|
So does anyone have an accurate answer as to why Chrysler stopped adding
the monikers when the '67s rolled off the line? Was that no longer the
advertising rage? I liked the monikers (gave the cars more 'lift', as
if they needed any) and wished they had given the '67 and '68 Imps. a really
elegant one. I say elegant because to me those cars were the epitome of
sixties elegance! The slab sided bodies were so clean and
uncluttered. They remind me of a limousine! I've driven Mark
McDonald's (now owned by Ed Buitenwert) beautiful '68 Military Blue
convertible. It is without a doubt one of the most streamlined and
visually appealing Imperials ever made (imho)! I own a '65 but would
love owning a '67 or '68 in a heartbeat!
Please help me on this everybody: I have read an article somewhere
(maybe in Collectible Automobile) about how Engel came up with the
design for the '61 Lincoln when he was still employed by Ford Motor
Company. In that article were archive photos of clay mules as well as
sketches of the possibilities for the car and what it might look
like. One of the photos shows the taillight treatment Engel was
considering. The end caps used on the rear of the '67 and '68 Imps.
(or some mighty similar) were on that Lincoln mule! Anyone
else see that article? It was really interesting to see those end caps
being considered for the early sixties Lincolns and actually end up
being used by Engel much later in '67!
As for the debate about the name, I think something better
and far more suitable to the cars elegance could be applied to those two
years (on the website that is). But I'm not in charge so my thoughts don't
count. Seems a shame though that Chrysler Corp. didn't give those years a
really rich and luxuriously sounding moniker because the cars certainly were
(and still are) that!
Greg McDonnell
~ owner of a '65 Crown convertible from The Incomparable
Years
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network