I thought I heard a whimper in the distance last Thursday.

[Dave@Moon]

I read today in Autoweek that the last Plymouth was built on 6/28 (a silver Neon). I thought that this passing shouldn't go unmentioned on this forum. <P>Isn't it suprising how long it takes to kill off a "brand" these days. I have a program from the 1960 Pittsburgh Auto Show. The show was held in mid-December 1959. There is no mention of Edsel in it at all, not even incidentally in the maps, directories, etc. This progam was printed in the age before computers, and is a full glossy decent item. It's lead time had to have been within a few days of Edsel's demise, and that would be pushing it. It's as if the "brand" fell off the face of the earth instantly.<P>Studebaker, DeSoto, Packard, K-F, etc. all passed on within (at most) a few months of their death sentences. Plymouth was left to dangle for 4 years, and Olds is supposed to be on terminal life support for the nest five years. Why?<P>I still think abandoning "brands", while it certainly makes short-term economic sense, is a long-term formula for whithering of the American car industry. What if Chrysler decides it wants to market a basic transportation vehicle again? Oh yeah, I forgot, they still are...The Chrysler Neon. The Mopar brands (the 2 that are left) have no distinction whatsoever now. Even the Japanese and the Germans are savvy enough to know to market different types of vehicles aimed at different markets under different "brands" if they want to succeed in the U.S. <P>Mopar now has cars that compete directly with the Hyundai Elantra and with the Cadillac Catera both being sold side-by-side at the same dealership with the same name on the door!<P>I wonder if someday we'll regret this loss more than Daimler-Chrysler, or visa-versa. <P>Plymouth: 6/14/28-6/28/01 <p>[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[novaman]

<BR>Well stated Dave.<P>Plymouth will be missed. Maybe not by the younger generations like mine and younger, but by the older generations and the younger people like myself that enjoy old cars and the history and enginering that went into them. Those of use who think of our cars not so much as an object but more of another "being". We have the tendancy to talk to them, protect them, pamper them just as if it were our child. Why? because each and everyone of them has character of it's own.<P>Plymouth, my you rest in peace.

[Guest]

The loss of Plymouth and soon to be Oldsmobile is a bad sign for the future of the American auto industry. I hate to see it as I see it as a harbinger of things to come. The only question is which brand will be next? We all know there will be more casualties.

[Guest]

Always the devils advocate... <P>The demise of Plymouth and Oldsmobile may actually be a positive to some of their sister divisions. Dodge will certainly benefit by the loss of Plymouth -- and Pontiac and Buick will benefit from the loss of Oldsmobile.<P>These were multi-billion dollar decisions. I’m sure the termination of these two brands were not gone into lightly. Our nostalgia related to these brands are important to us as auto enthusiasts, but that nostalgia probably didn’t have much impact on their decision.<P>Just my two cents worth.<P>Peter<p>[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest]

Peter ~ <B>NEVER, NEVER</B> assume that the Captains of Industry are as smart as we sometimes think they are. Sometimes they are just plain stupid, or at best dense. They did not all get to the top based on brilliance in business. <P>Many years ago I served on a school Board of Trustees with the CEOs of two <B>MAJOR</B> corporations. One was positively brilliant and the other was an idiot and a complete jerk. That was over 25 years ago, and both companies are alive and well today because of and in spite of their leadership. <P>hvs

[Guest]

I too hate to see the loss of the Plymouth and Oldsmobile, but other then some body trim parts, they have left us a long time ago. The way it looks to me, Mercury will be the next line to take the cruse down the highway of progress, and fade away, only to be remembered in the pages of old car books and the memories of the people that once owned them.

[Guest]

I'm a lifelong Mopar nut so it saddened me to see Plymouth leave us. But, looking at history, Plymouth has not offered a unique mass-market product since the reorganization back in the early 1980s. I would have liked to see the new owners revitalize the brand instead of killing it off, but the Germans seem quite concerned that nothing made by Chrysler could possibly take even one sale away from Mercedes. They also put the brakes on the Charger program. It makes one wonder why they bought the company if they don't want to see it thrive.<P>Also interesting (to me anyway) is that the Prowler is becoming the Chrysler Prowler. Is this the first time a model has been transferred completely over to a different marque? It feels kind of like a Pontiac Corvette or something.<P>My wife and I are thinking about buying a Chrysler. I want to get a 1997 or older so that I'm not supporting DCX, not even indirectly. That buyout was very disheartening.<P>Bry

[Dave@Moon]

