INCP--Dodge Dynasty/Chrysler Imperial
Inappropriately Named Chrysler Products week lurches to a close ...
On the roster of Inappropriately Named Chrysler Products, the Dodge Dynasty/Chrysler Imperial is perhaps the most decorated member. Managing at once to be both offensive to the eyes and boring--a remarkable combination, since most ugly cars find a way to be endearing--the Dynasty/Imperial is a worst-of-all-worlds nightmare, an automotive Frankenstein that isn't even scary enough to be interesting.
Using Chrysler K-car econobox mechanicals originating in the early 1980s, wrapping them in overwrought 1970s personal luxury cliches inside and out (witness the vinyl roof, useless upright hidden headlights, and tufted faux-leather pillowed seats), and trying to pass off the results as a 1990s luxury sedan, the Dynasty/Imperial is remarkable mostly for the cynicism with which it was made.
This isn't a screed against either K-car mechanicals or 1970s styling cliches. Nearly every Chrysler product for a decade or more was based off the K-car, and while most of those cars weren't great cars, they were at least somewhat interesting. Most were honest cars, appropriate for their time; and if turbocharged, many of them were fast. And when it comes to the 1970s, there's nobody who appreciates a big, blocky, overwrought 1970s cruiser more than I do.
But the combination of squishy economy car platform, gutless engines, and faux-luxury touches on a small-car palette--especially in an age in which cars with real performance and handling were beginning to emerge--results in an ugly, boring, small car with nothing to recommend it.
All of this results in in some serious naming syntax error. Imperial had been an incredibly proud name, describing some of the finest Chrysler iron made in previous decades. This Imperial, however, was decidedly plebian. But while the Imperial was a dynastic name--though sadly mistreated to end its stellar multi-decade run--the Dynasty, puzzlingly enough, wasn't. That name was only around for this car's (thankfully) brief product run.
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on February 18, 2008 at 06:39 AM
I always thought the name "Dynasty" was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the Joan Collins soap opera.
Mochi Mochi on February 19, 2008 at 02:15 PM
I think it would be interesting to at some point map or timeline automotive successes and failures along side auto manufacturer management changes, and social trends. I'd like to see how the "who's in who's out" of management aligns with either auto-excellence or clueless failure - or perhaps even a little deeper insight into the dynasties of management style and goals. Looking at the trends of different decades has to tell you something. The 60's - especially the late 60's seemed to mark a high point in US auto design that really has never been equalled. At the time there was a war and vast social upheaval and change. 10 years later we had disco and cars became anemic pimpmobiles. A few more years go by and we have Ronald Reagan in office, the Iran Contra Affair, trickle down economics, and the Dynasty/Imperial. I think there's a lot to the thinking that architecture and automobiles act as reflections of our society, and over time they become the vessels that capture the social trends of the times in which they were designed.