Good post, Bill. You're right, the Dodges had the same wheelbase. I was
thinking of the grille differences between the Monaco and the Polara between
'70 and '73. It was pretty extreme by '73. But no wheelbase difference,
correct. Currell
>From: "Bill Watson" <wwatson@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: IML: More on the 73 Imperial...
>Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:13:03 -0700
>
>
>For all C-body cars, the 2-door models were the same length as the 4-door
>models, be they sedan or hardtops. Thus a Fury II 2-door sedan was the
>same
>length as a VIP 4-door hardtop while a LeBaron 2-door hardtop was the same
>length as a LeBaron 4-door hardop. Only the wagons were a different
>length from their stablemates as the 1969-73 C-body wagons all shared a
>122"
>wheelbase (non-wagons : Fury - 120", Polara/Monaco - 122", Chrysler - 124"
>and Imperial - 127"). In 1972 the Imperials were 229.5" in length, by the
>way.
>
>The differences in size came in the interior. The 2-door hardtop rear
>seat
>was farther forward than the 4-door hardtop, thus resulting in less rear
>seat legroom. The Fury. Polara, Monaco, Chrysler and Imperial all shared
>the same 2-door hardtop roofline from 1969 to 1973, while the 4-door
>rooflines were shared Fury-Polara-Monaco and Chrysler-Imperial. That is
>also why the greenhouse on a 2-door fuselage Imperial looks too small for
>the body to which it is attached, IMHO, while the Fury looks balanced.
>
>The 4-door Imperial models from 1969 to 1973 were annual winners of the
>interior space award. Each year they even beat Cadillac for the amount of
>useable room in the passenger compartment. I have sat in the rear seat of
>both a 2-door hardtop fuselage Imperial and a 4-door, and the difference in
>room is amazing. The advertised rear seat leg room of a 2-door Imperial
>was 35.2", while the 4-door was 41.2" For comparison the Fury 2-door also
>had 35.2" rear leg room while the Fury 4-door had 38.0".
>
>By the way, Dodge C-bodies all shared the same wheelbase, even the wagons,
>in the fuselage era. And Chrysler's use of the C-body for all full-size
>cars was not uncommon. The Chevrolet Impala used the same B-body as the
>Pontiac Catalina, Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick LeSabre, while the
>Oldsmobile 98, Buick Electra and Cadillac DeVille all used the C-body which
>was a derivation of the B-body. And the Mercury Monterey/Marquis and
>Meteor were based on the Ford LTD, as was the Lincoln from 1970.
>
>Chrysler's problem was that all their C-body models began looking alike,
>even though only only the Chrysler and Imperial actually shared exterior
>sheetmetal.
>
>Bill
>Vancouver, BC
>
>
> > The '73 was the last of the "Fuselage Styling" jobs of '69 through '73
>(lots
> > of tumblehome and tuckunder), although by '71, Chrysler had toned it
>down
>a
> > bit for all the lines. Examples: Center defined grilles, added side trim
>(to
> > divert the eye from that rounded look). In an interesting way, Chrysler
>had
> > a similar customer acceptance problem with the Airflow, and quickly
> > comtemporized the design in the year following its introduction, in '35.
> > The '69- 73 Imperials were excellent driver's cars relative to the (US)
> > competition, but build quality was falling in this period. I'm thinking
> > mainly of body integrity and electrical problems here. The difference
> > between, say, a Plymouth Fury 1 and an Imperial simply was not as wide
>as
>it
> > should have been. After all, they all shared the "C" body, but with
> > increasing wheelbases as you moved from
>Plymouth-Dodge-Chrysler-Imperial.
>In
> > fact, the full size Dodge had two wheelbase for at least some of the
>years
> > in this period.
> >
> > The styling, although innovative in '69, became a little derivative by
>'73,
> > although this was more true of the lower priced Chrysler Corp models
>than
> > Imperial. For exampe, look at a '66 Chevy Impala, and compare to a '73
> > Plymouth Fury Gran Sedan.
> >
> > Still, I like that sorta rare '69-'73 Imperial Coupe, for the sheer
> > extravagance of it all (enormous trunk, volume-wise, that you maybe
>could
> > not stack grocery bags in, limited rear legroom in a 19 foot + design,
>etc).
> > Lush, plush interiors, too, some with that "loose cushion" look. Not to
> > mention the "Cologne Leather" tuck and roll Split Bench interior option
>in
> > the '73.
> >
> > Does anyone know it the Coupes of this period were shorter than the
>sedans?
> > Once again, it was 235.3 for the sedan in '73.
> >
> > Currell
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network