|
I've
been reading a lot about Imperials with leaking trunks. I own two Imperials ('66
and '73) both trunks don't leak.
Could
it be that I'm lucky?
Rich
Woolf
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