• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Why did Chrysler hate Plymouth so?

Cojohnso1

Well-Known Member
Local time
7:52 AM
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
3,973
Reaction score
3,792
Location
Minnesota
I have pondered this question in the past. Starting with the first generation hemis? None were available to any Plymouth. Even when Fury was carrying the intermediate market for Chrysler. Even in the "Hey day" of the muscle car era. When Plymouth was not only dominating the drag strip. But Nascar too. Plymouth was always last in Chrysler's future plans.

I bring this up because I have an opportunity to participate or buy a 1999 Plymouth Prawler project. We believe the last year Plymouth Prawler made in the US. (Chrysler took over Prawler for 2000. Thus they knew Plymouth's demise in 1999?) Researching, the highest performance engine available to Prawler was the EGG 3.5 6cyl. Not a terrible engine. But certainly underpowered for a classified sports car? The transmission selection and design is less than ideal. Putting the transmission that far from the engine all but eliminated any chance of a manual transmission option? (Certainly a reasonable cost option.) With car being a roadster? There is room for alternative engine setup. So much for Chrysler's claims engineers had "Free reign?" I'm not seeing?

I think im going to pass on the build. The car looks neat. And was a cool (But risky) idea with the Prawler? But this sure looks like the suits talked their way out of any success story for this platform? And perhaps Plymouth as a whole?
 
The 3.5 was the only engine ever offered in the Prowler (note the correct spelling of the name)-
and that was the case from the onset of the introduction of the car.
Yes, that probably cost them some sales for sure, but it still was a capable performer and that
would have been the case no matter what divisions' showrooms wound up offering the car.

As far as your assertion that Chrysler "hated" Plymouth goes, that's a bit of a stretch.
You refer to the 50's - well, from the onset of the Plymouth division, Chrysler always positioned Plymouth
as their "economy" or "entry level" division, much the same way as GM positioned Chevrolet and
Ford positioned - well, Ford (versus Lincoln or Mercury).
With that came certain limitations as to what equipment was offered in them, in order to keep costs
down and competitive - and the pecking order went up in classes from there all the way to Imperial.

Of course, by the mid-60's, you could get the same drivetrains in Plymouths as you could in Dodges....
 
The answer to your question lies in product marketing hierarchy and how it changed over time. The concept was to start at the low cost field and move up within the different divisions over time to the high cost car.

Chevy-Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac
Ford-Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln
Plymouth-Dodge-DeSoto-Chrysler-Imperial

Then you have to consider the level within the particular make.

Over time you've seen this concept evolve where unsuccessful (DeSoto Edsel) and redundant (Olds, Pontiac and Mercury) brands go away.

Plymouth was the entry level car designed to be the lowest cost. Therefore loading up a Plymouth with high(er) cost items like first generation hemis when lower cost assemblies were available didn't make any sense. Adding extra cost items like moldings increased the price. A Plymouth was designed to be low cost transportation.
 
The difference? GM treated Chevy much more favorably. It's not even a fair comparison? Ford? I still have a hard time figuring out their thought process. I do tip my hat to the devoted Ford guys. The whole "Engine family" thing makes sence to them. As well as Fords very late entry to aftermarket efforts. But still willing to make work at even higher costs.
 
I think many people make the mistake of thinking that the car companies worked emotionally which they did not, they did everything based on revenue generation. The key was/is "spend less make more" and Chrysler certainly was not immune to this thinking. Car companies ceased being run by "car" people many decades ago. If Chrysler "hated" Plymouth back in the day they would have killed it off like Desoto; but that said the "hate" was not emotional in the way we personally think of hate, it was business hate; meaning something cost too much to make and didn't make enough in return.
 
I think many people make the mistake of thinking that the car companies worked emotionally which they did not, they did everything based on revenue generation. The key was/is "spend less make more" and Chrysler certainly was not immune to this thinking. Car companies ceased being run by "car" people many decades ago. If Chrysler "hated" Plymouth back in the day they would have killed it off like Desoto; but that said the "hate" was not emotional in the way we personally think of hate, it was business hate; meaning something cost too much to make and didn't make enough in return.
You're right. "Hate" is WAY too strong of word. And obviously coming from emotions.
 
Their is a guy up here in Ontario that has been putting 5.7 Hemi's in Prowlers. He displayed a couple of them at London, Ontario Autorama a couple of years ago. I didn't get his name or location, though.
 
Petty was a Plymouth Man way before he was a Dodge man
Chrysler lured him back into a Plymouth with the Superbird
they would have had him in a Dodge way earlier if they
'hated Plymouth'

not that that means anything, but part of history

but;
I also highly doubt it's because
Chrysler hated the Plymouth brand
IMO;
Chrsler, it was bought/invested in & merged into by other companies
damn near bankrupted a couple of times, went thru hard times,
several different managements etc.
I think that was more of the deciding factors it the Plymouth Brand
actually going away...

It was the accountants & the bean counters that killed off Plymouth
solely a financial decision

just like Olds & Pontiac or Mercury & Edsel
 
I find that funny that you say Chrysler hated Plymouth. I thought that Chrysler hated Mopar because they said NO, NO, NO to installing a 426 Hemi in what would've been the 300M in 66, or any other Chrysler labeled car. But what do I know?
 
I'm also guessing that Plymouth was taking sales from Dodge. Which would have been counter productive. It's
I find that funny that you say Chrysler hated Plymouth. I thought that Chrysler hated Mopar because they said NO, NO, NO to installing a 426 Hemi in what would've been the 300M in 66, or any other Chrysler labeled car. But what do I know?
L
Lol. You might be on to something? It's "Mopar" Chrysler hates?
 
I think that it wasn't anything internal to Chrysler, but had more to do with "1998 the merger of equals", which was a crock of ****! In other words, it was Daimler-Benz already gutting the company after they got hold of it. They milked every last penny they could as soon as they could. They dumped dozens of Chrysler engineers and cut the company to the bone. Anything Chrysler wanted to do was altered and or cut. If I had money, I would buy a top of the line Mercedes and set it on fire while I roast hot dogs over the flames. Scumbags! :icon_fU:
 
Their is a guy up here in Ontario that has been putting 5.7 Hemi's in Prowlers. He displayed a couple of them at London, Ontario Autorama a couple of years ago. I didn't get his name or location, though.
Yep, and of course people have been doing that to (ugh) PT Barnum, errr, I mean Cruisers for years now.
It's sort of our version of "swap an LS in it!" the bowtie idjits do...
 
I think that it wasn't anything internal to Chrysler, but had more to do with "1998 the merger of equals", which was a crock of ****! In other words, it was Daimler-Benz already gutting the company after they got hold of it. They milked every last penny they could as soon as they could. They dumped dozens of Chrysler engineers and cut the company to the bone. Anything Chrysler wanted to do was altered and or cut. If I had money, I would buy a top of the line Mercedes and set it on fire while I roast hot dogs over the flames. Scumbags! :icon_fU:
Correct. Daimler bought Chrysler to flip it - and in typical corporate maneuvers these days, they stripped it
down to barely operational so that margins looked good on the quarterly spreadsheets.
Of course, when corporations do that, they typically leave a company behind that's barely functional and dying on the vine...
and so did that next holding company, for that matter.

For all we know, Peugot/Fiat/whateverthefluck is doing that again as we speak.
 
Yeah and companies buy others cuz they have ONE brand they want ownership of and not or not so much the others...AMC/JEEP anyone?
 
I believe Mergers and Acquisitions is the culprit of the fall of the middle class. This is what dried up small industrial business starting long before big foreign market influences. If one owns a factory? It's yours. Do as you will. But once you brought the company public? You already sold the company's sole. But the bean counters found another way? Corporate mergers. (Actually more what Moparedtn was referring. Cherry pick and liquidate the competition.) I have trouble naming even one publicly traded company merger that benefitted labor and/or the economy as a whole? I can name one breakup that had huge benefits? AT&T.

It's why I favor a scaled corporate tax structure. If Citizens United says "Corporations are people too?" Then let's put that to the test. Corporations on the same tax structure as the rest of us? Ma & Pa small business would love it. Instead of the current 26% flat rate? 12% on the first $200k of net profit. Scaling up to top 37% for the top dogs. (Which they don't even come close to paying with their loopholes. "Offshore tax havens #1") Eliminate or at least restructure that? And now we are on to something? This would give incentive to breakup corporate structure to smaller entities.

I know this got WAY off track. But we keep pointing our fingers to other countries. When we are still the 600lb gorilla. China? There are a number of ways to slap their influence back.
 
Yep, and of course people have been doing that to (ugh) PT Barnum, errr, I mean Cruisers for years now.
It's sort of our version of "swap an LS in it!" the bowtie idjits do...
Don't down my PT Cruiser Ed.
20181121_144753.jpg

It's quicker than than a Hemi. Oops.... it is a Hemi.
 
Some of the stuff that Chrysler came up with while under Daimler was incredible. Check out the Chrysler ME412 and the Dodge Tomahawk, they were for an obviously tiny market but were amazing as well as some of their other concepts. I think I may have come on a bit strong but the whole engulf & devouer business model is what forced me out of the best job I ever had.
 
There was no hate, for sure. Just clever marketing.... As others have pointed out Plymouth was the economy line..... and the marketing told us many times "Plymouths can get it done, for less!!!"

1969 Motor Trend Car of the Year: The Plymouth Road Runner | Fossil Cars Blog

Old car ads | For A Bodies Only Mopar Forum ***Note*** These ads are stating the muscle cars we love so much now were half the cost of a Chrysler of the era!
I give Chrysler a reprieve on their letter cars. Some of them are works of art. And I wouldn't tackle a tough restoration on one of them if its all I had to do? That much metal and folds. The details? Let alone finding the performance parts for those big wedges?
 
Personally I think Daimler actually allowed Chrysler to move ahead. Sure they may have fired a bunch of people but that is very normal during a merger. People forget that Cerberus owned Chrysler for awhile and didn't do them any favors, at lease Daimler further things like the SRT line.

I don't know for sure but I am willing to bet that if one were able to really study Chrysler's financials going back 20-30 years or so you would find a lot waste, misspent funds and a general lack of fiscal responsibility much like most large corporations.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top