Re: IML: Of 57s and such

[Tom H <tom_in_a2@xxxxxxxxx>]

I do wish I had been old enough in '57 to have a sense
of the impact of Chrysler's styling.  The public must
have been blown away by how modern the cars looked. 
The proportions are still good today (I like the
graceful wedge of the cars in profile.)

It certainly seems that GM scrambled to copy the low
profile and big greenhouses, especially of the
hardtops.  Look at a '59 Impala 2-door hardtop with
its thin roof pillars, and consider the Mopar 2-doors
of '57.  This was after GM sank huge amounts of money
into the '58s, in part to regain #1 sales for Chevy
after losing to Ford in '57.

--- RandalPark@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Frankly, nothing built in 1957 was particularly
> great, quality wise. I believe that Chrysler
> suffered mostly due to new customers being stung by
> their new buying experience. They wouldn't have
> really gotten a "better" car from Ford or GM, but
> they expected to get a better car from Chrysler
> based on its previous reputation for quality and
> engineering. 
> 
> I remember the owner of a '57 Crown telling my dad
> that the only thing that hadn't gone wrong with the
> car was that the roof hadn't leaked. He felt that
> was because he just hadn't noticed it yet. As we
> know, the headliners in our cars did usually become
> water stained, so I am sure that he got his wish. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> In an email dated 4/4/2005 6:38:53 pm GMT Daylight
> time, "Hugh & Therese" <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >As I have read it, the 57s were a victim of their
> unexpected popularity. 
> >The new designs were a delightful break with the
> cars of the early and mid 
> >50s, and they were a smash.  It's also an old
> saying in the car business 
> >that you should never buy a car in its first model
> year.  They have not yet 
> >worked out all the bugs.  Exner's cars, across the
> product range were a real 
> >breakthrough.  The pressure on him was so great
> that he had a heart attack. 
> >Because model changes are planned well in advance,
> I think someone else can 
> >take the credit for the 59, which does not, to my
> eye, have Exner's stamp on 
> >it.
> >
> >When a car company has a hit on its hands and it
> has not planned for its 
> >runaway success, it has two options.  It can
> maintain the original 
> >production quota and let the demand build up or it
> can accelerate production 
> >and let quality suffer in order to cash in.
>  Chrysler Corp took the latter 
> >option.  They outsourced production in a very
> hurried fashion and skimped on 
> >quality workmanship in the body and paint shops.
>  Reports from the time 
> >suggest that cars were coming off the line and
> rusting as they waited to be 
> >shipped out to dealerships.
> >
> >This led to the cars gaining a terrible reputation
> for unreliability and 
> >shoddy workmanship.  Consumer questionnaires
> revealed that many people, who 
> >had purchased their first ever Chrysler product in
> 1957, said it would also 
> >be their last.  Chrysler felt it had fixed the
> problems by 1958 but, by 
> >then, it was too late.  The marketing department
> went into high gear.  I 
> >doubt any year of Imperial has quite the number and
> variety of different 
> >adverts than 1958.
> >
> >Pretty soon the advertising slogan became the
> rather defensive, "The most 
> >carefully built cars in America," or words to that
> effect.  Someone had to 
> >take the fall, of course, and that was Exner.  He
> lost his position as a 
> >vice president and was then replaced altogether.
>  His successor, also a 
> >disappointed man from Ford, was given his marching
> orders:  The cars were to 
> >look as different as possible from Exner's and also
> be a lot more 
> >conservative, since the nation's taste for yards of
> chrome and big fins had 
> >long since passed.
> >
> >You have to look at these cars as products of their
> era.  There was major 
> >steel strike in 57/58 as well.  The past can rarely
> be undone.  The 57 
> >Imperials were a stunning breakthrough and command
> a higher value today over 
> >those that both preceded and followed them.  The 57
> Chevrolet was considered 
> >a dog in its day, a hasty cut and paste job instead
> of the planned total 
> >replacement.  Its sales were dismal compared to 55
> and 56.  Who's sorry now?
> >
> >Hugh
> >58 Imperial 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com
>  -----------------
> >This message was sent to you by the Imperial
> Mailing List. Please 
> >reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your
> response will be 
> >shared with everyone. Private messages (and
> attachments) for the
> >Administrators should be sent to
> webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to
> http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com 
> -----------------
> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing
> List. Please 
> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your
> response will be 
> shared with everyone. Private messages (and
> attachments) for the
> Administrators should be sent to
> webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to
> http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. 
http://personals.yahoo.com



-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm