Re: IML: Compilemts for the 57 to 63 Imps

[RandalPark@xxxxxxx]

Driving around in my '63, I can assure you that there are still loads of folks who don't know what it is. My favorite reaction is the one where they pass me on the freeway, and then all the heads inside simultaneously swivel around to stare at me....ah, I mean the car.

Paul W.

In an email dated 21/5/2005 7:03:05 pm GMT Daylight time, "mail.lig.bellsouth.net" <jagster911@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Hey, I like the 59, and there is one on ebay right now in good shape and 
>fairly priced. ?The grill is so busy on these that you can't stare at it too 
>long, or you will get dizzy. ?The seats in this one are the swing outs, and 
>they are so cool. ?Of course, the fabulous Hemi of lore is gone, replaced by 
>the 413 wedge, that had more power and torque and got better mileage, and 
>was unbeliveably smooth! ?Like all ugly ducklings, they all have mothers to 
>love them. ?If you are seeking an outrageous looking car, then the middle 
>Imperials are just the ticket. ?After 56 and on up through the 64, it was a 
>styling circus. Sanity returned, but I don't know about sales. ?They started 
>looking like Lincolns, and that may have helped. ?Oh, one sidebar: When I 
>drove my 63, a man at the stoplight asked, 'what the heck is that?' ?I told 
>him, and I could not determine if he approved, or was just too rattled to 
>respond. ?The giant 'pod' headlights really caught him by surprise! ?Anyway, 
>loved the car, took many trips in it, and my co-workers always wanted to 
>take my car when we went to distant meetings. ?This was also the nightmare 
>car with the fabulous 'Vogue tyres' that nearly spun the car around on a wet 
>street. ?It was black with blue interior, and some friends called it the 
>Green Hornet car. ?Funny, ?how all this stuff comes flooding back when we 
>talk about our old rides. ?When it comes to cars, pick out something you 
>like, because, like any antique, you darn well better like it, 'cause you 
>will likely have it a long time.
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:32 AM
>Subject: Re: IML: Compilemts for the 58, rebukes for others.
>
>
>> 1957 and the 1964 were the only model years where the Imperial sold 
>> "decently".
>>
>> 1959 was just like the rest, a few more than the worst years and a few 
>> less than the better years, all of which were usually in the range of 
>> 10,000 to 16,000 cars. As we now know, not enough cars to sustain the 
>> marque.
>>
>> 1958 may have been a bad year for Imperial, but only because 1957 had been 
>> so good. That year may have also been more financially dramatic, due to 
>> the coincidental economic depression and sudden realization, that smaller 
>> economical cars might be truly desired by the average American.
>>
>> Paul W.
>>
>> In an email dated 21/5/2005 4:51:18 pm GMT Daylight time, "Hugh & Therese" 
>> <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>Ahh, Mr. Stephenson, owner of an 80's Imperial, fan of the 58, 
>>>complimenter
>>>of the 56 and the 64.
>>>A man after my own heart, not afraid to say his piece and rattle a few
>>>cages. But lo! What is this? he is quitting due to the sensitivities of
>>>others? Surely he jests.
>>>
>>>I wrote a piece, minus any deep knowledge about design vocabulary, about 
>>>how
>>>to tell the 57, 58 and 59 apart. I personally don't care for the 59, 
>>>except
>>>its fabulous rear bumper, but think the 60 and the 61 are rather fabulous,
>>>and my opinion stinks just as much as the next person's, thank you very
>>>much.
>>>
>>>The changes over the three years are there to be seen and cataloged. I'm
>>>not sure how well the 59 sold, decently I dare say, but sales of the 58 
>>>were
>>>way down from the previous year, for reasons we also like to thrash out
>>>around here.
>>>
>>>So we are an open forum after all and you might expect a mild rebuke or 
>>>two
>>>if you dismiss other peoples favorites or try to claim your own subjective
>>>opinion as being superior to others. No need to take your toys and go 
>>>home.
>>>Kindness to those with whom you disagree and a healthy skepticism of your
>>>own prejudices will serve you well around here, Mr. Stephenson, but I for
>>>one see no reason to split over so small a difference.
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>58 Owner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------- 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------- ?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
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>----------------- ?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
>
>


-----------------  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