Hello: I am new to this Forum (53 Imp) and came across this posting. I live
in the Detroit area, and was a friend of Dave Holls, the late GM designer
who influenced a number of GM designs from the 50s through the 70s. I also
was around during the 50s and have some first hand opinions of what really
happened.
It is true that GM was caught unawares by the '57 Chrysler line. And it is
also true that Ford outsold Chevy for '57. But the '57 Chevy was not by any
means viewed as a "bad" design. Chevy was on its 3rd year of a design theme,
whereby Ford and Plymouth (Chrysler, in general) were in the initial year.
Chevy's roofline also was higher, which made it look a bit less "futuristic"
vs its showroom competition. But to say that the Chevy's fins were simply
"added on" just isn't accurate; it was instantly acknowledged in late '56
that Chevy had successfully updated their vehicle. It's just that the
competition was really on its game for that one year.
All three, Chevy, Ford and Plymouth, did a great design job in '57. This is
why 1957 is considered such a watershed year now, especially in comparison
to the '58s, GMs especially! Ford's '58 hood airscoop and grille change were
unsuccessful, and they reverted back to 2nd place. (Ford regained the sales
lead in '59, cut this primarily was because of the steel strike that year
[Ford made its own steel], and Chevy had the "Batmobile that year).
Chrysler's problem in the late 50s was not design, it was quality control.
It was obvious in the showrooms, and in short order was raising its ugly
head on the highway. Chrysler's decision to extend "50s styling" into the
early 60s really hurt, especially when confronted with the clean '61 line
that GM presented, now influenced by Bill Mitchell (Earl had retired by
then).
Currell Pattie
>From: "ERIC C MARSH" <ECMarsh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: IML: Classics & Imperials
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:32:38 -0400
>
>The AACA uses Classic Car Club of America designations for pre-WWII
>vehicles. When we talk about post -WWII the designation is Prestige
>Vehicles
>and are shown in Class 29. The Crown Imperial is shown in that class. My
>1956 doesn't qualify for class 29 but my 1965 convertible, when completed ,
>does. I consider both to be classy vehicles.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Hugh & Therese <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx>
>To: Imperial Mailing List <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:56 AM
>Subject: IML: Classics & Imperials
>
>
> > Hmm, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then some folks need to
>visit
> > their optician. If 59's are soooo good why do there owners always want
>to
> > "improve" them. Pinnacle of the breed, indeed.
> >
> > (The above is intended as a humorous retort. A joke, in other words.
> > Sigh.)
> >
> > But, here's a thing. I don't think there are ANY Imperials on the
>Classic
> > Car Club Of America's semi-official list of cars that can truly be
>described
> > as design classics. Maybe one or two or the coach built one off cars
>from
> > the 30's, but nothing else. From my preferred era I think a 300 C or
>maybe
> > the D makes their cut. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
> >
> > I caught the back end of a show on the History channel the other day
>about
> > the GM motorama car series, the so-called "Dream Cars" episode. What
>caught
> > my attention was the interview with some of the actual GM designers, now
> > elderly, of course, who were thought of as the young Turks within GM's
> > design ranks at that time. They thought Harley Earl was past his best
>work
> > and that the designs coming out from Chrysler Corp were leaving them in
>the
> > dust. They may have sold better but both the 58 Cadillac and the 58
> > Lincoln - an abomination designed by one Elwood Engel, it should be
>noted -
> > were poor designs in comparison to what Chrysler Corp was putting out.
>The
> > GM designers were wowed at the time by the Forward Look, particularly
>the
> > incredibly thin roof lines and the fully design integrated fins.
> >
> > Behind Mr. Earl's back they began to create their own versions of the
> > forward look. What is funny is that this was well known and understood
>at
> > the time. The fins on the '57 Chevy were simply added on to the '56s,
>and
> > the car sold badly as it was regarded at the time as a poor cut and
>paste
> > job rather than a fresh design.
> >
> > Dan Wing submitted a fun reminder of this from the December 1958 issue
>of
> > Road & Track. The magazine asks why Cadillac's by now glorified '59 -
>which
> > the "Dream Car" TV shows describes as the pinnacle of late 50s excess -
>is
> > simply a knock off of the 58 Imperial. The similarities are there to be
> > seen. I had the chance to scope one very recently and was very stuck by
>the
> > heavy handed duplication of many of the 58 Imperial design elements.
>Here
> > is a link to the Road and Track item:
> >
> > http://www.58imperial.com/IMPCADDY
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> > PS. I had the joy, today, of seeing a lovely, virtually original 1957
> > Chrysler Saratoga. Less than 60K since new, original paint and looking
> > very, very nice. The owner has just joined our local club and was keen
>to
> > see our two cars together. Along with a 1958 Plymouth "Christine"
>clone,
> > which appeared last year, I am happy to report a growing interest in
>Exner
> > era Mopars.
> >
> > On a more contentious note, I was asked to contact a local man who is
> > working on a 1961 Imperial and who needs help finding parts, especially
>for
> > the brake system.. He has some plans for the coupe that make me wince a
> > little, including chopping the roof line and making a "Hot Rod" out of
>it
>in
> > terms of appearance, while keeping the mechanicals intact. I have not
> > called him yet. As I understand it, the car is a basket case, abandoned
>a
> > long time ago. So, which is better? A parts car or a running but no
>longer
> > original car?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network