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

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe Chrysler was forced to use the C-body for the Imperial in 1967 for
strictly economic reasons.  The body-and-frame Imperial was in its tenth
year in 1966 and the basic body structure was getting long in the tooth.
It still used a wrap-around windshield and to change that would need a
complete retooling of the A pillar and front cowl.  Not a cheap change to
make.  The 1966 Imperial was the last gasp of the original Tosion-Aire bars.
Starting with the A body in 1960, the set up was re-engineered with the
adjusters moved to the front in a location better protected from the
elements.  The new B body of 1962 got the revised system and the C body
changed in 1965.

Chrysler switched to unibody in 1960 and used computers to engineeer the
body.  Ford used slide rules and guessonomics in designing the 1958 Lincoln.
They had to add metal plates to cure body structure problems where Chrysler
engineered rigidity into the A pillar, floor pan and rear axle area.  When
Chrysler switched the Imperial to unibody in 1967 they began using a body
that was well-engineered and tested.

Unlike the 1955-56 Imperials which was the last Imperial to use the Chrysler
body, the 1967 Imperial had its own unique sheet metal.  Even the doors were
different.  And the Imperial's 127" wheelbase was done by using a 3" longer
front stub frame on the 124" wheelbase Chrysler.  Chrysler also spent money
improving the ride and quietness of the Imperial.   Although the 1967
Imperial lost it uniqueness as far as the body went, it was now a fully
up-to-date vehicle.

Uncle Tom may not have been impressed with the 1967 Imperial, but writers
for Motor Trend, Car Life, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science were.
Their only gripes concerned such things as assembly quality, a problem that
has plagued Chrysler since the mid-1950's.

As to marketing Imperial, I believe Chrysler passed up on three occasions
where the Imperial could have stood on its own -
1926 - The first year with its own engine, grille, hood and dash.  The
Imperial was as different from the Chrysler as it would ever be.
1931 - Introduction of the straight-eight engine.  Again the engine was not
shared with other Chrysler lines.  And the Imperial had its own emblem
(briefly).
1951 - Body styling as different from the New Yorker as the DeSoto was from
the Windsor.  The new hemi engine could have been unique to the Imperial
with the Saratoga and New Yorker using the straight 8 one more year.  Give
the Imperial an instrument panel different from the Chrysler and sell it
through Plymouth-DeSoto and Plymouth-Dodge dealers to break it from the
Chrysler shadow.

The "Imperial Division" was a marketing/advertising gimmick.  Legally, no
such division ever existed, and if you check any corporate documents and
reports you will find the Imperial Division is never mentioned.  Briefly in
1959-60 there was a Chrysler-Imperial Division,  but never an Imperial
Division.  Yes, the name appeared on sales brochures, advertisements, wheel
covers, etc., but it was all marketing hype.   The "Imperial Division" faded
from public view in 1971 when the Imperial became "by Chrysler".   When that
proved a marketing disaster, the "by Chrysler" designation was dropped.

Perhaps if the Imperial Division did exist in reality Chrysler may have had
more success in the market.  After all, specific jobs and positions would
have been on the line if the Imperial did not do well.

By the way, Chrysler Canada did not push the "by Chrysler" aspect of the
Imperial from 1971, and continued to issue Chrysler and Imperial brochures
along with separate Chrysler and Imperial specification folders.  I can find
only one reference, in 1971, for the "Chrysler Imperial" in Canadian
literature.  This did help Imperial sales as by 1972 the Imperial was
outselling the Lincoln Town Car in Canada.   Although the Canadian auto
market is roughly 10% in size compared to the U.S.,. close to 20% of
Imperial production in the 1970's was sold in Canada.

The 1958 Imperial used the same body and frame as the 1957, by the way.  So
the D body and frame structure was in production from 1957 to 1966.  The
body did receive some re-engineering for 1959 and the 4-door hardop used the
same chassis frame as the 4-door sedan and not the convertible unit.

Bill
Vancouver, BC






----- Original Message ----- 
From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: IML: About Tom McCahill, and his judgement of the car in '67


> 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
>



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