I doubt if Daimler Chrysler will ever use the name Imperial again. It has been resurrected twice since 1975. The first time was by the former Ford Executive, Iacocca, who wanted to create a Chrysler version of the Thunderbird. It reemerged in the early 1990s as a somewhat badge engineered version of the then New Yorker. The car was a trim level variation only, but nicely executed. I worked at a Chrysler dealership last year for four months and had to take a bunch of lessons on the then new Pacifica. I realized that Chrysler was repeating old mistakes once more. It was touting the Pacifica as an upscale car, one that would move the brand upscale in people's estimation but they did nothing on the dealerships to support the move. I have been to Cadillac, Lincoln and Lexus dealerships. They are not the same as Chevy, Ford and Toyota dealerships, in much the same way that a five star luxury hotel is not the same as a Holiday Inn. Both cater to a different market segment. Chrysler has always been a middle class brand. The company failed to support its Imperial brand with a seperate distribution and service chain and DCA did exactly the same thing with the Pacifica, which happens to be an excellent vehicle in may ways. The Pacifica should have been the flagship of an upscale brand and it is not going too far to say it would not be an embarrassment to the fine tradition of Imperial. The Pacifica should have been to a regular minivan what an Imperial was to a regular Chrysler. However, it was badly marketed - the executive in charge was fired last fall - and it never took off. It was put forward as the car that would take the brand upscale and it was a dismal failure. The more things change the more they stay the same. The reality is that the upscale brand of Chrysler already exists. It has a different clientele and its own distribution network. Its name is Mercedes. The parent company would be crazy to sacrifice unit sales of Mercedes by establishing yet another rival. It will never happen. The Pacifica experience goes to show that there can now be a whole new rationale for the same mediocre results, Hugh