When was Chrysler founded?
Chrysler was created in 1924, according to the official histories. But when was Chrysler really started?
Chrysler itself, as a corporate entity, was indeed created then. But it was merely a name change for the existing Maxwell-Chalmers; even the new Plymouth was a revised Maxwell. The Chrysler car was new, but the popular Plymouth was a revamped Maxwell-Chalmers car.
If you look at the family tree produced around 1960-61, you can see that Chrysler goes back to 1894. That’s right, 1894, in the 19th century, even before Fiat. 1894 is when Electroboat was created; it would become, in succession, Ricker Electric, Columbia Electric, Columbia-Knight, and U.S. Motor Company before becoming Maxwell Motor Company, joining with Chalmers, and being taken over by turnaround artist Walter P. Chrysler, who put his name on top… and then invented a new name for the company’s most popular carline.
(Chalmers itself was a 1908 invention baseed on Chalmers-Detroit and Thomas-Detroit of 1907, based on Stoddard-Dayton-Knight, based on Stoddard-Dayton, based on 1904′s Dayton.) Maxwell’s other roots include Courier (1904), Brush (1907), Maxwell-Briscoe (1904), and Alden-Sampsen (1904). And that’s not even going into the AMC branch, which started with Jefferys, whose first automobile was completed in 1895, with the Rambler line of cars created in 1897. Jeffery started mass producing cars in 1898, using the assembly line after Ransom Olds, but before Henry Ford.
(See histories of some of these Chrysler antecedents at http://www.allpar.com/history/)
It is an interesting “reach” back to the DNA sort of line up, if we truly need to go back that far. Of course, it is understandable that we would have to “trace” the ultimate origins, else the actual vehicles, such as Chrysler, might not exist! Which would raise the philosophical issue, if one small item of history were changed, would it not signicantly alter history in total? Presents a vexing situation to those that subscribe to time travel, both backward and forward! If then Columbia-Knight did not exist, would it have become Maxwell? Or Chalmers? Thereby perhaps negating the formation of Chrysler itself? Fortunately, we are not quite at that point where time is such an issue. To my Star Trek enlistees, (yes I am one) we already know the answers! LOL!
They darn well better do another movie to restore Vulcan … this “alternative reality” where a billion people die so they can avoid continuity is annoying…
Hmmm,
Interesting but not funny.
The more interesting is when, like many family trees, will the Chrysler name become so diluted amongst the various branches that is has entirely lost its heritage? Or has that already occurred? Has the true Chrysler gone the way of “old Chrysler”? Or maybe with the Cerberus takeover? Or Daimler?
Somehow it doesn’t feel at all the same to me. Maybe the Ram was the last straw for my camel.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Viper is reincarnated as a world beater pure sports car like the Viper GTS there will be a new life for Chrysler. All the Vipers have been world beaters but the GTS-R did it in international racing for several seasons. That is Dodge (and Chrysler) performance of old. Not sugar coated, just pure tire shredding, curve straightening, Corvette and Ferrari beating POWER! Maybe throw in some neat concepts like the Chrysler Chronos, Atlantic or the Firepower.
And really, the prototype for the Challenger was built back on 1994 as the Venom (not the best name but…). Change the grill a bit and build it smaller and lighter than the current neat looking but out-dated-when-built model and the sales wouldn’t be falling in the face of the ugliest-ever Camaro and the old stand-by, nothing new here, Mustang. Face it, the competition is all not that great, weak even, but it’s kicking the Challengers butt.
Alas, it took Germany three tries, but for Chrysler at least, maybe the krauts finally succeeded in for their quest for total annihilation.
Interesting ideas. I think the Viper racing program did give alot of credibility to Chrysler, and was certainly in keeping with the racing heritage of the company, going back to the earliest days of Chrysler corp. It’s something that might serve the company well in the future. I think the NASCAR teams, that have been strong lately, are also something that do much more good than a pure cost/benefit analysis might reveal.
Chronos, Firepower, Atlantic had the potential to bring glamour that is missing from the Chrysler brand lineup today. Image is everything for selling cars. Chrysler got its start by better engineering–but that was backed up by styling (arguably the first “styled” cars were Chryslers) and marketing. And while marketing for 300 has imporved greatly under Fiat, the Chrysler brand still remains adrift. Just what is a “Chrysler?” Is it the 300? But then you have the PT and the base models of the Sebring, and base T&C’s. I really hope the replacement for the Sebring (2011) will live up to Marchionne’s promise that it is so new it needs a new name. The photos I’ve seen so far don’t seem to move the model upmarket nearly enough. It will be a good car, certainly, but will it have the presence to compete with LaCrosse, ES350, or even Sonota?
Looking all the way back to Maxwell is important–it shows how good engineering, quality, and styling can turn a failing company into one of the world’s best. That is what Walter P Chrysler did in the 1920′s. It can be done again. However, throwing away heritage is not the way to go about it. That’s why RAM is a mistake and is confusing buyers. Mercedes-Benz brags about the ninth generation E-class and shows its old models in the ads. Fiat changes the brand to “RAM” and asks consumers to forget everything they’ve come to know about “Dodge” trucks. It defies good marketing and salesmanship. I’m not sure Fiat knows what to do with Dodge and Chrysler. But history shows what they can be: Dodge can be a true competitor to Chevrolet, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai. it just needs appealing mid-size sedans and compacts (the 2011 Charger is very impressive and shows what they can do with styling, interiors). Yet, they seem to want to make it a boutique brand, more of a Pontiac or Scion. Chrysler can be the “Lexus” of the 2015′s. Yet, Fiat seems to want to make it the Lancia of the 1980′s and 1990′s–quirky and pretentious, but not competitive. Someone needs to examine how Chrysler fell from being mentioned in the same sentence as Cadillac, Packard, Mercedes-Benz, etc.–it was when they started adding chrome and padded roofs to a Plymouth and called it a Chrysler. it was when they changed the badging on Plymouth Voyagers to “Chrysler.” Cadillac once rebadged a Cavalier and expected buyers to fall for it–yet they, eventually, understood and corrected the problem. I don’t see Fiat doing that, even though truly great Chryslers can only help Fiat. It can only help them to actually be able to compete with Lexus in the US, and Audi in Europe. Currently they do neither. Lancia is no competitor to Audi. But they replaced the one man that dared suggest Chrysler could compete with Cadillac.
Maybe by default, they have two brands so they’ll make Dodge and Chrysler like KIA and Hyundai–slightly different cars competing in the same price class). I hope I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Oh, and a lighter replacement of the Challenger would be nice. As much as I love the Chally, retro can’t last forever, and GM says they’ll make the next Camaro lighter. Venom was cool.
A “family tree” without Willys, which goes back to 1901?
That’s a family tree from 1960 or so. Willys wasn’t part of the tree at that time. Hudson and Nash aren’t there, either.