Re: IML: About Tom McCahill, and his judgement of the car in '67

[dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Quoting tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> That article is on the IML site, and it's not all that negative on the '67. 
> He does point out that although the 440 was bigger it did not seem to result
> in any greater power.  He also complains that the car is shorter and
> narrower.
> 

THe problem here is that he compared a fully broken in engine of his 66 (I am
sure he broke it in well :)) with a brand new in 67.  The 67 440 should be
considerably more powerful than the 66, and the 68 even more so.  The smaller
frontal area would have helped too.

In spite of the similarities to the other Chryslers, I think the 67 and 68's
were definately improvements.  Sometimes, part of progress brings negative
things.  In this case, the negative thing is that part the uniquneness of the
66 and prior Imperials was lost.  But the good news is that there were
mechanical refinements, and also a unique styling, in its own way.  There were
still a huge difference between the chryslers and Imperials.  And the fact that
we can use chrysler components (like windshields) make Imperial ownership a bit
easier.  Another unique feature of the 67-68's is the amazing strength of the
front structure.  Even though some folks in the demolition community seem to
prefer the earlier Imperials, the front end structure of the 67-68s is far more
reinforced, which means better safety and vehicle survivability in a rough
crush.

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