PICKING AN ORPHAN CAR

STRAW POLL

Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer manufactured.)

krp wrote:
> STRAW POLL
>
> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer manufactured.)
>
>


Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with a
VW Golf.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> krp wrote:
>> STRAW POLL
>>
>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>> manufactured.)
>>
>>
>
>
> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in fact,
> we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away and we
> went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with a VW
> Golf.)


Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3 letters
of its name. When you went into a dealer and saw the salesmen were in their
60's and the customers called them "SONNY" that pretty well sums it up
Oldsmobile buyers were dying at too alarming a rate. There just aren't that
many people over 90 still driving. As to Plymouth - the brand fell victim to
just having it's name slapped on cars of other Chrysler brands. Chrysler
still suffers from duplication. You see Dodge and Chrysler badges on
vehicles that are essential Jeeps. You see vehicles bearing the Jeep Badge
that are well outside their market. Lots of confusion at Chrysler. They have
NO idea what they want to be..

Studebaker and Hudson were really fine cars killed by the bean
counters.It is sad that Studebaker and Packard didn't join Nash and Hudson.
The Studs of the 50's were really good cars. I mean the Lowey cars. Hawks
etc.Hudson make a great car - they just held onto the 6 too long. Nash's
problem was that it was a VERY bad car! Ugly as hell and a horrible
suspension. Comfortable as hell, but handled like a porpoise in a hard turn.
The inundations could make you sea sick as it undulated. If they had seat
belts maybe you'd have been a bit nauseous as you tried to turn a corner.

krp wrote:
>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> krp wrote:
>>> STRAW POLL
>>>
>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>> manufactured.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
>> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with
>> a VW Golf.)
>
>
> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
> letters of its name. When you went into a dealer and saw the salesmen
> were in their 60's and the customers called them "SONNY" that pretty
> well sums it up Oldsmobile buyers were dying at too alarming a rate.
> There just aren't that many people over 90 still driving. As to Plymouth
> - the brand fell victim to just having it's name slapped on cars of
> other Chrysler brands. Chrysler still suffers from duplication. You see
> Dodge and Chrysler badges on vehicles that are essential Jeeps. You see
> vehicles bearing the Jeep Badge that are well outside their market. Lots
> of confusion at Chrysler. They have NO idea what they want to be..
>
> Studebaker and Hudson were really fine cars killed by the bean
> counters.It is sad that Studebaker and Packard didn't join Nash and
> Hudson. The Studs of the 50's were really good cars. I mean the Lowey
> cars. Hawks etc.Hudson make a great car - they just held onto the 6 too
> long. Nash's problem was that it was a VERY bad car! Ugly as hell and a
> horrible suspension. Comfortable as hell, but handled like a porpoise in
> a hard turn. The inundations could make you sea sick as it undulated. If
> they had seat belts maybe you'd have been a bit nauseous as you tried to
> turn a corner.
>
>

I agree that Studebaker was a fine car but they were hampered by an
archaic (but functional) suspension design and terminal RUST. I don't
know that the Hudson six was a disadvantage in anything but
advertising/bragging rights - it was plenty quick compared to other
contemporary cars (e.g. Fabulous Hudson Hornet) And as for Olds - well,
once upon a time the Cutlass was the best selling car in the US! Part
of the problem was it was essentially the same car as the Chevelle,
LeMans, etc. and instead of standardizing on the superior Olds or
Pontiac products GM eventually made everything Chevy clones. I have a
similar fondness for the Valiant/Dusters, simple, tough compact cars
that weren't too painful to drive and ran forever. the US mfgrs. lost
their way in the 70s and never got it back

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...

>>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
>>> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
>>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
>>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with a
>>> VW Golf.)
>>
>>
>> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
>> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
>> letters of its name. When you went into a dealer and saw the salesmen
>> were in their 60's and the customers called them "SONNY" that pretty well
>> sums it up Oldsmobile buyers were dying at too alarming a rate. There
>> just aren't that many people over 90 still driving. As to Plymouth - the
>> brand fell victim to just having it's name slapped on cars of other
>> Chrysler brands. Chrysler still suffers from duplication. You see Dodge
>> and Chrysler badges on vehicles that are essential Jeeps. You see
>> vehicles bearing the Jeep Badge that are well outside their market. Lots
>> of confusion at Chrysler. They have NO idea what they want to be..
>>
>> Studebaker and Hudson were really fine cars killed by the bean
>> counters.It is sad that Studebaker and Packard didn't join Nash and
>> Hudson. The Studs of the 50's were really good cars. I mean the Lowey
>> cars. Hawks etc.Hudson make a great car - they just held onto the 6 too
>> long. Nash's problem was that it was a VERY bad car! Ugly as hell and a
>> horrible suspension. Comfortable as hell, but handled like a porpoise in
>> a hard turn. The inundations could make you sea sick as it undulated. If
>> they had seat belts maybe you'd have been a bit nauseous as you tried to
>> turn a corner.

