You are correct, it was a recession, not a depression (sorry), but yes, Rambler
was in the right place at the right time. They were the only American auto
manufacturer to turn a profit in 1958. 1958 and 1959 were very good years for
Ramblers, and not very good years for almost very one else, especially 1958.
You are correct that VW had taken a big chunck of sales by then, and the
Corvair, Falcon, and Valiant were responding to that as much as anything else,
but Rambler had been making a compact car for years and was already in place
with their offering when the public's tastes changed. The big three didn't have
anything until 1960. Interestingly, another contemporary compact, the
Studebaker Lark, came out in '59, although it was not a totally new car as it
was based on previous Studebaker models.
Let's see, I need to keep this Imperial related, so how about saying that
although I agree with your analysis of how nice it would have been to have had
the '64 Imperial come out 2 years early, that would have been impossible since
that would mean that Elwood Engel would have had to have been working for both
Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Corporation at the same time. Engel did have a
hand in both the '62 and the '63 Imperials and actually, although they didn't
sell well, I think that '62 and '63 are very significant and interesting years
for Imperial. As old cars they fortunately have many unusual styling features
that make them desirable now, even if those same features may have been a
disadvantage when they were new.
Paul
Tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I was eating Gerber's stewed carrots in 1958 so I don't really recall
> much about the depression that year. (Not being a wise guy, but was
> there really a depression or was it a recession?) Anyway, that's not
> my real question, my real question is: why wasn't Rambler effected?
>
> Are you saying it was because Rambler was a small car? Was Rambler
> really considered a small car then? Seems hard to imagine now, since
> Ramblers weren't all that small . . . If Rambler was in such a good
> position then you wonder why they weren't able to capitalize on it.
>
> My memory is fuzzy on this, but I would think VW's success had more to
> do with the realization that America wanted smaller cars than the
> depression, but it could all be tied together. I'm wondering when the
> Valiant and Corvair were first conceived . . . would seem to be in
> 57/58 or thereabouts.
>
> Anyway, I agree with you about Imperial's styling being a bit behind
> the curve. All of Chrysler's styling in the early 60's tended to be a
> bit more daring or flamboyant (or odd, if you think about Dodge's
> angled headlights) than the competition's. Although I LIKE this daring
> quality, I think public tastes were more conservative by this time and
> Chrysler did not recognize this. In fact, I've always thought that if
> Imperial had just been two years earlier with every major design cycle
> the Imperial would be still with us today.
>
> Think of it: if you took the 1964 and brought it out in 1962 or even
> 1963 (instead of clipping the fins on the old bodystyle to keep it
> around for one more year), it would have been a major jump forward.
> That would have put Lincoln and Imperial out front with a fresh new
> look, leaving Cadillac behind. And, as much as I love the 67-68s, I've
> always thought they look as though they should have come out in '65 or
> '66, when "square" was the rage. By '67, GM was going to that gently
> curved look that Chrysler wouldn't see until 1969 with the fuselage
> era. I think Chrysler's designs were BETTER, just late by a year or
> two. I've often wondered why this happened . . .
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 02:02 PM, RandalPark@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > It has been well documented in automotive publications that the build
> > quality of the '57 Imperial was a major factor in the later lack of
> > success associated with our cars. It was not the only factor, however,
> > since most American cars suffered the same way at that time. Here are
> > a few of the other reasons that I think the Imperial name suffered.
> >
> > The economic depression in 1958 negatively effected all of the auto
> > manufacturers except Rambler. This lead to the realization that
> > America wanted smaller cars. Even though the industry was slower to
> > act, the American public responded immediately to the rising
> > popularity of smaller cars.
> >
> > I think the final piece was the controversial styling of Chrysler cars
> > in the early '60s. By then the other manufactuers were settling into
> > what became a comparitively conservative period. The Imperial was
> > particularly late on this issue.
> >
> > Although I would somewhat disagree with it, I believe that the
> > Imperial suffered from an image of playing "catch up" with the
> > competition in the styling department. This perception may have been
> > due to the styling of the '61 Imperial as compared to that of the '61
> > Lincoln, and although the '61 Cadillac was still somewhat outlandish,
> > they could always sell anything as long as it said Cadillac.
> >
> > Imperials were always acclaimed for their handling on the highway as
> > road cars. They also frequently were commended for engineering
> > innovation and comfort.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network