Viewing a thread - No New Imperial

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

No New Imperial Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]	View previous thread :: View next thread
Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General Discussion	Message format

Mope R. Geezer

Posted 2007-07-17 10:57 PM (#90268)
Subject: No New Imperial

Expert

Posts: 2100
2000

Location: Idaho - where men are men and spuds are spuds

I was disappointed to read below that Chrysler has abandoned its plans to produce the new Imperial. But I suppose it was predictable. It would have been an "affordable" way to own a Bentley-style sedan. Carjock would have looked good in one racing across the Texas plains in true LBJ fashion!

FinFan

Posted 2007-07-18 8:39 AM (#90294 - in reply to #90268)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Elite Veteran

Posts: 709
500

Location: Poznan, Poland, Europe

They won't produce it ? Sad thatthe name won't be rised from the grave, but on the other side, that car wasn't too good looking to make that rising a glorius one.

Doctor DeSoto

Posted 2007-07-18 10:57 AM (#90296 - in reply to #90294)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Location: Parts Unknown

I am SO happy that DeSoto died with its fins on, and that they never ressurrected it as a Plymouth Cricket badge car or something. A "scourge" name in the day, it kept its dignity. Imperial did not fair quite so well, but let's leave it in the grave .... unless plans include fins and 20+ feet of pure American iron !

No one knows how to build cars anymore. Imperial doesn't need to be another generic SUV box.

FinFan

Posted 2007-07-18 11:42 AM (#90297 - in reply to #90296)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Elite Veteran

Posts: 709
500

Location: Poznan, Poland, Europe

Doctor DeSoto - 2007-07-18 3:57 PM

I am SO happy that DeSoto died with its fins on,

I also made that point someday, but in more positive way as "the only ChryCo car that never lost the fins". It goes the same with Hudson, as being the only independent that never lost fins.

old mopar guy

Posted 2007-07-18 11:13 PM (#90333 - in reply to #90268)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Expert

Posts: 1508
1000

Location: new york

I wish the people of this country would have stayed with the american cars I would love to see Hudsons ,Desotos, Kaisers,Nashes,Checkers,Tuckers and even Crosleys, Instead of VWs,Toyotas,Nissans,Hundias,Hondas ETC But thats my dream,I would love to see the 08 Desoto line HAPPY MOTORING....

Doctor DeSoto

Posted 2007-07-19 1:03 AM (#90339 - in reply to #90333)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Location: Parts Unknown

Methinks Americans would have stayed with American cars if the American automakers continued to make exciting, accessible cars.

Just about every line mentioned above went under after building underpowered, poor handling-braking, or utterly hideous-to-look-at cars five of their last years.

Now, you cannot look at this as a car enthusiast - it warps your perception. You have to consider this from the angle of Lazy Bones Jones, the guy who buys minivans and compacts today. I cannot believe Hudson could GIVE their cars away after 1954. Nash is the worst of all !!!! While Ma Mopar was giving the No.2 punch with their 1957 cars, the review team over at Nash-Hudson were still giving the green light to overturned bathtubs with fully skirted wheels FRONT AND BACK !!!! Were they operating from a cave in the upper Amazon ? How did they miss the flood of GM or Mopar cars made after 1954 to take some cues that big V-8's and flighty styling was what was selling cars ?

Then EVERYONE began making Nash's after 1970. Big, fat, underpowered, poor handling. Jap cars were to the American car industry something like the Beatles kicking the American music industry squarely in the groin a la 1964.

The reality is that if you live in the paradigm that chrome and style are the basis of the "Golden Era" of automobiles, until that stuff returns on an accessible level like it was in the FL era, than everything else is just a bar of soap, a jellybean, a Tupperware accessory bowl.

I'd rather spend my 40 grand and restore one of my REAL cars. To hell with waiting for The Industry to figure it out. I'll be dead from natural causes before that happens.

Kenny J.

Posted 2007-07-19 1:31 AM (#90342 - in reply to #90339)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Inactive by user's request

5000

Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Doctor DeSoto - 2007-07-18 10:03 PM

Then EVERYONE began making Nash's after 1970. Big, fat, underpowered, poor handling. Jap cars were to the American car industry something like the Beatles kicking the American music industry squarely in the groin a la 1964 .

I agree. But even so, this touches a very raw nerve with me. Here's why:

1.) Nobody wants to comment on why it was okay to buy Japanese and European electronics, cameras, etc. while those items were still being built here in great quanitities. The auto industry seems to be the only taboo.

2.) If I decide to support the American automotive industry and buy an American car, I don't need some sleazeball salesman telling me it's my patriotic duty to purchase "less" car for more money and accept his lack of willingness to deal more on the price.

3.) Why weren't people screaming about "domestic imports", i.e., early Capri, Cricket, Luv, Opel (granted Opel is owned by GM), Courier, Geo, Le Car, etc.?

4.) Is a U.S. designed domestic car really domestic if it's built on this continent, but in another country?

5.) Why doesn't GM and Chrysler care about the lousy service so many of their dealerships give to their customers for repair work, especially warranty work?

6.) Why are European imports less taboo than Japanese imports? Is this a racial problem? During World War II, the Germans wanted to f*ck us up as badly as the Japanese did.

7.) We don't mind buying foreign oil for our American iron, even if the profits are funding terrorists who want to kill us.

K.

P.S.- I prefer "Jane or Joe Average" to "Lazy Bones Jones." Just because somebody isn't an auto enthusiast doesn't mean he/she shouldn't buy a new car for transportation.

Edited by Kenny J. 2007-07-19 1:37 AM

Kenny J.

Posted 2007-07-19 1:40 AM (#90343 - in reply to #90342)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Inactive by user's request

5000

Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

One last thought..........

..............what IF our '57-'59 Forward Look cars really were built with Japanese steel?

Would that make them less American?

Doctor DeSoto

Posted 2007-07-19 2:16 AM (#90348 - in reply to #90342)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Location: Parts Unknown

Ah, man !

How does one define that undefineable entity of "cool" and "style" ?

The clock stopped ticking for me after 1970. After that, it was just fakes and bad scams that things were getting better all the time. No they weren't ! Plastic bumpers and Madonna were improvements over chrome and The Turtles ?

If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd get a short length of hose and a pack of Lucky Strikes, you know ?

I am stuck in the past. I am getting old and slowly becoming the old bas***d that hollers at the kids to keep off my lawn. "you kids must be hopped up on the dope!"

Sorry, .... I KNOW what is good. It ain't about what is NEW, it is about what is GOOD. Most Americans are lazy, overweight brats. Drop their sorry asses in Burma and make 'em walk home and see what their consumer outlook is when they get home.

Hmmmmm ..... !

Kenny J.

Posted 2007-07-19 2:39 AM (#90351 - in reply to #90348)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Inactive by user's request

5000

Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Reminds me of the small child who was listening to his grandfather talk about the trials and tribulations he experienced during the D-Day Invasion.

The kid looks up at his grandfather and asks innocently, "Grandpa, why didn't you just call the homeowners' association on the Germans like you do with all your neighbors?"

K.

Kenny J.

Posted 2007-07-19 2:41 AM (#90352 - in reply to #90348)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Inactive by user's request

5000

Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Doctor DeSoto - 2007-07-18 11:16 PM

It ain't about what is NEW, it is about what is GOOD.

Ain't enough GOOD cars, old, new or otherwise, to go around.

d500neil

Posted 2007-07-19 3:13 AM (#90356 - in reply to #90268)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Exner Expert 19,174 posts. Neil passed away 18 Sep 2015. You will be missed, Neil!

Posts: 19146
5000

Location: bishop, ca

As the L.A. Times reported, on 7/18, Chrysler decided not to produce the Imperial, due to newly passed CAFE regulations, which will mandate an average of 35MPG.
in the somewhere-near-future.

It was not nixed, due to its possibly having a questionable marketability.

Chrysler is too top-heavy, in large-cars/SUV's, already
(I can't even recall the name of their big-luxury SUV.)

The new-IMP would have been an impressive vehicle.

FinFan

Posted 2007-07-19 3:51 AM (#90358 - in reply to #90339)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Elite Veteran

Posts: 709
500

Location: Poznan, Poland, Europe

Doctor DeSoto - 2007-07-19 6:03 AM
While Ma Mopar was giving the No.2 punch with their 1957 cars, the review team over at Nash-Hudson were still giving the green light to overturned bathtubs with fully skirted wheels FRONT AND BACK !!!! Were they operating from a cave in the upper Amazon ? How did they miss the flood of GM or Mopar cars made after 1954 to take some cues that big V-8's and flighty styling was what was selling cars ?

I never did dig enough this subject to know the real causes of this situation. I just linked together a couple of facts, and formed a nice theory, which is working for me

1)The first brands that went for flat hoods and fenders plus panoramic back windows were Ford and Nash. These were the narrow tracks of styling that lead to the Big yellow Brick Road which will be common styling of 1950's after year 1955.
Nash has got their body from PininFarina,the Italian styling studia that is working to this day. It was modern and had unibody construction. I have read somewhere, that they didn't realize at Nash, that the fenders can be changed in that body, without any loss of rigidity, and with a gain to creating new appearance (think "Plucked" 1962's or even the long wheelbase Dodge 880 made from half of Dodge and half of Chrysler).

The problem is, that this 1952 body never went out of production. It IS the structure responsible for Nash & post-54 Hudson's disability to grow themselves fins, and to gain lighter look. I have seen a scan of comparison test from the era, where '57 Belvedere had no single point where '57 Bel-Air could beat her. That's becouse the '57 bel-Air was heavily restyled '55 body shell. Now think how old-looking would be a 1952 body in 1957...

It is clearly visible, that special areas remain unchanged. Even after addidtion of fornt and rear panoramic windshields, the air intake over a little bent hood is still in the same place, the front fender line is falling down, and the trunk is heavily sculpted. These are the remains of '52, which already are not as fresh, as they were, when surrounded with bathtub, pre-'55 cars.

So, when Hudson was ordered to be based on Nash's body after the merge of two brands, it received an alfready outdated body.

