67-68 Transition Years

["Currell Pattie" <currellpattie@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For concave bodies, check out the latest 5 Series from BMW.

Designed by American Chris Bangle, and a controversial design it is. Currell 
(67 Imp fan)


>From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: 67-68 Transition Years
>Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:45:46 -0600
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>