Fratzog
Old Man with a Hat
That says it all.
Interesting 1970 Magazine Article
- Thread starter flared_fender
- Start date
SeaFuse
Member
SeaFuse
Member
But things got really worse. With the volume and earnings negative correlation.
Moparmat2000
Active Member
I dont know if you know this, but if an american company sells a car in japan, they can only advertise it in english, as well as the insane import tax. If the U.S. got smart they would require all foreign car companies especially the japanese to advertise in their language and slap the same amount of import tax on their products as they do to us.
I kinda wonder how do you say "oh what a feeling toyota" in japanese.
Fratzog
Old Man with a Hat
Your example belies the insanity of globalisation and we've all been sold a bill of goods.
When the '69 C-bodies came out, we'd had our '66 Newport for two years, purchasing it when the new '67s came out, with 7100 miles on it, for . . . $2995.00 By that time, I'd spent a good amount of time looking at cars at the service stations we got gas at and at mechanic shops I'd go to with Dad. That plus a mountain of car magazines I'd accumulated. So I was still learning and paying attention to how things were done by whom.
I like the '66 Chrysler as the underhood was deliberately laid-out with all necessary service items pretty easy to get to. I'd seen some of the service nightmares of GM cars of that era and how things seems to be "placed" rather than "designed to be there" (as the Chrysler products seemed to be.
When I saw the first '69 Chryslers hiding under the back shed of the local dealership, I eased out to look at them. I like the styling, but when I later saw one in the shop with the hood up, my thought was "They hired too many GM engineers to design that car". The high fender line looked neat, but was a pain to lay over to change #7 spark plug. The blower motor was now hidden behind the rh fender, like GM did. Still, the increase in interior size was amazing, with such a large trunk area! If I'd been ordering myself a new car for graduation, it would have been a Crimson Red 300 4-dr hardtop (440/375) with white top.
I like the '66 Chrysler as the underhood was deliberately laid-out with all necessary service items pretty easy to get to. I'd seen some of the service nightmares of GM cars of that era and how things seems to be "placed" rather than "designed to be there" (as the Chrysler products seemed to be.
When I saw the first '69 Chryslers hiding under the back shed of the local dealership, I eased out to look at them. I like the styling, but when I later saw one in the shop with the hood up, my thought was "They hired too many GM engineers to design that car". The high fender line looked neat, but was a pain to lay over to change #7 spark plug. The blower motor was now hidden behind the rh fender, like GM did. Still, the increase in interior size was amazing, with such a large trunk area! If I'd been ordering myself a new car for graduation, it would have been a Crimson Red 300 4-dr hardtop (440/375) with white top.
As for the article in Forbes, when that article was written, Forbes was not available on many grocery store magazine racks (which is where we usually saw magazines, especially CAR magazines, back then), but usually "big city" newsstands. Unless somebody well-off had a subscription.
Obviously, I wasn't watching sales figures for those Fuselage cars as I liked them too much. As we were a Chrysler owner-family, we got a mail-out of what I'd term "museum quality" 5x7 prints of pictures of various Chrysler models . . . on soft "art paper". Plus an enclosed letter talking about how advanced these cars were, in concept and execution. I still have that somewhere, knowing even then that it was special. We kept the '66 Newport Town Sedan.
After seeing the "ease of service" issues greatly diminished, my large desire for one diminished. I still liked them, though.
I'll have to check some specs, but the main thing I remember different on the '70s vs the '69s was Torsion-Quiet Ride. All other mechanicals and sheet metal were highly similar, if not exactly the same. On ANY first year design, it might be a little "flat", with the "next year" always looking better, no matter who made the car or whom designed it.
Obviously, I wasn't watching sales figures for those Fuselage cars as I liked them too much. As we were a Chrysler owner-family, we got a mail-out of what I'd term "museum quality" 5x7 prints of pictures of various Chrysler models . . . on soft "art paper". Plus an enclosed letter talking about how advanced these cars were, in concept and execution. I still have that somewhere, knowing even then that it was special. We kept the '66 Newport Town Sedan.
After seeing the "ease of service" issues greatly diminished, my large desire for one diminished. I still liked them, though.
