I can't ignore the incorrectness of this post. Imperials were not guilty of the
"mistakes" (leaky trunks, back firing carbs, and fouled plugs) that are
mentioned here any more than anyone else. I take particular exception to the
back firing carb, and fouled spark plug comments. Where did that come from
anyway?
Also, the Imperial may not have existed very long as some other makes as a
"division" of Chrysler Corporation, but it certainly dates back as a name (to
the 1920's) far enough to establish its credibility. Chrysler Imperials of the
late 1920's and the early 1930's are recognized as Registered Classics in the
hobby.
What are the lessons from Packard that Chrysler should have learned? Packard
was saved during the depression by introducing a lower priced mass produced
car. Some say that ruined the Packard name. Maybe yes, maybe no, but relevancy
please? Imperial became a make of its own only after its name had been used to
designate the most expensive Chrysler. Some say that because of that the
Imperial name was always associated with being a Chrysler. As we have seen from
other posts here, when the Imperial was in the right place at the right time,
people bought it. I will concede that for many years Cadillacs did sell because
of their name, no matter what their cars looked like or how they were built,
but this did not hold true in the recent past.
Chrysler came out with the best V-8 engine built in our country shortly after
the war, maybe not in 1949, but it was in production by 1951. This was not so
late as to have been considered a blunder, in fact the 331 Hemi was heralded as
having been worth the wait.
The post correctly states that Imperial styling issues were somewhat to blame
for its eventual down fall. Continuity wasn't really the problem, though, as
much as I think the "one step behind the winner" syndrome that plagued it
through out the '60s. I am still trying to think of what is similar between a
1949 and 1958 Cadillac. I think they still had the same bored out V-8 engine,
but not much else.
Finally, I will point out that although I have heard negative remarks about the
power window switches in 1960-63 Imperials, I hadn't ever heard those things
until very recently. The ones that I have still work. Every one of those
switches that I have seen are still intact. Even if the button was made of
plastic, they didn't break. The contrast of the black switch and the cast (not
tin) brushed finish of the bezel added a touch of style, I thought.
Paul
In a message dated 1/24/2004 3:52:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
chuck_milverton@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Bravo, Hugh. The point I have been trying to make is simply this: Chrysler
>Corp. in general and the Imperial Division in particular didn't have room to
>make mistakes. We were simply too small a company to be making cars,
>especially Imperials, with trunks that leaked and carbs that back fired and
>plugs that fouled etc. Cadillac had been around since the teens and Lincoln
>for a very long time as well. Both makes had enormous corporate structures and
>product lines behind them. Cadillac was a techno dinosaur in the fifties it
>was still using vacuum wipers thru 1957 and the suspension system was a death
>trap but unlike Chrysler, GM had the good sense to come out with a new V-8
>shortly after the war plus the styling was ,for the time, right out of Buck
>Rogers. Imperial was solid , stodgy , underpowered and a DUD until at least
>1955. Apparently no one at Chrysler learned any lessons from Packard- or if
>they did it was too late. The Imperial was to me the most wonderful car ever
>built when seen for the wonder that it was underneath the skin - this being
>the reason Uncle Tom liked them so much, he was not a superficial dilettante
>when it came to fine automobiles. Unfortunately the American Public were not
>all that interested in being up to date from a techno standpoint. What they
>did and still do understand is what is popular and makes a big splash when
>pulling up at the Country Club or in front of the church for a wedding. They
>also understand that a car that rusts is not one that will be kept or replaced
>with its' newer sibling the next year. For a period of time some of the trim
>on Imperials was anodized ribbed aluminum which looked amateurish as hell,
>then there was the black plastic and tin power window switches in the 60 - 63
>imperials these looked cheap - Cadillac and Lincoln never used anything that
>was a downgrade in terms of obvious cosmetic items like this. It is little
>things that make or break a luxury car because the expectations placed on them
>by the people who buy them are so high. The Engel Lincolns of the early 60's
>were meticulous in terms of the attention to detail where the visuals were
>concerned. Ford stayed with this concept for almost ten years and now sells
>more Lincolns than GM sells Cadillacs. What Cadillac had going for it was
>visual continuity - you could look at what Hugh correctly calls the brutishly
>ugly 1958 Caddy and see styling elements that went back to 1949. But when you
>saw it you knew it was a Cadillac - no question. Imperial on the other hand,
>was all over the map, every three years needed or not the whole damn thing was
>turned inside out and the customer reeducation process began all over again.
>In the car business it's not the deal you get it's the deal you think you are
>getting. If you think you are getting elegance and quality then you will buy
>it - if you think you are getting
> something else you won't.
>
> Chuck Milverton
>
> 413 + 727
>
> Kildare, Texas
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
m
"\ܢdɞƠ{&jSX^jǫzrXX)znm&jwrzhǰY[zZp^w+ڵ鞲ƠzƧumifz{l~ )ڶ.ޱ nf⚗\ܢdPԔ
!)znm&칻 &ކ
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network