IML: Curved shape = fuselage styling

[Kenyon Wills <imperialist1960@xxxxxxxxx>]

I looked at my cars today and here's what I saw:

Windscreen, greenhouse, and so-forth look so similar
as to be the same design thought.

Same windscreen, regardless of rake = same tumblehome.

The vertical edges, viewed head-on, and not accounting
for rake at all are the same angle (they
interchange!), and so, consequently are the A pillars.
 That's where I base my statement.  Rake appears
identical on both the front and back glass, so that's
how I say that both cars have essentially the same
greenhouse.

Body sides:  The 1970 has a character line or crease 5
inches down from the windowsill.  Body flares out in a
flattened curve and then makes the angle and descends
in a much more shallow curve.  Looks somewhat flat. 
Smooth, but flat.

73 by comparison is one continuous curve from
windowsill to rocker and is even more of a "fuselage"
look, if we're talking about a curved fuselage
airplane body shape.

Tumbleunder looks very similar on both.

http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1970/Ads/roomiest.jpg
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1973/Ads/comfort.jpg


Anyway, that's where I'm at.  I'll leave it alone from
here, because either you agree or you don't, and
opinion items are the hardest to debate on our forum.

The sad thing is that these cars are
under-appreciated.  That grasshopper green car?  Ever
seen one like that?  Probably a special order and one
of how many that color?  and it's going for a song! 
Plus it has the most advanced features of any
full-size Imperial regarding brakes and options and so
forth?  

What a bargain.

-K

--- tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Yes, I have made a side by side comparison between
> the Imperials of the fuselage era and the 72-73's, 
> and though there are many similarities, there are
> more differences.  "Different" and "similar" are 
> subjective terms and hard to quantify, but I would
> say that, objectively speaking, the differences far 
> outweigh the similarities.
> 
> Tumblehome doesn't refer to the front glass, only to
> the shape of the body when viewed in cross 
> section.  It is not defined by the rake of the
> windshield.
> 
> The body of the 1970 has the exact same curvature as
> a '69 or a '71.  If you look at a '72 or '73, the 
> middle of the body has been flattened out to blend
> into the massive front fenders.  You could NOT 
> interchange doors between a '72 and a 1970.  If you
> tried, you would immediately see the difference I 
> am talking about.  If I could draw in this e-mail I
> could show you.  It's a totally different shape.
> 
> If anyone goes to the website and looks at pictures
> of these years you can see that in 1972 they started
> 
> out with the same basic shell or platform as the '71
> but retooled it to distinguish it from the years
> before.  
> This is MORE than just a grille or taillight change,
> which is all that was done in the previous 3 years. 
> 
> The shape of the body itself was changed.  This, to
> me, is enough of a break to constitute a different 
> "era," or design trend.
> 
> Mark M
> 
> > From: Kenyon Wills <imperialist1960@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: 2005/08/19 Fri AM 01:44:18 EDT
> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: IML: Fuselage Era cars - 69-71 as
> only Fuselages a tough sell
> > 
> > --- Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  in
> > > my opinion, the fuselage era only lasted for
> three
> > model years,1969, 1970, and 1971.  
> > > After that, the Imperial was redesigned and lost
> the
> > > curved cross-sectional look associated with the
> > previous three years.  Some people like to think
> of
> > this period as "2nd generation fuselage," but 
> > > there really is no mention of this term in any
> > > Chrysler literature that I'm aware of.  If you
> look
> > at a '73 next to a '69 there is very little
> > resemblance between the two.  
> > 
> > 
> > Ummm.  you're entitled.
> > 
> > I have a 1970 and a 1973.  
> > 
> > Park them next to each other.  They seem more
> similar
> > than different in overall feel until I start
> comapring
> > details.  I'm sorta bummed that its dark right
> now, or
> > I'd go out and take a close look and go farther
> with
> > this because I've been working on that 1962 like
> mad
> > this week.  (engine's done and in - just got to
> > reconnect and fire it up).
> > 
> > The front glass for 1970 to 1973 interchanges, so
> > perhaps the assertion that the tumblehome is
> different
> > in 72-73 isn't quite as solid as can be?  The
> front
> > glass defines the tumblehome as the A pillars are
> > parallel to the glass shape?   
> > 
> > The 1970 has what seem to be "flatter" or more
> slab
> > sideed, where the 1973 seems more curved?  This
> > statement from memory...  I "think" that the
> > tumbleunder on my 73 is more pronounced, not less.
> > 
> > 70 has higher chrome on the front end, the 73
> lower -
> > look at how the hood flares downward and the lower
> > bumper bar is thinner than the 1970.
> > 
> > Rear quarters are almost identical until you look
> at
> > the crease right behind the C pillar, and it's in
> a
> > different place.
> > 
> > All subtle differences.
> > 
> > The 1970 seems to have considerably more forceful
> > pickup under its gas pedal, and it was made within
> a
> > few months of my own birthday, so I do like it a
> > "little" better, although the 1973 is a higher
> > mileage, lower compression, smog car.
> > 
> > I also co-own a 1972 with Pauline, and it took me
> a
> > month of wrenching on it to notice that it does
> not
> > have wing windows, and unusual feature considering
> > that they were a defacto design element on every
> other
> > postwar Imperial that I've come to know (no, I'm
> not
> > personally counting post 1973, as that's not my
> bag.
> > 
> > 
> > My vote would go to all 5 years being Fuselage,
> but I
> > guess that you could make an argument either way.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -So what DOES one call 64-66? 
> > 
> > 64-66 are Engel cars to me (patently ignoring the
> fact
> > that he designed later ones, too - they were his
> first
> > stamp on the company).  What he was thinking by
> > putting a car-wide aircraft propellor shape into
> the
> > back bumper is beyond me, although it works. 
> > 
> > 
> > 67-68?  
> > The Haze Green Era? (I like that quite a bit!) 
> > 
> > Since nobody else has named those, aren't we, as
> the
> > carriers of the torch entitled some licence?
> > 
> > Kenyon Wills
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----------------  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
> 
=== message truncated ===


Kenyon Wills
 
 






















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