Yep. Fisher is a division of GM. It has its roots in a coach building company that was founded more than 100 years ago. Back in the day they also built bodies for Hudson, Packard and a few others, but not Chrysler.
On Apr 28, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Ken Waller <kwal...@peoplepc.com> wrote: > 'Body by Fisher' was always associated with General Motors cars in my > experience. > >> Now, do you have some idea of how long I've existed? > > At least as long as me! > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Davis" <jdavi...@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. > > >> As I was growing up, actually not that far up, the mantra for all Chrysler >> products was they have a "Body by Fisher." >> That always resulted in head nodding and general agreement that was enough >> to recommend them. Them being, Plymouth, Dodge, >> DeSoto and Chrysler. >> Someone always had to add: "ya know, Fisher used to make fine buggy bodies." >> Now, do you have some idea of how long I've existed? >> >> Jack >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ken Waller" <kwal...@peoplepc.com> >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 12:43:48 PM >> Subject: Re: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. >> >> In my circles Chrysler has been known for many engineering break-throughs >> most of which fell short in the execution. >> >>> But please, let's not divert from the entertaining Leica bashing. :-) >>> it's somewhat closer to the supposed topic of this forum. >> >> And here I thought the supposed topic of this forum was Pentax ! >> >> Kenneth Waller >> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Colen" <l...@red4est.com> >> Subject: Fwd: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <godd...@me.com> >>> Subject: Re: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. >>> Date: April 27, 2014 at 1:52:14 PM PDT >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >>> >>> Far as I'm concerned, Paul, Chrysler was always a failure. Even worse crap >>> than GM. I'm glad the Italians control them now. >> >> MOPAR has made some winners and some losers. At 200,000 miles, many of >> which spent towing, my van is starting to show it’s age, but I bet it’ll >> still do a better job of towing your Mercedes than your Mercedes will do >> towing it. As to performance, it has probably turned a faster lap time at >> Thunderhill than your Mercedes ever has as well. With 360 God fearing all >> American cubic inches the mileage isn’t the best, but if I put in all of the >> seats and didn’t drive with a lead foot, I could probably get upwards of 130 >> passenger miles per gallon. >> >> Yeah, my tongue spent a bit of time in my cheek in the above paragraph, but >> every car company has strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that you like your >> car, that’s all that matters for you. The only car Mercedes has made in >> recent memory that has held any appeal to me is the Smart, but I’m not into >> luxobarges. On the other hand Chrysler made the Viper GTS, and until you’ve >> had eight liters of V10 pass you on the track at full song you simply cannot >> comprehend the concept of priapism in a can. >> >> Everyone in the automotive industry that I’ve heard or read has pretty much >> said what Paul did. Daimler came in, raped over Chrysler. When there seems >> to be a consensus among people who know more about the automotive industry >> than you do about Apple computers, I suspect that there might be something >> to what they say. I might not ask Paul for advice on which iPad to buy, but >> considering that he’s worked for both of the auto companies under >> discussion, I have a hunch that he’s not just blowing smoke out of his ass. >> >>> >>> And Audi is a brand-engineered VW. >> >> And Porsches are nothing but VWs with a hormone imbalance, or as I’ve heard >> them described “A really bad idea that has been meticulously perfected”. >> Even so, you might want to chat with John Buffum about Audis deficiencies. >> >>> >>> But please, let's not divert from the entertaining Leica bashing. :-) >>> it's somewhat closer to the supposed topic of this forum. >> >> I don’t think anyone has serious complaints with Leicas, just their prices >> and some of the people who own them. >> >> :-) >> >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh my! You do invent your own reality, don’t your? I was there when >>>> Daimler and Chrysler “merged," working on the Chrysler ad biz, so I’ll >>>> educate you. Chrysler never owend" Daimler. Eaton and the rest of >>>> Chrysler mangement sold out to Daimler for a huge amount of cash. >>>> Daimller was calling all the shots. Hell, they sent Dieter Zetsche, who >>>> is now Daimler CEO, here to run the Chrylser group. (Zetsche was a nice >>>> guy. We had a good time at Daytona when Dodge premiered in NASCAR, but >>>> his loyalty was definitely to the motherland.) At the time, Mercedes was >>>> not doing well, but Chrysler had 9 billion dollars in the bank. Daimler >>>> emptied Chrysler’s piggy bank in a matter of years, then left town, >>>> leaving a broke and decimated Chrylser behind. Cerebus dragged the >>>> carcass around for a few years, then Marchione came to town and saved >>>> Chrysler. Unlike Daimler, Marchione really means it. He wants Chrylser to >>>> succeed. And they are. >>>> >>>> I worked on the Mercede-Benz ad biz as well at McCaffrey & McCall in the >>>> 1980s. (My commercial, “Interview” iis still considered the best Mercedes >>>> spot of all time and it won the Gold Clio for best automotive spot of >>>> 1990.) Mercedes was on a roll when I wrote that commercial, but withing >>>> months Lexus and Infiniti came on the scene, and Daimler panicked. They >>>> told me they could no longer be “Emgineered Like No Other Car In the >>>> World.” It was too arrogant. And they took a lot of content out of the >>>> cars so they could match the prices of the Japanese cars. I bailed and >>>> went to Detroit, and Mercedes quality declined. But the Germans are smart >>>> and they have a huge pool of engineering talent to draw on. Mercedes has >>>> made gains in recent years, but they never quite recovred. In many ways, >>>> they still trail BMW and Audi. And of course it’s heresy in the PC world, >>>> but Cadillac is producing better products than Mercedes for some >>>> segments — the ATS vs. the C-Class and the CTS vs. the E-class. Mercedes >>>> has a future, but they’re not the world leader they were in the 1980s. >>>> >>>> Here’s “Interview,” if you’d like to see it: >>>> http://stenquist.org/Paul/MercedesEngineer.htm >>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <godfreydigio...@me.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Plenty of them around here. But their quality did suffer a bit through >>>>> the years of Chrysler ownership. They were sensible to get rid of >>>>> Chrysler, even at a loss. >>>>> >>>>> G >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not many ten year old Mercs though. Intimately familiar with that >>>>>> company. Unfortunately. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
