Collectible Auto/Imp. Mystique-Rambler

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Wow, very thorough.  Like I said, I mainly agree with you.  I guess I
gave away my youth (ha) by referring to Chrysler as #3-- for most of my
life, it has been.  But I forgot it used to be #2.

I think you are right that Imperial was first created to compete with
Cadillac.  But after a few years I think they realized they were never
going to catch up, much less compete, with Caddy, and their focus became
Lincoln.  I think that may be why they went with somewhat Lincolnesque
styling in '64 and continued with it through '68.

Here's what it was for 1965, according to "Automotive News:";

Cadillac    181,435
Lincoln    40,180
Imperial    18,399

As you can see, Imperial would have had to increase its sales by tenfold
to reach Caddy's.  But Lincoln's sales were probably reachable in the
mid-60s.  (What went wrong??)

However, I think I was wrong about Rambler.  I didn't compare those two
to suggest in any way that they were alike, or similiar, cars.  I
thought that Imperial had outsold Rambler for a few years.  That was my
only point of comparison; there was no free associating going on.  But I
have been trying to find the chart I saw that gave me that idea and I
can't.  All the ones I see put total American Motors production at over
300,000.  So clearly I was mistaken.

All I really meant to say was that Imperial's sales were, at least in
the 60s, commensurate with Chrysler's overall standing in the market.
If Chrysler Corp. had been number one overall, like GM, and their luxury
make came in at #3, then I would feel that maybe "Imperials didn't sell
well."  But since Chrysler took third place-- or worse-- in nearly every
caregory, I'm not surprised or too disappointed by Imperial sales.

(Geez, that was supposed to make me feel better, but somehow it
doesn't!)

For example, in the compact car range for 1965, here were the top cars:

1. Mustang
2. Rambler
3. Corvair

The Dodge Dart doesn't even appear until slot #5.  And yet most Mopar
lovers consider the Dart one of Chrysler Corp.'s most successful cars!

In the so-called "low priced standards" we see:

1. Chevy
2. Ford
3. Fury

In the "medium priced standards" we see:

1. Pontiac (surprising to me)
2. Olds
3. Buick
4. Chrysler

So, in its class, Imperial did as good as its "brother" company
Plymouth, and better than its brother Chrysler.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe we are judging Imperial too harshly.
ALL of Chryslers products, I'm sorry to say, were coming in behind the
"big boys" of GM and Ford.  At least in sales-- maybe not in real
quality.

Again, I thought this would make me feel better, but somehow it don't .
. .  :(

Anyway, I enjoyed your very thoughtful comments & they made me think.

Mark

IMPSRULE@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi Mark & All:
>
> A quick side-note, with regard to Chrysler's being the
> #3 U.S. automaker, it warrants mention that Mopar's
> 3rd place status was a recent turn of events when the
> Imperial Division made it's debut in 1955.  For a
> generation, Chrysler Corp. had held the Number TWO
> position among American car companies - a distinction
> it had held from the early 1930's until 1954.  Some of
> the reasons (dowdy pre-Exner styling, lack of a fully-
> automatic tranny, etc...) are explored in-depth in the
> article on "Mid Priced Cars" appearing in the same
> issue of Collectable Auto that we're discussing now.
>