Paul,
I was eating Gerber's stewed carrots in 1958 so I don't really recall
much about the depression that year. (Not being a wise guy, but was
there really a depression or was it a recession?) Anyway, that's not
my real question, my real question is: why wasn't Rambler effected?
Are you saying it was because Rambler was a small car? Was Rambler
really considered a small car then? Seems hard to imagine now, since
Ramblers weren't all that small . . . If Rambler was in such a good
position then you wonder why they weren't able to capitalize on it.
My memory is fuzzy on this, but I would think VW's success had more to
do with the realization that America wanted smaller cars than the
depression, but it could all be tied together. I'm wondering when the
Valiant and Corvair were first conceived . . . would seem to be in
57/58 or thereabouts.
Anyway, I agree with you about Imperial's styling being a bit behind
the curve. All of Chrysler's styling in the early 60's tended to be a
bit more daring or flamboyant (or odd, if you think about Dodge's
angled headlights) than the competition's. Although I LIKE this daring
quality, I think public tastes were more conservative by this time and
Chrysler did not recognize this. In fact, I've always thought that if
Imperial had just been two years earlier with every major design cycle
the Imperial would be still with us today.
Think of it: if you took the 1964 and brought it out in 1962 or even
1963 (instead of clipping the fins on the old bodystyle to keep it
around for one more year), it would have been a major jump forward.
That would have put Lincoln and Imperial out front with a fresh new
look, leaving Cadillac behind. And, as much as I love the 67-68s, I've
always thought they look as though they should have come out in '65 or
'66, when "square" was the rage. By '67, GM was going to that gently
curved look that Chrysler wouldn't see until 1969 with the fuselage
era. I think Chrysler's designs were BETTER, just late by a year or
two. I've often wondered why this happened . . .
Mark
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 02:02 PM, RandalPark@xxxxxxx wrote:
> It has been well documented in automotive publications that the build
> quality of the '57 Imperial was a major factor in the later lack of
> success associated with our cars. It was not the only factor, however,
> since most American cars suffered the same way at that time. Here are
> a few of the other reasons that I think the Imperial name suffered.
>
> The economic depression in 1958 negatively effected all of the auto
> manufacturers except Rambler. This lead to the realization that
> America wanted smaller cars. Even though the industry was slower to
> act, the American public responded immediately to the rising
> popularity of smaller cars.
>
> I think the final piece was the controversial styling of Chrysler cars
> in the early '60s. By then the other manufactuers were settling into
> what became a comparitively conservative period. The Imperial was
> particularly late on this issue.
>
> Although I would somewhat disagree with it, I believe that the
> Imperial suffered from an image of playing "catch up" with the
> competition in the styling department. This perception may have been
> due to the styling of the '61 Imperial as compared to that of the '61
> Lincoln, and although the '61 Cadillac was still somewhat outlandish,
> they could always sell anything as long as it said Cadillac.
>
> Imperials were always acclaimed for their handling on the highway as
> road cars. They also frequently were commended for engineering
> innovation and comfort.
>
> Paul
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network