Mark and List:
I recently purchased a video of Imperial and Chrysler comparisons 1963-1964
from an e-Bay vendor. It's a copy of original material for both salespersons
and customers. Compares Valiants to Imperials directly to competion from GM
and Ford. It was around 20 bucks, and I thought worth it. The vendor goes by
markfive2.
Fred
>From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: A Battle of Inches
>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:33:47 -0600
>
>I hope this is considered "Imperial enough" by the powers that be.
>
>I was lucky enough to have won a "1968 Chrysler Product Theater" on ebay
>recently, and I thought the members of the IML might find it
>interesting.
>
>Basically, what it is is a box of training materials that was sent out
>to dealerships in 1967 to help the salespeople sell cars. It's a
>collection of phonograph records, filmstrips, and little booklets on all
>sorts of topics ranging from handling customer objections to point by
>point comparisons b/n certain models.
>
>The comparisons are all I've had a chance to look at so far, and they're
>really interesting to me-- for what they don't talk about, as well as
>what they do talk about. The differences b/n today and 1968 are really
>amazing.
>
>For instance, I was surprised that one of the biggest selling points for
>Chrysler was visibility. They spent a lot of time in each of these
>presentations talking about the extra 2" in height you get in the front
>windshield, and the extra height and width in the rear window. (They
>even calculate total glass area and show how it's higher in a
>Chrysler.) Then they show how you can see the edges of the rear fenders
>through the back window of a Chrysler-- but you can't in a Buick or a
>Mercury.
>
>(I'm sure they didn't do this when they did the filmstrips for the '71
>Imperial, because that thing has the worst visibility out the back
>window I've ever seen!)
>
>There's too much to go into here, but the one thing I noticed was, in
>1968, it all seemed to come down to a battle of inches. They really
>stressed the differences in dimensions b/n Chrysler and other cars. At
>one point, they point out that a Chrysler's wheelbase is 1" longer than
>a Mercury! One whole inch!!
>
>One thing that is clear is that Chrysler really felt their cars were
>superior in terms of interior room and really pushed that. They had a
>picture of a guy wearing his porkpie hat inside a Newport to show how
>much more headroom it had.
>
>But there were all sorts of funny things, too, that I never would've
>thought mattered. For example, the size of the transmission hump.
>Chrysler was apparently very proud of the fact that it had a small
>(narrow) transmission hump, giving you lots more legroom! They actually
>did side by side photographic comparisons of the transmission humps in a
>Buick, Olds, Merc., etc. I mean, whoda thunk it?
>
>And they're also very proud of the padded headliner. I did not realize
>until today that Chryslers had padded headliners and Buicks did not!
>(How did I survive without this knowledge??) They show this guy hitting
>the roof of a Chrysler with his fist and all you hear is a muffled
>"thump thump." Then he hits the roof of the Buick and it's PANG PANG
>PANG. Very funny.
>
>I'm really surprised that Chrysler didn't outsell the competition
>because, in terms of engines and suspensions, etc., they were superior
>in every category-- horsepower, displacement, torque, etc. In terms of
>transmissions, too, I didn't realize that the much of the competition
>only had 2 speed transmissions.
>
>The one thing that is totally absent from any of these films if any
>mention of gas mileage. From the way these cars were presented, you'd
>think they were self-propelled and didn't even need gas!
>
>There is also very little mention of safety-- except in terms of
>interior comfort. Chrysler & Plymouth brag about their dashboards being
>padded at the top AND bottom-- while the competition's is only padded at
>the top!
>
>And, since we were talking about side marker lights, they show the side
>lights on a Chrysler and point out that they're "real lights, not mere
>reflectors." (Guess they had to dump this line a year later?)
>
>This box has a record of "1968 Imperial Features" but unfortunately that
>is the one filmstrip that is missing! If anyone knows where I can
>locate a replacement, I'd love to have it.
>
>And if I can ever get to it, I'll put this on the site somehow.
>
>Isn't time YOU moved up to CHRYSLER?
>
>Mark M
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network