Re: IML: Curved shape = fuselage styling

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Kenyon,

This debate is getting to be a bit like a bunch of Jesuits sitting around arguing how many Imperial eagles can dance on the head of a pin (answer: 337,146), and I'm sure it's boring to some people, but I feel the need to clarify a few points and then move on.

First of all, I have been studying the photos of 72s and 73s on the website, and comparing them to my memory of the 72s and 73s I've seen and driven, and I have to say I do see more similarities than I expected to see.  If you see these cars in person (and I sometimes wonder how many of the folks who have participated in this discussion have actually seen these cars in real life), the impression the 72s and 73s give is of massive, extremely vertical, almost slablike sides with little or nor curvature.  I think they are more curved than I remember, but I still don't think they are are as radically curved as the bodies of the 69s-71s-- and the character line that others have mentioned actually has a "pinch" to it, or a lip that sticks out-- very unlike the 69s-71s.  The overall result of the changes made to the 72s-73s is to make the design appear more static and less like it's moving when standing still.

Second, the shape of the windshield alone does not define tumblehome.  Maybe I wasn't clear on this before-- I'm not an automotive stylist, so maybe I don't fully understand the term-- but tumblehome is the not just the angle of the side glass, but the overall shape of the body from approximately the middle of the car upwards when the body is viewed in cross-section (NOT in side view).  You are correct in saying the greenhouse of the 72-73 Imperials was not changed that much.  But the body BELOW the greenhouse was changed a great deal.

Third, the bodies of the 69, 70, and 71 are all more or less identical in terms of panels, character lines and curvature, etc.  The only differences were in the placement of lights, trim, badging, and lettering.  So I don't see the differences in the 1970 that you see.  In 1972 the front fenders were changed, the rear quarters were changed, the front grille and bumper was changed, the taillights and rear bumper were changed, the doors were changed, and the hood and rear decklid were changed.  That, to me, is pretty substantial.

Fourth, fuselage styling is not just about side curvature.  Just as important is the large wraparound bumper on front and rear.  This development was touted in the press when the 69s came out as a safety feature and is a key part of fuselage styling.  The 72 and 73 Imperials do have wraparound bumpers in the front, but not the back.  In the rear they return to the more conventional bumper shape.  So that is a point that cuts both ways.  But I wanted people to know that the massive, one piece, wraparound bumper was just as important to the fuselage look as the curvature.

Last, this is not rocket science.  A lot of it is subjective.  However, I think it's valuable to point out that, as far as I know, there was no mention of the term "fuselage" in any official Imperial advertisements, press releases, or brochures after 1969 or 1970.  I'm sure someone with more time on their hands than I have will scour the website and find a reference somewhere, but the only time I can remember seeing the term "fuselage" was in an article in "Automotive News" written in August of 1968, and in a few magazine ads which actually used a black and white line drawing to illustrate the shape of a fuselage.

In the Detroit of that day 3 years was an eternity, and by 1972 I think "the fuselage look" was pretty much a dead concept.  I don't think anyone at Chrysler was relying on it to sell cars anymore.  They were pretty much onto the next thing, trying to cope with the environmental pressures that existed then and making their cars appear fresh and up to date-- on a limited budget.

Mark M



On Saturday, August 20, 2005, at 06:00 AM, Kenyon Wills wrote:

> 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