Bry,<P>How do you figure that buying a used 1997 Chrysler effects DCX any less than a 1998, or a 1968 for that matter. Any Mopar made part is a DCX product, whether it's a 2001 Viper or a Mopar oil filter to fit a Renault. If you're driving a Dodge, Chrysler, Plymouth, AMC, Hudson, DeSoto, etc.; it's now a Daimler/Chrysler product. If it was when it was being assembled or not simply doesn't matter any more.<P>I agree that DCX is mis-managing Chrysler. It seems intent on doing just enough to keep the marketing operations going w/o diluting the image of their <I> real </I> cars in any way. There've been off-&-on rumors for some time now that they'll eventually shut down car production and make Chrysler a truck/commercial vehicle operation only. <P>But that is as maybe. I'll still buy what I consider to be the best available transportation product for my family that I can a ford (caution--subliminablization in content! ). My last Chrysler was a very good car (1990 Spirit), until it lunched a $2000 transmission overnight at 99K miles . That matters to me a <I> lot </I> more than boardroom shenannigans with "brand identities".<P>My sorrow is for the hobby and the future of the industry. I don't give a rat's rectum for who's responsible for making what piece at a given period in time, or not!

[Guest rcirilli]

Bry if you didn't know it those same Germans own controlling interest in the largest truck manufacturer. It's all about market share to them.<P>I agree with HVS on the upper level management. While with Cummins I worked with some of the brightest people in the world. Others, well, they just got lucky or spent time in the right bed.

[Guest]

It's amusing to me when individuals try to make a statement with their purchasing decisions. The history of the automotive industry is a classic case study in survival of the fitest. If you don't have the sales volume, correct cost structure, financing and bottom line, you're toast! <P>From what I've read, the Germans bought a pig in a poke. They paid way too much for shakey American market share, trendy styling, hot selling cars and potential that maybe was overstated. So much for their due diligence. <P>As we all know, Chrysler has a long history of feast or famine. In a classic cyclic industry, Chrysler has been to the edge many times because their long run economics don't seem to be good. The Germans are scrambling now to keep Chrysler's bad karma from sinking them on both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe the best way to have won WW II was to have sold Germany Chrysler Corp. in 1941. <P>PS: Right now all my iron, old and new, is Dodge - so what does that say about my judgement?

[Guest]

Certainly they may NOT be competent in their positions... but I’ll bet ya dollars-to-donuts that these decision makers at least THOUGHT they were making the right decision. Regardless, time will tell whether they made the right decision or not (if ever).<P>Either way, I still think its pretty obvious that our nostalgia was not shared by them... at least in affecting their decision to close the doors on these two age-old automobile manufacturers.<p>[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest]

peterg -<BR>As always, it's the - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - can't keep the stockholders happy with nostalgia, or pay the bills for that matter.

[Dave@Moon]

I don't debate the concept that Olds and Plymouth were money losers for their corporate parents, and have been for quite a few years at that. But I still think that the powers that be are going about fixing the situation the wrong way.<P>People aren't avoiding Plymouths and Olds' (and Mercurys and GMC's for that matter) because of their <I> name </I>. They don't like the <I> product! </I> We've had about 12 years now of improving performance in standard car lines as well as "performance" cars. <B> Why is there no current Road Runner, GTX, 442, Sport Fury, etc.? </B> Chrysler in particular has had (largely) cutting edge styling throughout the line, yet Plymouth has consistently received these designs last, if at all. <P>G.M. at least tried to dress up Olds before throwing in the towel. The cars <I> looked </I> the part of a new age for that "brand" (I hate that term in car discussions!), but underneath they really weren't that far removed from their predecessors. <P>And neither company has the apparant will to make serious inroads into the quality gap that has existed between them and their best built competators for 25 years now.<P>You could market a new "Yugo" today if it were a reliable (ask the man who owns a Toyota), well designed (ask the woman who owns a BMW), and exciting (ask Bry about his Miata) product. With rare exceptions (especially <I> some </I> Fords and <I> some </I> Saturns), the problem with most of the American industry is that they view their products exclusively as functional equipment built to a price. The idea of romance and personal identity in car design and manufacture, let alone the simple work ethic or responsibility for product performance, has gone the way of full-service gas stations. The PT Crusier is a good step in the right direction, but only a step. It'll take years for it to establish a quality reputation distinct from it's parent "brand", if that distinction exists.<P>If today there was a Plymouth on the market that looked like the new Hyundais, and was as reliable as the new Hondas, they'd be selling like '64 Mustangs. <P>But that's too much work. <p>[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Guest]

Hi Dave,<BR>You're right, DCX probably doesn't care whether I buy a '97 or '98 used car. But that takeover really ticked me off, so I'm not buying a DCX car even if I'm the only one who cares. <P>I also avoid GM because of some quality control issues I've had with my last several GM cars. It'll take a pretty good deal to put me in another GM for a while. (I know I'll probably get a lot of people telling me how their GMs are great, which is probably true, but nevertheless two out of the last three GM vehicles I've owned were assembled by monkeys, and I don't like those odds.)<P>It's hard to find cars today that are affordable, assembled reasonably well, and possess some spirit. <P>Bry