Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





The Big 3 and the domestic issues that will affect them

15354565859

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,250
    I hope your relatives find more success despite the low level of dignity at these top corporations. I wish them much happiness.

    Now back to the fight:

    UPDATE: Consolidated Summary Of April US Auto Sales Data
    Tue, May 1 2007, 18:21 GMT
    http://www.djnewswires.com/eu
    UPDATE: Consolidated Summary Of April US Auto Sales Data

    The following summarizes the U.S. light vehicle sales numbers for April for the major auto makers that have reported data Tuesday. The figures are not adjusted for the number of selling days, which totaled 24 last month and 26 in April 2006. Figures in parentheses indicate a decrease in sales from the year-earlier period.

    YR-ON-YR YR-ON-YR
    COMPANY SALES CHANGE YTD CHANGE

    General Motors (GM) 307,554 (9.5%) 1,205,997 (6.5%)
    Ford (F) 228,623 (13%) 871,583 (13%)
    Toyota (TM) 210,457 (4.3%) 816,312 6.7%
    Chrysler * 193,104 1.6% 730,353 (2.9%)
    Nissan (NSANY) 71,124 (18%) 350,105 0%


    The following is a breakdown of the April sales numbers for the auto makers by type of vehicle.

    TRUCK/SUV CHANGE CARS CHANGE
    GM 186,545 (9.1%) 121,009 (10%)
    Ford 147,891 (5.8%) 80,732 (24%)
    Toyota 89,901 (2.3%) 120,556 (5.8%)
    Chrysler 146,439 11% 46,665 (20%)
    Nissan 30,410 (22%) 40,714 (14%)

    Toyo is breathing down GM's neck with car sales and they blew away F and DCX by 50% and 160% respectively.

    That is a direct result of bad management magnified by time!

    "Good Grief, Batman!"

    "To the CorrollaMobile, Robin!"

    Regards,
    OW
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,071
    The more and more I here about Jack Welch, the less and less I like him. I hope him and Roger Smith share a suite in hell in the same complex Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin live. I hope Jeffrey Dahmer is their personal chef.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    I heard of Pol Pot & Idi Amin but couldn't remember what they did. Neutron Jack, let's say was a distant relative of em' all but even he wasn't that gruesome lemko. :surprise:

    -Rocky
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,071
    Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who slaughtered at least 1,000,000 people in the late 1970s following the Vietnam War. There's a very good movie called "The Killing Fields" about that time and place. The hero of the movie stumbles across a vast field filled with skulls and bones while escaping a "reeducation camp."

    Idi Amin was the leader of Uganda from 1971 through 1979 who was equally as evil. He recently died in exile in Saudi Arabia.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    It's amazing we allowed modern killer's like that to stay alive. If I was president I would of sent a Sniper Team in and got both people. They couldn't of had that many true friends if you know what I mean. ;)

    lemko, got a question pal. Did the wealthy drive Lincolns as often as Cadillac's ? Did Chrysler (American Motors) have anything that touched Cadillac or Lincoln back in the 50's 60's 70's ????? I guess the Imperial or was that more spartan ? If so why or how did thy lose that image.

    -Rocky
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,250
    Rocky, Lincolns and Caddys back before the mid-70's were king. Even the Thunderbird made me saliva back then.

    In fact, that is when you could be proud of the Auto Industry, which was the USA's to loose.

    As the story goes, the market changed (oil, regulations) and the response to the change in products was a total, horrible disaster, IMO. The Asians were junk back then but when Demming was thrown out by the Big 3, Japan embraced the Quality mantra. So it goes.

    Regards,
    OW
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Chrysler didn't have a luxury offering like Caddy and Lincoln ?

    -Rocky
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Chrysler IS and WAS the luxury offering. Dodge and Plymouth were for us peons. ;)
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,195
    I don't know that Chrysler ever figured out what it wanted to do with the Imperial. At one point Andre will chime in and give a better history than I can using memory.

    When I was a kid my dad bought my mom a new Plymouth Custom Suburban wagon. At the time the dealership also carried DeSotos and Imperials which were a separate division from Chrysler. They were right up there in overall luxury with Caddy and Lincoln but being Chrysler had something of that "Oh, Chrysler people. They are different," thing. I liked several of the mid-50s Imperials.

