The Chrysler Phaeton Concept Car Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Two-Tone Champagne Pearl Chrysler Corporation, which has been a world leader in automotive design during the past several years, generally makes its biggest splash of the year at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Those of us whose business it is to cover the industry have learned to expect a veritable fleet of exciting concept cars from them at that venue — with no concept too wild for their ingenious efforts to somehow render plausible. For us, the hit of this year's show was the Chrysler Phaeton, which we have also chosen as the cover car for this month's issue. It is simply a knock-out. The Phaeton is all the more intriguing because of Chrysler's checkered career in the luxury end of the market. Traditionally, the company has sold lots of low-priced and medium-priced cars, but has never able to establish a secure foothold at the high end. Chrysler launched the Imperial as long ago as 1926. As the beautiful 1932 Custom Imperial dual cowl phaeton shown below amply demonstrates, some of the early products bearing that nameplate were extraordinary. After the Airflow debacle (1934), however, the Imperial was allowed to languish without much attention or many customers for a number of years. In the mid-1950s, a major effort was made to re-launch it as a separate brand. Some success was achieved at first, but the 1957 be-finned Imperials were the high watermark and after that sales dwindled to the vanishing point by 1975. There were two unsuccessful attempts to jump-start the brand in 1981 and 1990, but without much luck. (We will be merciful and not dwell upon the Chrysler TC by Maserati, a car that holds the singular distinction of having tarnished the reputations of not one but TWO car companies.) Curiously, Ford has had a similar problem, with the Ford and Lincoln brands successfully competing at the ends of the price spectrum, but tough sledding in the middle. Of the three medium- priced brands Ford has launched over the years, the Lincoln-Zephyr (1936-48) was only a limited success, the Edsel (1958-60) was a spectacular flop, and the Mercury, which first saw the light of day in 1938 as a 1939 model, struggled for thirty years before it really hit its stride. The lesson, it would appear, is that it is devilishly difficult to become a truly full-range car company with major impact all across the spectrum. At the Chrysler LH press preview several years back, we were told by company officials that an Imperial based on the Chrysler LHS would be announced in a year or two. Recently we were told that the design had, indeed, been completed, but had never gained the go-ahead for production. We can certainly understand the ambivalence of Chrysler executives toward the luxury market, especially in view of the cost of introducing a new product these days. Considering Chrysler's record in competing in the stratosphere, the fellows in Auburn Hills who count the beans must turn pale at the very thought of spending good money on yet another attempt. Still, if there were a way to justify a production version of the Phaeton, we wish they would try because a car such as this could be the one that finally puts Chrysler over the top at the top. In a nutshell, the idea behind the Phaeton was to create a modern classic, and the Phaeton scores a direct hit on both counts. It borrows heavily from classic design motifs, such as the dual cowls, and still manages to be aggressively modern. Most such attempts end up looking as if a few stereotypical classic elements had been bolted willy-nilly onto an otherwise contemporary car, resulting in an unconvincing mish-mash of conflicting styles. What is so astonishing about the Phaeton is that it deftly avoids all of these traps. The Phaeton WORKS as a design, with every line, every motif, every bit of ornamentation re-enforcing the unity of the whole. Interesting features abound. For starters, the hard top retracts completely into the rear deck, much in the manner of the Ford Skyliner (1957-59). The idea of combining a hard top and a convertible in one car has been around a long time — Peugeot had a production model of this type in the 1930s — but complexity and cost are the inevitable drawbacks when production is seriously considered. The dual cowl is another idea that has a certain appeal, although the last actual production example from a major manufacturer pre-dates World War II. As was de rigeur with dual cowl designs, the Phaeton features full instrumentation for the rear compartment. This is so that back seat passengers can be kept in a constant state of terror by seeing precisely how fast they are going, etc. — all the while being unable to do a darned thing about it. At least in the Phaeton the second windshield is electrically retractable, so that the driver can be smacked smartly on the back of the head if he gets TOO far out of line. (Note: the second windshield is shown in its retracted position in our photos.) We were also impressed with the elegant way the classic-era boat tail design motif was worked into the Phaeton. This is another style that was popular in the 1930s, and the Phaeton goes the classics one better. It boasts not only a boat tail, but a boat snout, for the front end repeats the theme. Well done. The Phaeton sits on an imposing 132-inch wheelbase and it is powered by a 5.4-liter, 48-valve V12 powerplant rated at 425 horsepower. (It was worth the price of the trip to Detroit to be able to hear the erotic throb of that V12.) Suspension components were reportedly filched from the Dodge Viper parts bin, proving the wisdom of what dear old dad used to say: If you're going to steal, steal the best. The exterior color scheme is two-tone Champagne Pearl. The upholstery is a combination of cream and brown leather. Zebrano wood is used on the instrument panels, fore and aft, and on other trim pieces, as well. The overall effect is modern, elegant, and sumptuously luxurious. It is probably too much to hope that we will ever see a car such as the Chrysler Phaeton in actual production. But, we can dream, can't we? R&D