Big cars, big engines, and the demise of the US middle class

"tapzz" (tapzz) 04/14/2014 at 19:08 • Filed to: history, ford, lincoln

3

14

In 1949, a recently returned GI could buy a Ford that wasn't fundamentally different from his former general's Lincoln. That wasn't the case before, and isn't the case now. What happened?

I love the 1949 'shoebox' Ford for many reasons, but the one that stands out for me is the fact that it was the first to sell over million a year, yet it had a spec sheet much like the best on the market: V8, perimeter frame, live rear axle with leaf springs, independent coil fronts, hydraulic drums all round. Four doors if you wanted them, two if you didn't. Convertible or no, both the '49 Ford and a top class automobile like FoMoCo's own '49 Lincoln Cosmopolitan had it. The only important difference was that the Lincoln could be had with a four speed automatic in addition to the common manual three-on-the-tree.

Ford had that one covered by 1955 too, so I wondered whether, more generally, it really was the case that the bottom and the top of the automotive food chain were so close in mid century, but not before or after.

Taking the biggest Lincoln and the cheapest Ford (bearing in mind that Ford only had one model between 1910ish until about 1951) as proxies, I looked at weight, wheelbase, power and number of cylinders as measures of how 'grand' a car could be, and plotted it from Ford's takeover of Lincoln in 1922 until 2014, with broad 10 year intervals or significant model year changes.

Weight

Pretty clear: though there was still 500 kgs between them in '49 and '50, the Model T had been less than a quarter of the weight of the imposing Lincoln L series back in '22, and a modern Fiesta little over half a MKS.

Power

Same again; closest in 1949 and 1955. The pretty extreme divergence in 1971 is due to the introduction of the Pinto at Ford, while Lincoln still had a ginormous 5th generation Continental with a big block. The town car was the biggest Lincoln in 1981, but malaise...

Wheelbase

Yup, same pattern. Note how similar the size is now- a Fiesta is within shouting distance of a MKS, which serves as a reminder that, in order to really keep it comparable to the '20s and '30s, perhaps I should have switched to a modern Mercedes S or perhaps Lincoln's Navigator.

Cylinders

The clearest, but the dodgiest: Ford did offer sixes from 1933 through to 1955, but few took them up on it. It doesn't alter the pattern, though: the top and the bottom were very close in mid-century compared to earlier or later.

Conclusion

It looks like car history does follow socio-economic history pretty closely. Where the multi-cylindered monsters of the gilded age were killed by the depression, the aspirations of the common man had been raised by the '32 Ford V8, and came to full fruition in the mid century 'Roosevelt Republic'.

What's harder to explain is the divergence since. In my data, the major step change in 1960 can be simply explained by the fact that Ford had introduced the Falcon, it's first US market compact, while Lincoln tried to sell the 3d generation Continental, perhaps the largest unibody car ever made. My suspicion is that by the dawn of the '60s, what had been a relatively monolithic white, male middle class car buying public had begun to be diversified. It was OK again for some to drive around in truly gargantuan baller mobiles, while others were beginning to be unable and unwilling to spend so much on what had become essential transport.

A proper analysis, however, would plot the weight, power, wheelbase and cylinder count to average quintile incomes, and really see whether it tracks the much trumpeted end of the middle class. I'll leave that for another time, perhaps.

The cars

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

dogisbadob > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 19:13

1

You can buy a Toyota that isn't fundamentally different than your boss's Lexus :p

tapzz > dogisbadob 04/14/2014 at 19:18

1

Hah- that is a very good point!

In toyota's defence, though, there is still a bit of difference between an Aygo or Scion wotsit and a Lexus LS, which is more or less what I did here. However , the Toyota Century is still bigger and swankier than any Lexus...

camaroboy68ss > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 19:23

1

you have to take into account the wave if the baby boomers that were reaching driving age in the 60s and their tastes were for mid size and smaller cars like a falcon, mustang, or fairlane. The big cars sale across the board dropped in the 60s with the rise of the Malibu's, LeMans, Satalites, darts, camaros, etc.

tapzz > camaroboy68ss 04/14/2014 at 19:34

0

Yep, there is an element of a corrective going on: by 1960, full sizers had become unmanageably huge, and a swing the other way was about due. But what's interesting is that it wasn't across the board, and that may indeed have been a generational diversification.

camaroboy68ss > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 19:53

0

I don't it was ever supposed to swing across the board, Lincoln was about big luxury, same goes for Cadillac. They never produced a small economy car untill they had to during the 70s and 80s it wasn't a part if their image. Ford and Chevy were your entry level cars that had to be high production. Do they went with the market.

dogisbadob > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 19:58

0

The Lexus ES is pretty much the same car as the Camry and Avalon.

I do wish the Century was sold over here though. We could really use a Japanese V12. LS-F yo

desertdog5051 > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 20:03

2

You know how the economy exploded after WWII. Americans left the war with jobs and the world was needing anything we could produce. Because we were unaffected by wartime damages, we were poised to serve the recovering world with all the products they needed. My Dad and Uncle both made fantastic livings selling things to automakers. My dad, fasteners, my uncle, tooling supplies. We will never see that prosperity again.

tapzz > desertdog5051 04/14/2014 at 20:22

0

Probably not, alas. Thing is, though, there was a lot of prosperity in the '20s and even now, just way more unevenly divided. Just thinking about it, I should have included price as another parameter, and perhaps other top end modern cars that are more comparable to pre-war Lincolns. With that, I suspect that the gap between a 1922 Model T and an L series is probably as bad as a Fiesta and a Bentley Mulsanne today.

JR1 > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 21:17

1

Very cool way to look at the history of both car companies. We continually give Lincoln hard times for their lack of brand identity but really after WWII Lincoln has always been a supplement to Ford for better or for worse. The chart more or less seems to show that trend.

desertdog5051 > tapzz 04/14/2014 at 21:24

2

"just way more unevenly divided". That is the key. The economic boom of the late 40's thru the the 70's created the middle class. That is not so true now. There is not the domestic industrial base to support the "middle class" I am afraid we are heading to a rich/poor society.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > desertdog5051 04/14/2014 at 22:25

0

have you ever read any Clyde Prestowitz?

desertdog5051 > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 04/15/2014 at 10:02

0

Have not. What did Clyde write. I would like to look into that.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > desertdog5051 04/15/2014 at 10:23

0

He's my favorite economist and he makes arguments very similar to the one you just made regarding the importance of manufacturing in the US economy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Betrayal-A…

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

desertdog5051 > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 04/15/2014 at 10:34

1

Thanks, it's on the list for the next trip to the library. Have no place left for books in the whole house, so the library is my resource. Thought about the garage, but that would lead to much more collecting and eventually take over my tinkering space. :)