The Federal government does have a say...in 1954, Chrysler Corporation was
required to register "Imperial" as a separate make: manufacturers couldn't
just "create" divisions without some bureaucracy. During other periods of
U.S. history, manufacturers couldn't just "raise prices" without
governmental review/approval.
Back in the early '80s, the Federal government mandated that a system be
devised to distinguish between strippo and loaded-up import models since the
content difference resulted in two entirely different cars. Suffix
designations were adopted. An "Accord DX" is not the same as an "Accord
EX." (It is analogous to Imperial Custom versus Imperial Le Baron, or at
least that was the intention of the designations.")
To this day, new models are often introduced as "submodels" of existing
models because of the reduced government red tape. Back in 1993, the Altima
was introduced as the "Stanza Altima." "Stanza" was removed a year later.
(Stanza and Altima were built on different platforms.) The Solara is
officially known as the "Camry Solara," but you don't see it advertised that
way.
-----Original Message-----
From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Christopher
Hoffman
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:15 AM
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler Imperial
Roger and list,
May I respectfully submit the prospect that some of actually do care whether
it was a make or a model? It's not that either one makes one's personal
choice in cars lesser or greater... all Imperials are indeed special. But
things like this matter purely as a point of interest... they're not worth
getting upset over. Details are what makes history interesting to some of
us.
Leaving off brand badges does not make a model into a make. I'm not sure
where there is proof of what the Fed thought about it, but I do know that,
for example, Honda hasn't put their name (only the H logo) on their cars
since 1993, and Civic did not become a brand as a result. There was no
Imperial Division before 1955 or after 1975, and the 1981 models were
introduced and marketed as Chrysler Imperials. A person bought a 1967 model
from a Chrysler-Plymouth-Imperial dealer. The logo on the Monroney label was
just like the three-tier dealer signage that said
Chrysler-Plymouth-Imperial, and next to it on the label are the words
"Imperial Division." In 1981, the Monroney said "Chrysler-Plymouth Division"
and the logo thereon said Chrysler-Plymouth.
For the record, I choose to use phrases like "I believe" and "to the best of
my knowledge" and "I can only imagine" simply to qualify that I, like
everyone on this list, am an amateur authority: one who has gathered
information over the course of life and who enjoys sharing it in a friendly
way. So much of what gets put out on websites and Internet mailing lists
gets spoken like gospel, and as a society we seem gullible to misinformation
when it is spoken with an authoritative tone. Bill's analysis, like most of
his contributions to this community, was indeed well-spoken and based in his
extensive knowledge, but his choice not to qualify his words is simply his
choice, and I respect that.
In that specific reference, I doubt there is anyone on this list who knows
exactly WHY Chrysler (Corp) would have used a different second-place digit
for Imperials versus all other Chryslers. I merely offered some thoughts on
the WHY part, and felt I owed the list the qualification I added.
Aside from all that, is there any reason people on this list cannot carry
one a friendly sharing of knowledge (also known as a conversation) without
comments like "who gives two hoots?" or the little dig on the '67s?
Chris in LA
Rog & Jan van Hoy (vanhilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> I thought Bill Watson did his usual excellent analysis of
> why the '81-'83 Imperial was an Imperial make, NOT a
> Chrysler. Position 2 of the 17-digit VIN is "A"=Imperial.
> "C"=Chrysler. The Imperial was the only "Y" carline
> [Position 5].
>
> Comparing the two analyses, I notice in the last post the
> words, "I can only imagine" and "probably." This leads me
> to believe that of the diverging opinions Bill was right as
> usual.
>
> Bottom line, who gives two hoots? Imperials were a special
> car for special people, and still are, whether they're a
> "model" or a "make." Or whether or not the '66 was the last
> "true" Imperial.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network