Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY??

["john sadowski" <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>]

As a Chrysler lover, I agree with you. I bought a new 90 5th Ave & kept it 
for 3 1/2 years. Overall, I liked the car, but had to spend more money on it 
then any new vehicle I've ever owned. It had 83K on it when I traded & the 
vehicle I traded it on had 192K when I traded that one. a F---.  I probably 
spent 3 times the money on the 5th Ave & less then half as many miles from 
it. I had originally planned to buy a 90 Imperial, but they took so long to 
get to market, I settled for the 5th Ave.

John
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "anthony romano" <mamrom@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY??


> John, with all respect to your answer. Back in the 90's Chrysler sold many
> Dynastys, New Yorkers , Salons and Fifth aves. It was a big seller for 
> them
> so much that the body style stay true from 88-93. The Imperial was a take
> off from those cars.-Anthony
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "john sadowski" <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>
> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:50 AM
> Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY??
>
>
> > The big difference this time is that they have a huge success with the
> 300.
> > The last 2 generations only had luke warm offerings in the overall 
> > lineup.
> > With the D/C partnership, Chrysler is more likely to be taken seriously 
> > as
> a
> > luxury car builder.  I'm betting that if the stretched version of the 300
> > does well, the new Imperial won't be too far behind it.
> > John
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kenyon Wills" <imperialist1960@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: IML: CHRYSLER IMPERIAL 81-83 & 90- 93-=WHY??
> >
> >
> > > Look at what Chrysler has done with the current
> > > incarnation of the 300 and you have a window into
> > > what's likely with whatever they do with/to Imperial.
> > >
> > > The 80's and 90's incarnations were probably similar
> > > in that they were efforts to put a car into a
> > > marketing or   linup niche perceived by the
> > > strategists as needing to be filled more than they
> > > needed continuity and context to what had come before
> > > - One had 2 doors and the other was FWD, so....
> > >
> > > Prior to that, Imperial flowed as a line from 1926 to
> > > 1975 as the pinnacle product in the line of offerings
> > > from a strong and vibrant company.  The Chrysler of
> > > 1981 and 1990 (and perhaps 2006?) is a markedly
> > > different company.
> > >
> > > I like the later cars and don't intend to slight them
> > > - just comparing what I think are facts.
> > >
> > > It doesn't really matter, does it?  The target market
> > > for the Imperial has nothing much to do with what we
> > > know Imperial to be, just as the current 300 does not
> > > have much of any real connection to the 300 name of
> > > the past (that I can see, anyway).
> > >
> > > -Kenyon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- anthony romano <mamrom@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello! Help me to understand why the "Comeback" of
> > >> the 80's and the 90's Imperials never took off as a
> > >> sort after car? In my opinion, the cars had the edge
> > >> in style and engineering. Both cars were ahead of
> > >> its time with amentias. So with all this, was it a
> > >> marketing blunder or was it only intended to make a
> > >> "Cameo"  appearance for those years. It makes you
> > >> think that the new Imperial concept car might have
> > >> the same fate, unless Chrysler really intends to
> > >> resurrected permanently as to compete with the ever
> > >> growing Luxury market. Let's face it, back in the
> > >> day Imperial had only two rivals to compete with,
> > >> unlike today fierce competition.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>                         Your Thoughts Appreciated!
> > >>
> > >>                                          Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > Kenyon Wills
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
> > > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
> > > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
> > > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
> > > Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
> > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
> > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
> > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
> > Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>
>
>
> -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm




-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm