Re: IML: First New Yorker & Imperial (Was : Imperial, New Yorker, new, or maybe a really nice restoration job on a 40 year old car ...., )

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

First Chrysler Imperial as a series - 1926

First Chrysler New Yorker as a series - 1939

In mid-year 1938 Chrysler introduced the New York Special, a slightly
fancier Imperial.   For 1939 it became the New Yorker.  And it was still
more expensive than the Imperial while the new-for-1939 Saratoga was priced
above both the Imperial and New Yorker.  (It was not until 1941 that the
Saratoga was placed below the New Yorker and the Crown Imperial Special
replaced the Saratoga above.)

The Imperial died at the end of 1975 due to poor sales.   The 1975 Imperial
LeBaron saw production of 8,830 units while the New Yorker Brougham stood at
26,039 units.

In 1994, the first year of the LH-body New Yorker/LHS, production was :
New Yorker - 35,750
LHS - 48,160

In 1996, the last year for the New Yorker :
New Yorker - 3,270
LHS - 48,045

Again the New Yorker was killed due to poor sales.

Bill
Vancouver, BC



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wm. R. Ulman" <twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: IML: Imperial, New Yorker, new, or maybe a really nice restoration
job on a 40 year old car instead for the cost of a new one, if offered!
Hmmm?


Revive the Imperial?  Yes!  Revive the New Yorker?  Yes!  The New Yorker was
carried over into the "Cab Forward" platform cars from Chrysler in '93 and
ran I think through '96, or '97.  It was a less expensive version of the
LHS.  New Yorker was also the reason the Imperial was killed off after the
'75 model.  Since by the '74 version of each the Imperial, and New Yorker
were basically the same car, Chrysler killed the Imperial rather than the
New Yorker due to the mere fact that there had been a New Yorker each year
back to the late 20's, or 30's.  I know this from the news stories in '75
when it was announced the Imperial would cease production, and the New
Yorker would carry on.  I thought there was also always an Imperial, but I'm
not sure.

I would personally take out a 9th mortgage to get an Imperial IF it were
offered with:  Large size rear drive, Hemi powered, a coupe, and most
importantly, a CONVERTIBLE (to possibly replace the jelly bean Sebring,
which looks to much like a mid '90's Camero from the rear, or did in '96
when introduced to replace the LeBaron vert.), and was solid, with trim, and
bright work, wood, or other high end finish materials.

On the other hand, as has been mentioned, if the car cost $40-$50+K, I may
go out and by, as some said a fleet of older Imps, several different years
could be had with that kind of money, or more likely, take that sum of
money, buy one, or two really desirable verts (desirable is subjective here,
Greg has his '65, I have currently a '66, but would love to have a '60, '61
again) and in reality that kind of money will only really do one car really
well, restore it to near perfection, and then drive it.  Yes, drive it.
What is the point of spending that kind of money on a car and then trailer
it everywhere.  It would be my "brand new" car, and I would drive it as
such.  With $50K, or lets say $10-20K to buy a solid car to restore, and
then $30K to actually restore it.  Yes, you could easily spend more, but I
think $30K would make most any car very reliable, attractive, and road
worthy as any new car is.

My opinion only.

Bill Ulman
Seattle, WA
'66 Crown Convertible Coupe - Doris Day





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