(Nash-Hudson proveniency.jpg)

Attachments
----------------

Nash-Hudson proveniency.jpg (146KB - 150 downloads)

Chrycoman

Posted 2007-07-19 5:35 AM (#90359 - in reply to #90268)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Expert

Posts: 1819
1000

Location: Vancouver, BC

The reasons the big Nash and Hudson models were not redesigned were two -
1) No sales
2) No money

1954 big Nash production came to 41,653, down from 91,200 in 1952. Hudson production dropped to 36,436 (Wasp/Hornet) for 1954, down from a peak in 1949 of 159,100. 1952 totalled 70,000 for Hudson. 1955 was no improvement with Hudson dropping to 20,961 and Nash to 40,133. The 1955 Hudson used the Nash body with full front wheel openings, so that was not part of the problem.

AMC lost $6.9 million in 1955, $19.7 million in 1956 and $11.8 million in 1957. The only bright spot was the Rambler whose production went from 36,231 in 1954 to 83,852 in 1955 and 79,166 in 1956. Now you know why the Rambler got a new body in 1956 while Nash and Hudson limped through 1957 before being laid to rest. AMC was working on a revamped Nash-Hudson bodyin 1955, but there was neither money nor sales. 1957 Nash production bottomed out at 10,330 and Hudson at 4,180. For Hudson, only 1909 was lower while Nash beat out only 1918.

By the way, there was a third car that died with its fins on - the 1958 Packard. The 1958 Packard Hawk had fins along with a "Martha Raye" mouth instead of the Studebaker's upright grille, while the sedan models added a fin on top of the 1957 fin, plus pods on the front fenders to accept the new 4 headlamp system.

The 1955-57 Nash body may have dated back to 1952, but the 1954 Hudson body dated back to 1948. And the 1957 Chevrolet may have been an update of the 1955 model, but underneath all that modern sheetmetal lay a 1949 Chevrolet. Manufacturers used the inner stampings (floor, cowl, rear structure) over a number of years to maximize the amortization of the costs. They reworked the exterior sheetmetal, the part the car buyer sees, to produce "new" bodies every few years.

Thus the 1955-56 Ford/Mercury was an update of the 1952-54 Ford/Mercury body which in turn was an update of the 1949-51 Ford body. The 1957 bodies were totally new (one for Ford and one for Mercury).

The 1955-57 Chevrolet/Pontiac was an update of the 1953-54 "A" body which was an update of the 1949-52 "A" body. 1958 was completely new, as was 1959, the year the full-size Chevrolet and Pontiac went to the "B" body.

For Oldsmobile/Buick Special/Century, the 1957-58 "B" body was an update of the 1954-56 "B" body which was based on the 1951-53 "OB" body. The larger Buick/Cadillac "C" body of 1947-58 was a reworking of the 1954-56 "C" body, in turn based on the 1950-53 "B"and "C" bodies, all of which started out as the 1948-49 "C" body. 1959 brought a new "B" bpdy plus an extended version GM called the "C" body.

Over at Chrysler, the 1949-52 bodies (there were two - Plymouth and Dodge-DeSoto-Chrysler) were reworked for the 1953-54 bodies (Plymouth/Dodge and DeSoto/Chrysler) and finally 1955-56 (Plymouth/Dodge and DeSoto/Chrysler/Imperial). Chrysler introduced two totally new bodies for 1957 - Plymouth/Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler and Imperial.

Studebaker, with its tight financial position, used the 1953 body right to the end in 1966. And of course Checker used its 1956 body right to the end in 1982.

Money was thus the big factor in what a company could, or could not, do. No money - no new bodies. And with red ink all over the books, not even new fenders.

By the way, although Farina got the publicity for designing the 1952 Nash, it was actually done by Nash's small design department under Edmund Anderson. The Farina proposal was considered too radical for American tastes, so Nash designers "Americanized" it, blending a number of Farina's ideas into their design, including the rear window, door top treatment and front fenders.

And Nash knew they could change fenders. In those days, though, fender changes were the exception. The 1954 Ford used the same fenders as the 1952 while the 1953 Buick used the same as the 1950. The big change came in 1956 when Chrysler went adopted fins. That began the annual changing of the fenders.

FinFan

Posted 2007-07-19 8:04 AM (#90367 - in reply to #90359)
Subject: Re: No New Imperial

Elite Veteran

Posts: 709
500

Location: Poznan, Poland, Europe

Thanks for wide addition to my point. Of course I forgot about poor Packard. Shame on me.

Didn't knew that the inner structure of bodies was carried over for even longer periods than 3-year styling cycles. I thought only engines were , for obvious reasons, used for longer periods of time.Also didn't knew that so many ChryCo brands were using one body for '57. Sure there are similarities between Chryslers and DeSotos, but wouldn't think that sharing went down all the "model ladder".

Thanks for details about the Nash's design origins and the fender changing, these are precious informations. Altough I find it normal that '52-'54 Fords had the same fenders, as it was one styling cycle, difference would go in 1955-56 Plymouths.

Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]

Jump to forum :

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

* * * This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated * * *

(Delete all cookies set by this site)