[Chrysler300] Sylvania
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chrysler300] Sylvania
- From: "Bob Merritt" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:27:06 -0400
This message is from the Imperial Mailing List. Burt Boukamp is talking with
members about the 1981 Imperial.
300 content -- Burt mentions our electroluminescent dash of 60-62 was by
Sylvania.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Burton Bouwkamp" <northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
> Sean,
>
> The bumpers were chrome plated because that's the appearance the Styling
> people wanted. They usually want all the exterior bright trim to be the
> same luster and color - especially on an Imperial. I had forgotten that
> the bumpers were aluminum. Aluminum was selected for weight savings even
> if it was a cost penalty. Our rule of thumb then was that if the cost
> penalty was less than $1 for a weight savings of one pound - go for it.
>
> Huntsville did not make the 1981 Imperial instrument cluster. I don't
> remember the vendor but our first electroluminescent lighted cluster (1960
> Chrysler) was done by Sylvania. (I don't think it was Sylvania because
> they "retired" from the automotive cluster business by 1981.)
>
> Burt Bouwkamp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sean morgan
> To: imperial-club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 10:25 AM
> Subject: RE: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Burt
> I still would like to know more.
> how about those bumpers,they are unlike any other mopar design,why use a
> chrome plated aluminum bumper?
> ,why not use steel? or just polished up the aluminum.
> I remember in the early 1980's a lot of things were being tried, to
> improve fuel mileage,
> and most of them worked.the cars back then were real slugs!but they did
> get the mileage
> that people wanted.
> (o24 miser the miser pick up truck)
> this is something that ALL car (car made for sale in the U.S.)builders
> have strayed from.
> Even toyota!!!the hybrids,although an ecologically friendly
> machine just matches what the early 80's econ boxes did for fuel economy
> But back to the IMP.
> the electronic dash boards,I think that they were considered the latest
> thing in car fashion
> Who made them? were they an in house product from hunstville?
>
> Sean
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:53:34 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> Sean,
>
> You are way over my head now. I can't answer any of your questions.
> During the time we did the design and development and testing of the
> 1981 - 83 Imperial I was in charge of Body and Chassis Engineering so what
> I knew about the engine usually came from overhearing conversation or
> seeing reports in a meeting.
>
> I do remember that there were a lot of unhappy people when the
> Corporation decided to convert EFI cars to a carburetor if the customer
> was having fuel problems. It was an expensive conversion both in $'s and
> to Chrysler's reputation.
>
> Burt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: sean morgan
>
> To: imperial-club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:04 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> thanks burt. this helps further my understanding of this car.
>
> Wasnt the EFI or EFM derived from a system originaly designed for small
> aircraft engines?
>
> If so ,what could have happened between the air craft system and the
> conversion(or transition) to an automobile?
>
> was this system original designed to operate at a voltages higher than
> 12v, some parts of the EFM that work at 23v and other that use 12V.what
> was that for?
>
> Sean
>
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:41:28 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> Sean,
>
> I think computer controlled direct injection into each cylinder is the
> best way to get fuel to the engine.
>
> Injection into the manifold or port at each cylinder is next best.
>
> Injection into the manifold at one central location is the least
> desirable fuel injection system because it still has the problems inherent
> in manifolds of uneven fuel/air mixtures to each cylinder. (I call this
> kind of fuel injection dribbling fuel into the intake manifold and hoping
> everything comes out OK.) Unfortunately, both of Chrysler's first fuel
> injection offerings (Bendix in 1957 and 1981) used the manifold injection
> technique. In theory they were no better than a carburetor and in practice
> they were a lot worse because they were not fully developed and tested
> when they were put into production. The 1957 system did not work in cold
> weather and the 1981 system was not reliable in high underhood
> temperatures. We didn't seriously consider port injection either time
> because we judged it to be too costly and complicated - and we didn't
> consider direct cylinder injection of gasoline because we didn't know how.
>
> Electronic control of the fuel injection system using sensors is a
> marvelous way to control fuel in response to temperature, altitude, power
> demand, emissions, etc and is a significant benefit. (No more need to
> restart the engine several times to back out of the driveway in the
> morning.)
>
> I think we gave electronic fuel injection a bad name - but fortunately it
> recovered from our experience. Today's EFI systems are excellent.
>
> Burt Bouwkamp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: sean morgan
>
> To: imperial-club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:03 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> thanks Burt,
>
> I know you may have been asked this so many times,what made the move to
> fuel injection?,
>
> why no a feed back carb? that was being used on the other cars?
>
> and what were the reasons for the (pardon my wording its not meant to
> inflame)
>
> poor or lacking support of the EFI system?
>
> I know at the time for us it like was getting
>
> a 747 air liner in for a engine repair,In other words it was way too much
> too fast
>
> for guys that knew carbs and electronic ignition.fuel injection was the
> thing you would see
>
> on a vw rabbit ,all mechanical .
>
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:27:02 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> Sean,
>
> I'm not sure that I can answer your question. If Lee had asked the
> Product Planning Department for an Imperial proposal I think he would have
> gotten a 4 door proposal because that's where the luxury car volume was.
> But he didn't ask - he specified a 2 dr hardtop. I can't read his mind but
> I think he was looking for an image car for the Corporation and he felt
> that an Eldorado, Mark V, Thunderbird type entry would give the company
> the recognition that he was looking for.
>
> The first 1981 Imperial clay model proposals had opera windows in the "C"
> pillars ala Thunderbird and Mark V so you can see what Lee was thinking
> about. Somebody must have talked him out of that. Don DeLaRosa (Styling
> VP) came to Chrysler from Ford and did this design under Lee's direction.
