Interesting points, Bill. (And I own one of those non-padded-dash '63 Darts
with the shiny edge and dull top.) One point of clarification, however...
Federal regulations didn't *prohibit* manufacturers from using low-glare
finishes and padded things (or other safet features) prior to 1967-68, but
they did *require* them after then, which is why many of the interior
differences between 1967 and 1968 occurred, from the much deeper dash pad to
the redesigned inside door handles to the textured (apparently not
metal...thanks, Mark M!) A-pillar trim.
Chris in LA
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:24:25 -0700 Bill Watson <wwatson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ma Mopar started using dull finish on the top of dashboards in 1953. It
obviously did not last too long as by 1960 all the dashboards were nice,
shiny paint.
Dull dash tops re-appeared in 1963 on the Valiant and Dart models so it was
not a government mandate. It was, perhaps, a move to fend off government
regulations, as were a number of safety moves in the mid-1960's.
(Although the dash tops of the Dart and Valiant were dull, the non-padded
dash version used nice shiny paint along the facing edge. Sort of defeated
the purpose in some ways.)
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: IML: '67 vs. '68 grille
> 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