Chrysler Corporation may have been #3 in the 1950's, but it was #2 from 1937
to about 1951, beating out Ford thanks to the Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler
lines. The prewar push was so great that in 1941 Plymouth came within
150,000 units of Ford.
The postwar years were no so kind to Chrysler Corporation as the company was
stuck with a stodgy image due to yesterday's styling and an outdated
powertrain. Yes, the hemi V8 was great, but the rest of powertrain was
from another era. And the non-V8 engines were getting long in the tooth,
regardless of their toughness. And it hurt Chrysler.
As for sales, the Imperial never outsold Rambler, and the only year it
outsold Studebaker was in 1966, when Studebaker ended production for good in
March of 1966,
Looking at model year production, Imperial's best year was 1957, with 37,593
built. Lincoln built 41,123,, Studebaker 63,101, Rambler 91,469, and
Cadillac 146,841. Imperial did beat Willys and Kaiser in 1955, Packard*
in 1956, 1957 and 1958, Continental Mark II in 1956 and 1957, Hudson and
Nash in 1957, Edsel in 1960 and DeSoto in 1961. The only other car that
consistently appeared below Imperial on the production charts was Checker.
(* - Packard combined with Clipper beat Imperial.)
Regardless, the Imperial was an extremely well-engineered, well-designed,
well-built, and great handling car. Claims that only Packard of Imperial's
competitors could truly match, although in its prime, Packard was in a class
all to its own.
Imperial's problems lay in its image. It was a Chrysler from 1926 to 1954,
and that was an image Chrysler could not shake from the public's mind.
Given that Chrysler itself could not shake the image, it is not all that
surprising nobody else could.
Bill
Vancouver, BC
> 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