part numbers

Aside from owning a 1959 Imperial, our family also owns a 1955 DeSoto and 1956 DeSoto, as well as as 1955 Plymouth. What we have found is that 1956 was a transition year for Chrysler Corp, and that although the cars from the two years were very similar (same for Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler, and DeSoto), many are just enough different that they are not transferable. For instance, the brakes shoes are a different size from car to car, the master cylinders are different, etc. I have found that some of the suspension parts are the same, and while my power steering pump could be taken out of my 1956 and used on the 1955, the 1956 power steering pump was a far cry of improvement over the 1955 design (as far as mechanics and repair). I have also heard that 1955 was somewhat of a transition year itself, and that many of the parts from 1954 may not be transferable, but I cannot confirm this.

Chad

----- Original Message -----

From: roger crabtree

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:47 AM

Subject: Re: IML: part numbers

Mr. Bell,
I am glad that you can help with these years of
Imperials. Do you know if the parts for the 1955 were
set up in the same manner. Also do you know if the
shocks and u-joints are the same for the 55 and 56.
RC Billings, Montanaaaaa

PS- The off line question about the trans knock was
the torq converter bolts being loose. RC

--- W Bell <cbody67tx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I just
checked my July 1, 1972 edition of Chilton's
> Crash Parts book for Chrysler part numbers.
> Interestingly, they listed the idler arm and pitman
> arm (2835853 and 3004813, respectively) all the way
> back to the 1967 Imperials. As the part number
> series indicates, the idler arm part number goes
> with 1968 models and the pitman arm goes with 1970
> models (the first time that number was issued). So,
> it would appear that the original '67 part number
> was changed to the mentioned part number for the
> 1968 model year and similar was done for the pitman
> arm in 1970. So, from what I found those two parts
> are the same from the 1967-1972 (and probably 1973
> model year) Imperials.
>
> The other thing I discovered is that most of the
> parts for the Chrysler C-body cars do have different
> part numbers, even if they are one digit different
> than the similar part for an Imperial. BUT, there
> can be some other issues involved in that if there
> is anything different about the part, the parts
> package of nuts, cotter keys, etc., or a different
> style of rubber grease boot, the grease itself, or
> even if it's painted instead of natural cast, THAT
> would generate a different part number even for a
> part that otherwise is identical in all respects to
> the other one with the different part number. On
> the other hand, it could also be the diameter of the
> stud (and threads) or even the size of the ball
> socket that is internal that you can't see (to
> better handle a heavier vehicle).
>
> At first, I looked at just the idler and pitman
> arms, but then I looked at the other parts too. It
> seems that the whole Imperial steering linkage is
> different than the similar Chrysler C-body cars--at
> least by the part numbers.
>
> The other side of the deal is that I suspect that
> Chrysler would not have the resources to tool up and
> warehouse two complete steering linkages for the
> same body series of vehicle (as the fuselage C-body
> and Imperials were of the same suspension
> architecture, typically). Perhaps I'm incorrect in
> that presumption? But they could use the same basic
> castings and put higher quality rubber boots on
> them, for example. Lots of things that someone that
> was "in there" or was in the service departments
> back then might be the only ones to know about.
> Yet, from my experiences with another automobile
> manufacturer's (what Chrysler used to call "Order
> Interpreters) call center people (on the parts side
> of things), if that part number is not listed for a
> particular application in the catalog, it doesn't
> fit that application. If you press them for further
> information (which the later generations of these
> people don't know about), then we get the dialogue
> about "not being in the vehicle
> modification business" (probably for liability
> concerns).
>
> Now then, when you go to the parts house to get the
> counterperson to look up the parts, you can specify
> "Chrysler Imperial" and also have them check
> "Chrysler Newport/New Yorker" for the same model
> years, plus following the Imperial parts numbers
> back to the (in this particular situation) '67
> models too, for good measure. Sometimes, those
> aftermarket/replacement manufactuers do have some
> errors in their books, but sometimes they might know
> what the actual differences are in the Chrysler and
> Imperial items and then design one that will be fine
> with both applications--as the higher quality
> replacement parts people will verify their part
> against a factory OEM item for fit and installation
> correctness as part of their validation process.
> Other lower level vendors might use the "It's the
> same" orientation, though. Sometimes, too, the
> wrong parts get put in the right box, which might go
> undiscovered for quite some time in a low volume
> part. Therefore, make sure that what the vendor's
> catalog list matches the application for that part
> in the Chrysler parts catalog and then carefully
> match it against the production (hopefully) item on
> the vehicle prior to installation.
>
> Another defining situation would be the Hollander
> Interchange Manual that is used by the salvage
> yards. I believe that publication might also list
> the differences between the different year models or
> similar vehicles, or what modifications might be
> needed for it to fit different model years of the
> vehicle.
>
> My gut suspicion is that the Imperial and Chrysler
> front steering linkages would be the same in the
> '70-'73 model years (and probably back to 1969 as
> that's when that particular body series began). I
> would not see any compelling reason for them to have
> a different geometry or whatever as that part of the
> subframe would probably be more common than not
> between them. But then again the steering gear part
> numbers were one digit apart between Imperials and
> Chrysler C-body cars . . .
>
> I concur that steering and braking systems are two
> areas where quality counts, but I've seen some of
> the "off brand" items that seemed to be just a good
> as the name brand items (in a few cases). I also
> suspect there might be some other NOS vendors who
> might have come across some of the original Chrysler
> parts. They would be advertisers in the various
> Mopar magazines (Mopar Muscle, Mopar Action, etc.),
> but not necessarily Hemmings or similar.
>
> Hopefully, that NOS part you pay big bucks for is
> not all rusted up inside as it might not have gotten
> enough grease in it when it was built or the
> existing grease dried out over the years (the
> "return privilege" is one advantage of buying from
> an auto supply entity or going the reman route). In
> any event, if you did buy that NOS part and it was
> not useable, then you'd at least have a good
> reference item on that issue.
>
> Just some thoughts,
> W Bell
>

=====
RC Billings, Montanaaaaaa

http://www.imperialclub.com/temp/1955/RogerCrabtree/

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com

----------------- 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