CF, to some extend I agree with you. The US auto industry is still
profitable, but its not anywhere near the glory it used to be. Chrysler
corp. included (actually, among automotive engineers it is generally agreed
that Chrysler is currently at the bottom in terms of quality, compared to
the other 2, and it has been there for at least the past 10 years).
That's why we like old American cars. Things were different back
then. The US auto industry was never leading in technological terms, but
they were leading in trends, styling, and quality. Chrysler was
particularly leading in engineering quality, especially in terms of
engines, transmissions, and suspensions. Mopar cars were not high tech by
any means, but they were well designed, well developed, and well
manufactured machines. No wonder why numerous high priced specialty car
manufacturers in Europe in the 60's and early 70's chose Chrysler engines
and transmissions for the super fancy cars (examples, Facel Vega, Jensen
Interceptor, Monteverdi, Bristol and I am sore I have forgotten a
few). And that's why we like Imperials, they were the best the Auto
Industry had to offer at a time where the domestic industry rulled.
D^2
At 09:13 PM 7/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>As a separate issue from the above, it always just strikes me as rather
>sad... These rolling displays of nostalgia in the Motor City of Detroit,
>MI... Working in the auto industry, knowing the "real" facts.... We're all
>out there enjoying our 20+ year-old cars in the former car capital of the
>world, while the rest of the world laughs at us. I guess if Chrysler were
>something other than a name-badge for future Mitsubishi/Hyundai junk, if
>our best selling cars weren't trucks... Don't get me wrong, I love old
>cars, but it seems kind of like partying on the deck of the Titanic...
>Sorry, I guess this one is just some personal baggage.
>
>So am I just an old fuddy-dud (at 29) or what?
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network