I'm too young to have experienced that pattern firsthand but I have
heard about it. I've often wondered why it occured, or why it was
allowed to occur. Part of the problem may be that, when you're making
a big sweeping change and going into untested territory there are more
mistakes to be made. Or it may be some aspect of the internal corp.
structure or "culture" of Chrysler. I don't know. I think for the
most part they were able to produce quality cars but at certain times
they slipped and the moments they slipped just happened to be the
moments where they really could've made a good impression and didn't.
But they had triumphs, too. The guy I know who used to work at
Chrysler was showing me a Dart that he owned and pointed out that the
door and body panels had, I think, five creases in them (in the middle
there is a raised section which has fairly sharp creases in it).
Apparently, this was the largest number of creases that any
manufacturer had put in a piece of sheetmetal at the time (this was on
a '68 Dart) and he was extremely proud of it because apparently it
takes a lot of engineering to stamp a piece of metal with that many
creases and still have the panels fit. (I don't know why; maybe
because of shrinkage?)
Anyway, I think I lot of Chrysler's successes were like this one:
impressive to the industry but totally lost on the customer, who
probably had no idea of the difficulty involved.
Mark
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 12:34 PM, RandalPark@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network