Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure

News:

  • Home
  • Help
  • Chat
  • Login
  • Register

    • « previous next »
    Pages: [1] 2

    Author Topic: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure  (Read 5049 times)

    Offline zerfetzen

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 393
    • 'Cuda, should'a, would'a...you lost.
    Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « on: December 03, 2006 - 07:12:14 AM »
    We all know that Mopar ruled the strip, and also that everybody and their brother owned a Ford/Chevy.  Why?  What's your theory?
    Logged


    Offline Carlwalski

    • C-C.com Expert
    • ********
    • Posts: 20672
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #1 on: December 03, 2006 - 07:49:06 AM »


    More brand-X cars were made. Thousands upon thousands of Mustangs, heaps of Chevelles, tonnes of Camaros etc......I didn't think Ma Mopars sales were "that" bad?  ??? They should have done well if they stuck to the business motto - "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" as referred to the races both oval and drag.


     :2cents:
    Logged
    1970 Dodge Challenger R/T
    White, License Plate, 0A-5599
    540ci Aluminium Hemi, F.A.S.T EFI
    TF-727 Gear Vendor OD, Dana 60

    Offline hemi71

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 2426
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #2 on: December 03, 2006 - 08:16:58 AM »
    Quote from: zerfetzen on December 03, 2006 - 07:12:14 AM
    We all know that Mopar ruled the strip, and also that everybody and their brother owned a Ford/Chevy.  Why?  What's your theory?

    You have to go back to the early fifties...when Mopar was #2 in sales and passed ford...but then the decision was made to stay with a high roofline car...while GM and Ford updated their designs and Ford retook 2nd place in sales and never looked back. People are creatures of habit...you buy what you are used to, you buy what your father bought, etc... so the die was set. Also, Mopars were always known for their engineering, not neccissarily for their styling (especially true in the early 60's) To most people, they care about how a car looks, not how it performs.

    My father was a Mopar guy, so now I am...just the way it seems to go. I know there are exceptions.
    Logged

    Offline BIGSHCLUNK

    • Sr. Resident
    • ******
    • Posts: 9341
    • Miss NIKKI - were you this hot at 48?
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #3 on: December 03, 2006 - 09:48:45 AM »
    ever heard this... "Just another tinny Dodge"  and I gotta admit my Pontiac (The Big Girl) is alot more solid than my Chally (Miss NIKKI)  :2cents: I also had a 69 Buick and got 2 friends w 442's 67 and 71, my statement holds true.   :stirpot: Granted the mopars were made to GGGOOOOOOOOO! But the non performance models were fuggin ugly IMO  :bigsmile:
    Logged
    70 Chally R/T Convertible- Yes she's really got a HEMI, no she's not a Charger!
                                                 [o o o o]
                                                      OO
                                                      OO 
                                                  [o o o o]
    https://www.aanddtruckautoparts.com/
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/A-D-Truck-and-Auto-Parts/67427352555?ref=hl

    Offline ESGEE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1448
    • 1970 Challenger RT/SE
      • SG´s site
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #4 on: December 03, 2006 - 05:24:34 PM »
    To get a Mopar you sometime have to pass throu cheap s... :bigsmile:
    Logged
    70 Challenger RT/SE(Looking for 383 Magnum N0B196875)
    70 Challenger RT/SE(Looking for 383 Magnum N0B115166)
    70 Challenger SE(RT/SE clone)
    69 Charger RT/SE 4speed Trackpac
    70 Charger 500

    Offline 71chally383R/T

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 102
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #5 on: December 03, 2006 - 06:45:59 PM »
    by 1966 1,000,000 mustangs had been made thats why
    Logged

    Offline SilverChally

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1105
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #6 on: December 04, 2006 - 01:09:02 AM »
    Brand loyalty, my great grandfather owned a chrysler dealership and we've been mopar since and before that really... how could I not love mopars when I was around road runners and challengers all my life!  Also as much as I hate to admit it, look at cars over the years, the gto body style in the mid 60s, more 66-67, then road runners came out in 68 with similar styling, pony cars obviously, some call dusters novas as they are similarly styled also.  I just think they were a few years behind back then in the styling department, horsepower wasn't a problem.  However today they are a ahead imo, chevy/ford kind of leaned towards dodge's styling, minivans were started by chrysler, and manyn more. 
    Logged
    70 challenger project
    68 satellite

