-----Original Message-----
> What a load. To say that because the founder had worked for Chrysler in
the
>past, they are " a part of the Chrysler Heritage" is almost as bad as
>Chrysler implying that Hudson was there car...
Much as I hate to agree with Josh, and notwithstanding his poor grammar, and
overlooking that this discussion has passed its prime, he does have a good
point.
Of course the early moguls bounced from company to company, leaving their
mark on the way. However, each marque was striving to obtain a market
share, in direct or indirect competition with each other. It was then, and
is now, the buying public which determines the success or failure of a
marque. Was the Edsel a bad car? The DeSoto? It doesn't matter; they're
gone.
Following the "heritage" logic, shouldn't the Daimler museum have Model T
Fords? Horace and John Dodge got their big start making parts for Henry
Ford. And Walter P. took over Dodge in 1928, albeit that the brothers were
already gone.
I can't believe the other argument, that if Daimler doesn't preserve their
heritage no one else will. What about Auburn-Cord-Duesenburg? They sure
don't make 'em anymore, and they still have a loyal following and a great
museum.
I think that more likely Daimler is just doing a market ploy, making it seem
like they now run a company that took over for most every car maker ever
known [except for maybe Cugnot; Daimler probably claims his invention on the
continent]. What does that do for future generations wanting to learn about
these cars? Hitler said that history is written by the victors, and perhaps
the apple hasn't fallen too far from that tree.
If there are any crusaders out there, perhaps a campaign to Daimler museum
to get rid of all those other brands, get some more Chrysler iron, and tell
the true history would be appropriate.
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network