Chrysler Imperial

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sherwood,

Thanks for sharing that story with us.  That's a great one.

I think what this shows is that what we as collectors and hobbiests care about
isn't always what the manufacturer of the car cared about when they made it.  We
tend to be concerned with matters of "purity"-- like whether or not the use of a
name means it was a separate make or separate model-- while Chrysler only cared
about making a buck.

I also think this lends support to the idea that Imperial was not a separate
make in '81; why create a new division (or resurrect an old one) if all you want
to do is increase the price?  Sherwood's story seems to indicate that the use of
the Imperial name was more marketing than substance . . .

But this is not to demean the 81s in any way.  I think they're great cars, and
worthy of the Imperial name.  I still remember the white one I drove at the
Chattanooga meet a year ago.  The quality they put in them went beyond just
adding the name.

Mark M

SherwoodK@xxxxxxx wrote:

> I'd like to add a little to the discussion of Imperial vis-a-vis Chrysler. In
> 1983, I had the pleasure of having lunch with the Vice President of Product
> Planning for Chrysler Corporation at the Highland Park headquarters. As those
> of you who have been around the hobby for a long time will know, the WPC Club
> scooped the world with the first color photo of the 1981 Imperial. In my far
> ranging discussion of many topics, I asked why the name Imperial was brought
> back to life.  The name Imperial was used because the result of Chrysler's
> research meant the Corporation could get an additional $2000 for the car.
>
> Be thankful, Imperialists, that names do mean a lot...
>
> Sherwood Kahlenberg
>
>