|
Interesting artlicle but if you go into his website
he's got a page with 'fin pictures'. In it he incorrectly has a picture of
a 60 Imperial fin which is actually a 61 fin. But he also states in his
article that he'd take a 61 Lincoln over a 61 Caddy or Imperial....so the deck's
not full to begin with...
Tom
60 Southampton Crown
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:00
PM
Subject: Re: IML: Article I found
Amusing article from St Louis there... He even
explains that Imperial was its own brand correctly! But then he
says:
?As
Eldorado was to Cadillac and the Mark series was to Lincoln (prior to 1961
and then further down the road), so was Imperial to
Chrysler.?
Eldorado
was never a separate marque, just a model. Nor were the Mark series: prior to
1961 they were the sole models of the Continental Division (like Imperial,
this was another only-on-paper division that Ford was pretending to be
separate from Lincoln for a few years, and the later Marks, which restarted at
III, were sold under the model name ?Contentinal Mark III? etc.).
So
pre-1961 Continental was like 1955-83 Imperial, not the Marks II-VI. Examples
of the lineage (corporation : brand : model):
Ford Motor Co : Continental Division : Mark II
(note no mention of Lincoln Division needed)
Chrysler Corp :
Imperial Division : Crown (note no mention of Chrysler-Plymouth
Division needed)
General Motors : Cadillac :
Eldorado
Oh, well.
Cute article. Flawed logic.
Chris in LA
On 6/24/06 7:04 AM,
ajl at alacaria@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I found an article on the Imperial.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/autos/columnists.nsf/oldcarcolumn/story/0E36BA5F6D8846F6862570D2006C55F2?OpenDocument
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network