Re: Re: IML: Unit-body vs body-on-frame

[<tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll second that!  Unibody was not just a costcutting measure, but a step at modernizing and improving the line, which I believe it did.

I would add that just because a car is unitized doesn't mean it has no frame; it just means the frame members have been integrated into and welded to the rest of the body (as opposed to bolted on).

I'm guessing now, but I'd say about 80-90% of the cars built today are unitized construction.  The exceptions are some trucks and some SUVs.  The reason is, as I understand it, greater strength at lighter weight.  

Mark M
> 
> From: RandalPark@xxxxxxx
> Date: 2005/02/25 Fri PM 01:57:48 EST
> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: IML: Unit-body vs body-on-frame
> 
> I think that it is high time that the myth about the '67 Imperial being a "cheapening" of the car be totally put to rest.
> 
> The 1967 Imperial was built as an improved design, not a cost cutting measure. Costs were cut, which was a great benefit to the company, but the old style Imperial had run its course. Once the unit body had been perfected there was no reason not to extend it to the Imperial.
> 
> The 1967 Imperial was not simply a larger Chrysler, at least not any more so that any other company's line of cars. Yes, it became much more like a Chrysler than it had been, but look at our beloved '55 and '56 models. Much of the sheet metal and interior trim (including the dash) is shared with other Chrysler Models. Yet, 1955 was the first yrear that Imperial called itself a separate make. The '67 cars shared vitrually nothing with its other corporate siblings.
> 
> The 1967 Imperial did not lose its identity as a "true Imperial". The company spent a ton of money on styling and upgrades to make the car more impressive, stylish, durable, and appealing than it was before. Remember, Chrysler Corporation was not building cars to suit the like of Imperial collectors and nostalgia freaks like me. They were building cars to make money. To do that they had to sell cars. By '66 the Imperial was losing ground fast. The Imperial was changed to sell more cars. 
> 
> If you want proof of the time, money, and effort that was put into the 1967 Imperial, compare the cost of building the 1967 grill to that of previous cars. I don't have the specifics, but I believe that the grill of the 1967 Imperial was the costliest undertaking for a purely decorative arrangement in many years by the company. This was done to further the image of the Imperial as a separate make, not dilute it.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
> 
> 




-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm