[Chrysler300] Sylvania
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Chrysler300] Sylvania



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/



Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network Archive Sitemap


Copyright © The Forward Look Network. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.