Re: IML: Fuselage Era cars - 69-71 as only Fuselages a tough sell

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

As I said before-- I guess you missed it-- these cars do indeed share the same underpinnings.  That has never been in question.  However, sharing rocker panels and door sills does not constitute a design trend.

At that time, Detroit generally did a minor restyling every year and a major restyling every 3 to 4 years.  A minor restyling involved redesigning the grille, the taillights, some of the trim on the car, and freshening the interiors-- the dash, the upholstery, etc.  But the body and the basic shape remained the same, and you could easily interchange the grille of one year with the grille of another year without much trouble.  This is true of every year of the fuselage cars.  You can exchange the grille of a '69 with the grille of a '70 with no major retooling of the surrounding bumper or sheetmetal.  A fender from a '71 will bolt right onto the body of a '69, and if you didn't pay any attention to the shape of the side marker lights you'd never notice the difference.

This is categorically NOT true of the 72s and 73s.  You cannot exchange the grille of a '72 with the grille of a '69.  You can, however, exchange grilles between a '72 and a '73.  If you put a '73 fender on a '69 you would immediately see that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.   As you yourself point out, the character lines are different and will not match.  The fenders might still bolt on, but they obviously belong to different cars.

Here is what constitutes a major restyling:

1.  It must be more than just a change in grilles and taillights, and should involve changes to body panels to the degree that panels from one model year cannot be transposed to the next without noticing a major difference
2.  Not all body panels have to change, just enough to alter the overall shape and look of the car
3.  A significant change to the size, proportions, or overall shape of the car, sometime extending to the frame and/or structural submembers, but not always

Keep in mind, the purpose of a major restyling is to make the public say "Wow, this is a totally new car"-- even if the changes are, in reality, somewhat superficial or cosmetic.  This is what stylists tried to do with the '72s and '73s-- break them apart from the previous years without going to the expense of a major retooling.

I admit, the changes between '71 and '72 are not as significant as the differences between that are evident when comparing a '71 to, say, an '81.  However, in the Detroit of that day they were enough to mark the end of one era and the start of another.

> All 1969-73 Imperials shared windshields (2-door & 4-door hardtops share the
> same glass) while the 4-door hardtops used the same rooflne and side
> windows.  They also shared the same rocker panels and doors sills.   The
> changes in 1972 amounted to a reskinning - the basic understructure remained
> the same from 1969 through 1973.
>
> When you look at the 1972-73 Imperials from the front, you are looking at
> those large fender caps/bumper ends  I mentioned on an earlier post.  They
> give the car a more square design from the side and most definitely from the
> front.

Yes, exactly my point.  It is a more square design.  "Square" and "fuselage" do not go hand in hand.  If they do, then I guess the '68s are fuselage, too.


> If you check a front view of a 1972 Chrysler, which uses the same
> body and basic sheetmetal as the Imperial and does not have those boxy
> fender ends, you can see the side flare.

The '72/'73 Chryslers do not use the same body or "basic sheetmetal" as the Imperials.  I don't know where you get that.  Just look at the hood of a '72 New Yorker.  However I agree, the Chryslers of those years were not as drastically restyled from previous years as were the Imperials.  If you want to say that the Chryslers of that period are still "fuselage" I think you have a better case.  However, the Imperials are clearly different, both from their brethren and their predecessors.

> To see just how much tumblehome there was on a 1972-73 Imperial, park a
> 1969-71 Imperial next to a 1972-73 model and open the doors.   You will see
> the outside curve on the 1972-73 model  is virtually identical to the
> 1969-71.   The 1972 reskinning removed the upper character line from the
> sides while the lower one was changed to a line parallel to the body sill,
> making the car look boxier and more massive.  But, the curve is still there.
> You just cannot see it from the front due to those massive fender
> caps/bumper ends.

Are you saying we should ignore those massive fenders and bumper ends in our effort to define these cars as fuselage?  Hard to ignore fenders that large!  Sort of like saying two people have the same face-- except for the noses!  

> If you have a copy of Uncle Tom's test of the 1973 Imperial, look at the
> front end shot on the article's first page.  You can the see the curvature
> on the body sides between the wheelwells and the lack thereof on the fender
> ends ahead of the front wheelwell.
>
> I am a great fan of Engel's fuselage C bodies.and, in particular, the
> Imperials.  The saddest part about them is how unappreciated and undervalued
> they are today.  And sadly, the same situation existed when they were new.
> (Well, maybe undervalued is not so bad if you want to buy one . . .)
>
> Bill
> Vancouver, BC

I don't undervalue these cars at all.  In fact, I think the '72s and '73s are good cars and deserve to stand on their own.  In terms of isolation from road noise and vibration, and sheer comfort, it is hard to beat the '72-73s.

It is not a criticism or an insult to say these cars aren't fuselage.  That was never my intention, and if someone got that impression they read me wrong.  I am simply saying they are DIFFERENT, and those differences should be recognized.  To lump all the Imperials of those years into one category does no justice to either the '69-71s or the '72-73s.  It's sort of like saying anything with a fin on it is "Forward Look."  Well, no.  And anything with a curve in it isn't fuselage.

Enough said,
Mark M