Your comments on the design of the front bumper for the '68 reminded me that my
mother had noticed the similarity in the style of these between the '60 and the
'68, since she had one of each at the same time when I was a teenager. Another
instance of my mother being remarkably on track, and she was in fact correct.
The only two years that the front bumper used a "gull wing" style were 1960 and
1968.
In 1960 the theme was repeated in the rear as well, and that was where it
remained through 1961 and 1962 even though the front was changed. Someone
mentioned that the '61 looked like two different people had designed the front
and back. I always thought that the rear bumper only seemed consistent in the
1960 version of the car.
Paul
In a message dated 1/24/2004 11:45:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> In '67 the Imperial shared many styling cues with the New Yorker?
>
> Could you tell me which ones?
>
> I hate to seem to be picking on you, but the '67 Imperial and the '67
> New Yorker had TOTALLY different styling, despite sharing similar
> bodies. In my opinion they shared virtually no styling cues, unless
> you're thinking of dual headlamps. Their proportions are similar, yes,
> that's true-- both are a "3 box" design" with the greenhouse, or
> passenger compartment, placed squarely in the middle, but other than
> that they are like night and day.
>
> The 1967-68 Imperial had convex body panels-- meaning they curved or
> bowed outward from the center when viewed in cross-section. The
> 1967-68 Chryslers had concave body panels-- meaning they bowed inward
> from the center. Incidentally, the 67-68 Chryslers are among the only
> cars ever made with concave body panels (I would say they are the only
> ones made, but I'm sure somebody on this list knows of some other cars
> with concave bodies!). This was a very radical thing at the time, and
> from what I've heard, difficult to produce. It was certainly a look
> that, like it or not, set every Chrysler off from any other car being
> produced at the time (all Ford, GM, and AMC products had convex body
> panels). In addition, the Imperial had trim running down the full
> length of the car which distinguished it from the Chryslers.
>
> If you look at the fronts of these cars there are very few similarities
> (again, with the exception of dual headlamps). The 67 Imperial has a
> very distinctive and intricate grille combining body-colored sheetmetal
> with stamped brightwork (I think it was stamped) that is unlike any
> other car in the Chrysler line-up-- or any other car being made by any
> manufacturer in 1967, for that matter. The 68's dropped the sheetmetal
> but continued to use a similar shaped grille and had a bumper with a
> dropped center to it and wraparound turning lamps-- again, totally
> different from the Chrysler line.
>
> All the Chryslers of these years (with the exception of the 300) had a
> front end featuring a long, slim, rectangular box design framing a
> recessed grille. The grille came to a point in the center of the car
> when viewed from overhead. This design was echoed in the rear, which
> featured the same box shape framing a recessed grille (in the case of
> the NYer) and 2 taillights placed in a panel that comes to a point (in
> the case of the Newport).
>
> The Imperial had a totally different treatment. The front was NOT
> replicated, or echoed, in the rear-- the rear was unique to the
> Imperial and consisted of 2 vertical "bumperettes" standing aside a
> seemingly continuous taillight divided in the middle by one big
> circular eagle/gas tank/turbine looking thingamabob. The back end of
> an Imperial didn't look anything like the back end of a Chrysler, or a
> Caddy, or a Lincoln. In fact, if you wanted to make a criticism of it,
> I would say its problem was it looked TOO different.
>
> The rooflines were very similar, I guess that's true. The amount of
> glass in both the Chrysler & Imperial was similar (unless you count the
> LeBaron's smaller rear window). You can definitely say "these cars
> belong to the same family"-- but you could say the same thing about an
> 67-68 Oldsmobile 98 and a 67-68 Caddy. (I think Ford did a better job
> of setting its luxury line off against Mercury-- there are some
> similarities, but it's hard to mistake the 2.)
>
> In my opinion there were plenty of styling cues to distinguish the
> Imperial from the Chrysler, and everything else on the road, too.
>
> Again, no hostility here-- I just love these cars and enjoy the debate!
> Your comments are appreciated.
>
> Mark M
>
> > Let me make one thing clear - the Lincolns and Cadillacs of this time
> > period were in no way comparable in terms of technology and
> > performance with the Imperial. I say this with a particular stress on
> > handling, braking, and long term durability. The 440 was a far better
> > engine than the 460 or the 472 in terms of the amount of punishment it
> > could take and continue to function. The Lincoln had rust issues where
> > the hood is concerned and the Caddy where the rear window and trunk
> > areas join. The problem that Imperial had was one of consistency year
> > over year with the over- all cosmetics and in this era cosmetics
> > counted for a lot. The pre- 67 Imperials were clearly distinguishable
> > from the lesser lights in the Chrysler line. In ' 67 this began to
> > fade as the Imperial shared many styling cues with the New Yorker.
> > This was even more apparent when the fuselage models came out - If you
> > lined up an Imperial next to a New Yorker next to a Newport next to a
> > Dodge Monaco next to a Fury VIP the similarities were obvious.
> > Cadillac had this problem in '58 when a Chevy and a Pontiac looked ,
> > at least head on very similar to each other - for which Cadillac was
> > roundly criticized.
> >
> > That 1969 was the third best year for Imperial is at best a Pyrrhic
> > victory - the Packard Patrician had the highest gross profit of any
> > luxury car in America in 1956. The fact remains that only Cadillac and
> > Lincoln are left and Cadillac is but a shadow of its' former glory for
> > many of the same reasons that Imperial is no longer with us.
> >
> > Chuck Milverton
> >
> > Love those pushbuttons
> >
> > Kildare , Texas
> >
> >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network