One difference in the time period when I grew up and the present time is this: When I was growing up, the auto manufacturers dictated the taste in cars to the consumer,; now the consumers dictate their tastes to the auto industry. Unfortunately, GM, Ford and Chrysler are still back in the old days
One example was the fins that Virgil Exner designed into the Chrysler line in 1956. I don’t think consumers were begging for these finned monstrosities. I think today’s consumers demand function over form. As a 6’ 2" teenager, I found a 1959 Studebaker Lark much more f comfortable to drive than a 1959 Plymouth. I also thought the Studebaker was a better looking car. Yet, the Studebaker didn’t make it while other manufacturers survived. Now we see the Toyota Corolla doing well while less functional cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler aren’t making the grade.
This the reason for aluminum and steel tariffs. The industries are vital to national security and can’t be created in a short time if war breaks out. The same is true of natural gas and oil.
The island of Japan had no natural resources and attacked Pearl Harbor so they could capture oil reserves in SE Asia to expand their domination of China, Korea and the rest of East Asia. Aircraft carriers use a LOT of fuel. Japan only had one chance to break the US. Fortunately, they failed.
Yeah the old adage if you’re going to try to kill the king, make sure you succeed on the first try. Swing and a miss-oh oh. Timeless.
Let us not forget their sturdy Powerflite transmission, which became available for the 1954 model year.
While it only had two speeds, that was not a real impediment when competing with Chevy’s 2-speed Powerglide. And, although Torqueflite was available on many models as of '57, many buyers of Plymouths and Dodges continued to specify the cheaper Powerflite until it was discontinued in 1961.
@VDCdriver. I agree with you about the PowerFlyte transmission. Had Chrysler had that transmission in 1951, the Saratoga with the V-8 hemispherical combustion engine might have been considered a muscle car. The Saratoga was on the smaller Windsor Chassis, but had the powerful New Yorker V-8 engine. The “lift and clunk” transmission really limited the performance for most people.
My parents had a 1952 Dodge coupe with the Gyromatic “lift and clunk” and the flathead 6. I preferred to drive that Dodge on a date rather than the 1954 Buick that my parents owned that had a V-8 engine and a standard transmission. I could steer the Dodge with my left hand and didn’t have to worry about shifting gears. The bench seat allowed my girlfriend, Little Iodine, to sit next to me with my arm around her.
Ah yes, the advantages of an automatic with column shift lever AND bench seating
Now even some of the regular cab pickup trucks have floor mounted automatic shift lever AND bucket seats
A little harder to do what you described 
The one thing that I did like about the 1957 and later Chrysler products was the torsion bar front suspension. This really reduced the lean when cornering compared with cars that had the conventional coil springs. The moonshine runners liked these 1957 and later Chrysler products for their handling on curving mountain roads as they eluded the revenuers.
… until they snapped because of improper manufacturing. In 1959, a friend of my brother bought a beautiful black & white 2-door '57 Chrysler New Yorker. He loved the way that the car accelerated and cornered–until he had to traverse a somewhat-rough RR crossing. Both torsion bars snapped simultaneously, and he came to a very abrupt stop as his car bottomed-out on the pavement.
Were, not are. GM started paying attention to consumers about 15 years ago with the Malibu. Quality has improved a lot, with Buick routinely listed as one of the highest reliability brands. Toyota and Honda didn’t stand still, and there is still plenty of room for improvement. Customers asked for a diesel. You can get one in the Cruze and Equinox. Chrysler has the only hybrid minivan. It gets 32 mpg average without plugging it in. 32 city/highway in a minivan!
Last year the US produced 81.6 million tons of steel. The US imported 31.4 million tons. The bad guys, Russia and China, accounted for only 3 million tons. Where did the rest come from? Most comes from Canada, followed by Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico. They account for 50% of steel imports. Japan, Germany and Taiwan provide 12% of imports. That is 62% of imported steel coming from our best friends. Are tariffs aimed at our friends or others? It seems these tariffs are meant to punish our friends, and I wonder what sense that makes. It looks like good theater to me, and not good policy.
Really . . . ?
