Lee Iacocca, RIP

A man with good leadership skills that our current business leaders n politicians could learn A lot from!!
 
Just before going back to this site after a good while I thought, I hope nobody in here or the Mopar world in General has died in between and that's the first Topic I read.
RIP
 
RIP Lee Iacocca. Without him our beloved Chrysler Corp. would have been dead and buried by 1981. "If you can find a better car, buy it." What a statement to make in the ad campaign for the K-car. A real visionary, with Ford and Chrysler. A real leader. He brought together union, management and the federal government for a common cause that everyone involved worked hard for. The results speak for themselves. A real "car guy", just like all of us. He was a true American legend.
 
Wow, sounds like he could do no wrong yet he did wrong for both Ford and Chrysler. He did like Brougham, no he liked Brougham a lot. Yet just like pony cars seeing their run end by 1973 the Brougham decorated cars also had a life span. Only Lee didn't see it that way even when buyers moved away from it. Those 77-81 Fords almost brought Ford into bankruptcy and probably would have had not Henry Ford II pushed him out.

He then moves on to Chrysler where he finally has total control. The K car was already on the drawing boards so not completely his baby. Same for the minivan. However, bringing his love for Brougham with him he felt the urge to enlarge the K car, slap on padded roofs and other ornaments, call the car another name and up the price for little gain by the buyer. Ergo the New Yorker was spawned and then the Fifth Avenue. His two versions of the Imperial were both big sales disappointments. The first due to quality and the last due to buyers seeing through the smoke screen and moving on to other makes. Early in his career he knew what buyers wanted but later on not so much so he missed the swing to reliability and quality being important.

He was the right guy for the 50s and 60s but completely wrong for the 90s. He just never evolved along with car buyers as they got more sophisticated and discriminating. In the end Chrysler paid for that just like Ford did in the late 70s. Consequently the LH cars after him were a break from his design thinking but unfortunately had quality issues just when Japanese makes were really hitting their stride. Enter Daimler and as we know they bled Chrysler dry like a tapeworm to later discard the carcass.

Both good and bad with this fellow just like any similar fellow. Hits and misses. Hit the Mustang even better than he imagined. Mark III hits just at the right time. Oks, the minivan for production even though it was a plain jane which was not his style. Gets Jeep Cherokee. Yet holds on to designs that no longer capture the public and misses where consumers are headed back in the late 80s, which all the Big 3 are guilty of, allowing Honda, Toyota, Mercedes and imports in general to establish strong beachheads.
 
Wow, sounds like he could do no wrong yet he did wrong for both Ford and Chrysler. He did like Brougham, no he liked Brougham a lot. Yet just like pony cars seeing their run end by 1973 the Brougham decorated cars also had a life span. Only Lee didn't see it that way even when buyers moved away from it. Those 77-81 Fords almost brought Ford into bankruptcy and probably would have had not Henry Ford II pushed him out.

He then moves on to Chrysler where he finally has total control. The K car was already on the drawing boards so not completely his baby. Same for the minivan. However, bringing his love for Brougham with him he felt the urge to enlarge the K car, slap on padded roofs and other ornaments, call the car another name and up the price for little gain by the buyer. Ergo the New Yorker was spawned and then the Fifth Avenue. His two versions of the Imperial were both big sales disappointments. The first due to quality and the last due to buyers seeing through the smoke screen and moving on to other makes. Early in his career he knew what buyers wanted but later on not so much so he missed the swing to reliability and quality being important.

He was the right guy for the 50s and 60s but completely wrong for the 90s. He just never evolved along with car buyers as they got more sophisticated and discriminating. In the end Chrysler paid for that just like Ford did in the late 70s. Consequently the LH cars after him were a break from his design thinking but unfortunately had quality issues just when Japanese makes were really hitting their stride. Enter Daimler and as we know they bled Chrysler dry like a tapeworm to later discard the carcass.

Both good and bad with this fellow just like any similar fellow. Hits and misses. Hit the Mustang even better than he imagined. Mark III hits just at the right time. Oks, the minivan for production even though it was a plain jane which was not his style. Gets Jeep Cherokee. Yet holds on to designs that no longer capture the public and misses where consumers are headed back in the late 80s, which all the Big 3 are guilty of, allowing Honda, Toyota, Mercedes and imports in general to establish strong beachheads.

