More auto random
The latest issue of Collectible Auto mag has some good articles as usual, and some unusually good letters from readers.

One letter offers a hidden explanation for a sales pattern that already had an open explanation. Why was '55 a great year for car sales and '58 an awful year? The open explanation, which is undoubtedly part of the story, is that the '55s were distinctly better than before, and the '58s were uniformly horrible. Chevy finally got a V8 in '55, and Chrysler products finally got styling.

The hidden explanation: In '55, just in time for the model year, the Federal Reserve loosened regulations on car loans. Previously car loans were restricted to 2 years with 20% down. After the loosening, most loans were 3 or 4 years, so short-term thinkers felt that they were able to buy new cars. They weren't really more able, of course, since a longer loan costs more.

'58 was certainly a bust because of horrible cars, but it was even bustier because those short-term thinkers were still paying on their 3-year and 4-year loans. Previously they would have been able to start a new loan. This effect probably extended into '59 as well for the 4-year loans.

Another letter offered a new factoid about those mysterious Nash trucks made from '47 to '54. Previously it was thought that they all went down to Mexico in response to fleet orders. In '51 about 200 went to Scandinavia for retail sale, and at least one of them is still in active use, pictured in the letter.

Also, the trucks were rated 4 tons, not 1.5 tons as usually written. The question remains. Why did Nash go to the trouble of designing and tooling and building 5000 heavy trucks, developing plenty of new skills, then sell them only in foreign countries? It runs contrary to Nash's preservationist character. There was plenty of unsatisfied demand for trucks, and farmers would have loved those trucks. Especially in northern states where Nash's superior heater would beat the crude aftermarket heaters in other trucks.

Labels: Answered better than asked

  ¶ 4:47 PM