[quote="Bing,
OK, I know nothing about design, just what looks good to me. That first picture, the roof is all wrong. It is too high and not sweeping enough. The roof looks like a Russian design. The front end too is wrong for some reason, just too busy and convoluted. And what’s with that big side stripe? So the design looks like a first attempt in the studio that should have been refined.
[/quote]
Agree 100 %
Were they both still under warranty?
Both Toyotas problems were covered by warranty. The problem was that both cars were out of service for weeks, especially the 2003 4Runner, as Toyota tried to figure out what the heck was going on. The real problem was the computer. But by the time the computer was replaced we had been thru two transmissions and two catalytic converters, and an untold number of dealer visits. When they supposedly got it all fixed, the car still stank of sulfur when accelerating and vibrated before each shift. I sold the 4Runner in 2005 in disgust.
By the time my wife’s 2008 Toyota transmission quit, Toyota must have perfected the diagnostic process, because they replaced both the transmission and the computer control system, and they did it in a week. But Toyota’s warranty didn’t cover car rental or travel costs. No loaner. The Solara died 400 miles from home. Each of these incidents cost me over $1,000 out of pocket. We still have the 2008 Toyota Solara, my wife loves it, and when it can be fun to drive. But the replacement transmission has always shifted roughly, but at least it hasn’t failed. The top squeaks and rattles. Tire shops have trouble balancing the tires at each tire change. It has weird size disk brakes and the disks and calipers wear out every 20,000 miles, costing $1,500 about every 18 months. I would never buy another Toyota.
I don’t like it when people conflate “reliability” with “longevity.” Reliability is often a factor in longevity, but it isn’t the only factor. There is a guy in my neighborhood who drives an old leaky jalopy I would hardly call reliable, but it’s still earning marks for longevity.
True! We watch a lot of English programs on Public Television. Many have well running old Land Rovers. The aluminum bodies did not rust.
Those vehicles are not really reliable on a day t day basis, but the Network’s mechanics keep the running.
When I sold my '98 Civic with 318,279 miles, it was an econoheap, but I considered it reliable since the only time it ever left me “stranded” (at my mother’s house), it was due to a malfunctioning clutch safety switch. I had the switch bypassed rather than fixed, so there’s zero chance of that ever happening again.
That car had longevity and reliability going for it.
It wasn’t that Studebaker had poor designers, it was the same problem that all the independents had, they did not have the economics of scale that larger companies did.
Because their production was so much lower, it cost them a LOT more per car to change styling.
It is interesting to me that someone who says he has never owned an ugly car loves GM styling. I personally find the 59,60 and 61 Chevy repulsive. But styling is where GM spent their money. Not the best engineering solutions.
Look how long Chevrolet has a six cylinder engine that was splash oiled, and how long they produced a two speed automatic.
Even the famed 265 cube small block Chevy had less horsepower and less fuel economy that the 259 cubic inch Studebaker.
As far as the revolutionary stamper individual rocker arm V* of Chevy, it was actually develo[ed by Pontiac in 1947 but GM would not let tham produce it until 1955 and also forced them to share the design with Chevy.
The 1953 and 54 Studebaker sports coupe is considered by many designers as the best looking car of the 50s.
I liked Ford styling too but not so much Chrysler. I just never had the occasion to own a Ford. And the 59 and 61 GM products were great looking cars as were the Fords of those years. Adults will disagree though. 
I’ll take that back. I really liked the 57 and 58 Plymouth and Desoto but not so much the 59. And I liked the early 50’s Stude with the bullet. My Godfather had one and a Stude pick-up truck too. A little weird but I liked it. Some years ago cross country I ran across one in a field that looked like it was for sale. I looked at it but concluded it was just too far gone.
Yes, but they also suffered–over the long term–from incredibly bad decisions by a series of CEOs. In the depths of the Great Depression, when business cratered and profits were non-existent, their CEO decided that Studebaker should continue to pay the same dividend on its stock, in order to look “stable”. The net result was to put the company even further into the red.
In the early '50s, Studebaker came up with a very good automatic transmission before Ford did. Ford offered to buy the rights to the design, or at least to pay a very attractive price for every Studebaker transmission that they could build. The guy who was the CEO at that time decided to say no, and this cut off a source of income that could have enabled Studebaker to update their designs more rapidly.
Their massive factory complex in South Bend was designed for wagon production and was many times larger than what Studebaker needed for car production. Back in the era when South Bend was still a highly industrialized city, their CEO could have sold-off some of their factory buildings, but he decided not to.
There were other incredibly bad business decisions on the part of various Studebaker CEOs, and if you want to read about them, I highly recommend:
Studebaker: Less Than They Promised.
An important reason behind product improvements in both Germany and Japan is because after WWII they built new plants and machinery. We bombed the old plants to rubble.
Yup!
And, good old General Motors sued the US Gov’t for damages when their Opel factories in Germany were destroyed. They were compensated by the US Gov’t, despite the fact that their Opel division manufactured trucks and other equipment for the Nazis, and GM pocketed the profits for that manufacturing.
Yes, the Raymond Loewy designed Studebakers were unique!
The two door hardtop is still a collector’s item ad you see them t antique car shows.
Quality-wise, Studes were so-so.
Well, it is a small sample size, but I grew up in one and owned two and I was impressed with the quality and design of all three. The 56 I had had impressive performance considering the displacement of its 259 cu in V8. No timing belt or chains., they used gears for valve timing. It got a week in week our 21 mpg which was amazing for a V8 in 1956.
It was evidently a PBS special and on Youtube. Also, More than they promised.
More Than They Promised was a paraphrase of something that one of the Studebaker brothers uttered back in the olden days. I’m not sure if it was Wheelbarrow Johnny or one of the other Studebaker brothers who said something along the lines of… Always give the customer more than you promised. So, I guess that the book title was supposed to be an ironic alteration of that saying.
I never saw the PBS special, but I will see what I can find on YouTube.
When it comes to reliability, cars and statistics, things are not always what they seem. For example , a brand that is slightly more expensive may attract an older demographic that no longer beats on the car, has learned the value of maintenance and thus has fewer repairs on essentially the same car. Examples from other fields. Washing machines yield just the opposite results. Kitchenaid, w\Whirlpool, Maytag, and Roper are all part of the same family of washers and yet, the more expensive the brand, the less reliable. Why? all use common parts, but the least expensive brand , Roper is the most reliable. Why? Roper has the least features so less parts to break and there is really no maintenance to do on washing machines. Also, a $200 repair might seem to be worth it on and 8 year old $1000 washer but not on an 8 year old $500 washer. The same thing with lawnmowers and snowblowers, the cheap ones get junked instead of repaired and the expensive ones get fixed. If you throw something out, it is not reported as a repair.
Agree! When GM full size cars were all cookie cutter the same in the 80s, the least reliable was Pontiac, who sold performance and attitude! Olds, on the other hand was an older mature type car and had much better reliability As well for Buick,
Chevrolet was the workhorse and had average reliability.
My March 2021issue of Consumer Reports arrived today and one article was about the 10 most satisfying cars and the 10 least satisfying cars on the market based on CR’s survey of its subscribers. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the vehicle. Only one Toyota was on the top 10 and that was the Prius that was ranked 7th. Of the least satisfying vehicles, the Toyota C-HR took the prize. Satisfaction ratings were based on value, comfort, driving, cabin storage, in-car electronics, and styling.
To me, it is interesting that some of the most satisfying cars had a poor reliability rating in CR’s surveys. I also wonder if subscribers to Consumer Reports are really representative of the general public.
To me, reliability and longevity are at the top of my list. The Toyota vehicles I have owned fill the bill for me, although I have owned other makes that have been reliable and l drove many miles over a long period of time.
I think @oldtimer-11 makes a good point about other items such as washers, lawn mowers, etc.
I chaired the house committee at my church for a number of years. The church needed a vacuum cleaner for our part time custodian. The committee was convinced that the Kirby would be the best machine for our purposes. I was always taking that vacuum cleaner in for repair. I figured out that it was cheaper to replace the Kirby with a $50 "factory reconditioned than to pay the repair bills for expensive vacuum. The custodian would use the Big Lots special for two or three years until it went bad. I would throw it away and go back to Big Lots for another factory reconditioned special.
I’ve Had Kirby come to my door twice and the 2nd guy i told him right up front he had no shot and exactly what I thought of the company and their sales practices. Never had so much pressure in the finance office of a car dealer as I did in my own living room.
At work the “commercial” vacuum cleaners really don’t last much more than the Hoover’s we buy from Target, they just require more repairs.
And cost 4X the $$.