I'll have to check some specs, but the main thing I remember different on the '70s vs the '69s was Torsion-Quiet Ride. All other mechanicals and sheet metal were highly similar, if not exactly the same. On ANY first year design, it might be a little "flat", with the "next year" always looking better, no matter who made the car or whom designed it.
It's obvious that the Forbes author had little knowledge of how the car industry works. If Townsend had gotten mad enough to order a "re-design" of the new '69 cars, it would have cost the corporation greatly! Any changes would have meant new vendor contracts and all of that. And that would have taken months and months to make happen.
CAR LIFE had an article on "future products" in about 1970. When each new design comes out, there is an "expected life" of that vehicle and many design decisions are made in that orientation. EACH year's vehicle is planned out at that time, what changes, when they'll happen, and whatever . . . it's all in a volume of "books" which "The committee" authors and approves of. As Townsend obviously would be on The Committee, he shares any glory for whatever happened with that vehicle.
So, if all of the negative press was getting to the corporation, it would have had to have been in the first 120 days of sales in order for new and different things to happen by the Spring Special promotions in March/April of the next calendar year.
I just spent a few hours looking at pictures of '69 Polaras/Monacos to see what the objectionable rear end shapes might have been AND how the '70s were different. I didn't see very much, if anything. Different tail lights, different deck lid to mate with the tail lights. I suspect the "unattractive trim" relates to Chrysler's new-found love of plastics on interior trim (i.e., instrument panel areas). They did quite well with the textures and such, but it was still PLASTIC where other materials had been in prior years.
In any event, I suspect that whatever changes Townsend was claimed to have ordered were already "in the books" to happen in the spring selling season AND for the '70 model year. Things we might consider to be "easy to do" can take months to happen inside any carmaker's organization. Feasibility studies, including proposed costs, bids from vendors, approval of such bids, and THEN training the assembly line people how to deal with these new changes on the assembly line. It all takes time to happen.
CAR LIFE had an article on "future products" in about 1970. When each new design comes out, there is an "expected life" of that vehicle and many design decisions are made in that orientation. EACH year's vehicle is planned out at that time, what changes, when they'll happen, and whatever . . . it's all in a volume of "books" which "The committee" authors and approves of. As Townsend obviously would be on The Committee, he shares any glory for whatever happened with that vehicle.
So, if all of the negative press was getting to the corporation, it would have had to have been in the first 120 days of sales in order for new and different things to happen by the Spring Special promotions in March/April of the next calendar year.
I just spent a few hours looking at pictures of '69 Polaras/Monacos to see what the objectionable rear end shapes might have been AND how the '70s were different. I didn't see very much, if anything. Different tail lights, different deck lid to mate with the tail lights. I suspect the "unattractive trim" relates to Chrysler's new-found love of plastics on interior trim (i.e., instrument panel areas). They did quite well with the textures and such, but it was still PLASTIC where other materials had been in prior years.
In any event, I suspect that whatever changes Townsend was claimed to have ordered were already "in the books" to happen in the spring selling season AND for the '70 model year. Things we might consider to be "easy to do" can take months to happen inside any carmaker's organization. Feasibility studies, including proposed costs, bids from vendors, approval of such bids, and THEN training the assembly line people how to deal with these new changes on the assembly line. It all takes time to happen.
As for the fuselage designs being inspired by Pontiacs, it's the other way around. Chrysler got the fuselage shape for the 1969 model year, Chevy had a loop front bumper in '69 on their Impala-size cars. Look at what GM brought out for the 1971 model year for their full-size cars! Definitely inspired by the Chrysler fuselage designs! Much more lateral interior room, partially from reconfigured door trim panels. As is usually the case, Chrysler and Ford initiate something, have moderate success with it, them GM comes in with their version of it and scoops the marketplace. Mustang in mid-year 1964, Camaro in 1967. Chrysler just followed Ford's lead (with making a Falcon into a Mustang) by taking a Valiant and making it a Barracuda. Performance-wise, the 273/235 Barracuda was not that much slower than the "killer" 289/271 Mustang (per a road test comparison). Although the Mustang had to have a 3.89 axle ratio and 4-speed to go with that engine. That A-body platform is just a smaller version of the larger Chrysler platforms, so it's not to be dismissed when it has "the right stuff" on it.
Admittedly, Chrysler was late to the game with a Chevy Vega/Ford Pinto competitor. The Rootes Group car became a "captive import" Plymouth Cricket. A similar Mitsu product became the Dodge Colt. The re-badged VW came later. At that time, I knew that if we were to get the USA public into smaller cars, they would have to be at least as nice as the current larger cars. Later we got the Valiant Brougham and Dart SE models with velour interiors by the middle 1970s.
In the middle-'60s Buick had its own "captive import" as Opel. At the time when Studebaker was the Mercedes-Benz importer (sold separately from Studebakers).
Chrysler needed profits and didn't have the money to design their own small car, so it opted to take an existing car and enhance it to become a Dodge or Plymouth. At that time, GM had 10% of Isuzu (the LUV truck), Ford had 10% of Mazda (Ford Courier truck) and Chrysler had 10% of Mitsu. They were already into the Rootes Group in England from earlier involvements with Simca and such. Small cars have higher design/assembly costs than larger cars do, which means "slim profits" for the dealer and the manufacturer. It might have looked flaky, but Chrysler did what it had to do with what it had to do with. Later the USA-designed Vegas and Pintos had their own significant problems/issues in the marketplace.
In the middle-'60s Buick had its own "captive import" as Opel. At the time when Studebaker was the Mercedes-Benz importer (sold separately from Studebakers).
Chrysler needed profits and didn't have the money to design their own small car, so it opted to take an existing car and enhance it to become a Dodge or Plymouth. At that time, GM had 10% of Isuzu (the LUV truck), Ford had 10% of Mazda (Ford Courier truck) and Chrysler had 10% of Mitsu. They were already into the Rootes Group in England from earlier involvements with Simca and such. Small cars have higher design/assembly costs than larger cars do, which means "slim profits" for the dealer and the manufacturer. It might have looked flaky, but Chrysler did what it had to do with what it had to do with. Later the USA-designed Vegas and Pintos had their own significant problems/issues in the marketplace.
As the service issues with the '69+ C-body cars evolved, it was even more obvious that they didn't measure-up to the great '65-'68 C-body cars in several areas. They had great styling with good proportions, smoother ride and quieter interiors (although I'd already determined that much of the "hard ride" Chryslers allegedly had was more about road noise than actual ride motions), and great AM/FM Multiplex sound systems (5 speakers in most C-body models!). Definite advances! But the a/c leaks, wind noise, plasticy interiors, emission controls affect on engine power all tended to detract from the ownership experience. ALSO, it wasn't all just product issues, but how the dealers dealt with customer service issues, by observation! In that general time frame, many DFW Chrysler/Dodge dealers changed names every few years, which did little to inspire confidence in the potential buyer's mind! The smaller town, non-metro area dealers who'd been there for decades usually did a better job for the customer.
How well the vehicle performed for the customer ALSO was related to how the dealer ordered the car, by observation. Ordering a vehicle with The Basic Group got most of the good options. Add a few other things and the car was very nicely equipped. The BG also included the "Undercoat and Hood Pad" items, which made the care quieter and more competitive with how "loud" they were when compared to a similar GM vehicle. No "tinny sounding body". Add a 383-2bbl over a smaller engine helped performance with little loss of fuel economy over the 318-2bbl. It was all in how they were equipped and NOT ALL dealers understood that! Same with GM cars and trucks, too!
Also, it was in the Chrysler warranty dialogue that the car had to be returned to the selling dealer, if possible, for warranty work. The smaller town dealers opted to adhere to that, in many cases, as they had their own customers to take care of . . . first. In many cases, they had all of the business they could deal with without trying to further grow their business.
How well the vehicle performed for the customer ALSO was related to how the dealer ordered the car, by observation. Ordering a vehicle with The Basic Group got most of the good options. Add a few other things and the car was very nicely equipped. The BG also included the "Undercoat and Hood Pad" items, which made the care quieter and more competitive with how "loud" they were when compared to a similar GM vehicle. No "tinny sounding body". Add a 383-2bbl over a smaller engine helped performance with little loss of fuel economy over the 318-2bbl. It was all in how they were equipped and NOT ALL dealers understood that! Same with GM cars and trucks, too!
Also, it was in the Chrysler warranty dialogue that the car had to be returned to the selling dealer, if possible, for warranty work. The smaller town dealers opted to adhere to that, in many cases, as they had their own customers to take care of . . . first. In many cases, they had all of the business they could deal with without trying to further grow their business.
For some reason, it seems that whenever Chrysler might have done something "wrong", the media was all over it. The number of times the Plymouth Volare was talked about in the press is an example. GM cars had worse issues and nobody noticed!
Same for the economic issues of the times, various times, in Chrysler's history. I remember reading the articles about Townsend taking over. An "accountant" rather than an "engineer". He orchestrated the demise of Desoto (a Mercury competitor) and the combination of Chrysler and Plymouth in the dealer network. It was all a balancing act. A C-P dealer had enough product to be profitable. Dodge had cars and trucks (as Chevrolet did), so enough product to be profitable. In more recent times, before the CDJR times, Jeep replaced Plymouth in the network, when Plymouth was deleted. So, you can't fault him for those tough earlier decisions as it kept things alive. But anybody at the top must take the good with the bad, seeking to minimize the "bad".
Why did Chrysler keep building cars that weren't selling? They went into the Sales Bank. It kept the factories humming and all existing supplier contracts were still operational. They probably could have modulated it better, as it later got them in trouble. In the grand scheme of things, offering a dealer an extra $250.00 to take a car from the sales bank is chicken feed. In many cases, with the mis-equipped cars in flaky color combinations, by the end of the spring, there were deals allegedly being made for 1/2 dealer cost on those units just to move them. Not to forget the factory fleets for the sales and service reps.
As for those alleged 3-speed manual transmissioned New Yorkers, the base trans for the Road Runner was a 3-speed manual transmission with gear ratios almost exactly the same as the TorqueFlite 727. Motor Trend tested a '71 Super Bee with that trans and it did well with the stock 383-4bbl HP engine. The trick was the C-body steering column, I suspect. Lots of extra linkage to make that shift linkage work, plus the clutch levers!
I'm not sure about the accuracy of the financial issues the Forbes article mentions, as that wasn't something I was paying attention to back then. I just liked the cars. The factory computer issues, I had not knowledge of, but that would surely have been an issue, too. But the way he talks about the 2nd complete re-design of the C-body cars for 1970 has too many side issues, in order for that to really happen, for me to really believe it. As stated, I suspect all of the changes for '70 were already planned in the original production plans.
Whether y'all might agree with my orientations, I respect, but I see signals that the Forbes article's author might have known more about financial issues and found ways to justify them in a "cloudy manner". Chrysler had their issues, but so did GM and Ford . . . and the GM issues were of greater magnitude, by observation.
For an understanding of the automotive industry back then, there are two books. The first one out was "On A Clear Day, You Can See General Motors" by John DeLorean. It explained a LOT of why GM vehicles were what they were in the '50s-'80s. The other one is a biography of Lee Iacocca, circa 1982. MORE things revealed about how the industry worked, when he started at Ford in the middle 1950s. And for the "dessert", "GUTS" by Bob Lutz (when he went to Chrysler with Iacocca).
CBODY67
Same for the economic issues of the times, various times, in Chrysler's history. I remember reading the articles about Townsend taking over. An "accountant" rather than an "engineer". He orchestrated the demise of Desoto (a Mercury competitor) and the combination of Chrysler and Plymouth in the dealer network. It was all a balancing act. A C-P dealer had enough product to be profitable. Dodge had cars and trucks (as Chevrolet did), so enough product to be profitable. In more recent times, before the CDJR times, Jeep replaced Plymouth in the network, when Plymouth was deleted. So, you can't fault him for those tough earlier decisions as it kept things alive. But anybody at the top must take the good with the bad, seeking to minimize the "bad".
Why did Chrysler keep building cars that weren't selling? They went into the Sales Bank. It kept the factories humming and all existing supplier contracts were still operational. They probably could have modulated it better, as it later got them in trouble. In the grand scheme of things, offering a dealer an extra $250.00 to take a car from the sales bank is chicken feed. In many cases, with the mis-equipped cars in flaky color combinations, by the end of the spring, there were deals allegedly being made for 1/2 dealer cost on those units just to move them. Not to forget the factory fleets for the sales and service reps.
As for those alleged 3-speed manual transmissioned New Yorkers, the base trans for the Road Runner was a 3-speed manual transmission with gear ratios almost exactly the same as the TorqueFlite 727. Motor Trend tested a '71 Super Bee with that trans and it did well with the stock 383-4bbl HP engine. The trick was the C-body steering column, I suspect. Lots of extra linkage to make that shift linkage work, plus the clutch levers!
I'm not sure about the accuracy of the financial issues the Forbes article mentions, as that wasn't something I was paying attention to back then. I just liked the cars. The factory computer issues, I had not knowledge of, but that would surely have been an issue, too. But the way he talks about the 2nd complete re-design of the C-body cars for 1970 has too many side issues, in order for that to really happen, for me to really believe it. As stated, I suspect all of the changes for '70 were already planned in the original production plans.
Whether y'all might agree with my orientations, I respect, but I see signals that the Forbes article's author might have known more about financial issues and found ways to justify them in a "cloudy manner". Chrysler had their issues, but so did GM and Ford . . . and the GM issues were of greater magnitude, by observation.
For an understanding of the automotive industry back then, there are two books. The first one out was "On A Clear Day, You Can See General Motors" by John DeLorean. It explained a LOT of why GM vehicles were what they were in the '50s-'80s. The other one is a biography of Lee Iacocca, circa 1982. MORE things revealed about how the industry worked, when he started at Ford in the middle 1950s. And for the "dessert", "GUTS" by Bob Lutz (when he went to Chrysler with Iacocca).
CBODY67
I had told my self earlier when this thread was new and after a lot of comments that I would refrain from saying anything more. But in skimming the thread again, I just wanted to point out that the charts that SeaFuse added to this thread were very on point, and made the original Fortune magazine article just an over reaction to the reality that was taking place in 1969. His charts show that sales were only slightly down in 1969-70 compared to 1968, but still better than 1967, and in subsequent years, these fuselage cars that the public "didn't like" went on to soar in sales in 1972-3. Yeah profits took a hit in 1969-70, but the new models were rushed to production with many of the kinks not worked out and fixing all these problems in the field had to cost a bundle. But the charts show that sales and profits improved greatly with the later fuselage designs. I believe Fortune was too focused on profits when writing the article and got the sales reality just plain wrong based on the charts SeaFuse has shown. The real test of the accuracy of the article is time, and time proves the Fortune article just wrong as I see it. Yeah, profits sank, but it wasn't due to the sales "success" of the models, it was other factors including the economy and turning away from full size cars some other factors including not sorting things out better before production. One sentence in the article reveals their complete misunderstanding of the facts:
"It is clear," says a Chrysler director, "that the big 1969 cars were turkeys." Even now, Townsend refuses to go along with that opinion. "Styling was excellent," he contends. But while he might not agree, Townsend had to accept the public's verdict. For the 1970 model year, the big cars were given a wider track, the front ends were lengthened, the rear ends were shortened, the grilles were changed, and the trim was altered.
The truth, however, is that only the rear track was widened, and in fact the front ends lengths stayed much the same between 1969 and 1970, and it was rather the rear ends of the cars that got lengthed in 1970, not shortened, thus generating a more balanced proportion. And the grilles between 1969 and 1970 stayed much the same - rather it was the rear bumpers that were heavily revised so that the loop front bumpers were finally matched in 1970 with rear looped bumpers as well that couldn't make it into production in 1969 due to timing constraints.
Bottom line to me is the Fortune article was written by one or more bean counters consistent with staffing at Fortune, and the facts were massaged to fit their perceptions. They really didn't know what they were talking about, and SeaFuse's charts bear that out and the above sentence shows they got the underlined sentence above just plain backwards/wrong.
Last edited:
American vehicles sold in "export" markets . . . the foreign country has the option of levying an import "duty" on the imported vehicle. This is their way of protecting their home market manufacturers. In Europe, the reason that many Dodges were labled "Chrysler" was that each brand has to pay a fee in order to be sold over there. Chrysler was already there, but Dodge wasn't. Resulted in "Chrysler Viper" and "Chrysler Magnum" in Europe.
At one time, the USA did that with a tariff on small import pickup trucks. This resulted in the Subaru Brat, which had a pair of rear-facing seats mounted in the pickup bed. That change made it into a "passenger vehicle" so it was immune to the additional tariff on the small trucks.
There has been much dialogue with the Japanese government about how they like to sell their vehicles over here, but add tariffs to our vehicles being sold over there. And now they build their vehicles over here!
CBODY67
At one time, the USA did that with a tariff on small import pickup trucks. This resulted in the Subaru Brat, which had a pair of rear-facing seats mounted in the pickup bed. That change made it into a "passenger vehicle" so it was immune to the additional tariff on the small trucks.
There has been much dialogue with the Japanese government about how they like to sell their vehicles over here, but add tariffs to our vehicles being sold over there. And now they build their vehicles over here!
CBODY67
The one issue I might have with the styling was the 2-door hardtops. The roof should have been longer, as it later was. It made the rear deck look waay too long compared to the other styles. The Collectible Automobile article on the Chryslers mentions how the stylists took pains to make the cars "proportional" in the rear section, with their 4-door rooflines. As a result, the cars had a grace to them in their proportions. I suspect that the real "lengthening of the front sheet metal" didn't really happen until the 1971 model year as '69 and '70 were too close together in styling. But I've been wrong before . . . Have to check the specs, sometime.
CBODY67
CBODY67
One of the issues we had with our '72 Newport Royal was "electrical" in nature. One night, we were driving home on the Interstate and the "floodlight" instrument panel lights went out. Suddenly and unexplained. Then back on or flickered. Unlike the "slabs" with the ElectroLuminescense cluster, a bank of #194 bulbs front-lights the cluster. This was something that just seemed out of whack to me, when the lights went out!
The bulbs were in a hidden strip on the underside of the dash pad. They shone directly onto the speedometer area, rather than being "back-lit" as in prior times. If you've ever changed an instrument cluster bulb from the back, this design feature was pretty neat! What I discovered was . . . that whole strip of bulbs had a common ground in the middle, over the steering column, by a single screw! When that screw got loose, the circuit would not complete and the lights went out. Easy to fix, once I found that! Pity the poor dealership trim tech trying to fix that one!
Another noted issue on the '69+ C-body cars was "squeaks and rattles". I had already been over the '66 with my socket and wrench set, tightening every nut and bolt I could find, which quietened things down some. After my parents got the '72, it had squeaks and rattles. I let it accumulate a few thousand miles to let things settle-in (a suggestion in "Popular Science" magazine), then one weekend I came home from college and tightened everything up I could get a wrench on. It got quiet, too! This was covered in the factory warranty, but no tech would want to do that as it would take more time than they'd get paid for. I enjoyed it and took pride in make the car better in the process. One of the famous "Chrysler build quality" issues?
I also took some of the 3M "dum dum" and closed most of the gaps between the windshield moldings and the glass and other gaps to decrease A-pillar wind noise. Another "science" I developed back then, prototyping it on the '66 Newport.
CBODY67
The bulbs were in a hidden strip on the underside of the dash pad. They shone directly onto the speedometer area, rather than being "back-lit" as in prior times. If you've ever changed an instrument cluster bulb from the back, this design feature was pretty neat! What I discovered was . . . that whole strip of bulbs had a common ground in the middle, over the steering column, by a single screw! When that screw got loose, the circuit would not complete and the lights went out. Easy to fix, once I found that! Pity the poor dealership trim tech trying to fix that one!
Another noted issue on the '69+ C-body cars was "squeaks and rattles". I had already been over the '66 with my socket and wrench set, tightening every nut and bolt I could find, which quietened things down some. After my parents got the '72, it had squeaks and rattles. I let it accumulate a few thousand miles to let things settle-in (a suggestion in "Popular Science" magazine), then one weekend I came home from college and tightened everything up I could get a wrench on. It got quiet, too! This was covered in the factory warranty, but no tech would want to do that as it would take more time than they'd get paid for. I enjoyed it and took pride in make the car better in the process. One of the famous "Chrysler build quality" issues?
I also took some of the 3M "dum dum" and closed most of the gaps between the windshield moldings and the glass and other gaps to decrease A-pillar wind noise. Another "science" I developed back then, prototyping it on the '66 Newport.
CBODY67
Not really. The rear ends, as stated in my post above grew longer while the front ends stayed much the same in length for 1970 especially for the Chrysler models since they had a loop bumper for the front in 1969 while the Dodge and Plymouth didn't quite make it until 1970 - their front bumpers were not quite there yet.
Plymouth 1969:
In 1970...............
Dodge 1969:
Dodge in 1970:
Chrysler in 1969:
Chrysler in 1970:
ceebuddy
Well-Known Member
CBODY67, I agree with your statement that styling changes usually don't happen quickly "as you go" but are rather planned year after year, three or even more years ahead of the time when the respective changes are actually implemented in the production of the real car.
I assume Fortune magazine's readership consisted of managers and other people focused on money, not cars (as the name already implies). And neither the author nor the editors of the magazine were gearheads. Plus the author of the article probably was a freelance journalist that had to sell his article. So despite any research that went into it before writing it, the author still had to create a piece that was somewhat of a small sensation/scoop and doesn't bore the reader to make it sell to the editors of the magazine. So it is likely it is not accurate in all details and might exaggerate certain aspects. I notice that effect today as well, in the rare occasion I read something about a certain matter that I happen to know real well. In those instances I quit reading, sigh and shake my head in disbelief. Bottom line is: Just because it is printed on paper is no guarantee for truth (even more so in today's internet era).
As for the alleged three-speed manual transmission New Yorkers: Standard fare on Newports was the three-on-the-tree manual transmission. Those cars were rarely ordered without automatic transmission, but obviously some Newports were indeed built like that and still exist today. Hence it would have been feasible to erroneously install that combo into a New Yorker, too, despite the fact that automatic transmission was standard in the New Yorker model line in 1969.
I think the long trunk on fuselage-era two-door hardtops is one of the extraordinary styling features of these cars that make it so attractive. It sure is a matter of taste, but for me, it's sexy.
I don't want to denigrate the fuselage-era C-bodies, which I love very much. But here is an article from the June 1969 edition of Popular Mechanics on customer satisfaction with the 1969 Chrysler. It gives the impression that there were some teething problems with these cars.
I assume Fortune magazine's readership consisted of managers and other people focused on money, not cars (as the name already implies). And neither the author nor the editors of the magazine were gearheads. Plus the author of the article probably was a freelance journalist that had to sell his article. So despite any research that went into it before writing it, the author still had to create a piece that was somewhat of a small sensation/scoop and doesn't bore the reader to make it sell to the editors of the magazine. So it is likely it is not accurate in all details and might exaggerate certain aspects. I notice that effect today as well, in the rare occasion I read something about a certain matter that I happen to know real well. In those instances I quit reading, sigh and shake my head in disbelief. Bottom line is: Just because it is printed on paper is no guarantee for truth (even more so in today's internet era).
As for the alleged three-speed manual transmission New Yorkers: Standard fare on Newports was the three-on-the-tree manual transmission. Those cars were rarely ordered without automatic transmission, but obviously some Newports were indeed built like that and still exist today. Hence it would have been feasible to erroneously install that combo into a New Yorker, too, despite the fact that automatic transmission was standard in the New Yorker model line in 1969.
I think the long trunk on fuselage-era two-door hardtops is one of the extraordinary styling features of these cars that make it so attractive. It sure is a matter of taste, but for me, it's sexy.
I don't want to denigrate the fuselage-era C-bodies, which I love very much. But here is an article from the June 1969 edition of Popular Mechanics on customer satisfaction with the 1969 Chrysler. It gives the impression that there were some teething problems with these cars.
fc7_plumcrazy
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 5,208
- Reaction score
- 6,210
amen
Similar threads
