Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY??

["anthony romano" <mamrom@xxxxxxx>]

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