(first posted 1/12/2012) The 1951-53 Kaiser may be the most forgotten sedan from that period of time. Which is a shame, because this car may be one of the most stunning and dramatic sedans of the early 1950s.
I will confess that I have neglected the many pages of great cars found by the Cohort. After Paul started pulling some cars to feature, I took a look, and this one posted by Davo grabbed me by the collar.
I have a soft spot for these Kaisers. After sixteen years of service to family and farm, my grandfather finally decided to replace his 1935 Ford sedan. The Ford was the car that got my Mother’s family through much of the Great Depression and a World War. His choice to replace it? A beautiful blue 1951 Kaiser DeLuxe. Probably a lot like the one right here.
The car was a stunner when it made its debut as a 1951 model. This was a very low car for 1951, and it’s basic shape (particularly below the beltline) would soon be echoed by the most successful players in the industry. Remember, this car came out two full years before the 1953 Studebaker Starliner. But unlike the Starliner, this was not a sporty coupe, but a bread and butter sedan. It was also popular, as Kaiser moved about 145,000 out the door that year.
As beautiful as the car was, it was otherwise pretty undistinguished. A lot of the chassis was carried over from Kaiser’s original 1947 model, including an off-the-shelf Continental flathead six for power. The ’51 Kaiser’s only other noteworthy feature was the interior design: Kaiser was an innovator in colorful and stylish interiors, and other carmakers would follow Kaiser’s lead here, as well.
This example is a 1953, the last with the original front end concept. Note the widow’s peak over the one-piece windshield. Also, this is not just a Kaiser, it is a Kaiser Manhattan – the high-end model that tried to plug the hole left by the Kaiser’s discontinued sister brand, the Frazer.
We can engage in a lot of ‘what ifs” with Kaiser. What if they had spent the money blown on the Henry J on a modern V8 engine, or on a restyle of the beautiful 1951 car, or a hardtop and convertible to add to the line? We will never know. Kaiser sales dwindled to nearly nothing by 1954, and after a few leftover’s re-titled as 1955 models, the line was dead.
It is a pity, really. By the mid 1950s, all of the independents were desperately trying to modernize tall, stubby, outdated designs from the late ’40s or early ’50s. How many of those stylists secretly wished they had been able to start with something as long and low and attractive as the 1951-53 Kaiser? Probably all of them.
A remarkable design in search of a good motor. Hello Hofmeister Kink!
That gracefully arched roof line is also very much ahead of its time, like half a century. It became very common in the last twenty years or so, since the Nissan ARC X of 1987, and probably others before it too.
The Curved roofline seems like the Morris Minor to me.
The all-new 2012 Nissan Versa sedan has an almost identical roof line and door frame design, including the Hofmeister kink.
It finally hit me last evening – the recent Sebring coupe’s roofline always reminded me of these Kaisers. The Hofmeister kink, the arched roofline and the abnormally fat door uppers are all there.
Ha! I was so proud to finally know what the Hofmeister Kink was and wanted to suggest Kaiser had it first…beat me to it again, Mr. N!
Oh another note, I wonder what Kaiser’s future might have been had they had the capability of building their own engines, especially an OHV V8. Their pending deal with Oldsmobile to buy their V8s fell through due to Korean War restrictions imposed by the federal government, and Continental’s engines while durable were not performance powerhouses.
These were interesting cars though, for sure.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for showcasing this car. It truly is a forgotten “classic”.
Someone at our church when I was quite young had one of these and its most distinguishing feature was that windshield and the curvature of the side glass. I remember staring at the “woman’s lips” windshield and began calling these cars “goochie cars” for no apparent reason other than I could not come up with a better term to describe them.
There was one of these for sale near our home some years ago and considered stopping to look it over. Almost would like to have a “goochie car” to call my own!
Gotta love that outward visibility. OEMs – take notice.
These are just gorgeous. I finally saw one IRL at the Indianapolis Mecum auction last year and lingered for a long time over it.
“A remarkable design in search of a good motor.”
The motor was in the pipeline. Future AMC engine designer David Potter (IIRC) was working on a V8 engine for Kaiser. With reorganization, merger with Willys and the end of the passenger-car line in favor of Jeep, the former Kaiser company had no use (they thought) for Potter or his designs. He was furloughed and, out the door, it seems, he carried his design drafts.
It seems, because American Motors hired him and had their new V8 engine in record time. Happenstance? I think not.
The problem with Kaiser was it was overambitious and undercapitalized – they were, from the start, short of both money and time. The plan at first was to make a FWD sedan out of aluminum…coming from Henry Kaiser’s experience with aluminum production, Kaiser Aluminum. But they allowed only eighteen months lead-up time, and were not completely successful in raising capital. And even less so when the new Kaiser and Fraser models turned out less revolutionary and selling less, and K-F went with a second public offer.
It was a tragedy; but unfortunately, Henry Kaiser’s ego got the better of him. He was the engineer as Hero, a sand-and-gravel man who learned, in turn, cement, construction, dam-building, shipbuilding, manufacturing and health-care management. He was able to build Liberty ships at the rate of one a day…so, when he turned to autos, he was going to go in in a big way.
