Phil Patterson writes: Before you get filled with fuzzy feelings about GM's
treatment of Oldsmobile, remember that Ransom Eli Olds had been kicked out of
his
own company and started building Reo cars and trucks because he was forbidden to
use his own name. GM was only putting money into their investment of buying his
name. Poor Mr. Oldsmobile got the short end of the stick, but that is more the
fault of the investors who took over his company then GM's, I will admit. Yes,
Chrysler wanted the Jeep, by that time what else did AMC really have? A renault
and a few rebodied Gremlins. I don't think Chrysler having AMC products in their
museum is "rewriting history" but more a case of admitting how much the AMC
purchase helped their company, and giving credit and attention to the founders
and workers of AMC. If Chrysler isn't going to give AMC's history the respect I
do think it deserves, then who will? I won't tell a Hudson owner his car is a
Mopar, but I feel he has every right to enter his Hudson at any Mopar themed car
show and be given the respect he deserves. I do think the auto companys sending
lawyers after T shirt and memorbilia vendors is stupid and short sighted. But
don't forget, GM and Ford were already on that band wagon before Mopar decided
to
join in. As for Daimler-Chrysler badging Mercedes products and calling them one
of the Mopar names, I think that is relatively unlikely. One of the concerns of
the Daimler stockholders was diluting their trademark, as much as an insult that
sounds to loyal Mopar fans everywhere. I am still watching and waiting to see
what happens with the Plymouth brand name myself. This will have a lot to do
with
and if I make a new vehicle purchase in 2001 as I had hoped to do. There are a
lot of new Chrysler products coming out that look impressive to me. But I wanted
a new Plymouth, I just have to wait and see what happens. But if
Daimler-Chrysler
puts the ends to Plymouth, I doubt they will be all that worried about what the
AMC fans think anyway. But Chrysler should be proud of their accomplishments,
they were written off for dead in the 80's. Not too many car companys come back
from the dead. Either way, Chrysler-Daimler bought the rights to AMC, they can
do
as they please whether we like it or not. I think they have been fairer then a
lot of other car companys would have been. And to add some Forward Look comment
to this, All the works of Virgil Exner for Chrysler should be given their
credit,
I will be watching this as closely as I can. But museum quality cars aren't
exactly commonplace, if Chrysler needs a nice Forward Look Mopar to display, I
can only hope they come to this list and organization first. I don't think any
other group could help them faster then the Forward Look list. More attention
should be paid to the Chrysler "in laws", like AMC, Jensen, Facel, Simca and
others, but that may be beyond the scope of this list.
PlymouthV8@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 10/5/99 10:10:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> bintakin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << Chrysler did buy AMC, they have as much
> right to claimed heritage as GM does for buying Oldsmobile. >>
>
> Actually I disagree. GM put a lot into Oldsmobile, It built better quality
> and supplied the materials and manpower to multiply production. Chrysler had
> NO plans to improve AMC. Chrysler just wanted the Jeep. Chrysler did do good
> with a lot of AMC employees, many of them still work for Daimler, but the AMC
> Marque is dead. And that is how the industry works, I am just saying it is
> bogus to sit and imply that Chrysler had ANYTHING to do with a Hudson. And
> as you said "Those AMC cars are as much a part of Chrysler history as Simca,
> Lambourghini, Jensen and several others".. Well technically you are right. In
> a legal sense AMC is Chrysler property, but can you honestly tell a 1953
> Hudson owner that he owns a Chrysler? And would you believe yourself if you
> did?
> You cannot rewrite history, and that is what Chrysler is doing. This is
> just there new way of doing so. Which is a much smoother and less aggressive
> way then what they did in the 1980s and early 90's. After the AMC buyout,
> Chrysler refused to let anyone use the AMC name or logo, and threatened to
> sue the clubs if they made any club merchandise with AMC or AMC logos on it.
> Now if that wasn't trying to kill AMC what is? Then in the 90's they started
> to publish the ads stating that Chrysler made all these technological
> breakthroughs with the Jeep in the 1940s and 1950s, Pretty good since Willy's
> was producing the Jeep then.
> All I am saying is that Chrysler should be proud of what they have
> accomplished and not what others have. And I see your point with the legal
> stance, but just because they are legal, doesn't make them right. I do not
> think any less of Daimler, and I don't think any less of people like you who
> think the opposite of me. But would you still feel the same way when Daimler
> comes out with the ad for the 2004 Mercedes sedan in the Dec, 2003 Newsweek
> magazine saying that they pioneered the HEMI of the 1960s and they invented
> the "Forward Look". Wouldn't that be ironic?
>
> Josh
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network