It's called "Supply and Demand". Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick,
Cadillac and Ford were the top sellers during the 1950's and 1960's
(except for 1957-60 Olds and Buick). Plymouth was #3 for years, but in
1954 it lost out to Buick and Olds, while Dodge was down below all but
Cadillac and Chrysler slid below even Cadillac.
These makes were in demand new, and thus were in demand as used vehicles.
As their prices held up, theses models were able to stay on the market for
an extended period of time. Thus more were built originally and more
survived over time. High demand ---> high prices.
Nobody wants to buy an orphan or a "loser". Thus the makes that sold poorly
as new generally sold poorly on the used car market. Low demand -----> low
prices. .
So why did Chevrolet, et al. do so well year after year and the rest didn't?
Image. General Motors had the cash to advertise and did. They were able to
build an image in the car buying public that the rest could not, or would
not. And they were able to develop each car line independent of the rest.
Contrast that to Chrysler where the DeSoto was considered either a fancy
Dodge or a cheaper Chrysler while the Imperial was stuck with the Chrysler
name in spite of Chrysler's efforts. GM and Chrysler spent money designing
and tooling different fenders, grillesm hood, etc. for each make. Both had
their various makes share bodies, using the fenders, etc. to set them apart.
The difference was that GM had all the unique parts look different from the
rest, while Chrysler did not. GM spent the money to get the most for the
buck.
In the 1940 to 1952 era, all fenders from Plymouth to Chrysler looked the
same. But they weren't. With GM, the fenders actually looked different.
And the GM grilles all had different themes that were developed over the
years. Only DeSoto with its teeth, mouth, and finally fangs developed a
unique theme from 1941 through 1959. And prior to 1959 the three GM bodies
did not look like each other. Chrysler was notorious for having two bodies
with the smaller (Plymouth) appearing to be a shrunken larger body. Nothing
interchanged between a 1949 Plymouth body and a 1949 Chrysler Windsor body,
although to the casual car buyer, it looked as if everything did.
Thus the GM makes were able to compete with each other as well as with Ford,
Chrysler, etc. During the 1940's and 1950's Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick
all offered cars in the same price range. They were able to attract new
buyers at the bottom and keep them as they went up the price ladder.
Chrysler never bothered to develop price ranges within each make in the late
1930's as GM did. Thus at Chrysler Corp. you started at Plymouth and worked
up through Dodge, DeSoto and into Chrysler. Prior to the 1950''s there was
virtually no overlap between the four Mopar makes. By the time they began
overlapping, it was too late. Chrysler Corp. sales were on a downward
slide.
And thus with a solid sales foundation, they were able to build and dominate
the market. In the 1930's, by the way, Dodge outsold Pontiac and Oldsmobile
while Chrysler faired well against Oldsmobile. Chrysler had the market base
to spread the various make's market base as GM did. Instead, the
advernturous W.P. Chrysler retired and his successor, K.T. Keller, took the
safe, conservative route. (In the early 1930's DeSoto, Dodge and Chrysler
all offered flathead six and eight cylinder engines)
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whitman" <Robert.Whitman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: [FWDLK] 1962 Resale
> So why do we seem to see fewer forwardlook Mopars than same year Fords &
> Chevies? Many of us concluded that it was the poor built quality. That
> may be partly true in '57 & '58 especially, but I offer another reason:
> poor resale value.
>
> I have been wondering this for a long time so I thought I'd dig up some
> numbers and get some proof. I took the Red Book Used Car Guide for 1965
> and 1962 and plugged in the numbers to better see how our cars stacked
> up to the other makes. Not very good. The Red Book goes back 7 years
> (by that time the value was so low, there was no reason to include cars
> older than that and car dealers didn't care to re-sell them).
>
> Here are some general stats: In '62, the average '55 low-line 6 cyl 2dr
> sedan was worth about $160 (trade-in was $120). An upper-make '55 2drHT
> maxed out at around $400-$500 (trade-in $250-350). These cars were only
> 7 years old and with average wear, in proper running condition. It
> would be another 15 years before any normal person thought to collect
> them or restore them. These cars had to spend the next 15 years
> floating along as old beaters. worth almost nothing. Survival was low
> because one fender-bender or mechanical issue meant you needed to decide
> on fixing the problem (at more than the value of the car) or drive/tow
> it to the junkman. Fortunately, steel prices were low and junkmen often
> held the cars instead of crushing them, that saved a lot of '50's
> junkyard cars for us to find into the '80s & '90s. (See this '64
> Newsweek article for the junkyard story)
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302369&context=photostream&si
> ze=l
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302373&context=photostream&si
> ze=l
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302375&context=photostream&si
> ze=l
>
> Anyway, back to how this relates to finned Mopars dying at higher rates
> than the 'other guys'. My statistics show that the entire Mopar line
> consistently had lower resale value than the FoMoCo & GM cars. I tried
> to be as objective at my evaluations as possible, by entering cars with
> the same body style and organizing them by suggested retail price. I
> then took the '62 resale value and compared it to the MSRP and found the
> % value loss. That seemed to be the fairest way to compare apples to
> apples. I did the same thing with the '65 resale value (which only goes
> back to '58). The organized MSRP is also interesting to see because you
> can really see what cars a certain model were competing against (i.e.
> the MSRP of the '59 Impala 2drHT was within $3 the price of a Coronet
> 2drHT & Fury 2drHT). The Red Book was very specific, so I was able to
> see the difference in value of each model in each body style. Two-door
> sedans were worth the least and wagons were worth the most. Two-door
> hardtops were worth the same as four-door hardtops and seemed to be
> right in the middle of the line in regards to resale value. Four-door
> sedans were worth a little less, and convertibles a little more. Used
> car value differences were small within the line, so you could buy a
> convertible for $35 more than a sedan.
>
> When comparing all the different makes and models together, forwardlook
> mopars almost never appear in the top 1/3rd in resale value percentage
> for their market segment, for any year. Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Ford,
> Olds & Pontiac are almost always in the top 1/3rd. DeSoto, Dodge,
> Edsel, Imperial, Lincoln, Mercury, Plymouth & Studebaker all hang out in
> the lower 1/3rd in most years for most models. Higher line models in
> the Plymouth & Dodge brands faired the best, as did the low-end
> Chryslers. DeSoto was a "failed make" by '62, so I would expect lower
> resale, but it was not nearly as bad as Edsel. Studebaker had miserable
> resale value across the board.
>
> So what was it that hurt the Mopar brands? What was in the minds of the
> '62 used car buyer that made it less desirable than other makes? We
> would all say that styling was a bonus (but are we fooling ourselves?).
> Was it a bad quality reputation? Was it poor marketing? Was it
> overly-dated styling (but wasn't? Was it bad dealer service and
> reputation? I wasn't alive at the time, so maybe some of you can answer
> these questions.
>
> If you use this information, please cite me as the source (I spent a ton
> of time creating these data sheets!). Car models in red are in the
> lower 1/3rd for resale value based on percentage left from the original
> MSRP, cars in green are in the upper 1/3rd. The % numbers for 1962 &
> 1965 are shown in colors also. Red numbers are lower 1/3rd, blue
> numbers are middle 1/3rd and green numbers are upper 1/3rd.
>
> 1955 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1357/1447713261_748719a8b0_b.jpg
> 1956 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/1447713645_2ab0827531_b.jpg
> 1957 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/1448566208_4fee617811_b.jpg
> 1958 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1246/1447714545_371da66112_b.jpg
> 1959 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1448566964_5c1c86d852_b.jpg
> 1960 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1448567376_de3d28ad71_b.jpg
> 1961 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1186/1448565108_e1632a8469_b.jpg
>
> Lower used-car resale = faster to go to the junkyard. Plain and simple.
>
>
> What are your thoughts? Any surprises?
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> I noticed that an average value of a '55 model in '61 was about 10% the
> original MSRP. That can be seen across the board, from economy models
> to luxury brands. That means the typical mid-level 1955 car, that sold
> new for around $2400, was worth around $240 in 1962. That was a good,
> solid, no-damage, reconditioned car sold at a dealership!
>
> Relate that to today: A 7-year-old car today would be a 2001 model (the
> '08s are out) I looked up a couple common '01 sedans to see what the
> current value was on KBB.com for average options, mileage & wear.
> 2001 Chrysler 300M: MSRP: $29,640; used price: $10,465 (35% of
> original price)
> 2001 Dodge Intrepid R/T: MSRP: $24976; used price: $9700 (39% of
> original price)
> 2001 Honda Accord EX: MSRP: $21050; used price: $11835 (56% of original
> price)
>
> Cars retain their value much better for much longer these days. For the
> 300M to be worth only 10% of it's original MSRP, it would be $2900. The
> Honda would be $2100. I looked up the dealer retail price for a '91
> LeBaron sedan and it was about $2100. That is 17 years, not 7.
>
> Cars stay on the road a lot longer these days because they are worth
> much more, much longer. Must be the improved quality? Also might be
> because car fashion changes much slower these days.
>
> ________________________________
>
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