We have a few Malibus of that vintage in our fleet
They don’t strike me as high quality vehicle
Much lower build quality, compared to Honda and Toyota
@Mustangman The devil is always in the details. The USA consumes and chucks out enough aluminum cans to rebuild the entire domestic airline fleet over FOUR Times each year. Most of those cans are recycled. So, aluminum is hardly a strategic material!!! Those soda and beer cans used to be either glass, steel, or plastic, none of which are strategic materials.
Trump insulted Canadians with these so-called “strategic” materials tariffs. Remember WW II when Canada was a supplier of many very strategic materials, including nickel of which 90% of the free world’s production came form several mines in Ontario, Canada. FDR never felt the need to “invade” Canada to secure these strategic materials. Canada had always been a strategic partner to the US.
A lot of uranium for the first nuclear bombs came from Canada and with Britain was a partner in is development.
Steel is a commodity, and hardly strategic. Many countries in the world export steel.
These tariffs are wildly unpopular around the world as well as with many businesses in the US. US consumers will see higher prices in many items as well.
Protectionism exacerbated the Great Depression, as many economists will testify. Trumps knowledge of history is either sparse or he ignores it.
If you doubt anything I’ve just said, please go see an economics professor and a reputable political science/history professor and get their opinion. .
The real villain, if their is one, is China. It wants world economic domination and has to kept in check lest it destroys some of our industries.
@jtsanders. The Chrysler Hybrid Pacifica minivan really appealed to me. I bought a new minivan last fall. However, I decided to stick with Toyota. I was concerned about buying a new design in its first year of production, particularly from Chrysler. Also, I hadn’t been able to negotiate with my local Chrysler dealer in the past, so I didn’t even consider the Pacifica Hybrid.
I have had Chrysler products as rentals and even though their vehicles weren’t what I wanted, they did the job. I rented s minivan and the agent asked if a Dodge Caravan would be o.k. I said that I would rather have a Duke Ellington Caravan but was informed that only Sophisticated Ladies could rent one. Another time, I rented an SUV and was given the keys to a Dodge Journey. When I asked if a Sentimental Journey was available, but was told it had already been rented by Doris Day. At any rate, even though I didn’t get the vehicles I wanted, I found both the Caravan and the Journey quite satisfactory.
The generation starting in MY2008 is when GM started paying attention to customers and trying to compete with Honda and Toyota. It took them a lot longer to get close. I’m sure not all GM brands have improved quality as much as Buick, the only brand I mentioned by name in conjunction with quality.
With respect to cars, GM is still asleep at the switch. However, Buick’s reputation is deserved; they sell more cars in China than in the US. This came as a complete surprise to my farmer brother in law who has driven Crown Vics and Buicks for the last 25 years.
Honda, Toyota and Hyundai have the ability to quickly innovate and improve their products. GM took forever to build a decent overhead cam 4 cylinder engine and the OHC V8s were a disaster, even though Cadillac (Standard of Excellence) designed it.
You conveniently left off my next line after the one you cherry picked to fit your argument mike.
Oh, I dunno. I loved the old finned looks. Those were the days when style ruled every other aspect of the cars. I especially like the way they created separate elements of the headlights and taillights on the '63 Imperial. I still think they were great looking designs.
I agree. I liked the fins and liked the designs. I probably liked the 57 Plymouth design the least but yeah, Imperial and Desoto I liked. But I liked GM and Ford designs then too except I didn’t like the 57 Chevy design. (Ducking as all the rotten tomatoes are thrown at me.)
I much preferred the 54 Chevy over the 57. I really was not a fan of the late fifty’s “batmobiles”. Over chromed and garish. I prefer simple and no-nonsense styling. As a kid, the first thing that came off of my bicycle was the faux gas tank, followed by the fenders and chain guard.
The art deco cars of the late '30s and early 40’s were better looking in my opinion.
You won’t have to dodge any rotten tomatoes from me, as I just don’t get the fuss over the '57 Chevy. Essentially, it was just a gussied-up version of the much more pure '55 & '56 Chevys, with some (IMHO) ridiculous additions, such as those faux rocket launchers in the hood.