'67 vs. '68 grille

[Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There are a lot of things carmakers started doing in the late 60's that had
been done before-- for different reasons-- and which were not the direct result
of federal "mandate," but more of a response to federal pressure, and an
attempt to stave off possible future legislation.

As a result, automakers in the 60s, seeing which way the wind was blowing, did
a lot of things voluntarily before they were asked to, hoping this would
appease the feds.  They could go to Congress and say "Look, we did this, this,
this, and this without you even asking.  Leave us alone to regulate
ourselves."  Some of the things automakers did were not even based on fact but
rumors of what the government was thinking of doing.

A few examples off the top of my head: the removal of bright trim from inside
the windshield area, the dark color dashpads, the recessing of switches and
buttons, the redesign of door handles so as not to catch on a person's clothing
or injure them in a crash, etc..  Later on, I think some of these things
actually became "mandated."  But at first many of them were voluntary.  They
were also done gradually, but you can see the changes really beginning in
'67-'68.  The wraparound dash and diappearance of toggle switches from the
interior of the '69 Imperial is an example, I would guess.

Flat finishes on dashes may have been used before, but I would guess it was
mainly for aesthetic reasons, not safety.

Mark M

Bill Watson 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.
> > >
> >
> >
>