> I agree that Studebaker was a fine car but they were hampered by an
> archaic (but functional) suspension design and terminal RUST. I don't
> know that the Hudson six was a disadvantage in anything but
> advertising/bragging rights - it was plenty quick compared to other
> contemporary cars (e.g. Fabulous Hudson Hornet) And as for Olds - well,
> once upon a time the Cutlass was the best selling car in the US! Part of
> the problem was it was essentially the same car as the Chevelle, LeMans,
> etc. and instead of standardizing on the superior Olds or Pontiac products
> GM eventually made everything Chevy clones. I have a similar fondness for
> the Valiant/Dusters, simple, tough compact cars that weren't too painful
> to drive and ran forever. the US mfgrs. lost their way in the 70s and
> never got it back :

The Stud Hawk handled very well for its time. In the 50's EVERYTHING
rusted. Undercoating was rare. So cancer overtook the bodies of the cars. I
saw, a few years ago my old 65 Buick Skylark I had undercoated by the
Texaco system. Paint sucked but NO body rust.

The Hornets did okay against the small block V-8s in the early 50's. But
Chrysler was eating them alive by 57. The V-8's were just more efficient and
powerful. Other than that the Hudson's were an excellent car. I don't
recall the Cutlass being the #1 seller. Pretty much they were all what I
seem to recall being called the "C" body. You left the Buick Skylark out of
that mix.I think it had the best overall engines. The transmissions left
MUCH to be desired. Especially the automatics. Pretty anemic. I had a 66
Skylark Gran Sport with the big block engine and it kept eating
transmissions. (Mine came with a 503 CID factory experimental engine.) A
trans was good for 45 days or until I stood on it. Buick took it back after
6 months and gave me a brand new 67.

Actually there are a few fairly good cars today. Still have the same
problem. Detroit is being run by BEAN COUNTERS.

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:41:05 GMT, "krp" > wrote:

>STRAW POLL
>
> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer manufactured.)
>


Hudson during it's glory days

"krp" > wrote in
:

>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> krp wrote:
>>> STRAW POLL
>>>
>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>> manufactured.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
>> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with
>> a VW Golf.)
>
>
> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
> letters of its name.

I don't think that really counts does it? it's like saying Mercurys are
orphans depite Ford Still being in Business.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:41:05 GMT, "krp" > wrote:
>
>>STRAW POLL
>>
>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>> manufactured.)
>>
>
>
> Hudson during it's glory days

Good choice. Great car until the merger with Nash. Tell us why.

"fred" > wrote in message
...
> "krp" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> krp wrote:
>>>> STRAW POLL
>>>>
>>>> Name your personal favorite orphan car. (Brand no longer
>>>> manufactured.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm... pretty close tossup between Studebaker, Hudson, Oldsmobile and
>>> Plymouth. And I or my immediate family owned all except Hudson (in
>>> fact, we were pretty much an Olds family until the Cutlass rusted away
>>> and we went through a series of really bad cars and then ended up with
>>> a VW Golf.)
>>
>>
>> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to the
>> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
>> letters of its name.
>
> I don't think that really counts does it? it's like saying Mercurys are
> orphans depite Ford Still being in Business.

Well given that the Merc was essentially a FORD with a different grille
and a HIGH price tag - you can say it isn't an orphan. Not in the same sense
that the Saturn will be an orphan. It has a few years of parts availability
and then will fade into the dustbin of history along with Packard, Kaiser
etc. Since the same engine, trans suspension etc will persist in the Fords
and Lincolns for some time to come, the Merc will live on.

"krp" > wrote in
:

>
> "fred" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "krp" > wrote in
>> :

>>> Now you can add the Saturn that is going bye-bye this year.As to
>>> the
>>> other GM car you mentioned, its demise is summed up in the first 3
>>> letters of its name.
>>
>> I don't think that really counts does it? it's like saying Mercurys are
>> orphans depite Ford Still being in Business.
>
> Well given that the Merc was essentially a FORD with a different
> grille
> and a HIGH price tag - you can say it isn't an orphan. Not in the same
> sense that the Saturn will be an orphan. It has a few years of parts
> availability and then will fade into the dustbin of history along with
> Packard, Kaiser etc. Since the same engine, trans suspension etc will
> persist in the Fords and Lincolns for some time to come, the Merc will
> live on.
>
But the company that makes/made Saturns (GM) is still in buisness and
making cars.