'67 vs. '68

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Argh.  Cheaper grille?  That's a lot of heavy duty chrome on those 68s .
. . hard to see how it would be cheaper than sheetmetal.

I believe the painted surfaces on the inside of the '68-- like the black
covers on the insides of the "A" pillars-- were due to safety
considerations, not cost cutting.  The black cut down on glare and
reflections in the windshield which could blind the driver (that is also
why the top of the sunvisor was black, and the back of the mirror).  I'm
not sure if this was federally mandated at this time, or if the car
companies did it on their own to try to comply with (appease) the feds
or what . . . but you will see that chrome & bright reflective surfaces
started disappearing from most cars' interiors at around that time.
(I'm sure Chris H will know the law on this!)

I can't see any other reason for the lack of the paint buffing other
than what you say, unfortunately.

Mark M

Mike Pittinaro wrote:

> Once, yes.  "Inside, an antiqued bronze finish
> replaced the wood veneer..."  Also, they seem to
> diminish the '68 as a cost-cutter's attempt at making
> the '67 profitable.  Things like the cheaper grille,
> painted interior trim instead of chromed, and the lack
> of a body paint buffing operation were mentioned.
>