my former 64 imp leaked in the trunk due to the chrome strips on the edge of
the fender.i think this became a common occurence.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler marketing-product quality
> Mine don't leak either, not even the '68. The one that did was the '60
Custom, but that was because the rubber seal had become unglued from the
water canal.
>
> My '65 began to leak after I bought it, but I was able to repair it when I
realized that it was due to some bad seals in the bolt on panel between the
back window and the trunk lid.
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2004 8:52:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard.woolf@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jsadowski [mailto:jsadowski@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 2:53 AM
> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler marketing-product quality
> >
> >
> > I've never owned an Imperial that didn't have a leaky trunk.
> > John
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: RandalPark@xxxxxxx
> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network