Engel kept the Imperial name from fading much earlier than it actually did. His
designs were up to date. His work on the Lincoln had saved that marque years
before. If the 1961 Lincoln had not been a success, Ford was prepared to pull
the plug on it. The 1964 Imperial was the second best year ever since the '57
models. If the '64 model had failed, there probably wouldn't have been a '67 or
'68. The fuselage style Imperials were actually quite successful. They were
popular years for our car. The fuel crisis soured folks on big cars in the
middle '70s. At that point plans were being made for down sizing the luxury
cars. Chrysler simply discontinued the Imperial. Then they brought it back
again on a smaller platform with the '80s models. I believe that the thinking
was that the public had accepted the idea of a smaller luxury car. If you
remember, the Cadillac Seville sold like hot cakes, both the square model and
the slope back. Sadly, that was immediately after a time when everyone thought
that Chrysler was going to go belly up. In those days the news was full of pros
and cons over a government bail out for the company. After that it would take
years for anyone to invest in a senior luxury Chrysler Corporation vehicle.
What prestige would there be to be driving an expensive orphen? At that time if
it was thought that the company might not be there in a few years, people
weren't really interested in buying their top of the line cars. Mr. Iaccoca,
the K-Car, and the mini-van saved the company, but no one knew that for sure
that would be the case until a few years had passed. By then the '80s Imperial
had been sunk.
Frankly, I was surprised when they brought out the Imperial again in 1990. I do
remember, though, that the move had been planned for years. It wasn't until
after that style was discontinued that anyone truly speculated that there would
NEVER be another Imperial. They may be wrong, but for now I don't expect to see
it any time soon.
Paul
In a message dated 1/22/2004 10:19:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, Imperial59crown
writes:
> Engle started the demise of the Imperial, and forever sealed it's fate. Exner
>brought it to its greatest recognition, and it's most distinct styling.
>Chrysler has always been a manufacturer for the solid middle class, a niche
>above Ford, and a niche below GM. The problem with Chrysler is, it has not had
>a flagship automobile since the Imperial was discontinued, and I am talking
>about the real Imperials, They are turning out some of the best designs today,
>but there is still no flagship. There is the new 300, which is a very nice
>car, but comparable to a Pontiac, Bonneville. With the globalization of the
>auto industry, it is somewhat doubtful that we will ever see an automobile
>like the Imperial resurface, nor would I want to. When I look at cars today,
>it is very difficult to define top end from lower end, except by the logo
>stamped on the car, and this is not an Imperial world! If Chrysler had
>introduced the '61 Imperial in 1959, and continued upward from there, things
>may have been different, but they just kind of laid back on their laurels, and
>lost it. Our Imperials are what they are, and they are from an era that we
>will most likely never experience again. They are indeed very rare top of the
>line, and very distinct automobiles, and we are the keepers of
> them. Aren't we the lucky ones!
>
> Bill "59 Crown
! 0j^&r[r+&zǧ2Lj)by e&j)b
bئjW%(ʋ){ )em!j+azʉ>jצz֭!+vhkj+hW[zǧ0yj^&r[rCRPDDhijW%(rzf
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network