And he failed. Had he started easy and small, he could have built up to where he wanted – as did the earlier companies; as did Honda and Toyota and the Korean brands later. But he went in big; big promises, big failure.
Even then, to his credit, he salvaged Willys Jeep out of it. And no doubt planned to use it as a seed to grow into a New Kaiser Corporation – the Wagoneer was a mainstream product from conception.
Alas for Henry, his time ran out in 1967.
Kaiser had to go big to get the ginormous Willow Run plant at a govt. surplus price. Not that it made starting big a good idea, more that it gave him the excuse to do what he really wanted, which is too bad.
It’s interesting to think what Kaiser could have done with aluminum cars given the chance.
You’re right, it’s David Potter. He could have had all the essential elements of the engine design in his head, knowing from his Kaiser work they’d be right. That’s quite a story, another Kaiser missed opportunity. Wikipedia says “The engineering department hired David Potter, a former Kaiser Motors engineer, to come in and help develop the engine. Potter had previously worked on a V8 design for Kaiser, and had the experience necessary to take the engine from drawing board to full production in just under 18 months, an extraordinary engineering feat at the time—slide rules were the norm because there were no computers.”
The circle came around completely when Kaiser Jeep started using the AMC 327 V-8 in its flagship model Wagoneer. And that, after a brief flirtation with Buick power, it was AMC power that came to be known as Jeep engines…and AMC the company making their models.
And in Honolulu, he built a hotel, and entire development and neighborhood and a High School is named after him.
K-F was undercapitalized yes, but you can’t possibly start small in the automotive business. Economies of scale required to develop and manufacture cars to be sold at realistic prices require huge volumes, now even more so than in 1953, but still. An ice-cube in the wind melts, whereas a mountain gathers more snow, so to say. If a car company isn’t hugely capitalised, it is on Death Row already. Just ask the numerous independents who were successful for a time. Henry J wasn’t in it for the short haul. In the car business, there *is* no short haul.
Japanese and Korean companies became success stories as much due to their protective Governments, and the mind-numbing stupidity of Detroit managers, as due to `starting small’ and building up. Kaiser was in free-market USA, and did not have the luxury of being mollycoddled by Government. Yes the US Govt protects its own auto industry, but that industry is made up of GM, and Ford, and Chrysler, not Kaiser. So there is no comparison.
However, the main reason for Kaiser’s demise is actually Henry J. himself’s lack of money. As strange as it may sound, if he really wanted to be in the car business at all he needed all the money he could muster, but he severely under-estimated it. Maybe Joseph Frazer misled him (Kaiser was, after all, not an auto-industry insider), but the blame must squarely rest on Henry J. If he had pumped enough money initially into Kaiser Motors, we would probably have had a `Big Four’ by now.
PS: As far as `start small’ is concerned, `Suzuki Death Watch’ anyone? It is in exactly the same position as Kaiser—successful cars, limited international sales (Suzuki is very big in India, but that’s about it), very limited model range, and most importantly, a Govt. that will support the Japanese auto industry, as defined by Toyota+Honda (Nissan?). Suzuki could be the new Daewoo.
“K-F was undercapitalized yes, but you can’t possibly start small in the automotive business. Economies of scale required to develop and manufacture cars to be sold at realistic prices require huge volumes, now even more so than in 1953, but still. An ice-cube in the wind melts, whereas a mountain gathers more snow, so to say. If a car company isn’t hugely capitalised, it is on Death Row already. Just ask the numerous independents who were successful for a time. Henry J wasn’t in it for the short haul. In the car business, there *is* no short haul.”
Disagree. The successful entities started easy. Volkswagen started with a ruined factory and one product with an untested market for it.
Honda started with bicycles; moved into motorbikes and then full-fledged motorcycles; and then kei cars. Hundai started with a Mitsubishi knock-off; then rebodied it. ONE model.
All of these grew their product-range carefully.
Japanese corporate subsidies? To some extent, yes. But the Koreans have copied the Japanese success. The West Germans preceded it.
The key seems to be, to start with NO debt and with adequate resources. VW did it because the nascent organization had a plant and product, effectively free. Hundai had the parent corporation sponsoring it.
Kaiser was an upstart company, but Kaiser had his conglomerate behind him: Kaiser Shipbuilding, Kaiser Chemical, Kaiser Aluminum; Kaiser Permanente Healthcare. He was unable to leverage these because those were publicly-held corporations and he was unable to persuade their directors, or his bankers, to back the risk.
Because he was starting too big, and with too little capital. He later had much success in buying Willys-Overland and slowly growing it, but time was running out – and his family had little interest in the auto business after his passing.
I’ve mentioned before: Kaiser Jeep had bought a large block of American Motors stock over the years. Had Kaiser lived longer; or if his family wanted to continue, it would have been interesting if AMC’s purchase of K-J went the other way around.
> Japanese corporate subsidies? To some extent, yes. But the Koreans have copied the Japanese success. The West Germans preceded it.
I fully agree, at least as regards VW.
When you have a Govt. owned plant that is financed by foreign blackmail money, it is easy to foist a `vehicle does not meet the fundamental technical requirement of a motor-car’ on a poor motoring public. Afterwards they bought out Auto-Union and NSU with *money* not earned by selling the earlier POS cars, and suddenly had engineering depth. Well, that and a Govt. hell-bent on reducing the influence of `foreign’ Ford and Opel (ridiculous Anti VW-Takover-Law, anyone?), and probably some strange pseudo-patriotism on the part of Germans who bought them. Drive on the autobahn in a indeed, in a `car not worth a damn’. VW didn’t have to engineer jack s**t from scratch for the first 25 year honeymoon or so, and then bought out Auto-Union. If Kaiser had had such an environment, well…
Japanese manufacturers’ success in *Japan* has absolutely nothing to do with their success in the US. The Japanese models are very different from what they sell everywhere else. Their engineering expertise was built up because the big manufacturers did not foresee Japan becoming a big car market. If Ford had opened up Ford Japan in 1960, Honda Motors would have been very difficult to come by. Also, don’t forget the 800lb gorillas of Japan—Toyota and Nissan, both backed by mega support structures of questionable legality since a very long time. Lets see how Suzuki does then we’ll use Japan as an example.
Same with Koreans. Hyundai already had engineering depth and deep pockets when they started out in the auto business, and they still haven’t hit their stride.
You’re absolutely right in pointing out that Kaiser had Kaiser Industries behind him, an American Hyundai of sorts. However, Henry J. didn’t have tight control over his other corporations to force them to invest in Kaiser Motors. He should have given them ultimatums or sold some of his other interests to finance K-F. He didn’t, and that was his choice.
One has to start with adequate resources, I agree, but debt or not, it has to start BIG. If a company does not have the capital to throw a few *generations* of good products, it has no business being in the Auto Business. If I consider Kaiser to be a Hero in my pantheon, but he called this one wrong.
Of course, you’re right about the AMC affair. If Henry’s heirs were interested in his legacy rather than cashing it out, AMC/Kaiser would have been the one to watch indeed. Oh well…
I wouldn’t be so hard on Kaiser’s heirs. Estate taxes in those days were over 50 percent…and that was just Federal. So, in all likelihood, the properties HAD to be sold…
Henry Ford’s family was in a similar situation: the Ford company went public in 1956 not because it wanted to or needed to raise capital, in and of itself…but because the Ford heirs HAD to do it to pay estate taxes. The Ford structure was of dubious legality; and probably what loopholes they used in corporate-governance laws to keep control with a minority interest, were quickly plugged.
I was 10, 11, 12 in those years…but I remember that Kaiser businesses, of which there were several in our area, ceased to be – changing their name or selling. Kaiser Broadcasting had a television and radio station in our area; Kaiser Aluminum was up the road a hundred miles. All gone, by the mid-1970s.
Estate taxes don’t seem to have affected the Kochs and Cargills that much… Still, what’s done is done. How the mighty have fallen indeed.
I don’t think that Hyundai is a good example. The parent corporation of Hyundai automotive has almost unlimited assets. Remember, they build ships!
Love these cars. It’s too bad they were doomed from the get-go. Advanced jet age, postwar leading styling hampered with an archaic, pre-war drivetrain.
Innovative in appliques, colors and design; horribly compromised in the marketplace pricewise uncompetetive with it’s contemporaries.
Make mine a stick with the “Dragon” trim!! Better yet, a ’54 blown Conti-six.
I’ll take a sky-blue ’55 Manhattan, too!
I always liked the basic shape and style of these cars. I would just “ruin it” (in the eyes of some) by replacing the six with a modern V8 and trans so I could drive the thing easily.
“I would just “ruin it” (in the eyes of some) by replacing the six with a modern V8”
Hmmpf…Kids…!
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww but DAD, I promise I’ll sell the engine to somebody doing a concours level restoration of a Kaiser!
Ha ha ha!
Now that comment just made my evening. Priceless!
So replace it with an early AMC V8: build what might have been. Please don’t pass it off as a rare factory prototype.
jp is right: These cars are stunning. Even when they’re derelicts. About 30 years ago, I was on my way back to university, when I stopped at a little gas station near the Ravenna Arsenal, in Northeast Ohio. As I was filling up, I looked around the gas station and noticed an old car with most of the chrome missing. Once I was done fueling, I wandered over to the old carcass and realized it was a Kaiser Manhattan.
It a had weird vinyl roof on it and some other strange (to me) fifties styling cues, but I had to get on my way so I left it behind. To have had a camera at my disposal then…
Some weeks later I was looking at a book of fifties American cars, and there was the car I’d seen. It was actually a Kaiser Manhattan Dragon, which was the very top of the line car. The car I’d seen didn’t have a motor, and some of the chrome trim had been removed/fallen off, but otherwise the car looked like a dusty beat-up version of the car in the pictures.
They were a different style of car, and not in the Duncan MacRae late 50’s Studebaker way, either. I’m not really the biggest fan of 50’s cars, but this one had charmed me. It has stuck with me all of these years.
Great post!
This feature makes me day. A friend of mine restored a supercharged Kaiser Manhattan to showroom condition (won all kinds of awards). He’s also restored Edsels, Corvairs, 442s, etc. But this was the most uncommon that I’m aware of.
Most impressive, he had had cancer and most of his between his lungs and pelvis were removed, and he was in a wheelchair when he did all these restorations. Absolutely incredible guy, and incredibly good work. The Kaiser whispered along and seemed more like a visit from another time than a restoration. Sweet car.
These are sharp cars. Didn’t Kaiser call this “Anatomic” design?
Yes, they did. It is my understanding that this was because of the supposed ergonomic advances in the interior.
I also should have added a postscript that the tooling for these cars was packed up and sent to Argentina, where the car was produced from 1958-62, with virtually no exterior change from the 1954-55 U.S. version. The car was looking pretty old by 1962, and I can only imagine what they could have done with it with even a small restyling budget. If Studebaker could take the dowdy, rounded 53-54 sedan and create the fairly handsome 1964 Cruiser, imagine what Brooks Stevens could have done with the Kaiser.
The Kaiser Carabella.
Here is a project for restyilng the Carabela from 1961. Apparently there was also another were the roofline was intervined replacing the curves with a more angular design. The final decision of IKA was to drop the Kaiser and buy the license to manufacture the Rambler line of compacts, with the ancient Continental engine.
The front fender looks solidly early-’60s but the rest of it still looks like the decade-old car it is.
Brooks Stevens never got a shot at restyling the Kaiser Manhattan, but after the Kaiser-Willys merger he did restyle the Willys Aero into a squared-off ’60s style with his favored pseudo-T-Bird roofline. It would be built in Brazil through 1971. Only the front end with the above-the-grille headlamps betrayed its ’50s origins.
These cars should have succeeded maybe the US was the wrong market for a non V8 car I cant help but think they may have sold ok here competing with 6 cylinder Vauxhalls and Zephyrs they would have been on par with what we called a big car.
Post-war America, Bryce, was about unbridled pent up demand for new, longer, lower, faster, sensational, but somewhat affordable cars. That included the most bang for the buck equipment and performance on a “delivered now” basis on early 50’s cars, hence why Olds, Buick and Mercury did so well in the early ’50s. Short stroke torque on demand V-8’s were the rage; Buick and Mercury OHV V-8’s arrived right on time along with most of the competition.
Kaiser, though, did not. We know that V-8 development costs went towards the Henry J and Allstate Sears cars; blow #2 was that that Kaiser price range fell into Olds to near-Cadillac territory. Albeit this series Kaisers’ were out of this world fabulous, having a plodding 115hp side valve six as your ONLY motor choice was a hard sell in this price range. At least Hudson offered Twin-H power at competetive V-8 hp levels (but for Hudson, still not enough).
The majority of American car buyers were gonna have short-stroke V-8’s, by Henry (J. Kaiser).
Over here post war the demand was there we had no new cars since 39 but our Govt strangled the supply which of course kept demand high Kaisers would have sold everything else did but Ive never seen a Kaiser even in old time junk yards so it seems they didnt export.
They were selective in their import markets.
The big one was Argentina, where IKA did first, CKD assemblies, then, as Willys fell under Kaiser control, complete cars. The tooling for the Kaiser and Aero-Willys were sold there when U.S. operations shut down.
The Aero-Willys had a long, long life in South America – it had a few facelifts to bring it into the 1960s, but IIRC, they were making it up into the 1970s.
Australia and New Zealand were a market many manufacturers passed on, for the cost of RHD conversions versus the small sales potential. And, of course, the even-more-limited market for big Detroit iron.
See the following video at 12:43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6tzRmoSps
Caronia Mediterranean Cruise 1950s
You will glimpse a Kaiser Manhattan taxicab in Tel Aviv, Israel.
The Wikipedia page says that Kaisers were made in Haifa.
As I remember, the Henry J was the result of government pressure, or incentive, for a small, economical, low-priced car.
Kaiser was in trouble; and he was looking for tax abatement. Congressional leadership asked, “Why? and the bombastic Kaiser started spouting promises of a “new” car with fabulous economy and a low price.
To make good on that, his people engineered the Henry J. It had everything promised – except the market. And the costs took down the Federal aid; that and then some.
This was best looking 4 Dr sedan of the early ’50’s bar none. Hudsons were distinctive, Stude still had the bullet nose in ’51 but nothing else compared to these Kaisers. They were styled by Dutch Darrin and featured the Darrin “Dip” in the rear C pillar. The V8 engine would have put it over the top, at least for a while.
You can read a nice Hemmings article on these fabulous cars here:
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2005/01/01/hmn_feature3.html
Just be careful to avoid the right-hand column, which shows a couple for sale at dangerous prices.
Ate up with motor also covered these.
When I took this photo last April, it was for sale for $10,995. The add said rebuilt original transmission and motor. I’ve attached a photo of the rear.
Thank you! I wanted to use this one, but kept having technical problems copying it. I love that tail end treatment. What a fabulously rare find. I think that there may only have been maybe 30,000 of these cars made, and to see a survivor like this one is a real treat for all of us. Thanks so much for sharing it on the Flickr page!
It was treat for me too. I’d never seen one before. I’ve only lived in the USA for 9 years. There are so many makes and models of cars I’ve never seen before.
Carnut.com says they shipped 17K Kaiser Manhattans in 1952, and 21K in ’53.
To really appreciate the beauty of these cars, you need to see one like I did about six weeks ago: Five miles from my house there is a small auto junkyard (four Vega’s out front, right off the road) which is being cleared out. This has been going on for a few weeks and the quantity of wrecks was slowly dwindling. Oh yeah, the place was partially wooded.
One day I drive past the place, and there’s a ’51 Kaiser Special that must have been sitting under a clump of trees rotting for the last 40 years. Half the underbody was just plain gone (maybe they could have gotten the hood and trunk lids, but that’s it), and yet you could still see the beauty in those lines. It was gone two days later. Yeah, I stopped, long enough to ascertain that there was no way that car was ever going to be a parts car, much less ever put back on the road. The underside was almost completely gone.
What a pity. Old Man Kaiser had the money for either a modern V-8, or the Henry J. Boy, did he make the wrong choice.
Nice piece about a distinctive car. There was a green one with a white top in my neighborhood when I was a kid, and my Dad explained to me what it was. There is a maroon one in pretty decent condition sitting at a garage about two towns over, saw it just a few days ago. I have always liked the way these things look, which is fairly different from everything else that was built in that era.
Nice article, JP! I spotted one of these moving in traffic in your neck of woods last June. My wife and I had just exited our car and were heading into a restaurant. Of course, I had left the camera in the car and there was no time to retrieve it before the Kaiser drove away!
Certainly not a car you see very often these days.
Before CC, there used to be a black 54 or 55 sedan with a white roof that was regularly parked outside of a house that I would drive past occasionally. Those later models with the Buick XP300-like grilles are really scarce. But at the time, I never thought to try to photograph it. Now I am sorry that I didn’t.
There was, about the time I was a senior in high school, about the time I wound up getting my avatar (’74 Courier in October, 1976), then Dexter Toyota (as it is now Marin Toyota) had side by side a: 1955 Manhattan AND a ’56 Packard Patrician. Both in great shape and on the front row! Both caught my eye, but the Bank of Dad and I actually came to price a base model Corolla. ’77 base Corolla – four speed, 1.6L engine (by this time, the little 1.2L “slant four” was now n/a in Ca. for smog reasons); rubber floor mats and fixed rear windows (curse now, Zackman!) – sticker $3200.00.
I got a good look at one of these in Cuba a few years ago. I thought it was a horrid looking thing, particularly that widow’s peak windshield.
Maybe I was just spoiled by all the other great looking iron there.
Interesting conversation. Sure, all independent automakers needed more money but Kaiser was notorious for spending like a drunken sailor.
The Kaiser body had more potential for updating than almost all of its early-50s competition, but it didn’t have a step-down chassis so you couldn’t lower the roofline much without destroying headroom.
Supposedly Joe Frazer told Henry Kaiser that the company needed to cut back production for 1949, as the Big Three and Nash would have their all-new postwar designs in production by that point.
Kaiser responded by saying, “The Kaisers never retrench!”. Kaiser sales declined dramatically for 1949, and the company had to reserial a fair number of 1949 models as 1950 models. It basically treaded water until this design debuted, which temporarily revived sales, but could not compete over the long haul without a modern V-8.
Henry J. Kaiser didn’t realize that the immediate postwar seller’s market, along with the lack of anything truly new from the Big Three until the debut of the 1948 Cadillac and the “Futuramic” Oldsmobile, were the big reasons for his firm’s initial success, not his own genius.
The final Frazers are interesting cars. The company made some simple cosmetic changes to the leftover bodies, but the car looked new, and was actually fairly popular with customers. But the company had already decided to phase out the Frazer nameplate, so once the leftover bodies were gone, the nameplate died.
That 1951 Frazer also came in a convertible sedan. Unfortunately, the company did not do the job completely, so the window frames on the doors stayed in place, along with a fixed B-pillar window. Still, it is one of my favorite K-F cars.
Kaiser-Frazer sold a version with fixed roof, and some call it the first four-door hardtop. It is an attractive car.
I kinda like these – sort of a “parade car”. With 115hp of side valve six power in a car that had to have weighed 4100-4500 pounds, parade car leisurely would’ve described it’s performance!
Kaiser had his genius. Unfortunately for K-F, it wasn’t in marketing.
Joe Frazer was supposed to fill in the gap there; but Henry’s ego was a bit outsized; and he couldn’t take suggestions or direction from anyone. Certainly not from someone he considered his underling.
Kaiser himself understood later where he went wrong. All his career, he’d dealt with INDUSTRIAL goods – not consumer products which needed to be marketed to a fickle public; goods sold on desire more than need.
It was foreign territory to him. And his government experience taught him that stockpiling product would pay; not understanding that stockpiling consumer products tied to FASHION would lead to problems.
With Kaiser Jeep, he tried to stick with what he knew. Over half K-J sales were to various government entities, foreign or domestic. Those kinds of sales were his comfort zone.
Kaiser shouldn’t have dealt with Frazer in the first place. That partnership was a loss for all concerned. His cars *were* fashionable, and they *did* sell. If the failure of one model (the egoistically named Henry J.) can lead to the failure of the company, that company is doomed anyway. A series of lucky breaks can keep it alive for some time, like Studebaker, but its not sustainable. For Kaiser the end came a bit earlier.
I reiterate that he should have initially capitalised more deeply if he intended to be in the car business. Betting big is good, but one must have the money to back one’s words.
