Hi Mark & All:
Thanks for the comments, and for the varried
perspectives! I know these types of discussions
aren't everyone's cup of tea, but hey, that's what the
delete button and subject lines are for - LOL (so,
fair warning, if this discussion isn't of interest,
just skip it...). For my part, I love discussing the
varried forces and circumstances that combined to make
the Imperial what it is. Again, Mark, thanks for
sharing your observations. If I may, a couple of
responses.
A quick side-note, with regard to Chrysler's being the
#3 U.S. automaker, it warrants mention that Mopar's
3rd place status was a recent turn of events when the
Imperial Division made it's debut in 1955. For a
generation, Chrysler Corp. had held the Number TWO
position among American car companies - a distinction
it had held from the early 1930's until 1954. Some of
the reasons (dowdy pre-Exner styling, lack of a fully-
automatic tranny, etc...) are explored in-depth in the
article on "Mid Priced Cars" appearing in the same
issue of Collectable Auto that we're discussing now.
Part of the reason the article mentions that Chrysler
was #2 for so long was that with Dodge, DeSoto and
Chrysler's Windsor/Royal series, Chrysler Corporation
covered a wider range in the mid-priced market than
did Ford Motor Co., which only had Mercury to offer.
If you follow the same line of thinking, Chrysler
Corp's expansion of the Imperial Division was
undertaken as an attempt to continue to broaden it's
market share by expanding fully into the "prestige"
market. Indeed, it is widely acknowleged that
Imperial Division was created solely to compete toe-to-
toe against Cadillac.
This is the reason I feel that Cadillac and Lincoln
(and for 55/56, Packard) are the only relevant
comparisons for Imperial, within the context of this
era. Yes, Packard left the luxury car business (and
folded altogether after 1958). While the disastrous
merger with Studebaker was listed as the 'cause of
death', most historians agree that the real damage was
done much earlier - when Packard continued to market a
'middle-priced' Clipper series after WWII. In
achieving a short-term gain in sales from middle-class
"strivers", by the early 1950's, Packard had greatly
diluted it's luxury car image among contemporary
buyers - not too dissimilar to Chrysler Corporation's
inconsistent attempts to establish Imperial as a
marque separate from Chrysler.
Lincoln, on the other hand, suffered poor post-war
sales by making a miscalculation later made by
Imperial. In the early 1950's, Lincoln tried to
interest the American luxury car buyer in it's
sporting 'Road-Race Lincolns'. They did "OK", largely
because their prices were reduced to compete with high-
end Oldsmobiles and Buicks during that period. When
restyled in '56 to again compete directly with
Cadillac, the Lincoln convertible's price was raised
by a then-substantial $700 (about $7-10,000 in today's
money) to within dollars of the price of a Series 62
Convertible. Still, Lincoln production hovered around
40,000 for most of the early and mid-1950's.
Cadillac sales, on the other hand, soared into the
hundreds of thousands by sticking to a simple formula:
cushy, chromy and quiet. While Lincoln and Imperial
were aggressively trying to build a better handling or
more reasonably-sized cars, the American Luxury car
buyer spoke with their checkbooks: economy and
roadholding were not important to them in the 1950's,
60's and 70's.
I think I understand, Mark, why you compared the
Imperial with Rambler. In retrospect, as collectors,
we have the freedom to practice 'free-association' -
comparing Fords with Oldsmobiles, and Buicks with
Plymouth's, based on our various preferences in
styling, performance, etc... The Rambler also was a
kind of 'idiosyncratic' car, as was the Imperial in a
different way...
But for someone who was considering buying a luxury
car in 1957, there was no way to compare Imperials and
Ramblers. An an entry-level 1957 Rambler 4dr cost
$1,961 as compared to $4,483 for an Imperial (adjusted
roughly for inflation, that's $19,000 for a Rambler,
and $45,000 for an Imperial 4dr). That would be like
comparing a Saturn with an Audi. Hey, I own a Saturn
L-series and it's a competent, serviceable car - for
what it is. But in quality of construction and
appointments, sophistication, finesse..., it ain't no
Audi!
As I mentioned, I don't believe that sales figures are
necesarily a reflection of an automobile's merits (as
compared to other offerings in the same market
segment. But, respectfully, I couldn't find any
reference to years when Imperial outsold the Rambler.
In just some quick checking of production figures in
"The Standard Catalog of American Cars", in the
Imperial Division's best year ever, 1957, sales peaked
at 37,946. By contrast, in 1955, 56 and 57, the Nash
Rambler sold 83,852; 79,166; and 109,178 respectively.
When the 1958 recession sparked increased American's
interest in compact cars, Rambler sales shot up to
199,236.
While today, if a car has the right type of looks,
performance and features, it can come to be considered
a 'coveted' car (witness the new VW Bug). But I would
contend that that is different from being a
'prestige', or luxury car. In the mid-20th century,
the hierarchy was very clear: Cadillac, Packard and
Lincoln were 'prestige' cars. Chrysler, like Buick,
was an 'upper mid-priced car', and (again, in my
opinion) Chrysler CORPORATION simply did commit to
fully separating the Imperial and Chrysler Divisions
in the public mind.
The quintessential anecdotal story in this regard is
actually in Jeffrey Godshall's feature article on the
1957-59 Imperials in the August, '99 issue of
"Collectable Automobile". In discussing the possible
causes for the highly-praised Imperial Division being
a constant 3rd, Godshall wrote the following:
<<"Perhaps part of the reason lies in a story told to
me by a former Chrysler designer. It seems a man was
driving his new 1957 Imperial through the South, and,
needing gas, pulled into a station. The attendant who
filled the tank was awestruck by the Imperial,
declaring over and over how sensational and beautiful
it was. Finally, he asked the owner the price, and
when told, reasoned, 'For that money, you could have
bought yourself a CADILLAC!' In his opinion, the
Imperial, as impressive as it was, was still no
Caddy. Now how do you fight THAT?">>
Well, I think Chrysler Corporation COULD have
successfully fought it - by being more 'constant' and
patient when it came to Imperial styling continuity
and brand identity.
Respectfully,
Jim Byers, W,DC.
I.S.O. -
1960 LeBaron Southampton or Crown coupe
--- Original Message ---
From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IML: Collectable Automobile/Imp. Mystique
>Jim & All,
>
>Overall, a very interesting analysis and I agree with
much of what you
>say.
>
>One quibble: you say "Imperial didn't sell well." I
think this is kind
>of an overstatement, or perhaps too negative.
>
>Imperial didn't sell as well as Cadillac or Lincoln,
that is true, but
>it was still #3. And considering that Chrysler Corp.
was the #3
>carmaker in the U.S. I don't think that's all that
bad. (I believe that
>Cadillac sales more than doubled Lincoln's, so there
was little chance
>of Imperial ever catching Caddy.)
>
>I don't remember the figures right now, but I know
that at times
>Imperial sold more cars than all of Rambler (or
American Motors) did--
>and American Motors was America's #4 carmaker. They
also outsold
>Studebaker. I guess this may not seem like much of a
compliment (!),
>but what I'm saying is Imperial sold more and
survived longer than some
>entire car companies.
>
>I've often wondered why Imperial didn't sell better,
and I don't have an
>answer other than perhaps the carbuying public isn't
always able to
>perceive quality, or maybe because Imperial was too
individualistic for
>most luxury buyer's tastes.
>
>Anyway, good comments.
>
>Mark M
>
>IMPSRULE@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> First off, the following opinions about the recent
>> Collectable Automobile article are just that - my
>> opinions (so feel free to contribute your own
>> perspective, but no angry personal emails, please=85
>> LOL). In spite of a few discrepancies such as that
>> regarding the real wood veneer, I=92m elated about
the
>> lengthy, and largely positive article about the 67-
68
>> Imperials in the October, 2002 issue of Collectable
>> Automobile.
>>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network