Okay fair enough. I brought up the LaSalles as just one of many, many examples. But you’re right; stay on topic.

Since you’re obviously familiar with the Ford Motor Co. why on earth do you think a company that was almost nationalized during WWII for the incompetence of the organization would be all that concerned with its advertising? Accounting and advertising were the two departments Henry derided the most.
You sure about that? 1920 represents one of many lows for Ford and the relationship with his dealers. Ford has just taken the company private and when the economy tanked he refused to take out a loan so he raised the dealer’s prices, in turn forcing them to go to the bank. Afterwards he bragged about not having to crawl to the banks. And his dealers always did take what he said with a grain of salt; take for example their requirement to sell subscriptions to the Dearborn Independent; which they paid for, then promptly threw in the garbage.
Davis was brought back by Henry II because of his good relationship with Edsel; and that alone was probably enough for him to be ignored within the company before the war. (but I’m speculating so let’s move on). Now you’re really illustrating some of the differences between the manufacturer’s philosophy and the salesmen. Henry was always oddly proud of some of the archaic engineering found on his cars. I believe Sloan put it best when he theorized that Henry never did quite grasp the concept that basic transportation was largely taken over by the used car market. Of course he wasn’t alone. Take Fisher Body and their odd dependence on a composite wood/steel body for example; advertising for years about its perceived (and outright fraudulent) benefits over an all steel body. But we don’t make a big deal out of the electric starts, knee action, or even the first hydramatics, all of which certainly received more then their share of advertising press.

Why not? If you think about it the differences between the Standard and De Luxe models are basically the same as the Customs and Galaxies of decades later. A little more bright work, a little nicer interior, but underneath basically the same car.
No; I am vehemently opposed to the use of body styles as model names. Do we make a distinction between the Murry and Briggs models? Because we are going to categorize by body style we should. And as an aside some of the higher priced models; such as Cadillac and Packard had over one hundred fully catalogued bodies in a given year. Most of which are barely distinguishable under the best of circumstances.

Going further; a lot of the hot rods, such as the famous American Graffiti model don’t even have Ford engines in them anymore. How can we call them Ford V8s when they are half Chevrolet? Of course it can be accepted as reference material, we’re not talking about soothsayers, ouija boards, or wikipedia here. But remember advertising material is a commercial, and a little skepticism is warranted.