Jim & All,
Overall, a very interesting analysis and I agree with much of what you
say.
One quibble: you say "Imperial didn't sell well." I think this is kind
of an overstatement, or perhaps too negative.
Imperial didn't sell as well as Cadillac or Lincoln, that is true, but
it was still #3. And considering that Chrysler Corp. was the #3
carmaker in the U.S. I don't think that's all that bad. (I believe that
Cadillac sales more than doubled Lincoln's, so there was little chance
of Imperial ever catching Caddy.)
I don't remember the figures right now, but I know that at times
Imperial sold more cars than all of Rambler (or American Motors) did--
and American Motors was America's #4 carmaker. They also outsold
Studebaker. I guess this may not seem like much of a compliment (!),
but what I'm saying is Imperial sold more and survived longer than some
entire car companies.
I've often wondered why Imperial didn't sell better, and I don't have an
answer other than perhaps the carbuying public isn't always able to
perceive quality, or maybe because Imperial was too individualistic for
most luxury buyer's tastes.
Anyway, good comments.
Mark M
IMPSRULE@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> First off, the following opinions about the recent
> Collectable Automobile article are just that - my
> opinions (so feel free to contribute your own
> perspective, but no angry personal emails, please…
> LOL). In spite of a few discrepancies such as that
> regarding the real wood veneer, I’m elated about the
> lengthy, and largely positive article about the 67-68
> Imperials in the October, 2002 issue of Collectable
> Automobile.
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network