My trunk does not leek water ether.I like all the years,each one has that
Chrysler querk that twangs the hart strings.I prefer:56,67,68 .They all perform
better then all at the times they were built,but remember performance from
Chryaler in the upper level cars,was the bastion of the 300s.Imperials were not
sloutches either.
----- Original Message -----
From: dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:27
PM
Subject: IML: The 67-68s, was leaky
trunks
I very much agree with Paul on that one. The 67-68
Imperials have the type of
styling that it takes a while to
appreciate. When you do, you realize how
superior they were to most
cars of their era in terms of appearance, both
inside and out.
I
recently visited a 70 Caddy, and when Mike P. was in Austin, we also
checked
out a 68 Caddy. The interior appearance and quality is far
inferior to my
LeBaron. The Caddy was all plastic
inside.
There are many subjective opinions when comparing different
years in terms of
styling. However, the fact of the matter is that
each model year had technical
improvements compared to the previous.
The 68-69's for example have the beter
engines in terms of performance
compared to the 67's and the 67's were better
than the 66's.
Unfortunately, the emission regulations in 72 set an end to the
overall
drivetrain improvements, even though there may have been improvements
in
other areas (Dick B. for example said once that the the 81-82 seats
were
better in termos of comfort than the 68).
Given my preference
to performance options, and given the fact that I do not
particularly like
the fuselage cars, I think the 68 year suits my needs best.
The close
second would be the 67 model year.
D^2, 2x68
PS, none of my
trunks leak water
Quoting RandalPark@xxxxxxx:
> Sorry,
Chuck, if leaky trunks had killed the Imperial they wouldn't have
>
built anymore cars after 1957.
>
> I would also have to disagree
with you about the overall quality of the '67
> and '68 models. While
they may not have been the same as the separate body
> and frame models,
they really were very well put together and essentially
> equal in
quality to anything else offered as flagship models from GM or Ford
> at
the time.
>
> I vividly remember Tom McCahill complaining about
the differences between the
> 1967 Imperial and its predecessors, and
even agreeing with him at the time.
> Over the years I have been
convinced that those cars really were good cars
> and have a style and
elegance all of their own. When in top shape, I actually
> think they
are as nice or in some ways nicer to drive than the cars that came
>
before them.
>
> I can speak from experience since my parents
bought a new '68 LeBaron when I
> was learning to drive. Since then I
have driven and inspected many of these
> cars. In high school, I spent
every weekend polishing both our venerable 1960
> model, and the new
'68. I can remember my mother saying that she liked her
> '68, but that
it wasn't the car that the '60 was. I later wondered why she
> said that
because as it turned out, they drove that '68 Imperial for 100,000
>
trouble free miles. The '60 only had 32,000 miles on it when they
decided
> that they needed a new car. It had required many expensive
repairs including
> a front end rebuild, a/c overhaul, and several
incidents with the power
> windows mostly caused by wire problems in the
door hinge area.
>
> Even though the '67 and '68 models were not
really considered a big success,
> they really weren't any less so than
so many other years of Imperials that
> came before. Imperial went on
and actually sold a lot of cars in the early
> '70s. As I recall
production numbers in those years were some of the best
> ever.
>
> There may be some that don't like Imperials built after 1966, but I
don't
> believe that those cars did any damage to the name Imperial. To
the contrary,
> I believe that they were great cars for their
time.
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 1/23/2004
7:44:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> chuck_milverton@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you
Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
>
?�i��0�)�z�s.�nm�&N�T�,j�j� z�h�<>��^"j^�&�1��Sx
S�O.�z��-+hT��Sx%S�bs-�?�\-�ܢf�w*.����?�{�.��.��w.�ޯ*'x�⽫^T�,j�jwZ��o?g�����^٢z+-�h��!��]m� z�h���j�^�)�z�s.�nm�&N.
I@x
>
-�m���s-�?�\-�ܢo�z�>���m�m
-----------------
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