K-J is another story. What may have been…
I don’t disagree – except that the sales figures don’t lie. The Kaiser took off with great sales, that fizzled as the Big Three brought out postwar models with better power and equal or lower prices.
Competitive pricing is one more aspect of consumer-goods-versus-institutional-sales that Kaiser’s people didn’t grasp.
But in any event, sales even of the top-line full-size models shrank to a trickle. He needed a V8, not only for the power in and of itself but for the perceived status to the buying public (look at Ford’s anemic flathead V8, which did hold its own until the not-much-better Y-block came out).
He couldn’t get, and the clock was running down. Had he hung in until Potter’s engine came to fruition, it would probably have been too late anyway. As with Studebaker later…the customer is wary of buying a durable good from a failing manufacturer.
He didn’t have *money* for a V8. When a company starts to weigh options like a new model OR a new engine, the writing’s on the wall. Dependence on one model and limited engines are sure to kill a manufacturer sooner or later. He should’ve budgeted for new models (maybe Henry J.) *and* new powertrains. New products’ failure cannot be blamed for lack of upgrades in the existing line. If he couldn’t produce a full range of cars, he should’ve stayed away from the car business entirely. All niche players go out sooner or later.
It is unfortunate, though, that he *did* have the money to make it all work, but no control over that money.
Frazer was an old automobile veteran. Kaiser need his experience and his Graham-Paige holdings to even get an actual automobile.
Frazer was the voice of sanity in the whole epic.
GP was swallowed whole into K-F in 1947.
Budgeting is one thing, actually raising the money is quite another, even for a titan like Kaiser. The observation that he had no consumer product experience is astute.
I’m tempted to agree that bringing in an establishment car guy like Frazer was anti-innovative. Even though the money men must have insisted. That’s precisely what killed Aptera. The investors brought in the guy from Detroit who bankrupted ASC as “adult supervision”. He forced out the founders and turned Aptera from a high-tech startup about ready to start pilot production into a scheme to soak the government which eventually failed without shipping a single car.
But I think in fact Kaiser’s consumer product inexperience was more of a root cause, and the inevitable GM-Ford sales war of 1953 was the last straw. No V-8 was a big problem too. Americans believed “there’s no substitute for cubic inches.”
PS: Reading this it sounds like I’m equating the Aptera bozo with Frazer, which is certainly not my intent. No question Frazer was a good man. Just got going on Aptera’s fate, I was a fan.
> Americans believed “there’s no substitute for cubic inches.”
It was W.O. Bentley who coined that (or something like it): “There’s no replacement for displacement.”
I think the Americans believed correctly.
Kaiser must have known that the auto business was capital intensive, but he probably didn’t realise *how*much* capital intensive, or he would’ve had a bigger outlay from the start. That was his primary failing. Attributable to inexperience, yes, but something a good businessman like him should have foreseen. He would probably have had to sell stake in a few other ventures, but he tried to keep them all.
Frazer, fresh from the wreck of Graham-Paige, was exactly the wrong man for the job. He was used to burning money, and steeped in Detroit’s wasteful tradition. With a limited capital, this is a recipe for disaster.
The stockpiling of Henry Js, on the other hand, is surely due to inexperience with consumer products, I agree. Paying minimal service in return for large Federal payments is one thing, but actually making good on those promises at high cost another.
Well, there were many reasons for Kaiser’s failure, but I dare say this was the closest USA ever got to seeing a new major American automaker. It seems all but impossible today, whatever the electric-hippies may claim.
Well…we’re getting a little off-topic…but…
Frazer wasn’t responsible for the wreck of Graham-Paige. Frazer learned the business under Walter Chrysler; and then served as head of Willys-Overland at the time they won the contract (over Ford and Bantam) for the military GP car.
He had bought control of G-P in 1944, the war still raging…it was bankrupt but operating with war contracts. And his plan was to ape Chrysler’s transformation of Maxwell.
Kaiser didn’t bring in Frazer so much as Frazer, with G-P, representing a shortcut – an existing organization that Kaiser would otherwise have to duplicate. And, no doubt he hoped, industry expertise that would guide him through the minefields.
Frazer, if one can judge from press-releases and ads of the time, was an imperious ramrod who was trying to be Iacocca rescuing Chrysler, forty years earlier. There were a series of advertisements placed: “What GRAHAM-PAIGE is going to DO” with Frazer’s face and name. He was no shrinking violet; not another yes-man to Kaiser.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1947-Frazer-Ad-06.jpg
http://www.cartype.com/pics/3029/full/frazer-graham-paige_ad_46.jpg
That, I would posit, was the problem. Two men, both of whom would not take a backseat to the other. Neither of which really understood their own limitations. There was zero synergy in that pairing-up.
As to the other point, starting today: Ain’t gonna happen. The only successful automotive start-up today, will start in (unregulated) Third-World markets, with third-world factories, with contracted or Indian or Asian engineering. Because the cost of meeting product regulations in the States, meeting environmental and labor regulations and wages, and paying competitive wages for talented engineers…make a start-up, with the first revenues years away, impossibly expensive.
Mmmmmmmmmm…
The claim that the 49 Ford was the first to have flush mounted fenders, not true.
The 47 Kaiser beat that slab sided style by 2 years. I can remember the Kaiser Dragon model in maybe 1953, I think it had some exterior gold trim pieces?
Also it had bamboo looking dash covering along with door panels and seat tops to match. For some reason I also think they Kaiser had a pop out windshield ?
Very sharp styling for it’s time compared to other makes. The 6cyl continental flat head
was their downfall. Another memory is 1947 Frazer claimed the first true 4 dr. pillar less hard top model but is used a glass filler panel.
Maybe Paul can verify or undo my Kaiser Frazer memories ?………
The pop out windshield was a feature of the Tucker; not sure whether Kaiser had it too. The gold trim and bamboo interior are right though, for the top models.
The pop out windshield was a feature of Kaiser cars.
Is it me, or did some commenter in 2012 claim that the Volkswagen didn’t meet the minimum technical requirements of a car?
Something along those lines. Mr. CC had some pretty strong opinions. I didn’t even bother to jump into that thread. A bit over the top.
A very unique car that stands out from the pack. Kaiser’s use of interior colors seems like a good marketing strategy for today. In a world of black and gray, some real color choices would really make any car a stand out today.
This and the Studebaker coupe were easily the prettiest cars of 1953; I was 12 at the time and a long-obsessed observer of car styling. I was deeply disappointed with the drivetrain specs of both cars, but they sure were nice to look at.
One of the old-cars magazines I used to get twenty-some years ago had an interview with a former K-F production engineer who claimed that the “widow’s peak” windshield came about because Darrin didn’t know how to draw a curved windshield in side view. The weakness in that story of course is that there surely would have been an overhead view as well … but maybe that was just a case of engineer vs stylist snobbery. It was a fun story anyway.
I encountered one of these unexpectedly and very close a few years ago: I was buying an Alfa Milano from an old guy who is a past president of the SoCal Alfa club. We went into his surprisingly large garage to sign off on the paperwork, and I found myself standing between a workbench and the front end of a ’53 Kaiser, in perfectly original and only somewhat weathered trim. He and his son had bought it from the original owner, a traveling salesman who had put very, very many careful miles on it. They had decided to simply keep it clean and healthy, and drive gently only in good clear weather, as I’m sure they have continued to do.
We can engage in a lot of ‘what ifs” with Kaiser. What if they had spent the money blown on the Henry J on a modern V8 engine, or on a restyle of the beautiful 1951 car, or a hardtop and convertible to add to the line?
As luck would have it, yesterday afternoon, I had a flashlight in hand, examining the massive frame under a 53 Dragon. Compared to the willowy Studebakers of the 50s, the Kaiser was built like a tank.
Consideration of Kaiser’s power problem lead to the alternate universe where Harold Vance got wind of Kaiser’s frustrated attempt to buy Olds 303s. When Gene Hardig offered that the new Studebaker 232 could be bored, stroked and massaged to a 289 matching the 303’s output, Vance had an idea. “What if” he offered the board. “we can obtain a wider, more modern platform for nominal cost. Would you authorize the Capex to turn Chippewa into a modern, integrated body and final assembly plant, as the new, wider, more modern body would be too wide to fit through the old body plant?” With the board’s consent, Vance then calls Kaiser “What if we offered you a version of our V8, offering the power you are looking for, at minimal markup, in exchange for a royalty free license to use your platform for Studebaker cars?”
Ponder a 53 Studebaker hardtop, on the strong Kaiser frame, powered by a rumbling 200hp 289, produced in an ultramodern Chippewa plant.
I do recall reading that the 51 Kaiser featured an unusually stiff structure.
For comparison, a 53 Kaiser frame, like the one I was looking at Saturday.
…and the notoriously willowy 53 Studebaker frame. The Kaiser was 5″ wider and 8″ longer, yet the weight penalty for the larger and stronger car was only 65 lbs. When Studebaker went to a thicker gauge steel for the frame in 54, the Land Cruiser was then 45 lbs *heavier* than the larger, stronger, Kaiser.
I believe the pic you used is of that customized K-F. Imagine if they had that with what became the AMC 287 ci in 1953…
I believe the pic you used is of that customized K-F. Imagine if they had that with what became the AMC 287 ci in 1953…
Yes, that chassis pic is from an article about chopping the top of a Kaiser. The frame is the same as what I was looking at on an unmodified 53 Dragon Saturday.
The AMC V8 that Dave Potter designed was first introduced in 56 as a 260, then quickly enlarged to a 327 in 57 as the Nash Ambassador needed the power. iirc the 287 version came out in the early 60s.
Potter’s Kaiser V8 was a 288. They had a prototype running, but did not have the capital to get it into production.
The Studebaker V8 originally came out in 51 as a 232, with barely more power than the Kaiser 226 cube 6. The Stude engine was first bored out in 55 to create the 259, then stroked in 56 to 289.
This is one car I would have to agree with Mr. “gun-slit” Niedermeyer on: the greenhouse on this era Kaiser seems waaaay out of proportion with the rest of the car. Even a 7+ foot center could ease into the cabin and brush barely a few hairs on the top of his head! Reminds me of the mid-late 2000s Ford 500 sedans.
