Ok maybe someone can answer me

what was the logic of Chrysler selling a car 3 times ?? for example the Chrysler Coronet/ Dodge Monaco/ Plymouth Fury


Same car with just the badges different , what was the logic ???? didn't ths actually result in higher cost with advertising, badging etc ?


also why were this peticular cars so often wrekced in 80s TV shows

Hardcore badge-engineering.
And not the only example. Let dsl explain the logic/systematic, the Rootes Company had. Other brands, GM for example weren't/aren't(!) any better.

I think different cars were targeted at different markets. For example a Chrysler would be the more luxurious model, a Dodge slightly more sporting and a Plymouth would be the value alternative. Though, there seems to be less of a delineation between Dodge and Plymouth so maybe I'm wrong there.

Certainly, with the BMC and Rootes badge engineering it was largely because of this. If you look at the ADO16 series the different versions were aimed at different people. The MG was the sporty one, the Wolseley and Riley models were more luxurious, Morris and Austin were aimed at the lower level. People who would buy an MG wouldn't be seen in a Wolseley or an Austin and vice versa. It's no different today as if you want a Golf you can have it as a Golf, an A3, an Octavia or a Seat Leon. Okay, the cars have different shells now, but the principle is the same.

As for why they are destroyed it is because they were cheap. These kinds of cars were used extensively to fleets and were sold off cheaply after two or three years. It's also more realistic if you are making a cop series for police to use such cars rather than something that the police ordinarily wouldn't use. Also, I guess cars like the Caprice, St. Regis and LTD could take a lot of punishment and were rear wheel drive making them well suited to those drifty car chases 80s US series tended to have.

I guess it goes back to the old(er) days when American makes only had one model per make. Even though it didn't make sense in later years to have identical models with identical options under multiple makes, killing off a brand was difficult I suppose, if not logistically (with dealer networks and all) then emotionally

well now Chrysler killed of Plymouth , GM killed of GEO, Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile so I guess they should really have done this as far back as the seventies

Agree with comments - Sandie's described Rootes and BMC well enough for me to add nothing. Owlman's also on the button for raising dealer networks. All the takeovers/mergers/buyout rationalisations still left extensive dealer networks and customers often tended to be just as loyal to a dealer as a make, therefore a rationalised network was seen as dangerous for the risk of losing loyal customers. But the only way to justify duplicated networks was to maintain "artificial" brand differences far longer than logically justified. Not so much Rootes who merged them fairly quickly, but very strong for BMC who continued to support separate Austin and Morris networks for a long time, often with different dealers in the same town. I guess GM US did the same on a much bigger scale.