The Alphabet Soup of Designations

[Brad Hogg <roadhogg@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill.  I was a little unclear on those lengths.  I must say, the rear
seating leg room in a 90-93 Imperial (and 5th Avenue apparently) is quite
astounding!  I am a large frame 6'4" tall and I always drive with the seat
all the way back.  Even at that, I can sit in the back seat with a good 6 to
9 inches of space between my knees and the front seat-back.  This is far
more leg room than my 70's Chryslers that are far bigger cars.  The Imperial
is not nearly as wide which I find inconvenient on occasion.  Over all, they
are a very nice car to drive and I think they look like an Imperial should.
You're right about the front end being taken from the 80's Imperials, it is
quite similar.  Even the tail lights are not so different than those on a
80's Imperial.

Thanks for the info Bill!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Watson" <wwatson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: IML: The Alphabet Soup of Designations




Yes, the wheelbase of the 1990-1993 Fifth Avenue and Imperial, as they used
the same body, was 109.3".  The wheelbase of the C-body Dynasty and New
Yorker was 104.1".   The extra length was in the rear doors.

If memory serves me correctly, the Fifth Avenue shared the front and rear
styling with the New Yorker Landau/Salon, while the Imperial used a
different rear end (horizontal taillamps) and a front end theme that was
taken from  the 1981-83 Imperials.

Overall length of the C-body New Yorker Landau was 193.6" in 1990, while the
Fifth Avenue was 198.6" and the Imperial came in at 203.0".

Bill
Vancouver, BC