Mark,
You have described the very pattern of behavior (from that company) that we
have been talking about all along. The same thing happened in 1957. To me that
was a much more serious offense, but only because having a separate Imperial
was such a new concept.
Since they were still (or once again) struggling along by 1969, one would have
thought that everything possible would have been done to keep this pattern from
being repeated. I confess to being unfamiliar with any fall out over the
quality of the '69 model. By then I was going through the aforementioned phase
of not really caring about new Imperials anymore. Over the last few years,
though, I actually have rediscovered the beauty of the '69 models.
Paul
In a message dated 1/24/2004 11:54:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> The results of the problems with the 69's did not hit until the next year. In
>my opinion, 1969 was a big year because people were drawn to the styling.
>However, once they experienced the many small quality control issues the bad
>word of mouth killed future sales. New buyers were scared off, and some repeat
>buyers were lost. I say this as a fan of the 69's. They're my second favorite
>year, next to the 68's. But this is a story typical to Chrysler-- they step
>way out in front in terms of design or engineering, get people to try them,
>and then fail to deliver the quality needed to keep that customer. Eventually
>they fix the problems (from what I've heard the 70's and 71's were far better
>in terms of fit & finish), but by then it's too late. Mark M On Friday,
>January 23, 2004, at 08:48 PM, jsadowski wrote: Yes, In fact the 69 was the
>3rd highest production year ever for Imperial. If you've ever read the review
>of the big 3 for 69, you'll know that the 69 was rated the best driver of the
>3, but in those days, people didn't buy a luxury car because it drove well.
>The car that turned the most heads was what people wanted then. How times have
>changed. Many cars had already changed from body on frame long before
>Imperial did & that made for a much quieter car. John ----- Original Message
>----- From: RandalPark@xxxxxxx To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday,
>January 23, 2004 6:49 PM Subject: Re: IML: Leaky Trunks? Sorry, Chuck, if
>leaky trunks had killed the Imperial they wouldn't have built anymore cars
>after 1957. I would also have to disagree with you about the overall quality
>of the '67 and '68 models. While they may not have been the same as the
>separate body and frame models, they really were very well put together and
>essentially equal in quality to anything else offered as flagship models from
>GM or Ford at the time. I vividly remember Tom McCahill complaining about the
>differences between the 1967 Imperial and its predecessors, and even agreeing
>with him at the time. Over the years I have been convinced that those cars
>really were good cars and have a style and elegance all of their own. When in
>top shape, I actually think they are as nice or in some ways nicer to drive
>than the cars that came before them. I can speak from experience since my
>parents bought a new '68 LeBaron when I was learning to drive. Since then I
>have driven and inspected many of these cars. In high school, I spent every
>weekend polishing both our venerable 1960 model, and the new '68. I can
>remember my mother saying that she liked her '68, but that it wasn't the car
>that the '60 was. I later wondered why she said that because as it turned out,
>they drove that '68 Imperial for 100,000 trouble free miles. The '60 only had
>32,000 miles on it when they decided that they needed a new car. It had
>required many expensive repairs including a front end rebuild, a/c overhaul,
>and several incidents with the power windows mostly caused by wire problems in
>the door hinge area. Even though the '67 and '68 models were not really
>considered a big success, they really weren't any less so than so many other
>years of Imperials that came before. Imperial went on and actually sold a lot
>of cars in the early '70s. As I recall production numbers in those years were
>some of the best ever. There may be some that don't like Imperials built after
>1966, but I don't believe that those cars did any damage to the name Imperial.
>To the contrary, I believe that
> they were great cars for their time.
m
"\ܢdɞƠ{&jSX^jǫzrXX)znm&jwrzhǰY[zZp^w+ڵ鞲ƠzƧumifz{l~ )ڶ.ޱ nf⚗\ܢdPԔ
!)znm&칻 &ކ
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network