Sunday, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:42
Rotard some interesting points there, but I'll have to counter with a few arguments (all in good spirit - not starting a fight :-)).
1927 is universally regarded as 'the great stockmarket crash' and had claimed the scalps of countless US businesses across the board, which had a domino effect. It wasn't that the consumer stopped buying a particular brand of vehicle and bought another, it was that the consumer stopped purchasing full stop. Either way, I'm focussing on the post WW2 years.
I'll discount the elite Dusenberg and Cord's as they were pre WW2 and were comparable to specialist manufacturers such as MacLaren today. These marques would have cost the equivalent of 15 times the average yearly wage.
Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile - all GM and still very much alive. Admittedly they all came under the multinational GM banner at one stage or another, but they have all endured and produce individual and distinctly different vehicles, ie: not just a rebadging exercise (such as Ford Maverick/Nissan Patrol) which is what counts. Try fitting a 400ci Pontiac motor in to a 400ci Chev, or putting petrol into 350ci Oldsmobile and see how far you get. Very different vehicles.
Lincoln, Mercury - all Ford and in current production and in the case of Lincoln, producing some innovative and significant vehicles.
So to compare apples with apples, lets revise the list down to......
Studebaker (too inovative for it's own good)
Willy's
Packard
Nash / Rambler (died in 1980's)
Kaiser Fraser
AMC
Hudson
and I'll add DeSoto and Indian (motorcycle) to that.
The
population of the US is just under 300million and the UK is 60million. This would leave the list on a per-capita basis at roughly 2 or 3 failures for the US compared to however many I wrote in my initial post (lots) for the UK, so I think you'd be drawing a veeeerryyy long bow to suggest any other manufacturing country even came close to vaugely approaching the unparalleled disaster of the British car industry.
FollowupID:
364071