Re: IML: Of 57s and such

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

The 1959 and 1960 models were Exner's.  He had his heart attack in 1958,
which affected the 1961 models.  Which is why they appear to have been
styled by two different people with the front and backs not really mating,
especially on the Plymouth and Dodge.  .

Exner's successor was Elwood Engel in the fall of 1961.  He left Ford on
very good terms.  So good, apparently, that Henry Ford II retired George
Walker for his part in having Chrysler hire Engel away from Ford.  HFII was
a great admirer of Engel's work, it seems. And Engel stayed at Chrysler
until his retirement in 1971.  During Engel's tenure, nothing was a failure,
it seems.  All his designs were well received and sold well.

The poor quality of the 1957 models was not the fault of Exner.  He had
control of styling and not tooling and assembly.  He lost his job over the
distrastrous 1962 Plymouth and Dodge models, even though he himself
protested to management about what they wanted.  Exner's 1963 models were a
success, but by then he was gone from Chrysler.   The 1963 Chrysler, by the
way, was originally meant to be the 1962 Imperial, but Chrysler brass
thought it would make a better Chrysler, with some revisions.   Contrary to
popular belief, the 1963 Chrysler lines were style under Exner - they were
completed before Engel was hired.

Should also point out the problem with the 1957 models was not the assembly,
but the engineering and tooling.  The 1957 bodies were not as stiff as the
previous bodies - remember the 1957-58 Imperial 4-door hardtops needed the
convertible frame.   The 1959 bodies were a vast improvement over the 1957
models, but it would be 1960 and the unibody that would start Chrysler down
a new road for body quality.

Bill
Vancouver, BC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hugh & Therese" <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Imperial Mailing List" <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: IML: Of 57s and such


> 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