Foreign cars in 1950's America: Yay or nay for the wealthy?

"traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant) 05/10/2015 at 21:23 • Filed to: None

0

13

So I was just playing Mafia II, hooning the Delizia Grandeamerica around the suburbs, when this thought came to mind:

Errr, how to say this...

For example, the year is 1957. Would there be a greater neighbor-impressing effect if any given person had a 250 GT California in the driveway over, say, a Thunderbird? Almost obvious answer is yes, because the 250 is $14,000 while the Ferd is $3,400 (Yeah, I think the answer is really obvious)

However: I believe that a large portion of the cars back in the day were American ( All -American, not a seat from China and a glovebox from Greenland). Looks at photos from that era and all you see is ‘murican steel, maybe the occasional Beetle. I believe this was because American cars were more reliable at the time (correct me if wrong)

So, if someone peeked into a garage and saw a either a 250 GT sitting there or a Thunderbird, which would get more positive attention? Maybe I’m comparing apples to oranges here due to the huge price difference. How about a 250 GT vs an Eldorado Brougham (then there’s a difference in functionality) Would the 250 receive “ooh, exotic!” Or “ew, foreign”

This entire post is hard to explain, maybe I can clear it up in the comments.

Note: this question is not remotely serious despite its length. “Of course the Fezza/Caddy/T-Bird, how stupid really are you?” is an acceptable comment.

Also, a history lesson on domestic and foreign car perception in the 1950s would be nice.

Your boy, BJR > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 21:30

1

Nothing could top the ‘57 Eldorado Brogham. That would be like if you had a RR Phantom in the garage today, only more so. One of those in ‘57 would be like having a Maybach 62 circa 2007. Nothing topped that car. NOTHING.

ranwhenparked > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 21:31

3

At the time, yes, a Ferrari would have been considered pretty desirable and impressive. That said, they weren’t totally a household name here yet, but people that were into cars knew what they were.

More mainstream foreign cars, however, would not have been seen in the same light. It took until fairly late in the 1960s for Mercedes-Benz to really be accepted as a rational choice for a luxury car, if you had one in the ‘50s (other than the SL) you were kind of a weirdo. We got a lot of brands here in various quantities in the ‘50s - Morris, Austin, Simca, Sunbeam, Fiat, Vauxhall, Peugeot, Toyota, Skoda, Opel, etc. - but, other than maybe Volkswagen, none of them made any real impact here. American automakers were simply too good at building the sorts of cars Americans wanted to buy, so there was no reason for people to really go elsewhere.

Kind of like why Japanese cars have such an overwhelmingly dominant market share in Japan, they just do a good job of building what Japanese customers want. And a bit of protectionism.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 21:33

0

That’s not really even a fair comparison. Even in 1957, it’s the difference between a mass-production sports car and an Italian exotic. Same as a Mustang vs. a Ferrari California today. If anything, foreign cars of the time would turn heads even more, as they were less common here. My great-grandfather brought a Jag MkII over from England with him in the early 60’s. Cost less than a Cadillac, but grabbed a huge amount of attention.

So, to answer your question, the Ferrari would grab much, much more attention than the T-Bird.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > ranwhenparked 05/10/2015 at 21:35

0

Good write up. Still a bit unanswered. Like, which would have been more desirable: The $14,000 250 GT or a $14,000 ultra-T-bird? Then they're similar price and function, although you may have already answered that (being the T-bird.)

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Your boy, BJR 05/10/2015 at 21:40

0

Talking of which, what model/year is this pink thing?

ranwhenparked > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 21:51

1

The Ferrari would have more street cred with car enthusiasts, but regular people would probably shake their heads at how little creature comforts it had for the money and would have pointed to the Thunderbird as the more rational choice.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > ranwhenparked 05/10/2015 at 21:58

0

I just realized the obvious solution: If wealthy, just buy both!

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > ranwhenparked 05/10/2015 at 22:02

0

Hey how would a 410 Superamerica fare, it’s more luxury focused and more creature comforts than the 250 Cali but around the same price. But the answer would probably stay the same: less value.

Your boy, BJR > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 05/10/2015 at 22:05

0

I’m gonna go ahead and say it’s a ‘58 DeVille

ranwhenparked > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 22:06

0

I would bet there were at least a few people that did! Or, maybe a 250GT and a Cadillac Series 75.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Your boy, BJR 05/10/2015 at 22:18

0

There we have it then. The good pictures will be shared tomorrow.

Jedidiah > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 22:35

0

Apples to oranges.

The Ferrari is an enthusiast’s car that would get you respect amongst other car people.

The Thunderbird is personal luxury car and would have been desirable to average Americans back then. Although it was fairly expensive for the time, owning a Thunderbird could have been a realistic goal for someone looking to buy a car. The Ferrari is in a completely different price bracket and wasn’t realistically obtainable, so it’d definitely turn more heads than the Thunderbird.

You’d need to compare a comparably priced, limited production American car to reach an adequate conclusion, such as the Eldorado Brougham or the Continental MK II. However, most 1957 Americans would probably be more impressed with the luxurious Detroit yachts because they’d be put off by the lack of amenities in the Ferrari.

wafflesnfalafel > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 05/10/2015 at 23:12

0

In 1957? I’m thinking the Ferrari would be “one of those little foreign jobs” and while the enthusiast would know what it was, your average American would likely dismiss it.