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/