Re: IML: About Tom McCahill, and his judgement of the car in '67

[RandalPark@xxxxxxx]

Uncle Tom did "slam" the '67 Imperial. He was annoyed that they finally had decided to put it on the same platform as the rest of the company line. 

His main interest in the Imperial over the years was that it was a powerful luxury car with a "handling package". His complaints about the '67 were totally about the fact that it no longer stood apart from the rest of the line. After reading that road test myself in high school I would never have considered any built after the '66 model year as being "true Imperials". That is until my mother bought a new '68 LeBaron.

There were things about that car that I did not like, mainly that it was a big square car. My first drive was utterly amazing. It was super quiet, super fast, and after all these years, I will say that it was built better overall. I am sure that the amount of time that went into the assembly was probably less, but technology had afforded the industry some real benefits by the time that the 1967 Imperial was introduced. 

Comparing this car to the "Box Car Lincolns" of the late '50s is like comparing a rose to a stink weed. Those Lincolns were a flop because the technology wasn't yet there to support such a large car built in that format. By '67 Chrysler had this ability and used it well. These Imperials handle the best of any built up to that time. This fact is simply due to improvements in the industry that took place at a very rapid rate in those years.

I have become convinced over years of experience that Imperial built after '66 are every bit as much an Imperial as ever. I will always have a preference for the cars built between 1957 and 1966, but I am very comfortable in considering 1967 and newer cars as "True Imperials". Uncle Tom may have been disappointed, but he didn't stick around long enough to see how well these cars held up and how little they changed in there first 100,000 miles of use.

