Re: IML: The LeBaron as a Chrysler

[Christopher H <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: IML: The LeBaron as a Chrysler

Perhaps it’s time to move this one to the Salon, please! A 1990s LeBaron is not an Imperial for the purposes of this list any more than a Plymouth Custom Suburban, which also shares an Imperial’s trim level name, is. Nice car, just not an Imperial, not even a pretend one. :)

Thanks! See you on the Salon!

Chris in LA


On 6/7/05 9:00 AM, Hugh & Therese at hugtrees@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> Robert wrote:
>  
> Anyway, the car (1992 Chreler Lebaron Convertible) is loaded with every option under the sun, and it is called Lebaron, so I can at least pretend it's an imperial :-)  .  I consider it to be the spiritual successor of the old Imperial convertibles, (or at least their second cousins) considering the option list.
>  
> I reply:
>  
> Keeping this reply strictly related to Imperials, I know the above statement might rattle the cages or more than few on this list and I'm not even sure that as an owner of a 1992 Lebaron convertible I agree with it myself.  As much as I like the car, and mine is loaded with options too, I don't really see it as an Imperial.  You look at the regular coupe and sedan versions from the same era and I think the comparison becomes impossible.
>  
> I have a 1958 Imperial.  In Texas, the land of Suburbans and duallie 3500 trucks, the cars still seems big and imposing.  In this its design still rings true.  Dating from the era of big cars, it was and still is one of the biggest.  The Imperial was intended to be the epitome of luxury, a prestige car that told the world everything they needed to know about the owner, from the corporate parking lot, to the golf club and even church on Sunday.  I don't think you can say the same thing about the Lebaron of the 1990s.
>  
> I have read comments on this list that the 90s Lebaron is almost an insult to their Imperial.  My 58 is the base model so maybe that's why I don't care.  The odd thing is my so called base model has more features on it than most of the 58 Crowns and Lebarons that come up on e-bay.  Its original owner could well have afforded those name plates but I don't think he wanted leather and to delete that option you had to get a base model, as far as I know.
>  
> I believe, technically speaking, these cars are specified as "J" cars, not "K" cars.  I admit I don't really know if this is significant.  I enjoy mine a great deal and I hope you enjoy yours but I don't think I would go so far as to call it an Imperial.  Chrysler has an odd way of dealing with its name plates.  Not long ago, there was a spirited discussion about whether the new 300 would be Imperialized.  Well, now we know the answer.  As far as the marketing folks at Daimler are concerned, it is, of all things, a Dodge Charger!  It blows my mind but let's see if they sell as well as the 300 before we decide who the fool is.
>  
> Hugh