Definitely backwards-that’s why Chrysler Corporation almost bit the dust. By attaching the “LeBaron” nameplate to cheaper cars Chrysler was attempting to add prestige to low rung cars in an effort to boost sales. I have seen these cars still riding around and often think of the irreversible damage and dilution they have inflicted on the name “LeBaron” just by mere association. Most people that see my 1966 LeBaron think probably of the 90s LeBaron convertibles. They have no idea that it was the best American luxury car money could buy in 1966. This all feeds back into poor marketing and how Chrysler muddled the Imperial nameplate itself which explains why so many people remember Chrysler Imperial and not just Imperial.
-----Original Message-----
thanks for the info,
the reason I asked the question was , I saw a 78 la baron with a 225 slant six engine in it, and I was wondering what year did the la barons separate from imperial, the car I'm talking about is what myself and most others would consider a mid size car but leaning more towards a compact car of that era.
my next question is this. if the la baron was the "cream of the crop" back in the 50s and 60s then why did Chrysler treat the name as a "stepchild" in the mid to late 70's
to me it doesn't make much sense, because in the 50's a 57 imperial La Baron would have sold for more than a custom or a crown. but then I see a 78 la-baron with a slant six , no offense to the slant six , but one would think it should have had a v8 in it.
my old 59 imperial has more options than the 78
la-baron, is it me or was Chrysler heading backwards in the late 70's and early
80s as far as technology and innovation.
__________________________________________________ |