Hey Mark,
Please let me know if you need assistance in getting this info onto the
site and want assistance. There are lots of people that are happy to help
out.
Cool summary. Sounds like you really scored.
-Kenyon
--- Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I hope this is considered "Imperial enough" by the powers that be.
>
> I was lucky enough to have won a "1968 Chrysler Product Theater" on ebay
> recently, and I thought the members of the IML might find it
> interesting.
>
> Basically, what it is is a box of training materials that was sent out
> to dealerships in 1967 to help the salespeople sell cars. It's a
> collection of phonograph records, filmstrips, and little booklets on all
> sorts of topics ranging from handling customer objections to point by
> point comparisons b/n certain models.
>
> The comparisons are all I've had a chance to look at so far, and they're
> really interesting to me-- for what they don't talk about, as well as
> what they do talk about. The differences b/n today and 1968 are really
> amazing.
>
> For instance, I was surprised that one of the biggest selling points for
> Chrysler was visibility. They spent a lot of time in each of these
> presentations talking about the extra 2" in height you get in the front
> windshield, and the extra height and width in the rear window. (They
> even calculate total glass area and show how it's higher in a
> Chrysler.) Then they show how you can see the edges of the rear fenders
> through the back window of a Chrysler-- but you can't in a Buick or a
> Mercury.
>
> (I'm sure they didn't do this when they did the filmstrips for the '71
> Imperial, because that thing has the worst visibility out the back
> window I've ever seen!)
>
> There's too much to go into here, but the one thing I noticed was, in
> 1968, it all seemed to come down to a battle of inches. They really
> stressed the differences in dimensions b/n Chrysler and other cars. At
> one point, they point out that a Chrysler's wheelbase is 1" longer than
> a Mercury! One whole inch!!
>
> One thing that is clear is that Chrysler really felt their cars were
> superior in terms of interior room and really pushed that. They had a
> picture of a guy wearing his porkpie hat inside a Newport to show how
> much more headroom it had.
>
> But there were all sorts of funny things, too, that I never would've
> thought mattered. For example, the size of the transmission hump.
> Chrysler was apparently very proud of the fact that it had a small
> (narrow) transmission hump, giving you lots more legroom! They actually
> did side by side photographic comparisons of the transmission humps in a
> Buick, Olds, Merc., etc. I mean, whoda thunk it?
>
> And they're also very proud of the padded headliner. I did not realize
> until today that Chryslers had padded headliners and Buicks did not!
> (How did I survive without this knowledge??) They show this guy hitting
> the roof of a Chrysler with his fist and all you hear is a muffled
> "thump thump." Then he hits the roof of the Buick and it's PANG PANG
> PANG. Very funny.
>
> I'm really surprised that Chrysler didn't outsell the competition
> because, in terms of engines and suspensions, etc., they were superior
> in every category-- horsepower, displacement, torque, etc. In terms of
> transmissions, too, I didn't realize that the much of the competition
> only had 2 speed transmissions.
>
> The one thing that is totally absent from any of these films if any
> mention of gas mileage. From the way these cars were presented, you'd
> think they were self-propelled and didn't even need gas!
>
> There is also very little mention of safety-- except in terms of
> interior comfort. Chrysler & Plymouth brag about their dashboards being
> padded at the top AND bottom-- while the competition's is only padded at
> the top!
>
> And, since we were talking about side marker lights, they show the side
> lights on a Chrysler and point out that they're "real lights, not mere
> reflectors." (Guess they had to dump this line a year later?)
>
> This box has a record of "1968 Imperial Features" but unfortunately that
> is the one filmstrip that is missing! If anyone knows where I can
> locate a replacement, I'd love to have it.
>
> And if I can ever get to it, I'll put this on the site somehow.
>
> Isn't time YOU moved up to CHRYSLER?
>
> Mark M
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network