    I don't recall when Imperial became the top of the Chrysler lineup instead of its own brand. As soon as that happened the Imperial became an on again off again thing.
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,195
    "1955-1975 / 1981-1983

    In 1955 Chrysler spun off the Imperial as its own separate marque in an attempt to compete directly with the Cadillac and Lincoln luxury marques offered by both Ford and General Motors. See the separate page Imperial (automobile) for information about Imperial model years 1955-1975 and 1981-1983. Although there were no Imperials produced between 1976 and 1978, the cars previously sold as an Imperial were sold as the Chrysler New Yorker Brougham during this time."
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,663
    why did the brilliant Big 3 throw out Mr.Deming and his quality schpeel, I wonder?

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,250
    The same reason it took so long (until bleeding) to address quality - simple arrogance.

    "You can teah us anything, Demming! We're No. 1! How did you think we got there? Go sell your quality stuff to someone else!"

    Regards,
    OW
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    So Lincoln, if not fixed soon could end up like Chrysler, with no luxury car appeal. It's really a shame that Chrysler, couldn't restore it's luxury appeal like they had many decades ago. :(

    -Rocky
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,071
    Oh, I'd LOVE to have a sleek new Imperial or New Yorker Brougham!

    The Chrysler 300-C is close to what I'm looking for. I hope they build that Imperial concept. I know a "poor man's Phantom" would go over big in Philadelphia.

    Shoot, two years ago I visited a Chrysler dealership with my girlfriend to look at a 300. People were literally driving 300s off the lot by the dozen! You'd think the dealer was giving the cars away! Girlfriend didn't buy a 300 that night. She complained that she couldn't see out of the car with its slit-like windows. She bought a new LaCrosse three months later.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    started going downhill in prestige back in the late 50's. They did it on purpose initially, to try and distance themselves from Imperial, so that luxury marque could fly on its own.

    Imperials had always been priced into Cadillac/Lincoln territory, but were sold under the Chrysler nameplate through 1954. While Chryslers were considered prestigious cars back then, they were still a rung below a Cadillac or Lincoln in the eyes of many buyers, and having the Chrysler name tacked on in front of Imperial dragged them down a bit, prestige-wise.

    As a result, in 1955, Imperial was spun off as a separate brand, although over the course of its history, it never could truly shake off its Chrysler roots. The 1955-56 models were on the same platform as the DeSotos and Chryslers, with a stretched wheelbase, a 300 grille, and gunsight taillights.

    The 1957 models were an all-new design, and on a different body from a Chrysler/DeSoto. They sold about 37,000 of them that year, and came close to passing Lincoln in sales, although Cadillac was still the luxury king back then, probably moving about 150-160,000 units.

    In 1960, while the rest of Chrysler went unit-body, the Imperial just got a heavy redesign of the 1957-59 design. It was still body-on-frame, but a lot of unibody techniques were applied to the body itself, stiffening it up, so the end result was an incredibly beefy, sturdy car. So sturdy, in fact, that these things were often banned from demolition derbies because they were so tough!

    Imperial milked the basic 1957 body through 1966. It was cleaned up considerably for 1964-66, being restyled by the same guy who did the '61 Continental, Elwood Engle. The only thing that really gave away its aging design was the wraparound windshield. However, the aging design must have hurt Imperial's prestige. And IIRC, in 1966, the much cheaper New Yorker went to a 440 engine standard, while the Imperial had to stick it out with a 413.

    The Imperial went unit-body for 1967, and while it was still substantially different from a Chrysler, it still bore too much of a family resemblance. And it still used the same engine as a New Yorker, which had to hurt prestige. Cadillac and Lincoln didn't share their engines with cheaper divisions back then, and that gave them an air of exlusivity.

    In 1969, Chrysler redesigned their big cars again, and the Imperial adopted the same "fuselage" look as the other cars. It lost a bit more prestige, but was still a handsome car with its clean lines, low silhouette, and hidden headlights. It was still longer overall than a Chrysler, but cars were getting so big in general by then that the difference wasn't all that noticeable.

