all trades, masters of none". 

 

 

Hmmm?

I'm wondering if you actually believe any of this rhetoric or if you're just baiting us and looking for a spirited debate?  

 

I'll bite.

 

Using your own example of the 1956 Chevrolet I think it's exceedingly clear that the car more than "excelled" in sales, with figures over 1.6 million for this one year alone.  This alone is the trump card in any capitalist venture.

 

What yardstick do you use to measure a "great car"?   Elvis, The Beatles and Frank Sinatra sold millions of records and that was the degree used to prove their greatness.  Why would the same not apply to a car that appeals to millions of buyers?   The Beatles and the '56 Chevrolet have both stood the test of time pretty well and both still have a strong following today.

 

I don't think I need to elaborate on the importance of "selling cars".   That falls under the common knowledge of Business Administration 101.

 

I think I understand the philosophy behind your argument but in the end it just won't hold water.   Building the finest machine one could possibly conceive, with the highest quality engineering available, wrapped up in a body designed by the most distinguished artists of the era would bring a cost in the stratosphere and then offer a model run of how many?  A couple dozen at best?   Where would General Motors, Ford or any large motor company find a market for such a leviathan?   It is simply too esoteric to be profitable.  It is the blueprint for bankruptcy.

 

While GM (or Ford, Chrysler) may not have built anything as stylish as a Bugatti or Duesenberg, I believe they not only set, but held the standard for several decades selling to the largest auto buying market in the world.  Where Bugatti, Duesenberg, Auburn et al proved they were in fact such iconic and fine automobiles, they simply could not survive.

 

The tyrannosaurus was undoubtedly the apex predator of it's, or probably any other, time on earth but, even with all it's might, it also died out 90 million years ago where the tadpole shrimp is still with us after 300 million years.

 

 

 

[Larry Schramm]

If you want to add in a current vehicle line, what about the Cadillac Black Wing?  From what I have heard, they are selling for as much as $50K over sticker. 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[Gunsmoke]

GregLaR, I like your debating style and substance. You said "Hmmm? I'm wondering if you actually believe any of this rhetoric or if you're just baiting us and looking for a spirited debate?  

 

I mentioned in my opening salvo that "  In arriving at a list, I decided “profitability” of the company/business and other aspects of a purely “business” nature would not be a factor as that would require substantial un-interesting (at least to me) research. So I'll accept your thoughts on the business angle without reservation. If you add that to criteria, 9 of my picks will disappear to be replaced by GM, Chrysler, Citroen, British Leyland, Honda, Toyota, Renault and Studebaker/Packard. Photo essay will be hohum!

 

The same thing applies to music. Yes Elvis, Frank and the Beatles sold millions. Few would hail Elvis or Frank (who could only back up a 100 piece band) as great singers/musicians, I don't recall they ever wrote or played anything, but the industry marketed them heavily and as such they became the rage. The Beatles were a great band, (wrote, sang, played, marketed, invented, did it all), almost no one would question their place in music. My idea of fine US singers include Diana Ross, George Jones, Hank Williams, Whitney Houston, Patsy Cline, and Johnny Cash, people who sang purely what they lived. Or Willie Nelson, who started with Folsum Prison Blues in 1957 and still shines today. What a run.

 

You said "Building the finest machine one could possibly conceive, with the highest quality engineering available, wrapped up in a body designed by the most distinguished artists of the era would bring a cost in the stratosphere and then offer a model run of how many?  A couple dozen at best?" You talking about Ferrari's business plan for last 75 years? 

 

This is fun GregLaR, but I think we are really on the same page.  Great cars and great car companies standout to everyone and don't struggle to hold their own against lesser brands among people who know.

 

I'll call your '56 Chevy and raise you a Jaguar XKE! Cheers mate.

 

   

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Gunsmoke said:

You talking about Ferrari's business plan for last 75 years? 

 

 

 

Touche'  ....OK that left a mark.  

 

I fully agree with your views on my music analogy and acknowledge there is a huge difference between celebrity and talent.

 

I didn't mean to bring my position down to a strictly financial point of view but, after re-reading my post, it appears I did.   Based on that criteria alone it would get quite boring and very quickly.

If I adhere to your original governing parameters I believe I would have to choose Volkswagen (the Beetle in particular) as the car that most completely answers all 5 questions.  But, unfortunately, it was a financial success too.  

 

While we may be riding in different cars, we're probably listening to the same radio station.

 

 

 

 

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

My idea of fine US singers include Diana Ross, George Jones, Hank Williams, Whitney Houston, Patsy Cline, and Johnny Cash, people who sang purely what they lived. Or Willie Nelson, who started with Folsum Prison Blues in 1957 and still shines today. What a run.

Singers sell cars!  

 

Never forget the impact Dinah Shore had on Chevrolet sales in the 1950's with her very catchy, "See the USA in your Chevrolet" campaign.

 

Craig

 

 

[bryankazmer]

with no headlights, because Monsieur Esders did not drive at night.

[Pfeil]

37 minutes ago, bryankazmer said:

with no headlights, because Monsieur Esders did not drive at night.

Sense and sensibility 😉

[nzcarnerd]

On 4/26/2022 at 3:33 PM, Grimy said:

Sister Mary Harmonica told us that "marquee" is the big sign showing the movies playing at the theater (the-AY-ter if you're from Indiana) and "marque" is a brand name.

In this part of the world a marquee is a large tent usually set up for some sort of social gathering.

 

Yes, marque is a brand name but I think there is another word for 'iconic' or leading brand name?

