Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

[Pat Holscher]

We've been talking a lot about fuel prices recently, but I've been curious about what prices were like, in actual terms, at the dawn of the automobile age, the dusk of the equine age.

In real terms, how expensive was gasoline? Was it cheaper than today in the US, or more expensive?

What was the cost of an automobile like on average? A huge investment, or light? They don't seem to have had long lives.

What about maintenance in the like?

I'm curious when vehicles really became cost effective, or how it actually worked at first? Clearly, cost must have been an element of the replacement of the horse. We've looked at this a little before, but it might be interesting to look at it in more detail.

[CRB]

I saw an add here in Tucson from 1914 that gas was 15cents a gallon. according to a handy cost of living calculator this equals $3.11 in 2007 dollars....
http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/

[Pat Holscher]

I saw an add here in Tucson from 1914 that gas was 15cents a gallon. according to a handy cost of living calculator this equals $3.11 in 2007 dollars....
http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/

That's interesting. That means gasoline is now higher, but only recently so.

I wonder what the average life of the archtype of American car of that era was, the Model T? Shoot, I wonder what it's mileage was?

Of course, perhaps that's not something that really factors into the equation, given as it was fairly slow, and not all that comfortable, so it isn't as if a person would drive it nearly as much as you might today. Still, as the first really widespread American car, and with gas being pretty pricey, that's an interesting fact. I suppose for most new Model T owners, the vehicle didn't replace a horse, but shoe leather, so it was no doubt quite liberating.

[Pat Holscher]

Apparently another factor here is that gasoline has improved too, according to a scholarly text I read on the topic. So that $3.11 bought a poorer quality gas. Gasoline, apparently, was originally the product that was too volatile to be sold as kerosene, and was typically dumped in nearby streams or rivers.

Ick.

Anyhow, that quality of gas probably wouldn't work too well in any modern vehicle.

[Pat Holscher]

On the price of the representative car, one source states:

For instance, the Model T sold for about $850 in 1908 in the US. If we adjust this to the historical US consumer prices, this money represents dollar value of about $18,000 today.

Even after taking into account the sharp drop in the price of Model T, when it came down to $440 during 1915, its current price adjusted for inflation would be in the region of $8,500. . .

Quite a price drop, as an aside, in a few years. That must have made Model Ts much more attractive.

I wonder what horse prices were like from 1908 to 1915?

[Pat Holscher]

Mileage:

Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle -- which manages just 16 miles per gallon.

Probably true in the year written (a couple of years ago), but perhaps not a particularly worthwhile comparison.

[selewis]

I'm particularly affected by the rise in fuel prices. Running around is a big part of construction and farming uses fuel too. Still, I'm reminded what a great deal of work you get for your money compared to say walking or riding a horse, as was the norm before the model T.

Sandy
.................................................

The Incredible Bread Machine

By R.W. Grant
This is the story of a man whose name
Was a household word: a man whose fame
Burst on the world like an atom bomb;
Smith was his last name; first name Tom.

Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized
In toys, so people were surprized,
When they found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!

The way to make bread he'd conceived
Cost less than people could believe!
And not just make it! This device,
Could in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many,
The miniscule sum of under a penny!

Can you imagine what this meant?
Can you comprehend the consequent?
The first time yet the world well fed,
And all because of Tom Smith's bread.

A citation from the President,
For Smith's amazing bread,
This and other honours too,
Were heaped upon his head!

But isn't it a wonderous thing,
How quickly fame is flown?
Smith, the hero of today,
Tommorow, scarcely known!

Yes, the fickle years passed by,
Smith was a millionaire,
But Smith himself was now forgot,
Though bread was everywhere...
People, asked from where it came,
Would very seldom know.
They would simply eat and ask,
"Was not it always so?"

However, Smith cared not a bit,
For millions ate his bread...
And everything is fine, thought he,
I am rich, and they are fed!

Everything was fine, he though,
He reckoned not with fate.
Note the sequence of events,
Starting on the date,
On which the business tax went up.
Then, to a slight extent,
The price on every loaf rose too:
Up to one full cent!

"What's going on!" the public cried,
"He's guilty of pure plunder!
He has no right to get so rich
on other peoples hunger!"
(A Prize cartoon depicted Smith,
With fat and drooping jowls,
Snatching bread from hungry babes,
indiferrent to their howls!)

Well, since the public does come first,
It could not be denied
That in matters such as this,
The Public must decide!
So Anti-Trust now took a hand,
Of course, it was appalled
At what it found was going on.
The "Bread Trust" it was called.

Now this was getting serious,
So Smith felt that he must
Have a friendly interview
With the men in Anti-Trust.

So hat in hand, he went to them.
They'd surely been misled;
No Rule of Law had he defied.
But then their lawyer said:

"The Rule of Law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the Rule of Men,
It's vastly more efficient!
Now let me state the present rules,"
The lawyer then went on,
"These very simple guidelines,
You can rely upon:

You're gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition if
You think you can charge less!
"A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion...
Don't try to charge the same amount,
That would be Collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do you see,
Then the market would be yours -
And that's Monopoly!

Price too high?
Or Price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren't loath to charging both,
With Public Good at stake!
In fact, they went one better!
They charged "Monopoly!"
No muss, no fuss, oh, woe is us!
Egad, they charged ALL THREE!

"Five Years in jail," The Judge then said
"You're lucky it's not worse!
Robber Barrons must be taught,
Society comes first!"

Now bread is baked by government.
And as might be expected,
Everything is well controlled.
The Public well protected.
True, loaves cost a dollar each,
But our leaders do their best!
The selling price is half a cent..
Taxes pay the rest.

[JV Puleo]

Gas was just a small part of what it cost to run a motor car. It was, however, even more expensive than those calculations suggest since far more people were living much nearer the bottom of the economic ladder then than now and by 1914 production had really ramped up. Before 1906 or so gasolene was bought in pharmacys and sometimes hardware stores where it was sold as a cleaning solution.
Prices as high as $1 or $2 a gallon weren't unknown and I remember reading that the Italian team on the Peking to Paris Race in 1908 paid as much as $5.00 a gallon (although that included the cost of sending it overland to Outer Mongolia)
Spark plugs ranged from .75 to $2.00 each
Tires cost a fortune...the size that fit my 1910 REO (which was a relatively inexpensive car at $1250 new) cost $50 each with tubes at $13 each. The same tire only cost me $120 in 1975! And, you'd be doing well to get 2500 miles out of a tire.
Really good cars were even more expensive...think $2500 for a Cadillac in 1912 and something like $5000 for a Locomobile.

Car financing was not even invented until the 20s when GMAC was created. Early cars were cash-and-carry only and up to about 1912 or 13 were selling so fast that there was no incentive to make purchasing them easier. In fact, there are magazine articles from the time warning that a real estate crash was in the offing since so many houses had been re-mortgaged to buy automobiles.
Its really no wonder that the horse hung on ...it was probably a viable economic choice well into the 20s in many areas, especially rural ones. City folks didn't keep horses as a rule - they rented them from livery stables or took the train or cabs so the advent of the automobile had less effect on their lives until it developed sufficiently to allow people to live outside the limits of public transportation but again, I don't see that as being a really significant factor until after WWI.

Joe P

[Pat Holscher]

Gas was just a small part of what it cost to run a motor car. It was, however, even more expensive than those calculations suggest since far more people were living much nearer the bottom of the economic ladder then than now and by 1914 production had really ramped up. Before 1906 or so gasolene was bought in pharmacys and sometimes hardware stores where it was sold as a cleaning solution.
Prices as high as $1 or $2 a gallon weren't unknown and I remember reading that the Italian team on the Peking to Paris Race in 1908 paid as much as $5.00 a gallon (although that included the cost of sending it overland to Outer Mongolia)
Spark plugs ranged from .75 to $2.00 each
Tires cost a fortune...the size that fit my 1910 REO (which was a relatively inexpensive car at $1250 new) cost $50 each with tubes at $13 each. The same tire only cost me $120 in 1975! And, you'd be doing well to get 2500 miles out of a tire.
Really good cars were even more expensive...think $2500 for a Cadillac in 1912 and something like $5000 for a Locomobile.

Car financing was not even invented until the 20s when GMAC was created. Early cars were cash-and-carry only and up to about 1912 or 13 were selling so fast that there was no incentive to make purchasing them easier. In fact, there are magazine articles from the time warning that a real estate crash was in the offing since so many houses had been re-mortgaged to buy automobiles.
Its really no wonder that the horse hung on ...it was probably a viable economic choice well into the 20s in many areas, especially rural ones. City folks didn't keep horses as a rule - they rented them from livery stables or took the train or cabs so the advent of the automobile had less effect on their lives until it developed sufficiently to allow people to live outside the limits of public transportation but again, I don't see that as being a really significant factor until after WWI.

Joe P

Excellent information Joe, thanks!

What was the average life of those early vehicles? Now we see people routinely getting 200,000 miles out of a vehicle. My last truck more or less rusted itself out of use at about 200,000 miles. When I was a kid, my parents vehicles were more or less used up by the time they had 65,000 miles on them, which seemed to take forever. In photos of street scenes in the 20s through the 50s one of the remarkable things is that there really are not that many older vehicles in the photos. That is, by the late 50s, most of the cars in photos from the late 50s were made in the 50s. Photos of scenes from the late 40s rarely show vehicles that are much over ten years old. Or so it seems to me.

[JV Puleo]

Your observation is correct. Automobiles became obsolete much faster in the past than they do today. But, I believe that much of that is attributable to the very rapid advance of the technology. Arguably a 1950s car would be perfectly functional today while the car of 1900 would hardly have been at home on the roads of 1950. The rapid change of style is just as important. People were just as, if not more, concerned with being "in fashion" then than they are now. I'd argue that the whole idea of some sort of favorable status being attached to driving an "antique" auto is a post WW-II development. Prior to that even the person eccentric enough to have one probably admitted to being either to poor to buy a newer car or completely indifferent to what anyone else thought.

As far as durability is concerned, that also requires a qualified answer. The cars of, about 1908 to 1914 probably had 80% of the mechanical functionality of the cars of 1950. (The only major exception is 4-wheel brakes and those were well developed by the late 20s on expensive cars. Inexpensive cars had to wait longer.) Where they fell behind was in keeping out the weather. The first "factory-made" closed car didn't appear on the scene until around 1920. Driving open cars year-round in places with a mild climate is one thing... I don't imagine you'd like it any more in Winter, however, than I would.

So... those cars required much more maintenance and careful maintenance at that. Practically all the surviving pre-1914 automobiles have very few miles on them... But, given that maintenance, they would also last almost forever and allowing for a reasonable level of mechanical aptitude are far easier to repair than any modern automobile is. Even the most clever mechanic simply cannot make a computer chip or an injection moulded bit of plastic but virtually everything on a good quality auto of 1912, except large iron castings, could be repaired by a smart mechanic with a drill-press and a lathe.

Joe P

[Couvi]

Joe,

Your observation is correct. Automobiles became obsolete much faster in the past than they do today. But, I believe that much of that is attributable to the very rapid advance of the technology. Arguably a 1950s car would be perfectly functional today while the car of 1900 would hardly have been at home on the roads of 1950. The rapid change of style is just as important. People were just as, if not more, concerned with being "in fashion" then than they are now. I'd argue that the whole idea of some sort of favorable status being attached to driving an "antique" auto is a post WW-II development. Prior to that even the person eccentric enough to have one probably admitted to being either to poor to buy a newer car or completely indifferent to what anyone else thought.

As far as durability is concerned, that also requires a qualified answer. The cars of, about 1908 to 1914 probably had 80% of the mechanical functionality of the cars of 1950. (The only major exception is 4-wheel brakes and those were well developed by the late 20s on expensive cars. Inexpensive cars had to wait longer.) Where they fell behind was in keeping out the weather. The first "factory-made" closed car didn't appear on the scene until around 1920. Driving open cars year-round in places with a mild climate is one thing... I don't imagine you'd like it any more in Winter, however, than I would.

So... those cars required much more maintenance and careful maintenance at that. Practically all the surviving pre-1914 automobiles have very few miles on them... But, given that maintenance, they would also last almost forever and allowing for a reasonable level of mechanical aptitude are far easier to repair than any modern automobile is. Even the most clever mechanic simply cannot make a computer chip or an injection moulded bit of plastic but virtually everything on a good quality auto of 1912, except large iron castings, could be repaired by a smart mechanic with a drill-press and a lathe.

Joe P

In the early days were chauffeurs not meant to also be the car’s mechanic since few had, in addition to driving skills, the knowledge and skills to maintain the vehicle?

I also remember in the `70’s that fabric belted tires seemed to wear out in about 12,000 to 15,000 miles. Steel belted radials seem to last forever.

[JV Puleo]

Chauffeurs were definately supposed to maintain the car as well as drive it although that often entailed knowing who to take it to when something actually broke. Lots of chauffeurs knwe almost as little as the car owners, at least to begin with. One of my great-uncles worked as a chauffeur for a wealthy family in New London, Connecticut around 1910-12. I have a picture of him at the wheel of the huge Locomobile he drove and another in the little Hudson runabout that the family bought so that he could use it to run errands for them without using the "big" car. At the time he was hired he didn't know how to drive, which his employers fully understood. He did have a reputation for being a very clever mechanic (he ended up teaching at MIT near the end of his life) and that was what was really needed. Learning to actually drive was the lesser part of the job.
Prior to WWI almost no owners of expensive cars actually drove them. The French Baron Rothchild who volunteered himself and his Rolls-Royce for service with the French Army in 1914 went along as the assistant to his own chauffer. When the driver was wounded the Baron tried driving it himself. He turned it over in a ditch so as soon as the driver was attended to he took the train to Paris, bought another Rolls, hired another driver and went back to the front!
A whole industry grew up around selling "chauffeur's specials" i.e. overpriced tires and parts that included a kickback for the chauffeur who had the responsibility of maintaining the cars.
Another story...the famous British eccentric, Lord Lonsdale, known as the "Yellow Earle" because all his cars and even his private train were painted yellow, was once stuck because his driver broke his arm cranking the car. After that he never went anywhere unless there were two drivers on the car.

Joe P

[Philip S]

City folks didn't keep horses as a rule - they rented them from livery stables or took the train or cabs so the advent of the automobile had less effect on their lives until it developed sufficiently to allow people to live outside the limits of public transportation but again, I don't see that as being a really significant factor until after WWI.

Some historians of transport believe that the sale of automobiles had reached a saturation point prior in the 30's because most city dwellers could not conveniently own them. Knowing this General Motors decided to expand the market for their vehicles by establishing "National City Lines." This was for the purpose of buying up electric streetcar lines and using their scrap value to buy replacement buses. The purpose was to both sell buses and also, perhaps more importantly, to destroy mass transit so more people would buy cars. National City Lines was found guilty in court for antitrust activities. The Disney plot of the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" makes reference to this.

For further info on National City Lines see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetect ... ic_car.pdf

[Pat Holscher]

Gas was just a small part of what it cost to run a motor car. It was, however, even more expensive than those calculations suggest since far more people were living much nearer the bottom of the economic ladder then than now and by 1914 production had really ramped up. Before 1906 or so gasolene was bought in pharmacys and sometimes hardware stores where it was sold as a cleaning solution.

This presents another extremely fascinating point. Not only was gasoline expensive in terms of "actual dollars", but as a percentage of the average person's income, it was more expensive. I think this may be another factor that's been nearly completely forgotten by modern Americans.

