History repeats itself

["Ted Blackington" <cebuisle@xxxxxxx>]

Hello!

A slight correction. The steel wheels from a mid fifties N.Y. will definately fit a mid sixties Imp if they are from the wagon. I know this for a fact-Imperial used a bunch of defective wheels for their mid-sixties cars. When they got old the flexing caused them to crack in the middle of the rim, thereby losing all air pressure. I lost two of these wheels on a vacation trip in the short distance of 200 miles . I rented a car, rushed home after leaving my family and borrowed two steel wheels from my '56 wagon. The 65 Crown Convertible finished the trip with these wheels. AMC wheels are also interchangable with some Mopar products also, those using the 14" wheels. Of course, I need to mention here that the mid-fifties (and probably earlier) wagons used Imp front suspension parts. Many N.Y. parts are interchangable with the Imps during the fifties-including the entire drive train assembly. The public knew this, and many opted for the N.Y. as a better buy. After all, it had the same hemi engine, just in a lighter, faster car. This is not to denigrate the Imp as a car-I have several, and wouldn't trade the mid sixties Imps for a N.Y. No comparison. They were different from 55 on styling wise. But the public didn't see enough difference between Imperial and N.Y. to regard the former as a "prestige" car. After all, Caddy did not share it's drive train with Buick. 

 

Those of you who have 64-66 "ventilated" wheels-have them magnafluxed.                      

                                                                                                                      Ted Blackington

 

----- Original Message -----

From: De Vere Bredvik

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:01 AM

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: IML: History repeats itself

 

My first car is a 1971 New Yorker, I still have it. My point on the Chrysler - Imperial thing is : have you ever tried to simply interchange a 1964 Imperial wheel with a Chrysler? They will not change, and did not till 1974! In fact if I remember right, 67-73 Imperial wheels will not fit 1966 and down Imperials. Imperials also had full frames until 1966, Chrysler did not. I collect Imperials more than Chryslers simply because they are much more luxurious, heavy, stronger, quieter, ride better, and in my thoughts, just simply look better. 65 Imperial and a whole herd of others, (mostly Imperials). P.S. the first time I have seen the "Imperial by Chrysler" thing is on my 1973. Personally if someone did not know at that time what a Imperial was, it just added to the mystery. I never herd someone refer to their Lincoln as a "Ford Lincoln" or a Cadillac as a "General Motors Cadillac" So..... I do NOT own any "Chrysler Imperials". After 1975 or before 1956?, This would not be true as Imperial was a model of Chrysler. From about 1956-1975, Imperial was a Make. I am a stickler on this! Me and the Colorado division of Motor vehicles go around and around on this, because they try to change my Imperials to Chryslers. (I collect 1960-1975.)  (Funny thing is a G. M. Wheel will fit a 1967-1973 Imperial. In my experience in an emergency, I put on a 76' Buck La Saber wheel on a 67 Imperial and noticed no difference! )

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark McDonald

Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:34 PM

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: IML: History repeats itself

 

Here we go again!  :)

Oh, I love this one.  This one always pushes somebody's button.  I think
one of the most provocative phrases ever uttered on the IML is "gussied
up."

I know people probably don't really mean anything by it, but it's kind
of offensive to a lot of folks.  And it's just not true.  As the recent
discussion on idler arms demonstrates, there are literally hundreds of
differences between Imperials and Chryslers that you cannot see and
would never guess were there.  Some of these differences are large, some
are small.  As time went on, I guess you could say the differences got
to be fewer and fewer.  But they're still there.

I would invite anyone to drive a 19-whatever New Yorker and then drive
an Imperial from the same year.  The difference is immediately apparent
the minute you slide behind the wheel.  I'm not knocking the New Yorker;
it's a great car.  But the differences b/n a New Yorker and an Imperial,
in terms of ride, handling, comfort, etc., are substantial.  (At least
they are in the fuselage era cars, which is my only point of
comparison.)

You also have to look at the context in which these cars were created.
If you step back far enough, the differences between ALL cars Detroit
made at a certain time were small.  In the 50's and 60's, they literally
battled over inches.  Quality was measured in terms of how many ashtrays
you got, or how much headroom one model had over another.  In some
respects, these are trivial differences.  But it's how all these
differences, taken together, add up that make the REAL difference.

Also, when you talk about Cadillac you must remember you are talking
about a very old company.  I think it was one of the first car companies
in the U.S.  It existed on its own for many years before it became a
division of General Motors.  So did Buick and Oldsmobile.

Imperial, unless I'm mistaken, never existed on its own as a separate
company prior to becoming part of Chrysler Corp.  (?)  It was an
"outgrowth" of Chrysler, or a creation of Chrysler, intended to compete
with these other makes.  So in a sense we are being unfair to Imperial
when we expect it to have the same level of "separateness" or
"uniqueness" in terms of identity in the public's mind, as a Cadillac.
How could it?  Cadillac came first, then GM.  With Imperial, Chrysler
came first, then Imperial.  (I hope I'm right here, otherwise I'm going
to feel pretty stupid!)

However, in defense of those who call some years of Imperials "gussied
up" Chryslers, yes, I have to admit, that is the PERCEPTION of many
people.  And perception is what sells cars.  Not reality.  So it is
unfortunate, but true, that Imperial's marketing people failed to
convince the public of the real differences that existed.

But I would hope those of us on an Imperial appreciation list would be
more appreciative of these cars, and more careful about what we call
them.  :)

Just my opinion,

Mark M

"A. Foster" wrote:

> Ted; I rather object to the idea of my car being nothing more then a
> gussied up Chrysler, if that were true I would have a breeze finding
> trim parts for it. No sir, I have taken mine apart and seen a New
> Yorker taken apart and there is a substantial difference in the
> quality of parts and workmanship. What's more the front end of the
> car, other then the hood, is completely different. In reality most of
> the Cadilacs, from 1959 on, were nothing more then a gussied up Buick,
> actually I like the Buick better, but Cadilac had two things in its
> favour, better corporate support and better marketing. Poor build
> quality could have been overcome what got in it's way was Chrysler's
> wishy washy management. Chrysler let its separate divisions compete
> against one another footing in too much on each division's sales
> territory, this is what caused the demise of the DeSoto. Cadilac also
> had an entry level car actually priced lower then a top level Buick,
> to draw in sales. If Imperial would have had this they might have
> survived longer then they did. Instead Chrysler kept widening the
> Chrysler model line and narrowing the Imperial line to the point where
> the LeBaron was all that was left.Best RegardsArran Foster1954
> Imperial Newport



-----------------  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