| From: Nat Hall Sent: 7/11/2006 10:36:39 PM To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: IML: Imperial or Not? > What do you all imperialist think about the come back 81-83 and the >90-93 Imperials? Are they worthy of being called Imperial which is >synonymous with Luxury! ABSOLUTELY. As another member pointed out, Chrysler had to "stay with the times to be marketable". Just as previous generations of Imperials were comparable to their contemporaries, so were the 80's and 90's Imperials. I'm not sure where your question comes from... What sets, say, a 1952 Imperial apart from a 1982 Imperial, in essence, aside from the obvious vintage differences? Both were the flagship of Chrylser luxury for their time period and were designed to compete with flagship Cadillacs and Lincolns of the time. Why would an '80s (or '90s) Imperial be less "worthy" of the name than any other year? ------------------- Nat Hall 1982 Imperial Coupe 1987 Chrysler New Yorker http://newyorker.digital-forever.com ------------------- ----------------- 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 . |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network