Paul

In an email dated Wed, 23 2 2005 5:02:24 pm GMT, "Wm. R. Ulman" <twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Thanks, Bill for such a great biography of Mr. McCahill!
>
>I want to note that although he was a great fan of the Imperial, and owned
>several, his last one, please don't quote me, he may have gotten over it,
>but his last Imperial was a '66 LeBaron 4dr hardtop. ?When the '67's came
>out, he did not have much, if any praise for them, and said he would not
>take ownership of one personally. ?He did not slam the car, but said it was
>not up to snuff as the previous body on frame Imperials. ?I guess when the
>Imperial went Uni-body, with the Newport body, or sub-frame, whatever you
>call it, and reverted back to being a Chrysler in '67 he was not happy about
>it. ?I think there is a story on the website about his comparison of the '66
>to the '67. ?Or, I might have it in another place on my computer in an
>email, but I think it must be on the site. ?I will look for it, and pass on
>the email, or link. ?It really is to bad Chrysler did not follow through on
>comprehensive marketing of the Imperial for the 11 years it was it's own
>Marque '56-66, and the car was always considered by the public as a
>Chrysler. ?Chrysler was all over the place with it's placement, and muddied
>the waters further when they went so far as to put the "By Chrysler" on the
>cars in '70, or '71.
>
>I am not trying to stir up any ones indignation, but it is truly my belief
>from the MoPar experts I know who say in '55 the Sedan Imperial was a
>Chrysler, but in '56 with the hardtop, Imperial was separated to it's own
>division, but never got distinguished enough, was still sold at
>Chrysler/Plymouth dealers, and in '61 when MoPar went Uni-body across all
>lines, except Imperial, because the expense to retool the low production car
>was not either cost effective, or more likely, they wanted to try to
>distinguish Imperial from the other MoPar brands. ?This marketing failure in
>the end, and the low production numbers overall, led Chrysler to adopt the
>Newport Uni-body, and do whatever they did to make it an Imperial model,
>stretching the sub-frame, or God knows what, but in reality, the car ceased
>to be unique to itself, body on frame, and became a Chrysler again, even if
>not marketed that way directly. ?Again with the "By Chrysler" badgeing a few
>years later it is no wonder people always refer to the car as a Chrysler.
>If I have time, and the person seems like a car guy/gal, I will explain the
>separation of the Marque for the '56-'66 years. ?Of course by '66 the
>platform was archaic, as it was basically a '58 frame. ?Why not a '57, I
>don't rightly know, but have been told it was from '58 to '66 the platform
>used. ?The wrap around windshield was passé', and to expensive to create a
>whole new separate Imperial line for a car that really never took off as
>intended to compete with Cadillac, and Lincoln. ?Interesting note that the
>'57 Imperial outsold Lincoln, but the horrid quality of the '57's killed the
>car's reputation, and it never recovered completely from that. ?If it had
>not the problems of the '57, I think the Marque may have survived and even
>prospered. ?Another note of interest is that the late '90's Lincoln
>Continental, or The Continental specifically, which had been around for
>decades, died a awful death due in major part to the loss of reputation with
>Ford's failed Air-Bag suspension on the Continental. ?Several thousand
>dollars to fix/replace caused such outrage, Ford was almost forced to drop
>the Continental model, and in fact did so. ?Today there is no Continental.
>
>Please, I do not want to piss off anyone with the '67 forward Chrysler
>reference. ?A lot of people believe the same as I do, but we all love our
>Imperials, so who gives a rip, except when you want to get technical about
>it. ?If someone can prove the Imperial remained a separate division of
>Chrysler after '66 I would be glad to learn something, and change my story
>told to interested parties.
>
>As a final note, all my attempts to refinance my current condo for just a
>year were so expensive after buying out, or down the prepayment penalties,
>and points, brokers, etc.. Making it cost $5K to borrow 6-7 thousand
>dollars, I was directed to a finance company, and yesterday put the Imperial
>up as collateral for a loan. ?Hated signing the title over, but I will hit
>that payment hard over the next year, and hopefully get it paid off prior to
>the loan process for my new condo. ?Lenders don't like car payments when
>applying for home loans. ?As of today, I owe, and make car payments on a 40
>year old car. ?I could have borrowed up to $5K more on it per the lender,
>even though it is not a #1 car, so Imperial values are going up, and being
>recognized by lenders for their value. ?For those who wonder why, it was so
>I could get earnest monies on my new condo.
>
>Bill Ulman
>Seattle, WA
>'66 Crown Convertible Coupe - Doris Day
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:13 AM
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: About Tom McCahill??
>
>
>
>
>Tom McCahill was married a number of times but never had children of his
>own. ? His assistant during the last decade of his life was his wife's son.
>Unce Ton's grandfather was a well-to-do New York lawyer (if memory serves)
>and left his money to his son (Tom's father) when he died. ? Unfortunately
>for Uncle Tom, the depression and his father's alcoholism wiped out the
>family fortune.
>
>During the depression, after having to leave college, he either owned,
>managed or worked for,. Murray's Garage in New York City. ? During the war
>he began writing articles on a variety of subjects for magazines such as
>Mechanix Illustrated. ?After the war he did two road tests, one on the 1946
>Ford and the second on the 1946 Buick. ?These were published by Mechanix
>Illustrated and the rest, as they say, was history.
>
>Uncle Tom sent sales of Mechanix Illustrated soaring upward over the years
>with the public becoming infatuated with his stories and road tests. ?He
>wrote many articles on car safety, maintenance, etc. and his own letters to
>Uncle Tom column got more mail than the magazine's letters to the editor.
>
>One of my favourite road tests was the one he did on the 1952 Singer 1500
>roadster, a small MG competitor that became a part of the Rootes Group in
>1955. ?The Singer prior to the war was noted for shaky body construction,
>average engine performance and a big question mark on brakes. ?And those
>qualities continued after the war with the Singer 1500 roadster.
>
>Uncle Tom had this Singer roadster out at a race track in New England (he
>lived in Connecticut in the 1940's and early to mid-1950's) and was
>accompanied by his photographer, his wife at that time. ? He asked her to
>stand in the middle of the racetrack and take a couple of photos of him
>coming around the curve. ?As he travelled around the curve, there she was,
>right in the middle of the roadway. ? He could tell she was not going to
>move so he slammed on the binders. ?And verified the question mark on Singer
>brakes.
>
>The Singer was slowing down, not as fast as Uncle Tom wanted, while his wife
>was true to her word. ?She was standing in the middle of the race track
>taking photos as came around the bend. ? As luck would have it, the Singer
>stopped with inches to spare. ?And his wife never wavered. ?Which was a
>great relief to Uncle Tom. ?As he stated, it was very fortunate as good
>cameras are hard to come by! ?Every once in a while a photo of his wife
>would appear in a road test or article. ?The photo of his wife that appeared
>in publication a year or so later did not look like the woman in the Singer
>article.
>
>He was friends with ?people from all walks of life, people such as band
>leader Paul Whiteman and NASCAR head Bill France. ? In the late 1950's he
>moved to Florida and began testing cars at Daytona. ? He was an avid hunter,
>noted for packing his car(s) with equipment and his black labrador dogs, and
>heading off for a bit of duck hunting, ? That placed him in good graces with
>another avid duck hunter, George Mason, president of Nash-Kelvinator. ? That
>probably had a great deal to do with Uncle Tom being the first auto writer
>to see and test the Nash Rambler when it was first introduced in 1950.
>
>Cross-country travelling was another of Uncle Tom's trademarks during the
>1950's. ?He regularly travelled to California loading up his car and heading
>off for a couple of weeks. ?His road test of the 1956 Plymouth Sport
>Suburban was conducted during one of his jaunts from Connecticut to Florida.
>
>When it came to cars, he was a great Chrysler fan. ?From 1956 through to the
>fuselage era he had nothing but praise for the Imperial and bought one
>vitually every year during that period. ? Although he mocked Imperial's
>free-standing tailights when they first appeared in 1955 (calling them
>"sparrow strainers") he mourned their loss when the 1963 models were
>introduced.
>
>He believed Chrysler's Torsion-Aire suspension gave Chrysler products
>handling characteristics that all North American auto makers should copy.
>When it came to automatice transmissions, Torqueflite was the unbeatable
>champ and Chrysler's brakes were second to known. ? He claimed he knew
>Walter Chrysler and owned Chryslers and Dodge Brothers cars in his younger
>days.
>
>During the last few years of his life he slowed down quite a bit. ?He was a
>heavy smoker and was not noted for his slim physique even in the 1940's. His
>wit seemed to die off as he slowed down. ?He died in 1974 (if memory serves
>me) and his step-son, Brooks Bender, continued on for awhile writing Tom
>McCahill road tests, ?Always felt it ironic that his favourite car, the
>Imperial, would die shortly after he did.
>
>Collectible Automobile did a nice piece on him a few years back. ?Cannot
>locate my copy of the article (although I did come across the article on
>Ionia/Mitchell-Bentley). ?Mechanix Illustrated also did a 25th anniversary
>story on him in 1971 (can't find that either).
>
>
>Bill
>Vancouver, BC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mika jaakkola" <mika.jaakkola@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:56 PM
>Subject: IML: About Tom McCahill??
>
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> As we all know, Tom McCahill made many road tests about Chrysler
>> Corporation cars. But does anyone know anything about the man himself?
>> When did he live? How was he educated?
>> What cars did he use in personal life? etc etc.. anything?? There's
>> big story about Virgil Exner on IOC, but
>> would it be possible to interview McCahills son/grandson ?!?!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mika Jaakkola
>> --1964 Imp
>> --1957 Imp
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>----------------- ?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
>
>
>
>
>----------------- ?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
>
>


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