[nzcarnerd]

5 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

Thanks Pfeil for the excellent photo essay on VW's. You obviously have access to some great archives. Last 10 days I have been dealing with a severe sinusitis/bronchitis bout and needed something to do. Had a draft of the written stuff, but no assembled pictures. So I culled them quickly off internet as needed. My favorite of all the photos I included is the Dr Esders Type 41 Bugatti Royale Roadster. What a huge 2 seater, must have been an amazing car to see rolling down the street in 1930's. Original met it's demise, but has been recreated as you may know. 

The Esders roadster only 'met its demise' because it was rebodied and exists today as the Binder Coupe de Ville - now owned by Volkswagen AG as far as I know.

 

Yes the Esders has been recreated - there may be more than one, I don't know for certain. I took thsi photo of one recreation at the Schlumpf museum in 2016 - 

 

 

[Gunsmoke]

This is the recreation of Monsieur Esders Type 41 Royale. Might be the most impressive roadster ever made? 169" wheelbase, 21' overall length, about 7000 lbs. Talk about cruising in style! But as Bryan says, never at night!

 

And verbatim from dictionary: (I'll be changing original text, thanks nzcarnerd for reminding me)

Marquee : chiefly British : a large tent set up for an outdoor party, reception, or exhibition. 2a : a permanent canopy often of metal and glass projecting over an entrance (as of a hotel or theater)

Marque: A make of car, as distinct from a specific model  - 'Marques such as Bentley, Ferrari or Porsche"

 

As for Iconic, I suppose quintessential would work. NO! LOL

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

Icons of Pontiac.

the SD 389,421,455

And although all the divisions had Tri-Power except BUICK, and Tri-Power came to Pontiac from Oldsmobile along with Pete Estes who became Pontiac's chief engineer and later Pontiac Division General Manager and finally President of G.M. It seems to most people that they identify Tri-Power with Pontiac I give you Pontiac Tri-Power!

1957- ----1966

 

Two important Pontiac Icons, the "Split Grille" and "Wide-Track"

 

 

Another Pontiac Icon that many people considered the first muscle car, if not it was the first to put it in a package and sell it as such. 

John DeLorean for creating a what if we???? Jim Wangers for marketing GTO in many creative ways, And Pete Estes the General Manager of Pontiac Division who put his neck, career on the line for disobeying corporate policy to sell such a vehicle to the public without corporate approval.  

Jim Wangers Iconic Tiger Theme which identified Tigers with all Pontiacs. Even Royal Tires with their Tiger Paw tires had a Pontiac nose to its advertising.

>>It may be a U.S. Royal advertisement, but it's got a Pontiac split grille!

 

[Gunsmoke]

Through the history of GM, Ford and Dodge/Chrysler (and some other American Companies like International, REO), one vehicle I think they generally did very well was pickup trucks. This seemed to be a uniquely North American vehicle, perhaps due to the nature of our large countries (USA, Canada, Mexico), the nature of jobs (ranching, construction, hauling, rural vs urban), and for the best part of their production (1930's-1970's), the companies stuck to keeping them simple and versatile, with the occasional upgraded one for marketing purposes. They understood the pickup buyers wanted an economical, no nonsense, reliable set of wheels that would make them some money and last a while. These 40-70 year old products retain a strong market, and even restored, can be used like they were always intended. Interestingly, most of the companies in my list did not produce much if anything in the way of trucks. Ever wonder what a Ferrari, Bugatti, Jaguar, Aston, Porsche, Rolls, Alfa, truck might look like? Would make for an interesting design exercise.

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

Ever wonder what a Ferrari, Bugatti, Jaguar, Aston, Porsche, Rolls, Alfa, truck might look like? Would make for an interesting design exercise.

SUV's are considered 'trucks'.  The only two from that list who don't currently have one are Ferrari and Bugatti.

 

As a side note, Rolls-Royce did supply a few truck engines.

 

[1939_Buick]

off topic

1 hour ago, 8E45E said:

As a side note, Rolls-Royce did supply a few truck engines.

RR made many non car engines.  Depending on the date, RR cars was a separate business

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_B_range_engines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_C_range_engines

[8E45E]

5 hours ago, 1939_Buick said:

RR made many non car engines.  Depending on the date, RR cars was a separate business

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_B_range_engines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_C_range_engines

The International dates from 1959.

 

So did GM make many non-car engines when they still owned Detroit Diesel, Euclid and Terex.  Some forget the giant worldwide conglomerate that GM once was.

 

Craig

 

 

[1912Staver]

12 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

Through the history of GM, Ford and Dodge/Chrysler (and some other American Companies like International, REO), one vehicle I think they generally did very well was pickup trucks. This seemed to be a uniquely North American vehicle, perhaps due to the nature of our large countries (USA, Canada, Mexico), the nature of jobs (ranching, construction, hauling, rural vs urban), and for the best part of their production (1930's-1970's), the companies stuck to keeping them simple and versatile, with the occasional upgraded one for marketing purposes. They understood the pickup buyers wanted an economical, no nonsense, reliable set of wheels that would make them some money and last a while. These 40-70 year old products retain a strong market, and even restored, can be used like they were always intended. Interestingly, most of the companies in my list did not produce much if anything in the way of trucks. Ever wonder what a Ferrari, Bugatti, Jaguar, Aston, Porsche, Rolls, Alfa, truck might look like? Would make for an interesting design exercise.

Alfa Romeo made trucks for the Italian military during WW2. Post war they made a similar but lighter duty truck . This is one of the post war trucks restored.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Pfeil]