Dear Andy
I'm in England and have two Imperial's 66 and 63, and I read the article and
you are so right, the telling thing was that Macahill had a Imperial! his
self.
If people ever realise just how much fun you can have with an Imperial and
still stay on the road.......... well need I say more.
David Munson
>From: "Andy Angove" <aa69tbird@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: IML: Collectible Automobile
>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:01:19 -0500
>
>I'm glad Collectible Automobile did a story on the '67-'68 Imperials. All
>of
>the cars featured in the article are beautiful! After reading the article,
>I
>put the magazine down and thought to myself: "They just don't get it." So
>many of the stories written about Imperials over the years seem to be a bit
>less than flattering about the car.
>
>The Imperial is always compared to the Cadillac and the Lincoln, but one of
>the big differences between these cars, which don't seem to be
>acknowledged,
>is that the Imperial was designed to be a driver's car. Yes it had a
>smooth,
>quiet ride like the other two, and yes it was a luxury car, but it also was
>superior to the others in performance and handling. So many of the writers
>seem to focus on the fact that it didn't sell well, and it was always
>trying
>to play "catch up" to the other two. An important observation, perhaps, but
>it's just a part of the story. They're missing the "big picture".
>
>I think Chrysler had slightly different plans for the Imperial, and I think
>it was a bit before its time in this respect. Americans didn't really
>expect
>good handling from cars until the imports came along with their stiff seats
>and harsh ride. I get the feeling the people who write the articles about
>Imperials don't have much appreciation for the cars, and don't make an
>attempt to understand what an Imperial really is. They just lump it in the
>Cadillac/Lincoln class and go from there. It's just another story in
>another
>issue.
>
>I may be completely off base here, but that's the general feeling I get.
>
>Andy
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Pittinaro
>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:52 AM
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: Collectible Automobile
>
>Yesterday while perusing Books-A-Million I spotted the
>latest issue of CA and picked it up, anticipating the
>story on the '67 Imperial that has been spoken of here
>on the IML. My girlfriend purchased the magazine for
>me (love her!) and, armed with a cup of tea, I
>proceeded to read the article.
>
>I must say, I was a little turned off by the
>cover...not only was the Imperial not the cover
>picture, but the story title teaser reads: 1967-68
>Imperial: Shrinking Empire. This did not bode well.
>
><snip>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network