|
I guess you could say "different strokes for
different folks", I, for one, wil always have at least one convertible, as I
have had one or more for the last 35 years. The one I have now is a '69 Cadillac
with 37,000 miles and while I love the car, I would sure like to have a
mid-to-late 60's Imperial convertible. I find that the 'wind-in -the-hair' ride
on a warm (but not too hot) day is a great feeling and quite relaxing. My dad,
at 83 years old, still has two rag tops that he drives occaisionally, one of
which is a '49 Chrysler T & C. I'm sure they're not for everybody, but I
think they're great!
'56 & '68 Imperial sedans
'78 NYB 4 dr.
'69 Cadillac de Ville Convertible
'Life's too short to drive 'ordinary' cars"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 9:41
PM
Subject: Re: IML: Coupe or rag top?
At 03:02 PM 8/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>D^2
>
I agree with you on your take of convertibles, although I personally
have
>nothing against them.
Arran, nobody has anything against
them! They just make no sense to
me. But if somebody likes
them, great! I guess there is a car for
everybody. I was
reading a CarLife road test of a 66 Chrysler 300. The
testers did
not like the car, but respected its power and handling. At the
end
they said: " if we all liked the same thing, we all would be married to
the same woman".
>All of this for a sunny summer
weekend
>driver that weighs more then a sedan but is less practical then
a business
>coupe and less fun then a motorcycle.
It seems that
the 1968 Imperial buying crowed agree with us. Out of
~15,000 cars,
only 470 or so were ragtops. My guess is that most of those
who
bought the ragtops, did not rely on that very car for their primary
transportation. Given that these cars were so expensive, the ragtop
crowd
may have been "spoiled" rich folks! ;) (nothing wrong with that,
wish I was
one of them too). My biggest objections except for the
obvious poor wether
protection is lack of safety, and loss of
performance (not only due excess
weight, but also due to added aerodynamic
drag, even with the top up, at
high speed the top will expand seriously
adding drag).
>Carrying your logic to the extreme, a sedan should be
worth
>a lot more than a coupe, because it's more
practical.
>
>--Roger van Hoy,
R, the loss of practicality
between a ragtop and a coupe seems to me far
more radical than from a
coupe to a 4 door. If I had a family though, I
would definitely try
to avoid a 2 door. So, yes, in that case, the 4 door
would have had
more value for me (remember, value is a relative term).
The only
convertible I have ridden in was a friend's Miata. I do not know
if
this qualifies for the thrill you are talking about. The most
interesting deal with that car is that you felt it was far faster
than it
really was (which was not due to the lack of roof, as due to its
small
size, and windy little engine). Later I raced the guy with my
Imperial (I
only had the sedan at the time), and I was amazed how easily I
outran
him. In fact, I though he wasn't really trying to race me,
but he admitted
he was!
D^2,
2x68s
----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com
-----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing
List. Please
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and your response will be
shared with everyone. Private messages (and
attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network