Cadillac did the same thing with the '66 vs. the '65 grille. They took $ out
of the design, basically by reducing the complexity, same as Imperial. They
did some other things to the exterior in the same fashion, like removing the
chrome strips that ran at the top of the front fenders. The '66s always
appeared, at least to me, that someone had forgotten to put the trim on! The
ridges in the sheet metal still remained to accept the chrome strip, which
was a nice accent (lipstick, as the designers like to say).
The painted surfaces were not Federally mandated. The big Federal mandate of
'68 was, however, the side running lights.
Currell
>From: <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: '67 vs. '68 grille
>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:25:10 -0700
>
>It's not the weight of the chrome that made the '67 grille more expensive
>to
>produce, it was several other factors.
>
>One is the fine texture, which means there was more finish work to perform,
>and on (as well as between) more tiny surfaces.
>
>And another is the number of pieces. Not counting the body-color panels,
>there
>are ten chrome-finished pieces plus the IMPERIAL block letters, plus a
>black
>frame for those letters, plus the intricate parking/cornering lamps, which
>have double lenses on the outer faces.
>
>The '68 grille is only four pieces (I think... never took one apart...
>please
>let us know, 68 owners!) plus the simple lenses of the concealed cornering
>lamps.
>
>The glare things, as Mark noted, were mostly for safety. In fact, the '67
>brochure touts the first-year use of "low-glare windshield wipers" (which
>wore
>argent matte-silver paint instead of chrome), even though the wipers
>themselves rest atop a very bright windshield molding that faces straight
>up,
>ready to reflect glare on its own. While I am sure the textured plastic
>A-pillar trims were cheaper than the chrome, their savings was probably a
>side
>effect more than a goal.
>
>Chris in LA
>67 Crown
>
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:05:47 -0500 Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>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.
> >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network