[FWDLK] CHRYSLER: an American company

[Jim Pristelski <ajp002@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have to pretty much agree with Brent.  As with many things, there are some exceptions.  Chrysler has introduced some interesting and stylish cars, such as the Dodge Viper, the Plymouth Prowler and the Chrysler Crossfire, but these models were priced well beyond the reach of the common vehicle purchaser.  Of course, none of these models is a "family car". 

 

The PJ Cruiser may have been an exception, but it was a niche vehicle with limited appeal.

 

Some may also argue that the new Chrysler 300 broke away from the current lack of styling.  Personally, I like the Sebring convertibles, but their styling is only moderately different than other similar cars. 

 

Let's also give credit to Chrysler for inventing the Mopar minivans.  However, after its introduction, all of the other manufacturers have emulated it to the extent that the Mopar minivans are no longer distinctive.  One minivan now looks like any other minivan. 

 

The remaining (and more common) vehicles do lack distinction, at least as measured from vantage point of the Forward Look models. 

 

Jim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Burger <cgico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 15, 2007 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] CHRYSLER: an American company
To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

   ----- Original Message -----

   From: "Bill Watson"


   Why all the negative feelings toward Dr. Z?

   *****************************

   I have been wondering the same thing.

   If the 1957 cars were the benchmark cars by which all that is good is
measured (as it is for me), at what point did Mopar go from making cars to
nothing more than plastic Tupperware bowls with wheels and radios ?

   Chrysler cars went from jet-age styled Q-ships to lean muscle machines
to just plain obese and lethargic by 1971.  It was incrementally a straight
shot into the toilet from 1957 to 1970.  After that, Chrysler (like all
other automakers) have been building something I don't consider a "real car"
....  just a dumpy box for hauling butts around town.  And before anyone
gets their boxers in a bunch for such a statement, ...  consider ANY car
Chrysler made after 1971 as compared to a 57 New Yorker or Fury and there
simply is no argument.

   It seems to me, any discussion regarding Mopar after 1970 is pretty much
a moot point, a foregone conclusion of chatter about shoe box and beer can
styling, combined with sewing machine motor technology.  With pre-1970 cars
that go begging for restoration, why does anyone waste a moment on concern
for what came after ?

   "Chrysler" has existed in name only for close to 40 years.  Pretty much
the same as Studebaker in my book.  A company that once made some really
neat cars.  Dr. Z could guide the company to make toothbrushes or bridge
railings and it would have no impact on cars.  The days of wine and roses
were given up long ago by the corporate execs.  Building something exciting
was supplanted by a "how much executive perks can I squeeze out of this cash
cow?" mentality, and we all know the rest of the story.

   I am glad DeSoto died with its fins on.

   Car 54, where are you ?

   B.

*************************************************************

To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
 

*************************************************************

To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1