|
Ted;
I don't know where you are going with this
because Saratogas shared engines with New Yorkers in the early 50's and the
public didn't stop buying New Yorkers because the Saratogas were cheaper. You
can also swap rims between Imperials, some Buicks, and Ford trucks, because of
the wheel bolt patern not because the car is a marketing Fraud.
The Imperial's problem was with marketing,
right from day one and the fact that they didn't try to separate them dealers
from the Chrysler dealers. If they were smart they would have sold
themselves on the reputation of their cars from the salon era, like Cadilac, and
play on that distinctiveness from more rudimentary Chryslers. The 1954 Imperials were different cars, they may have shared
some body dies but Chrysler shared some with DeSoto as well and yet no one
would call a DeSoto a stripper Chrysler.
The public never paid attention to what the
drivetrain was in these cars, other then how much power it put out. If they did
how do you explain why in the sixties people went out and bought Chrysler
Newports when they could also buy a Plymouth Fury with the same engine for less
money? Its simple, prestige. However Imperial never consistently tried to build
that level of prestige and distictiveness between itself and Chrysler.
Lincoln was another case in point,
Lincolns shared their 460cu. engines with Ford Thunderbirds, in the case of
the 70's Continental coupes they even shared bodies. Yet Lincoln sold scores of
these cars because they had a distinct division, with distinct
marketing, and paired their dealerships up with Mercury to maintain that
distinctiveness over Ford.
Best Reagards
Arran Foster
1954 Imperial Newport
Needing A Left Side Taillight Bezel and other trim
parts.
.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: IML: History repeats
itself
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
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network