Now, many, probably most, American families have at least two cars. Lots of them have more than two. When teenagers are in the house, they often have a car. This was true when I was growing up in the 70s, but even this has changed. I acquired my first car when I was 15 years old, but it was a 20 year old surplus Army Jeep, and pretty much a wreck. That was typical for the time. Now many younger people have cars that are pretty darned new.

I'm not criticizing anything in this, but it shows a much greater level of income, in that people can now do that. In 1915, the year we've sort of arbitrarily used as the demarcation point, I doubt there were very many families that had more than one car. If a middle class family had a car, it was their only car. And families were bigger at the time time, so it wasn't for lack of need.

As a total aside, it also seems that driving was a male thing. There's likely a variety of reasons for this, some of which might be physical. Willys actually ran an early advertisement directed specifically at women, with one woman commenting to another that her husband was jealous, as she could just as easily drive a Willys Overland touring car as he could, and therefore her friend should likewise get one.

Which brings me to the next point. With all the expense, and the proportionate share of income it tied up, the amazing things is that cars took off to the extent they did. It can't be competition with horses where the explanation lies, because as noted, most urban folks didn't own one. The opposite might provide the explanation. Automobiles, as massively expensive as they were, liberated people to go touring, like the Willys ad noted. It didn't really allow the horse to be replaced so much as it allowed people to go somewhere, which must be why the costs was tolerated. A new found freedom, as it were.

Perhaps that's why Americans are still so reluctant to give up car use today. They didn't replace anything, really, so much as they allowed something to occur which otherwise would not have.

[JV Puleo]

At the height of the Depression GM also ran a program where a GM dealer could collect something like $50 (I don't remember the exact amount) for the chassis plate from a traded-in Cadillac as long as he cracked the engine block with a sledge hammer and junked the car. Or so I have been told by old-time car men. I don't have any documentary proof of this story but it makes a bit of sense. The most expensive cars from the 20's on were the big sedans and they also had the lowest re-sale value. It was a huge problem for makers of luxury vehicles as the pool of potential buyers was shrinking while the quantity of big, fancy cars that were only a few years old was growing. By the late 20s styles weren't changing all that fast and a car that was 3 years old wasn't much different from a new one. The difference was even less in the expensive cars since many of those had custom built bodies that were often nearly unique in any case and the notion of mandatory "yearly" changes hadn't taken hold. I had a '26 Cadillac once that turned out to be a '27 - there was so little difference no one, myself included, recognized it at the time. (It was delivered in August of 1926 and registered as a '26 but "officially" the engine it used was introduced in '27.)

It was such a problem for Rolls-Royce of America that they regularly had new "sporty" bodies made for traded-in sedans so that they could sell them at a discounted price, but with a new-car warranty, to "owner-drivers". There is even one model, the "Playboy Roadster" that never existed as a new car.

There is also the famous case of the Wills-St.Claire company. Their bank financing was cut off, even though they were swamped with orders and could barely keep up with demand, because the bankers did a study (I think this was in 1925) that "proved" that by 1930 everyone who wanted and could afford an automobile would have one and that after that there would be no more market for cars! I always remember this every time I hear the hackneyed phrase "studies have shown..."

Joe Puleo

[JV Puleo]

I think you are absolutely correct Pat. Once more, your theory is shared by the handfull of professional academics who have studied the advent of the motor age.

The automobile didn't replace the horse... it replaced the bicycle. It was true "personal" transportation which had the wonderful advantage of being available to nearly everyone, not just the young and fit. It eventually did replace the horse for all sorts of obvious reasons but only after it had enjoyed twenty years or more of development.

[Pat Holscher]

Its really no wonder that the horse hung on ...it was probably a viable economic choice well into the 20s in many areas, especially rural ones. City folks didn't keep horses as a rule - they rented them from livery stables or took the train or cabs so the advent of the automobile had less effect on their lives until it developed sufficiently to allow people to live outside the limits of public transportation but again, I don't see that as being a really significant factor until after WWI.

Joe P

I should have included this in the item I was responding to just above, but to add to it, I think that in some ways this is particularly notable in what some regard as a Western rural lifestyle now.

The Western states were all really settled, within their geographic, economic and climatic limits, for the time, prior to or right about 1920 or so. That is, they were fully part of the US with regional economies, etc., and along with that, towns and cities, including some big cities.

But even at that, much of that country was rarely traveled in except by ranchers and cowhands. For their part, there was a lot more ranches, with a lot more cowhands, due to being based on nearly completely horse dependent operations. People in towns stayed much more in towns, in spite of being surrounded by miles and miles of miles and miles. It wouldn't have been easy, for example to fish a mountain stream prior to dependable cars. It practically would have equated with an expedition, which is exactly how some early sporting recollections read.

The car changed all that. It allowed people in to the country casually. Perhaps too much so. Today, many people regard that as a right. But not all that long ago, it was a rarity.

Of course, as I've noted before, the 4x4 truck, which really only became common after WWII, very much impacted all that, as well as agriculture. Particularly during the winter months, when much of the country had been effectively closed before.

[JV Puleo]

Until the invention of the electric starter (Cadillac was first, in 1912) driving was almost exclusively a male thing because women couldn't start them. (Actually they could have, it isn't hard, but it probably wasn't considered "seemly") And hand cranking is, of course, reasonably dangerous if you don't know how to do it.
J

[Pat Holscher]

I think you are absolutely correct Pat. Once more, your theory is shared by the handfull of professional academics who have studied the advent of the motor age.

The automobile didn't replace the horse... it replaced the bicycle. It was true "personal" transportation which had the wonderful advantage of being available to nearly everyone, not just the young and fit. It eventually did replace the horse for all sorts of obvious reasons but only after it had enjoyed twenty years or more of development.

The point about the bicycle is really an interesting one. It seems to me that I've even seen some period comments in which some folks though bicycles a nuisance to horses. Bicycles, however, never competed with horses, but rather gave urban folks greater mobility. I hadn't thought of the car as their replacement, but that really makes sense. And in a way, the bicycle always attempt make a reappearance when fuel prices get high, as if it's never forgotten that the car took its place in the urban sun.

When viewed that way, the horse was never replaced in by the automobile in the manner the average auto is used. Where the horse was replaced was in farming and hauling, as well as in other industrial uses. In some instances, it hangs on in a few uses, augmented by vehicles. But it was clearly a very long haul before petroleum fueled vehicles and implements became efficient enough to do that. No wonder though that the car is so loved in a big country, its history inaccurately remembered as it is, nonethelss.

[Pat Holscher]

Your observation is correct. Automobiles became obsolete much faster in the past than they do today. But, I believe that much of that is attributable to the very rapid advance of the technology. Arguably a 1950s car would be perfectly functional today while the car of 1900 would hardly have been at home on the roads of 1950. The rapid change of style is just as important. People were just as, if not more, concerned with being "in fashion" then than they are now. I'd argue that the whole idea of some sort of favorable status being attached to driving an "antique" auto is a post WW-II development. Prior to that even the person eccentric enough to have one probably admitted to being either to poor to buy a newer car or completely indifferent to what anyone else thought.

Another interesting observation. The speed of development of all thing internal combustion was really breathtaking. We like to think that's the case now, but in many ways it was more the case then.

I drove a 1954 Chevrolet Sedan for a daily driver for quite a while, finally selling it about 14 years ago. I never felt it to be inadequate in any way, other than that it lacked seat belts, while I had it. It had some oddities, but they were just that. I've had other 40+ year old vehicles and felt the same way, although the 1946 vintage Jeep I had really was a pain. Very recently, the very new vehicles (past 10 years or so), really do seem different. They're genuinely a new generation, but that generation has only come in during the last decade. From perhaps the 30s up until then, cars varied in horsepower, but in most essentials, they're more alike than different. Before that they do seem different, the further back you go.