    Offline torredcuda

    • Sr. Resident
    • ******
    • Posts: 6218
    • Epping NH joined 11/23/03
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #7 on: December 04, 2006 - 07:24:10 AM »
    Chrysler biult some good cars in the early 60`s but thier styling was er-questionable(ugly) and definitly not mainstream.Maybe it`s all Virgil Exners fault!  :stirpot:
    Logged
    Jeff
    72 Barracuda 340/4spd  Torred
    70 roadrunner 383/auto  In-Violet
    70 Duster 360/auto drag car  (Petty Blue soon)
    04 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi

    Offline Bullitt-

    • Permanent Resident
    • *******
    • Posts: 12167
    • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #8 on: December 04, 2006 - 07:50:43 AM »
    What I remember from the late sixties & early seventies is that Chrysler products were thought of as lighter weight, i.e. not as well built. One knock was no frame, the unibody was not well thought of, then Ma came out with Electronic ignition and the masses thought that would have problems. Then came the eighties & the K-car, which didn't make any fans and all the financial issues which scares the masses away, the only thing that kept Chrysler alive was the introduction of the minivan. My Dad, who has been a Mopar Fan from the fifties, says that Chrysler often introduced technology ahead of the other makes and the public generally looks upon anything new or different with skepticism.
    Logged
    Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
    Screwed by Photobucket!

    Offline SilverChally

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1105
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #9 on: December 04, 2006 - 02:16:36 PM »
    How do they rank up in sells today?  Sounds like ford and chevy were really down, at least profit wise.  I know its not my dads or however you want to put it chrysler... but I like the direction they have gone, with the new hemi's, retro challenger and so on.
    Logged
    70 challenger project
    68 satellite

    Offline zerfetzen

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 393
    • 'Cuda, should'a, would'a...you lost.
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #10 on: December 06, 2006 - 08:12:25 AM »
    I wonder if pricing was a problem?  I saw on Nadaguides.com that the price of a 1970 base mustang was about $2,800, and about the same for a 1970 base camaro, but a 1970 base challenger was about $3,000.  It looks the same with the 2008 pricing, eh?  The new mustang will be quite a bit cheaper than the challenger.   :hyper:
    Logged

    Offline BIGSHCLUNK

    • Sr. Resident
    • ******
    • Posts: 9341
    • Miss NIKKI - were you this hot at 48?
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006 - 04:39:13 PM »
    zerf's got a good point. $200 was alot bigger MONEY in 1970 than it is now  :dunno:
    Logged
    70 Chally R/T Convertible- Yes she's really got a HEMI, no she's not a Charger!
                                                 [o o o o]
                                                      OO
                                                      OO 
                                                  [o o o o]
    https://www.aanddtruckautoparts.com/
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/A-D-Truck-and-Auto-Parts/67427352555?ref=hl

    Offline MEK-Dangerfield

    • C-C.com Expert
    • ********
    • Posts: 20946
    • I don't get NO respect! Member since 1/25/2002
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #12 on: December 06, 2006 - 04:54:11 PM »
    Quote from: BIGSHCLUNK on December 06, 2006 - 04:39:13 PM
    zerf's got a good point. $200 was alot bigger MONEY in 1970 than it is now  :dunno:

       :iagree:

    ... And the new Mustang will be cheaper than the new Challenger. Does anyone see history repeating itself?  :dunno:


      Mike
    Logged

    Mike

    1970 Challenger - SOLD
    2016 SXT+.  1 of 524 SXT+'s in Plumb-crazy for 2016.

    Offline torredcuda

    • Sr. Resident
    • ******
    • Posts: 6218
    • Epping NH joined 11/23/03
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #13 on: December 06, 2006 - 04:58:19 PM »
     :iagree: How many Hemi cars were sold back then?What if they only sold Hemi cudas and Challengers-they sure wouldn`t have sold many of them?DC are you listening?
    Logged
    Jeff
    72 Barracuda 340/4spd  Torred
    70 roadrunner 383/auto  In-Violet
    70 Duster 360/auto drag car  (Petty Blue soon)
    04 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi

    Offline Lunchbox

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1948
    Re: Why Mopar was a racing success and dealership failure
    « Reply #14 on: December 06, 2006 - 05:10:23 PM »
    Quote from: BIGSHCLUNK on December 06, 2006 - 04:39:13 PM
    zerf's got a good point. $200 was alot bigger MONEY in 1970 than it is now  :dunno:

    According to my trusty inflation calculator it would be...

    What cost $200 in 1970 would cost $1007.58 in 2005.
    Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1970,
    they would cost you $200 and $39.70 respectively.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »