|
I've never owned an Imperial that didn't have a leaky
trunk.
John
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:32
PM
Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler
marketing-product quality
Mark, you are absolutely on target with this post. I also agree
that the '69 model was really cool, even if they did cheapen the trim a little
bit. I still don't think that any single year of Imperial can be said to have
a leaky trunk. I have heard from owners of all years who have and also who
have not experienced that problem.
Paul
In a message dated
1/24/2004 11:03:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
>
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> You offer
an interesting perspective, and I have to take your words
> seriously
since you say you worked for a Chrysler dealership during
> 1967-68 (did
I read you right?), but what you say doesn't jibe with
> what I've heard
from other knowledgeable people regarding the 67's and
> 68's, nor does
it correspond with my own experience, having owned both
> 68's and
fuselage era Imperials.
>
> The 67's and 68's were among the
highest quality years for Imperial, in
> my opinion, and also according
to a guy I know who was a district
> manager for Chrysler Corp. during
those years. By contrast, the 69's
> had a lot of problems (and I
love the 69s!). The 69's were known for
> their leaky trunks, not
the 67's-68's. I don't know about the brake
> problems you
mention. However, I would agree, the Holley carbs on the
>
67's-68's were problematic, and were known to be at the time.
The
> reason Chrysler stuck with them, my friend informs me, was
cost. They
> were incredibly cheap to buy.
>
> As far
as the transition from body-on-frame to unibody being a cause
> for
Imperial "languishing," I'm not sure I see your point. Could you
>
explain how that transition caused Imperial to languish? It seems
to
> me that Imperial going to unibody was, far from being a negative,
was a
> tremendous positive. Not only were they ahead of their
time, it
> resulted in a stiffer body that was cheaper to produce.
(The
> transition to unibody was inevitable. It had to happen
sooner or
> later.) The causes of Imperial's demise went a lot
deeper than that,
> and a lot further back than 1967, in my opinion, and
have more to do
> with marketing than the actual construction of the
cars. However, I
> agree with your general point: inconsistent
quality hurt Imperial
> sales. I just think you single out the
67-68 years unfairly.
> Inconsistent quality was the hobgoblin of ALL
Chrysler products
> throughout the whole decade.
>
> In my
opinion, having driven 64's, 65's, 66's, and 67's-68's, the
> quality of
the 67's-68's is at least as good, if not better, than in
> the earlier
cars. These cars still have a great deal of metal in them,
>
especially in the interior, and at the time metal was synonymous with
>
quality. The first really "plastic" Imperials were the 69's-- but
from
> today's perspective, the amount of plastic in their interiors
seems
> almost insignificant in comparison to today's all plastic
wombs.
>
> In my humble opinion, I think you are way off base
when you say the
> interiors of the Imperials in 67-68 were virtually
indistinguishable
> from the New Yorker or even the Newport of the same
period. In fact, I
> wonder how you can even say that!
:) The 1968 New Yorker had
> simulated woodgrain on the dash (in
the form of a vinyl applique). The
> 1967 Imperial, by contrast,
had real wood on the dash, and the 1968
> Imperial had a bronze/copper
alloy. The impression this real wood and
> real bronze makes is
much different than the impression made by the
> fake wood of the New
Yorker dash. The NYer dash is not cheesy-- in
> fact, I like it a
lot-- but you're very aware you're looking at vinyl,
> not genuine
walnut or antiqued bronze.
>
> In addition, the New Yorker, 300,
Newport, and Town & Country in these
> years all shared the same
basic dash design. The Imperial had a
> totally unique and
separate design. The Chryslers also had very
> similar upholstery,
whereas the Imperials had much plusher upholstery
> unique to them
alone. If you sit in at a Newport from 1968 and then
> sit in an
Imperial from the same year there is no chance you're going
> to get
them confused. It's quite clear which is the top of the line
> and
which is the "economy" model.
>
> The door panels were also
totally different. All the Chryslers shared
> the same little
rectangular armrest that stuck out from the door (which
> was also found
in the Dodge and Plymouth). ONLY the Imperial had the
> unique
door panel with the concealed glove compartment, the angled
> panel of
power switches, the door pull, the wood or bronze inlay, etc.
> I don't
mean to bust your chops but I feel like you've kind of glossed
> over a
lot of very significant differences between the 67-68 Imperials
> and
the 67-68 Chryslers.
>
> Also, Imperial stood up very well
against its competition in those
> years. If you were to park a
67-68 Cadillac side by side with a 67-68
> Imperial, you would be hard
pressed to say the Caddy outdid the
> Imperial. The Cadillacs did
have a very nice interior, I agree, but
> they were going with a
semi-"pod" design for the dash, where all the
> instruments are
clustered together for the driver's convenience around
> the steering
wheel, whereas the Imperial had a wide open, symmetrical,
> "door to
door" design that offered easy access for the front passenger
> to
things like the radio, ashtrays, etc. Which style you prefer is
>
really up to individual taste, but in terms of opulence or luxury, I
>
can't see the Imperial talking 2nd place to either the Caddy or the
>
Lincoln. If you look at the sheer amount of vinyl or plastic in
the
> Caddy of those years vs. the amount of real metal in the Imperial,
the
> Imp wins hands down. Caddy really started "cheapening" their
cars at
> least 2 years earlier than Imperial, in my opinion.
(Again, by today's
> standards we tend to see metal as a negative
because of the safety
> issues involved, but back then metal = solid
& strong = quality, while
> plastic = flimsy & cheap = poorer
quality.)
>
> The 64's-66's have a smoother ride, in my opinion,
due to the 413s, but
> in terms of overall quality I do not see a big
break between them and
> the 67's-68's. I think they were "all of
a piece" during those years--
> each year having strong pluses and
minuses, but being very comparable
> overall.
>
> I'm sorry
to get carried away but I have to defend my 67-68s! In my
>
opinion they were not a "watershed" but a pinnacle.
>
> Mark
M
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 23, 2004, at 06:44 PM,
chuck milverton wrote:
>
> > I have been driving Chryslers
since the 1950's and have worked for a
> > dealer in my time. We went
thru the dealer crisis in '62 and all the
> > other screw ups that
the bean counters launched down the tube.
> > Probably the biggest
reason why Imperial languished was the transition
> > from body on
frame to unibody fuselage ie. the ' 67 - ' 68 model years
> > . These
cars were plagued with brake and carb problems - the 440's
> > fouled
plugs on a regular basis and the fit and finish was terrible
> >
particularly when it came to the lead body filler which could be seen
>
> when viewed at the wrong angle. The trunks leaked in heavy rains,
and
> > I had more than one body shop helper spend an hour or two
inside the
> > trunk while we hosed it down to spot the leak.
What really hurt was
> > that Lincoln and Cadillac really went all
out in those years in terms
> > of the interior embelishment and
appointment while except for the
> > Coupes, Jefferson cheapened the
interiors to the point that they were
> > virtually indistinguishable
from the New Yorker or even the Newport.
> > Lincoln and Cadillac
seating comfort and style was superb while the Le
> > Baron was
diminished from its' ' 64 - ' 66 magnificence. To me this
> > was the
watershed period for Imperial and it really never recovered.
>
>
> > Chuck Milverton
> >
> > Looking for ' 64
Crown Coupe
> >
> > Kildare , Texas
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----------------- 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
-----------------
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