    In 1974, Chrysler released another round of redesigned big cars, just in time for the first energy crisis. They were actually a bit lighter and supposedly smaller than the 1969-73 models, and had very open, airy greenhouses for the time. But they still had a heavy, hulking look to them, just screaming out the fact that they were going to guzzle. By this time, the Imperial was on the same 124" wheelbase as the Chrysler Newport and New Yorker. The 1969-73 Imperials had been on a longer 127" wheelbase. The 1974 Imperial had hidden headlights, and a slightly different rear treatment than a New Yorker, and a ritzier interior. It was a poor seller, though, and was cancelled after 1975.

    For 1976-78, Chrysler gave the New Yorker the same front-end as the 1974-75 Imperial, and offered a Brougham model that had an interior that could out-pimp any Cadillac or Lincoln out there at the time. It was probably considered more of a competitor to the Olds 98 or Buick Electra, but it would've been a worthy competitor to a Caddy or Lincoln of the time, as well.

    In 1979, Chrysler did a half-baked redesign for their big cars. They took what was basically the 1971-78 intermediate, punched out the wheelbase a bit, gave it crisper, more modern sheetmetal, and passed it off as a full-sized car. The New Yorker was positioned about at the same level as the 98 and Electra, maybe a bit higher, while a plush 5th Avenue edition was priced at around $12,000, which was pushing into Cadillac/Lincoln territory. These cars had hidden headlights, in the tradition of the '75-78 New Yorker and the '69-75 Imperials. The second fuel crisis, widely publicized news of Chrysler's impending demise, and more heavy, hulking styling that just screamed "guzzler" ensured a quick demise, after a moderately successful 1979 run. They were ditched after 1981.

    Now in 1981, Chrysler made one last attempt to stab at Cadillac/Lincoln territory, with the Imperial coupe. I think the first year it was priced at about $25,000, which was a ton of money back then, and production was to be limited to "just" 25,000. Alas, it was just a heavily modified Cordoba/Mirada, which itself was a heavily modified Aspen/Volare, and was plagued with fuel injection problems that made conversion to a 2-bbl carb very common. They sold about 7200 units for 1981, and sales went nowhere but down through 1983, when it was pulled, along with the Cordoba/Mirada.

    Chrysler tried yet another stab at reviving the Imperial around 1989. As if basing an Imperial on a Volare wasn't bad enough, this time it was based on the K-car! Needless to say, it was a flop. However, it also wasn't all that expensive to produce, as the same basic car was available as the Dynasty, New Yorker, and 5th Avenue, so they built it through around 1993. It was replaced, in a sense, by the 1994 Chrysler LHS.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,071
    Trying to turn a K-Car into an Imperial was like dressing Napoleon Dynamite in a pimp outfit.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,702
    Thanks for the summary about Imperials. I always enjoy your explanations.

    This message has been approved.

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    The current 300/Charger platform might make a decent Imperial. Of course, Chrysler would screw it up somehow. ;)
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    The current 300/Charger platform might make a decent Imperial. Of course, Chrysler would screw it up somehow.

    Actually, the 300 has brought a lot of prestige back to Chrysler, so it could serve well as the basis for an Imperial. That is, IF they don't screw it up like you said!

    Honestly, for Chrysler to return to the type of prestige that they had in the 40's, 50's, or even up to the mid-70's, they need to drop the Sebring, quit putting the Chrysler badge on trucks, and make a V-8 standard in the 300.

    One nice thing about having Plymouth around is that Chrysler could still keep some dignity about themselves. Cars like the 1958 Windsor, 1961 Newport, and to a lesser degree the 1975 Cordoba and 1977 LeBaron, took Chrysler downscale, but once Plymouth got the axe and stuff like the PT Cruiser, Voyager minivan, and the cheapened 2001 Sebring hit the market, Chrysler suddenly found themselves trying to fill the gap left by Plymouth, and that really moved them downmarket IMO.

    Not that there's anything wrong with the PT Cruiser. I just think it should be a Plymouth or, at best, a Dodge. And the Sebring convertible could just as easily be an Avenger convertible.
This discussion has been closed.