Re: IML: 60 build quality vs 57

[Ken W Stephenson <kss37215@xxxxxxxx>]

What does "generic to the basic design" mean?  Most of Chrysler's problem, which the beancounter mentality never faced up to, was their incompetent dealer network.  They were interested only in moving units out the door.  In my 50+ years of ownership I encountered only one competent midwestern dealer service department, at a long gone DeSoto store in Hammond, Indiana.   But I consider that a blessing, too.  It forced me to do my own work.  "Generic to the basic design"?  If they were generic, I would have experienced them, too.  Bad management, bad dealers, yes, but somehow generically good engineering.  Hey, all you quality control guys out there: what is the probability of my never owning a "bad" Chrysler in 50+ years?      

 

On Mon, 2 May 2005 16:32:01 EDT DONALDDICKINSOND@xxxxxx writes:

In a message dated 5/2/2005 3:29:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, kss37215@xxxxxxxx writes:

I can't believe that this is 2005 and we are still hearing about how bad Imperials were in the late 50's!   I bought a 58 Imperial coupe in 1959 and had no major problem with it at all.  Having "been there" gives one a different perspective of the time.  As it is today with most "journalists" in the back pocket of leftist politicians, the 50's was a time of blatant payola on every front.

I am glad you had good luck with your 1958.  My experience with a 1957 (it was my fathers car) was not as rosy and from what I have read more typical of Chrysler product owners of that period.  I will not list the problems as they were documented in a previous post but were generic to the basic design and I am sure many owners had the same problems.  The bottom line is that owner satisfaction was extremely low and no doubt had a very negative impact on the future sales of Imperial. 

Don Dickinson
Prospect, KY

1955 Imperial Newport, Canyon Tan and Desert Sand
1967 Imperial Custom Convertible, Ivory and Burgundy