Adam laments the rustable body cavities and "speaker-cloth" upholstery
on our cars.
Our cars' short life-expectancy was due to at least compelling factors:
1) CHRY had experienced several years of relatively poor income and car
production, due in large part to a stodgie "Engineering-First" corporate
attitude, and carry-over 1940's styling, which compared poorly with the
'new' styling, of its competition.
2) CHRY KNEW that it had a World-beater design, in the works, with
Exner's Styling Department's creations.
Chry brought-out the 57's with only two year's lead-time, instead of the
'standard' three-years development time schedule.
The extra year would have, undoubtably , allowed the Corp to weed-out
certain design/construction flaws, like , the Rube Goldberg
water-troughs/connections, of the fenders, to the rockers, and, the fact
that , once water/crap got into the rockers, & quarter panels, the
'chemicals' got trapped and directly proceded to rust their way OUT of
those panels.
The extra lead time PROBABLY would have resulted in the
construction-quality as seen on the 58-59's, as far as
straight/plumb/tight bodies are concerned.
3) inherent problems, like the LOWNESS of the cars, which created a
less user-friendly environment, with "falling" into/crawling out of the
interiors.
The middle-seat areas are more like torture chambers, than passenger
accomodations.
I'm including the interior fitments in this category, as it seems that
all of the Corp cars (possibly excluding the IMP) suffered from
self-destructing upholstery; the stationwagons'
rear compartment's "cardboard" finish panels were/are laughable, as far
as durability is concerned.
4) There is a fourth, and actually most-important reason for our cars'
short life expecatncies; the all-encompacing "Planned Obsolescence" of
the "units" (as cars were referred-to, in-house).
CHRY thought that their customer base was a function of the DEALERS'
getting "out" and FINDING their own customers.
An amazing amount of factory literaure involves finding-and-selling the
'units' , at the dealer-level, to "prospects".
If you (the Corp) has an unlimited customer base, then production
quaility is not of critical importance.
In 57, the Factory literature makes clear that it was "only" interested
in getting the units to the dealers, because the cars' designs, AND
their engineering----once it was 'explained' and demonstarted, to the
prospects, ----sold themselves.
5) As part of Planned Obsolescence, a customer HAD to have a reason to
buy another car; i.e., the old one fell-apart, OR had been rendered
physically 'obsolete'...
In the mid-late 60's, the "finned cars" were OLD news....
So, IF a car is "supposed" to be replaced with another unit, after 5-7
years,, and, if your
customer base is unlimited, why worry about how-well the "new"-unit is
built, anyway???
Neil Vedder
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
--- Begin Message ---
- From: Adam Lindenbaum <AdamL57@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:41:53 EST
|
Their personality and their engineering for their time.No other 50's car
can compete with Chrysler styling or drivability.Too bad they lost something in
the body quality department.
Adam Liondenbaum
*************************************************************
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
|
--- End Message ---
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network