Hi guys,
John thinks the 62 is the last year probably because it is the best
looking cleanest looking, neatest looking ( where else can you get a car
that has a square steering wheel, no park, freestanding headlights,
radical dash lights and taillights that look like they can be taken off
and used to direct traffic in an emergency) and is the epitome of
Imperialdom. If you don't believe him, just look at the pictures of his
unbelievable cruiser and decide for yourself. We can't help it if you
owners of lesser vehicles and 62 wannabees are just jealous, it's just
that when you see them all in one place, you realize that the 62 is it.
But seriously, I don't think that they ever made a bad Imperial, they
just had to change something on them in the later years or nobody would
realize what perfection is and they had to practice hence the reason for
the earlier ones.
Allan R.
62 Imperial conv ( not quite like Johns yet)
loads of other junk
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:51:36 -0700 Bill Johnson <bjj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> I would think this was a pun because he owns a 62 and like most
> Imperial
> owners, he is partial to his year.
>
> Whiteshoes
>
> DR CHALLENGER wrote:
>
> > why do you say 1962 was the last year?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "John Gault" <Imperial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >To: "Imperial Club Mailing List"
> > > > <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >Subject: Re: IML: (no subject)
> > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:22:53 -0600
> > > > >
> > > > >It is apparent to me that Chrysler Corporation quit
> > > > building Imperials
> > > > >after the 1962 year.
> > > > >
> > > > >John Gault
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network