John, I notice there was no communication on the Imperial site so I like to stir the pot if you will. Hope you don't mine me playing "Devils advocate"-Anthony Ps.-Love your knowledge on those cars -Good job! ----- Original Message ----- From: "John T. Folden" <nedloftj2006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:07 PM Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY?? > Anthony, I could be wrong but it seems like you post a LOT of > questions concerning the "whys and hows" of 80s and 90s Imperials all > the time. Discussion is great but I get the impression you feel > unsure or insecure about their "status" as Imperials. Not a worry. > > The 90's Imperials, great cars though they are (especially in > comparison to their direct competition during those years) had a > couple of mind share and marketing problems. > a) Though I personally like the styling, the 90's Imperial was in the > mold of "traditional American Luxury" and this was a style that was > quickly on the way out (and essentially Chrysler's last word on that > type of vehicle), being replaced by 'swoopy' and curvy lines more > appealing to younger buyers (like the LHS). > b) The TAL style of the Imperial appealed to the same, older buyers > that looked at Cadillacs and Lincolns. The fact is that a great > majority of them simply wouldn't look at a car of it's type if it > didn't have an 8 cylinder engine in it, even when obviously it didn't > need it. > c) The stigma of "K everywhere". Even though Chrysler built some > great cars off the K platform, visibly stretching it to the top of > the range left even it's most prestigious models sharing any > "perceived" faults of the lowest end. The 90's Imperial gets hit with > this one even today. > > I've always thought that the 80's and 90's Imperials would have done > better if they'd been swapped in the time line (and given a tweak or > two). I think the 4-door and it's styling would have been much more > appreciated in the early/mid 80's and I think the 80's model would > have fit in better with the "personal luxury coupe" models of the > 90's like the Toronado and Eldorado. > > > John > > On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:47 AM, anthony romano wrote: > > > John, with all respect to your answer. Back in the 90's Chrysler > > sold many > > Dynastys, New Yorkers , Salons and Fifth aves. It was a big seller > > for them > > so much that the body style stay true from 88-93. The Imperial was > > a take > > off from those cars.-Anthony > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "john sadowski" <jsadowski@xxxxxxx> > > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:50 AM > > Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY?? > > > > > >> The big difference this time is that they have a huge success with > >> the > > 300. > >> The last 2 generations only had luke warm offerings in the overall > >> lineup. > >> With the D/C partnership, Chrysler is more likely to be taken > >> seriously as > > a > >> luxury car builder. I'm betting that if the stretched version of > >> the 300 > >> does well, the new Imperial won't be too far behind it. > >> John > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Kenyon Wills" <imperialist1960@xxxxxxxxx> > >> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:04 PM > >> Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY?? > >> > >> > >>> Look at what Chrysler has done with the current > >>> incarnation of the 300 and you have a window into > >>> what's likely with whatever they do with/to Imperial. > >>> > >>> The 80's and 90's incarnations were probably similar > >>> in that they were efforts to put a car into a > >>> marketing or linup niche perceived by the > >>> strategists as needing to be filled more than they > >>> needed continuity and context to what had come before > >>> - One had 2 doors and the other was FWD, so.... > >>> > >>> Prior to that, Imperial flowed as a line from 1926 to > >>> 1975 as the pinnacle product in the line of offerings > >>> from a strong and vibrant company. The Chrysler of > >>> 1981 and 1990 (and perhaps 2006?) is a markedly > >>> different company. > >>> > >>> I like the later cars and don't intend to slight them > >>> - just comparing what I think are facts. > >>> > >>> It doesn't really matter, does it? The target market > >>> for the Imperial has nothing much to do with what we > >>> know Imperial to be, just as the current 300 does not > >>> have much of any real connection to the 300 name of > >>> the past (that I can see, anyway). > >>> > >>> -Kenyon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- anthony romano <mamrom@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello! Help me to understand why the "Comeback" of > >>>> the 80's and the 90's Imperials never took off as a > >>>> sort after car? In my opinion, the cars had the edge > >>>> in style and engineering. Both cars were ahead of > >>>> its time with amentias. So with all this, was it a > >>>> marketing blunder or was it only intended to make a > >>>> "Cameo" appearance for those years. It makes you > >>>> think that the new Imperial concept car might have > >>>> the same fate, unless Chrysler really intends to > >>>> resurrected permanently as to compete with the ever > >>>> growing Luxury market. Let's face it, back in the > >>>> day Imperial had only two rivals to compete with, > >>>> unlike today fierce competition. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Your Thoughts Appreciated! > >>>> > >>>> Anthony > >>> > >>> > >>> Kenyon Wills > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----------------- 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----------------- 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ----------------- 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 > > > > > > ----------------- 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 > > ----------------- 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