Re: IML: New Yorker & Imperial virtually the same car??

[<50scars@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I am the owner of a 56 Imperial, the Chrysler New Yorker was
always a darned fine car.  The Buick Roadmaster/Electra 225, and the Olds
98 shared the same body as the Cadillac throughout their existance, but
had the lesser engines, most of the time, and different skin.  I had an
Olds 98 for a while--it was a fine car.  Ford never figured out what to do
with Mercury; sometimes it shared a body with Lincoln, sometimes it shared
a body with Ford.  I think Lincoln only made money as a marquis after GM
made Cadillac front wheel drive. That car shares the body of Ford Crown
Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis. Cadillac did well because they established
their neich at the top of GM's line and kept their leadership in the
market.  Lincoln started out as a luxury car, but made the Zephyr during
the Depression, which probably saved their skin, much like Packard with
the 120, but they dropped their luxury car, the K cars.  Of course, the K
cars were early depression era designs, and totally outdated by the time
the last one was built. Until about 1956, Ford did not have an entry in
the luxury car price range--Lincoln was an upper medium priced car,
competing against Olds 98, Buick Roadmaster, and at the top end of the
Chrysler New Yorker price.  Chrysler just couldnot get the money out of
the Imperial it deserved,until about 1955.  Cadillac always seemed to get
their price, and they kept their place as the "standard of the world",
until they fell off the ball in the 80s.


> Why was the Imperial and New Yorker virtually the same in body and
> features? Cadillac made itself completely different than the top of the
> line for Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile 98. Lincoln also like Cadillac
> stood alone against any other Ford product and their other divisions. So
> again, if the Imperial was to be recognized as a class unto itself it
> had to be different than the other Models. I believe it fail to do so.
> Example of today- The Imperial concept car of 2008 looks so similar to
> the 300 than why would you even look at the Imperial or get excited
> about it. Why pay more for and Imperial when there is no real difference
> except for the price tag! In my opinion the New Yorker/5th ave. sold
> more in the 90's because it looked the same as the Imperial ,but was
> cheaper! A loaded 5th gave you just as much as the Imperial- In fact ,
> one can argue that the Interior on the 5th was more luxurious than the
> Imperial. Help me understand The Chrysler mentality on this matter
> -Regards -Anthony





-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm