Corporations do exhibit human personality traits. Of the Big Three, Chrysler has always been the most unstable; one could say it has repeatedly shown symptoms of bi-polar syndrome. Chrysler’s biography is a nothing less than a roller coaster ride of giddy highs punctuated by disastrous crashes and self mutilation.
Chrysler’s birth and euphoric immediate success is unparalleled in automotive history. Walter P. Chrysler had a brilliant career in the early automobile business, turning several ailing manufacturers into successes. By 1919, he’d earned $10m ($130m in today’s money) from three year’s work transforming Buick into GM’s early powerhouse.
In 1924, while running Maxwell, Chrysler launched the first car bearing his name. The Chrysler sported a nigh-near perfect blend of advanced engineering and style. It was a home run that almost instantly catapulted Chrysler to number four out of a crowded field of 49 domestic manufacturers. The subsequent launches of low-price Plymouth (1928), upper-mid priced DeSoto (1929), and the purchase of mid-priced Dodge firmly established Chrysler as a charter member of the Big Three.
Chrysler’s first crisis came in 1934, with the failure of the advanced Airflow. The model adopted the latest aerodynamic principles. The company also repositioned the engine and body further forward on the frame (foreshadowing “cab-forward”), delivering major advances in comfort, quietness and handling. While similarly avant-garde vehicles found favor in Europe, the Airflow’s startlingly blunt “waterfall” front end styling was too radical for America’s more conservative taste.
The American car buyer’s wholesale rejection of the Airflow taught Chrysler (and GM and Ford) a painful lasting lesson: avoid the risks of extreme innovation. The fiasco helped shape Detroit’s enduring elevation of popular style over genuine innovation.
Chrysler revived, and made enormous profits during the WWII era. But the development of the critical all-new 1949 models was haunted by Chrysler’s lingering Airflow insecurities. Whereas GM and Ford confidently introduced longer and lower models designed to knock the socks off of exuberant post-was buyers, Chrysler President K. T. Keller insisted on tall, boxy and boring cars– specifically designed so that a man’s fedora wouldn’t be knocked off upon entering.
In that post-war buyer’s frenzy, Keller’s stolid tanks sold well enough– initially. By the early fifties, Americans were in the mood for more: horsepower, automatics, power steering and brakes, style and flash. Unlike Chevy and Ford, Plymouth offered none of those; the market punished it unmercifully. In 1954, Plymouth was kicked out of its long-established number three spot by Buick, and dropped to number five behind Pontiac. The mood pendulum had swung too far; it was due for an (over) correction.
Chrysler hired designer Virgil Exner to inject vitality into the company’s products. The 1955’s were an improvement. Bit it was the radical 1957’s that were set to be the great leap forward (“suddenly it’s 1960!”). But in the rush to revolutionize, the dramatically finned ‘57’s suffered from atrocious build quality. Water and dust leaks were notorious. Upholstery split. Springs came up through seats. And the cars started rusting on the dealer lots.
The flashy new product sold, but word spread quickly. Plymouth’s 1958 sales plunged by no less than 41 percent. Despite a rep for engineering prowess, Chrysler would have to dodge a reputation for spotty build quality from then on, deserved or not.
Chrysler nursed itself to health once more, only to be deeply wounded by a staggeringly idiotic act of self-mutilation.
In 1960, Chrysler president William Newberg heard a rumor at a cocktail party that Chevrolet was working on a dramatically smaller 1962 model (the compact Chevy II). In a colossal blunder, Newburg assumed this downsizing rumor referred to the full-sized Chevrolets. Newberg immediately killed development of Chrysler’s best-selling full-size 1962 Plymouths and Dodges, and initiated a crash program for substantially smaller replacements.
In what some historians conspiracy theorists consider a calculated act of revenge for this folly, chief stylist Exner responded by creating bizarrely-styled 1962 Dodges and Plymouths. When these ugly, truncated “plucked chicken” cars were first shown to dealers at a convention, they created an uproar. Twenty dealers canceled their franchises on the spot. Plymouth crashed to ninth place, while GM picked up the pieces, swelling its market share to an all-time peak of 52 percent.
Update: That was the familiar bedtime story about the downsized ’62 Plymouth and Dodge. In reality, it was a lot more complicated than that. It’s all here, in much greater detail than I have room for here.
Newberg was shown the door. Exner, still recuperating from a heart attack, resigned in 1961, but not before he left a line of much more palatable ’63 models. Elwood Engel arrived from Ford to take the styling reins, and introduced the slab side look he brought from Lincoln.
Once again, Chrysler recuperated, quality was restored, and went on to enjoy a relatively long spell of good health. From the mid-sixties through 1974 the company thrived, in part thanks to its successful engineering performance image, and its stalwart compacts, Valiant and Dart. The disastrous introduction of their replacements, the Volare and Aspen, set the stage for the next crash. With a portfolio literally heavy with large rear wheel-drive cars, and lacking the foresight, will (and capital) to invest in new efficient compacts, Chrysler was flattened by the one-two punch of the energy crises.
By 1979, the Pentastar was back on the critical list, saved from bankruptcy by life-support in the form of a $1.5 billion bail-out package of government guaranteed loans.
The ’62 Dodge, all-time ugliest car in US history. That front end still gives me nightmares.
I’ve always liked the ’62 Plymouth. It was the last of the Space Age cars. Strange that two cars on the same platform can look so different.
http://www.allpar.com/reviews/1962/sport-fury-max-wedge.html
In a case of “what can we do to make it even worse”, supposedly, the hideous, warthog-like convex grille on the 1962 Dodge wasn’t Exner’s fault but was created at the insistence of Dodge general manager M.C. Patterson.
I still nominate the ’58 Buicks as the all-time ugliest. At least the ’62 Dodges were a lot more sparing in their use of chrome.
You might say that Chrysler had bi-Polara syndrome.
Owww, that’s good.
I’m surprised that our esteemed author didn’t mention the other reason Chrysler was on the critical list again by ’79, his Chrysler Deadly Sin #1 of a year and a half ago: the 1976 Aspen and Volare, and the multiple expensive recalls and shoddy build quality thereof.
it’s a very condensed little history, but your point is well taken. It’s been added.
Chrysler has made some great 8 and 6 cylinder engines over the years, I just always wished I had more faith in the cars they were attached to.
The Airflow could be re-introduced almost verbatim as the world’s most aerodynamic SUV
Ah the good old days when a mere 1.5 billion would save a company and see it repay the loan in a few short years with interest.Not only that, Chrysler did go on to create and innovate in so many ways.
Looking back at what Chrysler endured all those years its a wonder they survived at all.
Of course 1.5 billion back then is like 3.917 billion now – not too dissimilar from what we did give GM which was a much bigger company. I haven’t heard, are they paying back their ‘loan’?
I understand that as part of the deal, they had to sell off overseas operations, Europe to PSA and Australia to Mitsubishi
‘While similarly avant-garde vehicles found favor in Europe, the Airflow’s startlingly blunt “waterfall” front end styling was too radical for America’s more conservative taste.’ Quote
Let’s be honest , the Airflow was exceedingly ugly – advanced or not.
I thought it would be cool to get my hands on an Airflow and drop a new Penstar V6 and 5-speed auto in it. Wonder what the fuel economy of that setup would be? Modern power plus just about the lowest coefficient of drag of any classic car that you could sit in and still wear your fedora. (Yeah I’ve got a fedora. Two actually. My lady likes the way I look in them.)
So, I’m strange; I always liked the 62s, at least the Dodges. Give me one in jet-black.
In ’79-’81 I was working at a service station and doing a lot of under hood service and washing, I more than once drew blood on the sharp edges of sheet metal edges and grille trim of Chrysler products of the 70’s. I don’t recall any similar sharp edges on Ford or GM products.
I also remember well the time I had inserted the filling nozzle into the tank of an Aspen or Volare wagon. I noticed it did sorta hang down and aim straight in, instead of aiming in a downward direction into the spout like most vehicles. I had already grabbed the windshield squeegee and started washing the windshield when I heard a sound, turned to look down the side of the car. I got to see the nozzle as it had slipped out of the spout and was falling towards me. I think it may have turned off, but not before it sprayed me with gasoline, yes, even into my eyes. The pickups of that era also had a shallow slope to their filler spout and gas would easily splash out when filling. Seems a little hurried designing was going on to produce an inferior product.
Chrysler also suffered from sheer corruption, besides incompetence. You take a look at what happened to it from 1955 to 1965, and you see that the boys in charge used the company budget like a personal expense account. Then there was the deal making going on with suppliers under the table.
Chrysler was ran like a Chicago speak-easy without Al Capone’s business finesse.
