Dear John and V-8 Buick historians, Hmm, both the documentary and the Forbes article claim the $5 wage was real, but . . . . . . . given the uncertainties in this documentary. Perhaps someone else can come up with more evidence one way or the other. Cheers, Edouard
Dear Tom and V-8 Buick historians, Okay I finally reached these scenes and . . . . . ?!?!?!???? I cannot for the life of me imagine why they did this. Certainly the product crew knew what a GTO looked like. The archive footage is correct. Also it does seem like they try to keep camera angles that avoid showing the Wildcat as a Buick. The only thing I can imagine is some sort of trademark or property issue, but why would GM make that sort of stink? If anybody finds out why this series made such a faux pas - I sure would like to know! Cheers, Edouard
I started watching this series, but, like most History Channel stuff, I found it to be overly repetitive and badly acted. The dialog was a bit too contrived, the players were way over the top, and the inaccuracies just started to add up and ruin it. According to "100 Years of Ford", by David Lewis et al, the $5 a day wage was instituted in 1914 and caused a flood of people coming into Detroit seeking Ford employment. At the same time he actually reduced the work day to the 8 hour standard. It doubled the average wage, and Ford felt it was a positive step in ensuring against high turnover. It worked, and became the accepted standard in American production; - in order to maintain a skilled unskilled workforce, you have to pay them well enough for them to overlook just how crappy their job really was. I noticed that in some of the early scenes the Dodge brothers were tinkering with Q-jets, and on the walls they'd hung upside down Model A grille surrounds. I don't know how hands on the Dodges really were, they were gifted engineers, but somehow I can't see a guy at a drafting table fiddle with a carburetor and then go and draw the part out. I think they could have put a bit more thought into staging those scenes. Drafting offices in that period used to be in areas where there were large windows and skylights some had blackboards in them for sketching ideas or laying out calculations. Edsel Ford was not his father, sure, but he was far from a stuttering, blithering coward. He did stand up to his father a lot; and failed, primarily because of the support his father had from Harry Bennet. When he realized that he could not screw around with the bread and butter cars, the Ts, Edsel then turned Lincoln from an ugly duckling into a beautiful Cadillac contender. He was the guy who was responsible for the Zephyr, the Continental, and some of the beautiful styling that appeared in the 30s. He had a sharp mind, was immaculately dressed and was well mannered. He smoked and drank himself to death, very much in defiance to his father's wishes. I guess I'll have to watch the other two parts now...
So I watched the last two parts last night. Okay, there were a few issues with props and sets as has been stated above, but they didn't do a bad job with the history. It was a little generalized, and there were a few facts that were overlooked, but they got the idea right for the most part. The actor who played DeLorean was nauseating. I still haven't figured out why they used a 63 LeSabre for those scenes. Or the other scene when Ed Cole takes Alfred Sloan for a ride in what's supposed to be a Chevy, but actually it's a 55 Mercury. Third thing is that Merc would never have had a flathead in it, period. The motor that was in those was already much better than the old Flathead was. It's little things like that cheese-off a real car guy, but for the general audience it probably wasn't noticed. Either way, it was a good idea, but unfortunately badly over acted.
The only issue I have with the errors mentioned (so far) is that someday, at a car show where we all will be, is that someone who doesn't own a classic, never will own a classic, and nobody will ever sell a classic car to will "school" us on our cars because "that's what I saw on that History Channel show". I can't wait for someone to tell me my carburetor was designed and built by the Dodge Brothers in 1908...
I'll go along with more powerful, but the first generation Ford OHV V8s were some of the worst OHV engines ever (excluding the 4100 Cadillac). They had camshaft problems, oil leakage issues so severe you would have thought that the engine was designed by a Brit. They had cracked exhaust manifolds, carburetor issues, sludge issues, starter and generator issues, and they were hell to work on. Before someone else chimes in, yes - they did run pretty strong when they were set up right, but keeping them in that condition was just short of impossible.
Did anybody else feel like "Henry Ford" was an actor doing a bad impersonation of Tom Cruise, or was it just me?
Actually, there was a movie FORD. It starred Cliff Robertson, and I think he did a pretty good job of it.
Yes! I did, that's actually a good comparison! The director should have been fired, because all of the lead roles were over-acted and most cases laughably so. The premise of the series was good, but the acting kind of spoiled the poignancy of the whole thing.
I wasn't aware that the Ford first-gen OHVs were so bad; makes sense though, I don't see many articles about guys doing anything with them. I guess that's why I like Buick, they got it right from the start!
You were probably fortunate enough to be born late enough so that you didn't have to work on those boat anchors. Buick did get it right from the beginning - but do bear in mind that Buick had 50 years experience with OHV engines by 1953!
