It would be interesting to research this, but for some reason I seem to think
that Briggs did supply bodies for Imperial through the middle '60s. Can anyone
shed any light on this?
Paul
In a message dated 11/11/2003 4:19:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> Very informative post, Bill. I wonder, are they still paying on that
> hundred year loan? :)
>
> I think the major problem with the 1957 Chryslers was, 1957 was the
> first year Chrysler started producing its own bodies. I think. I
> could be mistaken about that, but I think Briggs supplied them up until
> that year. I don't know whether or not this applies to Imperial or not.
>
> So many of the problems might just be a matter of Chrysler "working out
> the bugs" of their new system, which I think they had done by 1958.
> (Of course, if you bought a new 1957 Chrysler and you had a lot of
> problems you wouldn't care about that.) However, in the auto business
> perception lags behind reality, and even though the 58s & 59s had fewer
> problems, the 57s continued to hurt Chrysler's rep for years to come.
> A lot of people to this day believe that Chryslers are more prone to
> rust, I think in part because of the 57 models.
>
> Also, I believe they did not even "dip" their bodies in some kind of
> zinc solution prior to painting in those days. I think the preparation
> process they went through was probably pretty primitive when compared
> to today.
>
> You also have to wonder-- or at least I wonder-- how much of this
> perception is justified and how much of it was the result of Chrysler's
> competition trying to offset the advantage Chrysler's styling gave them
> in the marketplace in 1957. Think about it. If you're a Buick dealer
> and you've got a car that looks dowdy in comparison to that sleek
> looking new Chrysler, what do you say about it? You can't say your
> model looks better. All you can do is knock the quality of the
> Chrysler. I'm not saying Chrysler didn't have quality control issues,
> just that GM and Ford may have exaggerated these through a
> word-of-mouth campaign (while desperately restyling to close the
> "styling gap" on next year's models).
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 12:20 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > Chrysler's new line of 1957 models put General Motors to shame.
> > Oldsmobile,
> > Buick and Cadillac used brand new bodies, but as one wag put it,
> > although
> > Plymouth was "Suddenly It's 1960", Oldsmobile was "Suddenly It's 1950".
> > Popular Mechanics did an owner's report on a new 1957 Oldsmobile and
> > the
> > assembly line worker that installed the grille nameplate installed the
> > letters "O-L-D-D-M-O-B-I-L-E" on the grille.
> >
> > 1957 was a disaster for Buick and Oldsmobile, by the way. Buick model
> > year
> > production fell from 583,181 in 1955 to 572,024 in 1956 to 405,086 in
> > 1957,
> > while Oldsmobile dropped from 554,090 in 1955 to 485,459 in 1956 and to
> > 384,392 in 1957. Cadillac production also dropped, but by a much
> > smaller
> > amount from 154,631 in 1956 (up from 1955's 140,778) to 146,840 in
> > 1957.
> >
> > As for the borrowed money, Chrysler borrowed $250 million from the
> > Prudential Insurance Company in 1954. This gave the corporation the
> > financial foundation to go ahead with the complete retooling needed
> > for the
> > 1957 models, plus plant expansion and modernization. And they had one
> > hundred years to repay it The money did not come from their suppliers,
> > although the suppliers generally foor the bill for tooling the parts
> > they
> > produced. Thus if Chrysler redesigned a part midway through the year a
> > supplier might be caught footing the bill for tooling a part twice.
> > But
> > Chrysler did not actually borrow money from them.
> >
> > Bill
> > Vancouver, BC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Harvey
> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: IML: Quality of the 1957 Imperial
> >
> >
> > Quality on all 57 models was not very good, even by 1957 standards.
> > It is
> > claimed that the reason 57 Chrysler products were so bad is that they
> > rushed
> > them into production a year before they originally planned (the 55-56
> > were
> > only a 2 year cycle, instead of the common 3 years) because of what
> > Ford
> > did with their styling for 57. Believe me, Ford had real quality
> > problems
> > of their own in 57. Buick produced a whole bunch more cars than the
> > factory
> > was designed to build, and quality on 57 Buicks supposedly really
> > suffered.
> > Chrysler pulled a trick in 56 on their suppliers that resulted in them
> > in
> > effect borrowing, interest free, several hundred million dollars from
> > these
> > suppliers for about a year. As a result, Chrysler had to find new
> > suppliers, because the old ones refused to sell to them, except cash
> > out
> > front. My dad was one of these suppliers. He made washers, shims, and
> > spacers. That didn't help quality in 57 for Chrysler, either.
> > Another problem was that they really didn't understand how to
> > design to
> > fight the tinworm.
> > My suspicion is that the surviving cars we have now were the
> > "good"
> > cars. The ones that needed a repair just now and then, but were
> > otherwise
> > pretty dependable. People who had "lemons", dumped them quickly, and
> > these
> > quickly went down the value line and suffered a life ending repair
> > early
> > (cars depreciated really fast back then, a typical new car lost 1/4 of
> > its
> > value just driving out of the dealership, and by the time it was 2
> > years
> > old, it had to be really nice to be worth 1/3 the original price. By
> > the
> > time it was 5, you would be lucky to get 10% of original cost on
> > trade). You
> > had to put some real money out front to finance a new car; none of
> > this
> > 0-0-0 stuff we have now. People weren't "upside down" in their cars,
> > like
> > is real common with the real low down payments, and 60 or 72 month
> > payment
> > books of today. Goes to show you how much cars have improved over the
> > last
> > 40 years--that someone will loan money on one for 5 or 6 years. Back
> > in 57,
> > 24 or 30 month contracts were just about as long as they would go.
> > Maybe
> > 36.
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network