RATINGS BY THE NUMBERS...the 1950's

Fun stuff indeed, but mind if I ask your source for these figures, George? Based on what I've read over the years, it doesn't make sense to me that Packard (with no 1959 model year, and minimal 1957-1958 sales) outsold Cadillac, or Chrysler, in the decade of the Fifties.

Posted by: @moe-parr

Fun stuff indeed, but mind if I ask your source for these figures, George? Based on what I've read over the years, it doesn't make sense to me that Packard (with no 1959 model year, and minimal 1957-1958 sales) outsold Cadillac, or Chrysler, in the decade of the Fifties.

The figures I posted are PRODUCTION NUMBERS only!  They are NOT sales numbers.  I have notes for all cars on Index Cards that I created back in the late 1980's from a magazine published at the time titled "Car Exchange".  My information was attained from several of their issues.  

@georgeschire How much of a variance could there be between production and sales figures? Unless Packard was selling only one out of every three vehicles they produced, and scrapped the other two, I just can't see how that number can be right. 

really interesting material thanks George

Posted by: @moe-parr

@georgeschire How much of a variance could there be between production and sales figures? Unless Packard was selling only one out of every three vehicles they produced, and scrapped the other two, I just can't see how that number can be right. 

Here is my take on it...

I think "production numbers" are simply the number of cars that rolled off the assembly line.  Back in those days NEW cars were usually introduced to the public in the Fall of the year for the upcoming year.  An example of that would be the new '55 Chevy's would come off the assembly line in September or October of 1954 for the 1955 model year...so they actual debut to the public before January 1955.  

Then it would make sense that production for that car would end before the Fall of the next year.  It comes down to the "production year" being different than the actual "calendar year".  

And I still think you are mixing up "production" and "sales".  Just because cars were produced during the production year, doesn't mean all of those cars were sold.  It is likely that many models were still on dealerships lots for a previous year's car when a production began for the next year's cars.  

So in your question above, "How much of a variance could there be between production and sales figures?", I'm thinking that it could be possible to have many cars that were actually produced, but not sold within the given year.  So it wouldn't be that cars were "scrapped", only that they perhaps didn't sell during the "production year".  They could have sold the previous years cars in the next year.  

And in your example of Packard, simplifying it, it could look like this.  They "produced" three cars cars, but maybe only "sold" one during their calendar year.  But those other two cars could have been sold later.  

Just don't confuse "production" and "sales", because they will both be different figures.  And I only have on my Index Cards "production" figures, NOT "sales" figures.  

Hope this makes sense, because LOL, I need an Excedrin!  I've never thought this deeply about it before.  

Posted by: @moe-parr

Fun stuff indeed, but mind if I ask your source for these figures, George? Based on what I've read over the years, it doesn't make sense to me that Packard (with no 1959 model year, and minimal 1957-1958 sales) outsold Cadillac, or Chrysler, in the decade of the Fifties.

Barry, I agree. 

@sizedoesmatter, 

John, did you see my post in response to Barry above yours?  Production numbers are NOT the same as sales numbers.  That is where the confusion is coming in.  My figures are ONLY production numbers and DO NOT reflect the numbers of those cars that actually sold.  

Posted by: @georgeschire

Posted by: @moe-parr

@georgeschire How much of a variance could there be between production and sales figures? Unless Packard was selling only one out of every three vehicles they produced, and scrapped the other two, I just can't see how that number can be right. 

Here is my take on it...

I think "production numbers" are simply the number of cars that rolled off the assembly line.  Back in those days NEW cars were usually introduced to the public in the Fall of the year for the upcoming year.  An example of that would be the new '55 Chevy's would come off the assembly line in September or October of 1954 for the 1955 model year...so they actual debut to the public before January 1955.  

Then it would make sense that production for that car would end before the Fall of the next year.  It comes down to the "production year" being different than the actual "calendar year".  

And I still think you are mixing up "production" and "sales".  Just because cars were produced during the production year, doesn't mean all of those cars were sold.  It is likely that many models were still on dealerships lots for a previous year's car when a production began for the next year's cars.  

So in your question above, "How much of a variance could there be between production and sales figures?", I'm thinking that it could be possible to have many cars that were actually produced, but not sold within the given year.  So it wouldn't be that cars were "scrapped", only that they perhaps didn't sell during the "production year".  They could have sold the previous years cars in the next year.  

And in your example of Packard, simplifying it, it could look like this.  They "produced" three cars cars, but maybe only "sold" one during their calendar year.  But those other two cars could have been sold later.  

Just don't confuse "production" and "sales", because they will both be different figures.  And I only have on my Index Cards "production" figures, NOT "sales" figures.  

Hope this makes sense, because LOL, I need an Excedrin!  I've never thought this deeply about it before.  

 

So by that logic, the cars sold in the calendar year before and after the car's production year don't count at all??  Packard produced 3 cars but only sold one during the calendar year SO the other two cars went to limbo and are not counted?? Cars sold between Sept. - Dec. don't count because the calendar and production years don't match?? Aren't they counted in the next years sales total; which means the previous years left overs are counted with current years production or they just went to limbo. Not based on production the sold figures for a production year should be total sales weather the car is a 2 year left over but never sold in the calendar year associated as with the cars sold in Sept. - Dec. 

I can understand producing X amount of cars and having to subtract Y amount for cars used for testing, not sold corporate use, damaged scrapped, or for promotion can make the sales numbers different from production; makes that much difference?

@brush,

I'm starting to regret sharing these production numbers for the cars.  You and others are reading way more in to the figures than you should be.  

Production numbers are ONLY the number cars that a certain brand produced.  Simple as that!  

It has NOTHING to do with how many of those cars sold or when they sold. 

Not sure why this is so confusing.  

@georgeschire

George, Yes I read your response. I just don't see how production verse sales numbers can offset the totals by any significant amount considering all other brands were counted the same as Packard.

Cadillac produced over 100,000 per year in the '50's except '52 & '54 both close though.

Chrysler also produced over 100,000 per year in all but '52, '58, '59 

WHILE Packard produced

'50 - 42,272

'51 - 100,713

'52 - 60,921

'53 - 90,252

'54 - 31,291

'55 - 55,347

'56 - 28,853

'57 - 4,809

'58 - 2,622

'59 - 0

total - 417,000 produced [if my math is right]

Not even close.   

@sizedoesmatter, and I'm not understanding how you guys are confusing Production numbers with Sales numbers. 

The numbers are ONLY the number of cars PRODUCED, and SALES numbers are an entirely different story. 

No doubt SALES NUMBERS would reflect an entirely different look at which brands sold better than others.   

@georgeschire; I changed my post above to the actual production numbers. Just being picky because it looks so wrong.  

I just did a little research. My source (Wikipedia) isn't always the most reliable, but what I found does at least make sense to me.

These are PRODUCTION (not sales) figures for 1950 - 1959:

Packard (including 1956 Clipper) 419,317

Chrysler 1,242,441

The Chrysler figure almost matches yours, George, it was your figure for Packard that didn't make sense to me. The above figure does.

And, to say that production and sales have NOTHING to do with each other is not quite true in the auto industry.