Dear Bill,
I wish I could remember where I read things, then, when I'm trying to repeat
what I've
read five years later I could just say "go to such and such publication."
Unfortunately, my
memory isn't that good!
But I did read somewhere that the panels of Engel's 1968 Chryslers gave
Chrysler
engineers a challenge. You're right, if they were just simple sheets of metal
it would be
easy to curve them in one direction; concave or convex wouldn't matter.
But if you look at a '68 Chrysler, the sides are not simple. The metal is
curved in both a
convex way and a concave way, with "creases," or relatively sharp edges,
separating
these areas. The fenders start off square at the top, then slope down and out
toward the
crease, then we have a gentle curve inward, then another crease and a convex
curve
down to the bottom of the body.
This is really hard to describe verbally, but if you sight down the side of a
'68 I think you'll
agree it's a fairly complex shape to stamp out of sheetmetal. In fact, if I
recall correctly,
there was some doubt among the engineers that it could even be done.
I can't pretend to know why-- I'm not an engineer or a metallurgist-- but I'm
guessing it's
because, from what I've read elsewhere, that metal has a tendency to return to
whatever
shape it was before it was stamped, so getting the panels to line up might be
difficult
once they start to warp back to their old shape. But that's just a guess.
One thing I'm 99% sure of-- no other manufacturer that I'm aware of has ever
tried to
duplicate the look of those 68s!
Mark
> From: "Bill Watson" <wwatson@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2004/03/11 Thu PM 03:48:20 EST
> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: IML: 67-8 Imperial vs Chrysler
>
> And, yes, the Imperial had many extra added features to make the Imperial a
> truly superb luxury car. The front suspension differed in that the Imperial
> had sleeves and isolators to provide a quieter ride. The Imperial's sheet
> metal also differed in 1967-69, with the Imperial's sides being convex
> compared to the Chrysler's concave. Read somewhere the Chrysler's concave
> sheetmetal was difficult to produce. Cannot see how - if you looked at the
> back side of Imperial's convex metal, it looks concave.
>
> Bill
> Vancouver, BC
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mopar48291@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing list Imperial" <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:35 AM
> Subject: IML: 67-8 Imperial vs Chrysler
>
>
> > I just took a little tour of my backyard with tape measure in hand.
> Comparing the '68 Newport Custom to my '68 LeBaron measuring from the
> firewall at the brake booster mount to the radiator core support:
> > Imperial 40 5/8"
> > Chrysler 37 1/2"
> > So, that plus the floor pan bits further differentiates the Imperial from
> the Chrysler. For any who still think the "boxcars" are just retrimmed New
> Yorkers, I invite you to take a tour of the shop manual and see how little
> of the front suspension components interchange btwn Imperial and Chrysler.
> Imperial really did benefit from "Extra care in engineering".
> > Cheers,
> > Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network