Re: IML: Imperial or Not?

[Nat Hall <nathall@xxxxxxxx>]

>    What do you all imperialist think about the come back 81-83 and the
>90-93  Imperials? Are they worthy of being called Imperial which is
>synonymous with  Luxury!

ABSOLUTELY.

As another member pointed out, Chrysler had to "stay with the times to be
marketable". Just as previous generations of Imperials were comparable to
their contemporaries, so were the 80's and 90's Imperials.

I'm not sure where your question comes from... What sets, say, a 1952
Imperial apart from a 1982 Imperial, in essence, aside from the obvious
vintage differences? Both were the flagship of Chrylser luxury for their
time period and were designed to compete with flagship Cadillacs and
Lincolns of the time. Why would an '80s (or '90s) Imperial be less "worthy"
of the name than any other year?


-------------------
Nat Hall
1982 Imperial Coupe
1987 Chrysler New Yorker
http://newyorker.digital-forever.com
-------------------




-----------------  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