@ “From the mid-sixties through 1974 the company thrived”
Lynn Townsend took over at Chrysler about 1963. He was a financial guy, and had great success at first. In Townsend’s mind, it was all about volume. This is easy when your baseline was the horrifying 1962 models. Gains in styling, quality and, of course, sales came easily at first. But by 1966-67, things kind of plateaued.
Sales (and the general economy) started to soften a bit in 1968, but Chrysler kept churing out units at maximum pace. The sales people had monthly fire sales to move the metal, and cars got pushed out the plant doors when they had no business passing inspections. Chrysler had a minor disaster in 1970 and, IIRC, lost money even in a year when GM had a major strike. Quality started to slip in 1968 and started to nosedive in 69-70. Their success of 1971-73 was mainly due to a strong selling market. When the economy went bad in 1974, Chrysler was the first one into the red ink.
Townsend stayed on into 1975 and then retired (escaped?). All the while, he pushed for maximimum units sold at the expense of all other metrics. As his parting gift, he appointed co-chairmen to succeed him. The operations guy was to be Eugene Cafiero, and the financial man was John Riccardo. It turned out that they could agree on almost nothing, and pretty much despised each other. The only bright spot in this management team was that Riccardo knew that he was up against more than he could handle. When Henry Ford II fired Lee Iacocca in late 1978, it was Riccardo that approached Iacocca to come to Chrysler. By 1978, Chrysler was losing money again, despite a strong auto market. When Iacocca made it clear that he would have to be the top dog to make the move, Riccardo graciously agreed to step aside.
Accounts of Chrysler of the late 70s are not pretty to read. The company’s financial systems and operations processes were a shambles. Iacocca is reported to have said that if he had known the extent of the problems, he would not have taken the job. Almost nobody from the upper management of Old Chrysler survived the first year after Iacocca took over.
Correct, the “Sales Bank” nearly killed them off in the late 70’s. I still remember rows of unsold “Bluesmobiles” sitting at the Belvidere IL plant. While the Blues Bors popualized the 74-78 big cars, they didn’t sell well at all, except dumped into fleets.
Also, replacing a huge selling line Dart/Valient/Duster A body with low quality and higher priced F body, hurt them too. But Lee I. got $ worth from the platform with the M body.
The Dodge and Plymouth “C” bodies were the sales losers in those years, the ones you referred to as “Bluesmobiles”, the same was not true with the full sized Chryslers. The “C” bodies Chryslers were selling in the six figures each year right up until 1978, the Plymouth and Dodges were selling less then half that number, which was pretty bad considering that they were lower priced. Police departments loved them, so Chrysler did well in selling Polaras, Monacos, and Furys with the police package, the one used in the “Blue Brothers” movie was a second hand California Highway Patrol car, a Dodge Polara I think. I guess when it came to the lower priced car lines people wanted intermediates or compacts in those years.
I remember the Chicago Police Department had blue and white Polaras during the middle and late 70s and they seemed to last forever.
Were the 62 Plymouth and Dodge really the ugliest Mopars?-I know the downsizing was a huge mistake but Dodge had already shot itself in the foot with its hideous 1961 restyle.After nearly out selling Plymouth with the very attractive Dart in 1960 it saw a huge fall off in sales in 1961 when it had the insane idea of using reverse slanting tail fins .Typical Chrysler really-do something well then go all out to ruin it ;nothing changes..
When the Aspen/Volare first came out, several of us from college went to the Chrysler dealer on a Sunday (closed) to take a look. On a sedan, the left front fender has the Aspen badge and the right front fender had the Volare badge. It made me wonder what else was wrong…. When my VW beetle cratered my sophomore year, my dad insisted on a used Toyota or Datsun as a replacement. No domestic makes were considered. Later on I learned he had been burned by a early 50’s Dodge where the brake pedal would not return to the up position. He had a piece of rope tied to the pedal to release the brakes…
The problem of a brake pedal not returning to the up position could be cause by a number of issues, none of which would be unique to a Dodge/Chrysler product. In fact the Dodges and Plymouths of the late 1940s and early 50s were some of the best built of those two marques. Toyotas or Datsuns were all right if you didn’t care about rust, which caused them to rot away anywhere outside of California or the Southwestern states.
I worked for Chrysler Defense in the Detroit Metro area, starting in the early ’70s. Re Chrysler quality control then: I once saw a car that said “Aspen” on one side, and “Volare” on the other. Also, a “Dodge” steering wheel in a Plymouth. Surface rust on Chrysler product bumpers well within a year. The list goes on…
I did like that Slant 6, though.