Subject: Imperial Accounting. Was 58 totals
> From Dick B.
>
> Subject: 1958 Lincoln/Continental/Imperial production
>
>
> > For three years, 1956, 57 and 58, Continentals were not counted as
> Lincolns;
> > the two brands were counted separately. Many of the reference books
were
> > screwed up by this confusion, and make the mistake of counting the
> > Continentals twice. In addition, the encyclopedia I mentioned to Hugh
> > didn't count the Premier in 1958 (maybe they didn't consider it a luxury
> > car, the same reason that I didn't count the Clippers in 1955 or the
> > Packards in 1958), so there are at least 3 different ways you can answer
> the
> > same question.
I love that last sentence, particularly in the exciting Enron days. Isn't
there an old joke about the world being lucky that economists only have two
arms, otherwise there might be an even greater amount of "on the other
hand." What counted as luxury, what counted as a Lincoln, its all good,
clean fun. The good news is that all the Imperials counted as Imperials.
The bad is they remained a minute fraction of the total amount of cars sold
in any given year, which was the point of my original post.
>
> > I think the correct total is 6859 Capri plus 10275 Premier plus 12550
> > Continental, for a total of 29684. Strange, but the higher priced cars
in
> > the Lincoln line sold more units - the reverse of the usual situation.
> > In any event, the Imperial was a poor third place finisher. That
horrible
> > Chrysler Corporation reputation for bad quality in 1957 really hurt!
The
> > same factor led to the horrible poor reception for Packard in 1956 -
even
> > though most of the problems of 1955 were cured, the cars still had a bad
> > reputation.
The 1957 year was unexpectedly good for Imperial. The company met demand
by
out sourcing production and quality control was severely compromised. But
it is also worth noting sales for every make fell in 1958 for a couple of
reasons. A steel strike and a mini-recession among them. Plus sales the
previous year were so good across the board that demand for new cars was
over satisfied, to a certain extent. The '57 Chevy was considered a failure
in it's day. Sales were off badly, as it was considered to be a quick and
nasty, cut and paste, re-design that severely watered down the original
design, not to mention being an Exner knock off. History now views the
car as a masterpiece, maybe the essential car of the decade.
The 58 Imperial was disappointing to some in that it stayed so close to its
predecessor. Tom McCahill commends the company for sticking with a good
design, saying that it was wise to follow the European model of steady
refinement and improvement rather than having all new models and, hence, all
new teething problems to deal with every year. But Dick is once again,
nonetheless, correct in saying the woes of the '57's weighed heavily on the
minds of more cautious buyers in '58. Sales of the Imperial dropped by
almost 50%, the worst performer in the pretty bleak Chrysler portfolio. I
have read that in the '60s, new leadership in the company were desperate to
put the fiasco of the forward look years behind them. The new pentastar
design was introduced, and the cars all became more conservative and
mainstream.
But we now get to glory in the brief, wonderful follies of Exner. Witness
the 1962s, much in discussion of late. What a wild car, in every sense. As
an owner of one, Don in Houston, said as we zoomed along the freeway in his
convertible, just the eight of us, "Can you imagine being in the board room
on the day they voted to accept this design?" And, can we imagine it ever
happening again?
Hugh
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network