The greenhouse looks just fine, what seems off is the chunky door frames surrounding it IMO. That beltline could be raised to cartoonish 6G Camaro levels and that area where they transition into the roof would still look pretty awkward. Even then though, I think the two tone is unflattering most of all, the bright trim on the “Darrin dip” and the white top wash out in the light and make the greenhouse look huge.
Also, Steve’s pictures of the Kaiser frame shows that this was no “step-down” design. This car sat on top of it’s frame just like the Studebaker did. That tall greenhouse was probably necessary for acceptable headroom, at least given 1951 expectations for hat clearance and seat height.
I also recall reading that Darren’s original proposal was lower but that management insisted on more headroom.
Also, Steve’s pictures of the Kaiser frame shows that this was no “step-down” design. This car sat on top of it’s frame just like the Studebaker did. That tall greenhouse was probably necessary for acceptable headroom, at least given 1951 expectations for hat clearance and seat height.
The Ypsilanti museum keeps the cars locked with “hands off” signs, so I did not open the door, but I am sure you are right about it being flat floored. The frame rails are set narrow with outriggers to support the body. That alone would eliminate a useful footwell, even if the massive X member was not there. This was usual design practice at the time. At the Motor Muster last year I was looking at a 57 Hudson badged Rambler wagon and the owner opened the door so I could get a better look. To my surprise, even though the Rambler was unibody and a new design, having only come out in 56, it was flat floored.
According to the specs I find, the Kaiser and Studebaker are both 60″ high, so the Kaiser’s appearance is a function of Darrin lowering the beltline. The tall greenhouse may look odd by 1951 standards, but the proportions are just about right for a dozen years later.
The cause of the high roof-line was engineering’s refusal to make the frame continue straight closer to the axle hop over, having a more abrupt upturn, similar to frames designed in the late 1960’s. Originally, the roof-line would have been two inches lower.
Also the side windows were originally to have thin chromed frames like the Lincoln Cosmopolitan but that unfortunately got changed along the way. Still, its a tremendously appealing, sophisticated design……powered by a forklift engine.
The 1953 Dragon at $3,924 was almost 50% pricier than a Manhattan sedan. It was fully optioned with special interior and vinyl covered top. Though 1,277 that sold must have been high unit profit cars at that. It was more dear than a Cadillac 62 sedan at $3,636, beyond the styling, the choice was easy.
I have to agree with YourSoundMan above in not being entirely convinced by the styling. It somehow comes lesser than the sum of its parts; those heavy door frames are just… Heavy. The customized K-F I posted above does it a lot better.
But maybe, remembering those from growing up as a child in Israel in the 60s, I’m prejudiced. By that time even in Israel they (and the Henry J) were old cars which people only bought because they could not afford anything better. Given they were assembled by Kaiser-Ilyn in Haifa there were still quite a few of them around.
Here’s a pic from the Haifa plant.
those heavy door frames are just… Heavy. The customized K-F I posted above does it a lot better.
I disagree, the roof looks disproportionately low in relation to the body, and with the chopped top the heavy door frames look even heavier with the reduction of glass area.
I think if the horizontal portions of the frames were proportional to the pillar sections, and the rooff were lowered as much the greenhouse would be perfect.
You may have a point there – what I never liked on those was the curvature of the roof and that is dealt with by the chop. But imagine something like this with Potter’s 288 V8 and no Henry J – personal luxury way before the T-Bird.
… and mating the body to the Chassis.
…Lastly, the finished product. All of the above pics are by Fritz Shlezinger.
Kaisers of that era all seemed to appear as if they had a trunk load of cinderblocks and 4 people in the back seat! What was with that sagging down in the rear look so prevalent across the make? Quite the opposite of today, where the trailing edge of the trunk lid might be a full foot higher than the leading edge of the hood.
Kaisers of that era all seemed to appear as if they had a trunk load of cinderblocks and 4 people in the back seat!
That was a popular look at the time. Take a look at a 47-52 Studebaker and you will see the same thing, a high hood and a low, tapering trunk. The profile is meant to imply speed. Suspension geometry at the time was primitive and a car’s rear suspension squatted appallingly under acceleration. One of my college roomies had an early 50s Olds which squatted so much when he put the spurs to the 303 that the tailpipe has been partially crushed by contact with the ground. When I was building plastic model car kits in the early 60s, many of the kits were made with a choice of mounting points for the axles, so we could opt for the high nose, low tail, “rake” that was so stylish. Then fashion changed to the dragster look with a jacked up back end. Today’s absurdly high tails and tiny rear windows are a function of aerodynamics.
They must have gotten terrible gas mileage. Any time you lift the front up and the rear down, the car just scoops up air and becomes a brick on wheels. The modern(post-2000) trend of low nose – high deck counters that lifting tendancy, aiding aerodynamics and fuel economy, albeit at varying expense of rearward view.
Even the beltline slopes down from rear to front. When backing into a parking space in my 2008 Kia Optima or 2015 Eleantra, I have to crack open my driver’s door and peer down and aft while reversing into the space to make sure I’m inside the line! Never had to do that with anything I drove from the ’90s or earlier.
I am a respected ebay seller and I have a few Kaiser Manhattan parts, badges, tail lights, center steering wheel assembly etc. I can’t seem to find anyone buying these vintage parts.
Can anyone enlighten me as to why?