Here's a portion of the article.....Why did they make it?
Bob Sheaves wrote:
...within the corporation, the Viper was a production technique testbed- to see if the corp really could develop new methods of manufacture and assembly to lower the cost of a vehicle....
The Prowler was, by definition, the next logical extension of this process. The corporation did not care if they made money- simply breaking even was considered unlikely- BUT the Prowler was (along with the all plastic Neon- remember that car?) to be an experimental vehicle testing out even more advanced methods of assembly (aluminum and composite bonding, for example) and simplified vehicle design, than Viper- it was to have been a REPLACEMENT halo car.
One note here: Remember I use the word "design" to mean how a vehicle WORKS, and "styling" to mean how a vehicle LOOKS.
Prowler's styling was "heritage-based" (remember that Eaton would not allow the word "retro-" anything to be applied, witness Tom Gale's remarks a week or so ago) and was decided to be the start of a final attempt at revival of the Plymouth brand with it's own styling cues to seperate it from Dodge or Chrysler divisions. The money saved by dropping the Eagle was plowed back into the Plymouth brand. The PT (regardless of what is stated by DCX now) was the next vehicle of the revived Plymouth with brand identity. Eventually, all the models under the Plymouth name would have been similar in appearance to the Prowler and PT. Unfortunately, the buying public did not warm to the styling soon enough, and funds for the revised Breeze and minivan were withdrawn.
Here is a link to the complete article.
http://www.allpar.com/model/prowler.html