> Lee was - in effect - the project manager on this program. He got pretty
> involved - even specifying Cartier crystal hood, "B" pillar, and steering
> wheel pad pentastar ornaments. Purchasing and Engineering proposed plastic
> ornaments to reduce cost but that proposal just made Lee angry and he
> became even more determined to get Austrian crystal..
>
> The "B" pillar ornaments on my 1982 Imperial were missing when I bought
> it. I assumed that they were stolen but after noticing that they were
> missing on almost every 1981, 1982, 1983 Imperial that I saw - I decided
> that they fell off because the adhesive failed. I bought two new ornaments
> on E-bay for $150 but never put them on because I couldn't decide on what
> adhesive to use. I sold the car last year and gave the purchaser the
> ornaments. (Note: I was Director of Body Engineering when we did this car
> and my department specified the adhesive so I guess you could say that I
> was responsible for this adhesive failure.)
>
> Burt Bouwkamp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: sean morgan
>
> To: imperial-club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:40 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> Burt,would you please tell us what was the genesis of the two door
> imperial?
>
> why wouldnt they go for the four door imperial ??
>
> Since you do know the facts, of what was happening inside chrysler at the
> time
>
> I would really like to know the climate of what was happening in those
> days.
>
> Thanks for any information,for me this is a very rare oppourtunity to get
> the straight
>
> scoop from the men in the trenches.
>
> Sean
>
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:02:57 -0400
>
> Subject: [Imperial-Club] 1981 - 1983 Imperial
>
> Sean, contrary to your information, Lee Iacocca was the force that made
> the 1981 Imperial happen. He said, "how the hell can you be in the car
> business and not have a luxury car?" The Sales Department and the Product
> Planning Department did not want the car and tried to advise Lee that
> Chrysler's experience in that market had not been successful - and had
> been expensive. Never the less, Lee wanted the car and he wanted it as a
> two door - like the Mark and the Thunderbird.
>
> After production of less than 12,000 vehicles over three years Lee
> decided to kill the Imperial (in mid-1983) and told us, "don't bring that
> up again".
>
> How do I know this? I was there - as Director of Body and Chassis
> Engineering from 1979 to 1983 and Director of Product Planning from 1968
> to 1975.
>
> Burt Bouwkamp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: sean morgan
>
> To: imperial-club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:18 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [Imperial-Club] Chrysler's decisions in making
> Coupes/4-doors Imperials??
>
> Could you imagine!!what a car that would have been,I have read in several
> places
>
> the Chrysler had an EPA approved turbine engine BUT was not allowed to
> build it.
>
> (meant for the all new 1980 new yorker )
>
> As a condition of government loan guarantees back in 1979,
>
> I also remember Lee Iacoca at a press conference standing in front of a
> M1 Tank!
>
> (built by Chrysler at the time)
>
> with the lower track section revolving several times around whilst the
> turret remained
>
> fixed and unmoving,I think it was on ABC news.
>
> ill speculate the turbine engine shared too much(technology) with the
> then current tank" power pack"
>
> But back to the two door 81 imperial,lee Iacocca tried to stop this car
> from going into production didn't he?
>
> At a time when gas was at a outrageous prices,well over a buck a gallon,a
> luxury car
>
> wasn't going to be easy to sell.And Americans were looking for a decent
> fuel efficient
>
> car.The K car was the car,voyager the minivan that saved Chrysler from
> ruin back then.
>
> today who knows,,FIAT?
>
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: flowekim@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:49:54 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] Chrysler's decisions in making
> Coupes/4-doors Imperials??
>
> Hi Gang
>
> Here is a link from the club site from the "pre80's" turbine that takes
> very little imagination to see the now famous early 80's Imperial.
> http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1981/Turbine/index.htm
>
> I also submitted a 6 page 8 page spread from what I remember as a
> Hemmings publication showing several of the prototypes. It has been a long
> time back so the memories are vague at best. I could not find it to offer
> up the link but one of the site guru's may know where to find it, I hope
> its not misplaced since the magazine went away when I sold my 80.
>
> Mike
>
> --- On Tue, 5/26/09, john sadowski <jsadowski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: john sadowski <jsadowski@xxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] Chrysler's decisions in making
> Coupes/4-doors Imperials??
>
> To: Imperial-Club@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 5:21 PM
>
> From what I've read over the years, Chrysler had the Imperial bustle back
> design finalized before Cadillac came out with theirs.
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Mark Evans
>
> To: Imperial-Club@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:58 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Imperial-Club] Chrysler's decisions in making
> Coupes/4-doors Imperials??
>
> Interesting question.
>
> The 81-83 imperials shared styling cues with the 80-85 Seville;
>
> specifically the "bustle back" rear-end. I'm guessing Chrysler was
>
> trying to compete with the Eldorado and (possibly) Lincoln's Mark V or
> VI.
>
> During the early 80's, the Seville was quite popular and many are still
>
> on the road today. However, just like all autos, 4-doors always sell in
>
> greater numbers than their coupe counterparts. Lincoln acknowledged that
>
> when they came out with the 4-door T-bird in the mid 70s and Mark VI in
>
> the mid 80s.
>
> Chrysler offered no full-size 2-door cars in the 90's. So, an upgraded
>
> New Yorker became an Imperial for 90-93. Beautiful cars though.
>
> --MarkE
>
> Anthony Romano wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When the last Imperial made was made back in 1974-75 they made both
>
> > Coupes and 4-doors. When they decided to make the Imperial again
>
> > they came out with a Luxury coupe only in 81-83 and did not produce a
>
> > 4-door Imperial? Were Luxury coupes only in style back and not 4-doors?
>
> > Ironically, when they (Chrysler) decided to make the Imperial again in
>
> > 1990-93 they came out only with a 4-door Imperial and not a Coupe.
>
> > What were they thinking?
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap