Phil Patterson writes: Those AMC cars are as much a part of Chrysler history as
Simca, Lambourghini, Jensen and several others. As far as the rape goes, Renault
and others had had their fun with AMC long before Chrysler ever bought them. If
not for Mopar, there would have been a lot of folks out of work, but someone who
lives closer to Kenosha may be able to give better info on the whole situation
and how it turned out. I just wish I could visit the museum, I am jealous,lol.
Don't judge by the tone of the letter, I just feel that if Chrysler had not
bought AMC, there would have been a bunch of empty factories, GM and Ford had no
reason to want Jeep, it would have been just one less competitor for them. I
just
hope the day never comes when the Mopars are shoved out of the museum to make
room for Daimlers and Benz vehicles. Chrysler did buy AMC, they have as much
right to claimed heritage as GM does for buying Oldsmobile.
PlymouthV8@xxxxxxx wrote:
> If you notice the list has incorporated Chryslers famous "Selective
> History" in which it will sit there and imply that a 1953 Hudson, a 1902
> Rambler, or a Willy's Jeep is a Chrysler car. And to take the cake Chrysler
> has added a 1953 Nash-Healy to the list. I am sorry but Chrysler had nothing
> to do with ANY of those cars except to buy AMC in 1986/87, just to rape it of
> the Jeep brand and then kill it. And with the 1950s cars listed, maybe I am
> just a little picky, but it seems to me that they could have done better. If
> you look from the 1949 up just before the 1955 you will see that Chrysler
> decided there wasn't a regular production car worthy of being represented.
> And why would a 1957 Pickup truck out rank a 57 Plymouth, or why didn't they
> take out some of the AMC's or Hudson's to make room for more "Real Mopars"
> like a 1957 Plymouth???
> Well, I am sure it is a beautiful museum and I can't wait to go. Just
> thought I would share a couple thoughts.
>
> Josh
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network