RE: IML: 1968 Questions

[dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Quoting Dick Benjamin <dickb@xxxxxxxxx>:

> <<<<<the "dual 440".  Check the 68 brochure posted in the year-by-year.
> 
> I've seen the mention of the "Dual 440" option in the brochure, but I did
> not think that meant anything beyond dual exhaust, which my gold 68 has. It
> does not have the dual snorkel air cleaner, nor have I ever seen one with
> that on it.
> 
> I remain unconvinced, but I'll be ready to apologize when I see some proof.

Dick, no need to apologize.  Go to this address:
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1968/Brochure/Page24.jpg
And look under the bumper, lower middle of the page.  I quote: "Optional Engine
Package: The "440 dual" which includes dual-snorkel air cleaner and dual
exhaust".

And of course, that's where the differences end. 

Your car may either have not had dual exhaust from the factory, or had its
snorkel replaced by a standard one.  My LeBaron had factory duals, but when the
previous owner replaced the engine with a 69 440, he was too clueless to
maintain the dual snorkel cleaner. 

> 
> You're making fun of my 81 again, aren't you!

Yes, in part!  I had seen a road test of an 80 Caddy with 0-60 in 22 seconds. 
The article said:  "Sultan's Palace, but why?" (meaning the car was such a bore
to drive, making the comfortable seats irrelevant).  The 80's Imperials are
better, but miss a big part of what luxury used to be, or is supposed to be, in
my opinion.

> 
> Luxury cars, starting in the teens and even before, almost always had the
> highest powered engines, but since they were also the heaviest cars on the
> road, they excelled in high speed running, but not in acceleration.  

You are right, but typically could keep up with the best among the "lesser"
cars.  Your 68 for exapmple will out-accelerate almost all cars of its year
model, except for the big-block mussle cars.  Many small block muscle cars or
semi-mussle cars would have had little chance in a stop light against a 67-69
Imperial.  I have never lost a race against a standard 289 m*stang for example,
which represents an average "sporty" car of the period.

> My 39
> Packard 12 had the largest engine made until the crazies of the late 60s
> (473 Cu in,) and much higher HP rating than any normal car. It could run
> with modern traffic, but I certainly wouldn't try to beat out a Honda
> pocket-rocket in a stop-light drag.  That sort of thing developed with the
> muscle car craze of the 60s, and I think it was not extended to the luxury
> field until much more recently - like the late 90s. 

These cars are very different.  They "suffer" from very low compression ratios
(gas was horrible back then), long strokes, poor carburation (often one carb
for a straight eight with horrible mixture varations) and poor transmissions
that took for ever to shift and/or had too few gears.  But I bet your 39
Packard would still out-accelerate the average chevy or ford from the 40's.

D^2


-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm