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

[RandalPark@xxxxxxx]

One more point I would like to make here, the '67 Imperial was not the result of Chrysler trying to cut costs. A great deal of money and developement went into the styling and design of these cars.

This was the company's "last hurrah" at building a car that would compete with Lincoln and Cadillac. They treated it to a host of new and highly innovative features. The styling was "cutting edge" for the time. The engineering was second to none.

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