I can now make such a statement. I looked this item up in the 60 factory parts
book & it lists it as a silencer, part# 1900763. There are also other part
numbers for the other 1960 models.
John
hugh hemphill wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I was interested to see if anyone could make a definitive statement about
> this padding. It is my contention that it is not a factory original item.
> Maybe it was fitted at the dealer, or later on, but not at the factory.
>
> The only "evidence" I have is a publicity picture in the 1955 - 63 Photo
> Archive book. There is a mechanic tuning up a 57, and making it look jolly
> easy, too, and there is no padding under the hood.
>
> Conversely, the 59 & 61 engine bay photos DO show a pad. So, who's to say?
>
> Down here in Texas, the sun is the main culprit in terms of destroying
> paint. Sooner or later, your horizontal surfaces are going to be toast. I
> cannot see any good reason for a pad in this climate. The Engel designed
> car, before he moved he moved to Chrysler, we have that has one and it is a
> horrible mess. Some one else has already posted on the negative aspects of
> these pads so just put me down for a "ditto."
>
> Under hood air flow is an element to consider with the Hemi in the 57/58
> Imperial. It is a huge engine in a car designed to be very, very low. The
> block rides low between the wheels, the heads are in the middle and the
> valve covers sit above the rocker arms but are impeded from being cooled by
> all the paraphernalia lumped on top. This is not a pretty engine bay. The
> radiator is behind the A/C cooler. The A/C cars have an additional blade on
> the fan in the attempt to coerce more air movement under there. I think
> the pad would be virtually touching the air cleaner and the oil filler cap,
> and would act as a heat trap for the engine to a great extent.
>
> My poorly made point is that such a pad would actually not allow cooling air
> to ciculate around the engine and then down under the car.
>
> Hugh
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network