I agree with much of what you said. Dolling up a K car was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. K car had no appeal to upscale buyers. Chrysler let their quality control slip, first on body work, then on some of the engineering. The Imperials with fuel injection were an unmitigated disaster, so was ATC and ATC II. The early locking torque convertors were also a disaster. At the mopar dealership we usually had a lot full of cars needing replacement Lean burn units or emission upgrades. Lee Iacocca walked into a big mess, and probably did his best to clean it up. Chrysler never really recovered its dominance in the fleet market as a result of all the problems with their late'70 and '80 cars, those buyers moved on. The K car is often credited with saving Chrysler and to an extent that is correct. The car was not a big money maker because it was targeted at the low end of the market, but it did generate much needed volume. What generated the big bucks for Chrysler was the minivan, Voyagers, Caravans and Town and Countrys. Chrysler led this market and produced reliable vehicles in that category. The company effectively reinvented itself and that formula worked until Daimler burned the company to the ground.

Dave
 
It was amazing watching as the K-cars matured and proliferated. By observation, the 2nd-gen were nicer and better cars than the first ones. The limo was a bit much, but could be just right for a company that was wanting to appear conservative in many respects.

To me, one issue was they felt more "GM" than "Chrysler" in how they rode and handled. Something the LH cars seemed to regain, to me. World production leader in Turbo 4 cyl engines was a big deal, as GM floundered with their crude turbo V-6s (especially if the oil was not changed regularly!). Valve guide issues on the Mitsu V-6s did not help things, especially as it strung out for a few years!

The padded roofs on the mid-80s Crown Victorias were far too expensive to replace, for some reason. I thought some of the ones on the K-New Yorkers looked stylish, generally, as some of the other "chrome" was borderline (but expected for the market).

One thing that helped Chrysler was that they put driver's side air bags in cars a good while before GM got there! GM, at the time, was in corporate turmoil of its own, plus some financial issues, so they delayed many products one model year, which worked to Chrysler's benefit, by observation.

There were many plusses with Chairman Lee being at Chrysler, plus a few minuses. I read that Tom Gale was not pleased with a particular Gen II K-car he had to introduce to the press. Which was why he allegedly said "What you see is the taste of the Chairman". The straight side beltline moldings (at the bottom of the windows) and a few other "directives" from Chairman Lee of how the cars should be styled. Many of which came with him from Ford.

On my '80 Newport "Pillared Hardtop" 4-dr, the window sealing is poor against the roof and pillars. It looks like you could take the window frame from a '80s Caprice door and tack in into the Chrysler door panel, add the GM weatherstrip, and it would be Good. As if the car was originally designed for framed windows, but Chairman Lee wanted the "pillared hardtop" look, which is what he got.

But he was the right guy at the right time to be at Chrysler. Didn't like it when he was "retired", apparently. But the vehicles he said grace over got Chrysler to its next stage with the mid-'90s smash hits. Every time a new Chrysler product was shown at the Detroit Auto Show, for several years, starting with the new Ram, Chrysler stock doubled, each time. The profits from the Iacocca era, plus Lutz's financial "guidance" got Chrysler to laying golden eggs for their treasury . . . ALL of which Daimler absconded with (one reason they were so eager to "merge", as Daimler was in economic perils back then).

In any event, Lee Iacocca's many marks on the USA automotive industry are legendary. I also contributed to his Statute of Liberty restoration project, too. He was "One of a Kind"!

CBODY67
 
How many remember his tag line in commercials? Many people did take it to heart but not in the way he wanted.
 
My dad’s copy.:)
8A5AD77B-E4FB-4717-9970-BBC28303F5F8.jpeg
8418566E-3433-4A91-A2C1-541308010D37.jpeg
 
I agree with much of what you said. Dolling up a K car was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. K car had no appeal to upscale buyers. Chrysler let their quality control slip, first on body work, then on some of the engineering. The Imperials with fuel injection were an unmitigated disaster, so was ATC and ATC II. The early locking torque convertors were also a disaster. At the mopar dealership we usually had a lot full of cars needing replacement Lean burn units or emission upgrades. Lee Iacocca walked into a big mess, and probably did his best to clean it up. Chrysler never really recovered its dominance in the fleet market as a result of all the problems with their late'70 and '80 cars, those buyers moved on. The K car is often credited with saving Chrysler and to an extent that is correct. The car was not a big money maker because it was targeted at the low end of the market, but it did generate much needed volume. What generated the big bucks for Chrysler was the minivan, Voyagers, Caravans and Town and Countrys. Chrysler led this market and produced reliable vehicles in that category. The company effectively reinvented itself and that formula worked until Daimler burned the company to the ground.

Dave

I know a retired police officer. One department he was hired to be chief of in Michigan had a fleet of lean burn cars. He said when he started they had not one of them running. They were using rentals. He said his first piece of business was getting the dealer to fix them. Small town department, so not a lot of cars but he said it shook his faith in Chrysler products.
 
I thought there might be a thread on this topic, so I am cutting/pasting what I posted on FB and a few other sites...

With the sad passing of Lee Iacocca, I will tell two personal stories that you will not hear in the coverage of his death. They should be known because they aren’t about Mustangs or Minivans, but the man’s character.


As an early-teens student, I wrote a book report on Lee Iacocca’s autobiography. My father worked for Chrysler; not an executive; nor even in management. However, he did know Mr. Iacocca’s secretary and casually mentioned the book report to her. She insisted that he bring my copy to work and have it signed. When it was done, she suggested I come along to pick it up. As it turned out, he was not at the headquarters that day. As a consolation prize, she brought us into his wood-paneled office.


The office was filled; to the point of being cluttered, with items that employees hand-made over the years expressing gratitude. Folk-art like an engine piston turned from walnut that said “In appreciation for believing in us”. They were not displayed in formal cases and by then they were years old. You would not find many executive offices like this in 2019, or even perhaps in the late 1980s, when I was there.


Years after and now an employee myself, we were hip deep in trouble at “DaimlerChrysler”. I wondered what a man who cared so much, (He'd even helped restore the Statue of Liberty!) thought of the current situation. In the days of internet 1.0, it wasn’t hard to find a current address, so I decided to gamble a stamp and ask. A couple weeks later, I’d almost forgotten until my phone rang on a Saturday afternoon in August of 2001. It was the chairman himself. The phone call was very long and it wouldn’t be our last, over a period spanning several years. But what stood out was his concern for the employees of the company. He explained that he was taking a risk by even talking to me, under the terms of a Federal court gag-order which forbade him from discussing the company. His voice cracked with sad emotion when he recalled being compared to a corporate-raider; after a failed attempt to take back leadership from Robert Eaton. He termed Eaton's hire “his biggest mistake”. As a friend told me; it was obvious he wanted this off his chest, but couldn’t do it publicly.‎


He also retired gracefully. Rather than disappearing into a guarded villa on the Florida coast, he lent his name and expertise to start-ups and charitable causes, most notably diabetes research. Rest in peace Lee, a life well-lived."


Now I didn't go into much detail on this because it's really not appropriate in something meant to memorialize, but I'll flesh a few things out here among friends.

Some simple-minded observers (like Paul Niedermayer from TTAC) have an obsession with tearing down Iacocca. Their points are generally these:

1) Iacocca fought CAFE standards. Of course he did, it was/is a dumb supply-side idea and knee-capped US industry by eliminating their most profitable products... the most obvious example being GM forced into building ridiculous FWD Cadillacs while Mercedes was free to ship in as many 12 MPG S-Classes as they could sell.

2) Iacocca opposed airbags in the 70s. True, because they were first intended to restrain un-belted adults. What ended up being the problem with 1st generation airbags? They killed/injured children and small adults. Only when computer technology evolved to the point of staging deployment did that danger go away.

3) He let his ego get in the way of promoting Bob Lutz to CEO. The truth is, Iacocca had valid reasons for hiring Eaton; who had just done what no one before or after him had been able to do... turn a profit with GM's operations in Europe. What was Chrysler trying to do in the early 90s? Move back into Europe, with the Jeep as the leader. Iacocca also told me (in 2001, before moving back to GM) that Lutz was too focused on "halo cars" as a solution to everything. What were Lutz's first moves as GM? Halo cars! Pontiac GTO, Chevy SSR and HHR, Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac G8... every one a sales dud that did nothing to solve GM's core problems. And I say all that as a fan of Lutz, as a human being and enthusiast.

Iacocca realized that Eaton was setting up the company for takeover in '95 by buying stock, hoarding cash and slashing engineering budgets in the middle of critical launches. That's why he launched the takeover. And this didn't result in Eaton reaching out to Schrempp/Daimler. Daimler was courting FORD (who's family said "no"). Only after failing there did Schrempp reach out to Eaton and found weakness.

All of this is verifiable with a little research and a willingness to question "experts" with axes to grind.

Just wanted to add context.
 
Thanks for your interesting, considered, and respectful post about the late Mr Iacocca. The qualities of the man were indicated by those items in his office, showing the regard in which he was held by those he managed.
RIP Lee Iacocca - a life well lived.
 
Back
Top