Interesting subject. I like both marques (have a 53 Imperial sedan, 67
Cadillac Calais Coupe with 15k miles). I'm not disagreeing, but I think you
have something of an apples and oranges deal going here, with Imperial
getting a little benefit. The '67-'68 Imperial (especially the '67) was a
high water mark in Chrysler Corp styling for the period, at least for me,
where the '69-'70 styling cycle for Cadillac was a retrograde effort for Cad
compared to the '67-'68, which was in turn not as nice as the '65-'66. if
you compared a '70 Cad to a '70 Imp, I think you may see build quality in
Cadillac's favor. Interiors...yes, Chrysler put a lot of emphasis on them
vis a vis Cadillac. I'n not the biggest fan of the Chrysler Corp fuselage
styling of the era, also, but it is...interesting in its own way. I would
prefer it in its purest ('69) form. One thing, stylling wise, is for
sure...there certainly is a difference compared to the GM cars of the late
'60s.
And I like the way Chrysler is trying to do something fresh, design wise,
right now. Witness the Crossfire, for example. It puts the Audi TT on the
trailer.
Currell
>From: dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: comparing Cadillac to Imperial
>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:45:04 -0500
>
>
>The old subject back again. I had the opportunity to observe a 70 Cadillac
>covertible. Nice car of course. Great styling inside and out. The first
>observation regarding the interior was that it was looking too modern
>(compared
>to my 68's). Too much plastic. The quality of materials was of course was
>incomparable to the Imperial, even though I may have been slightly biased.
>Even though the door of the 2 door is longer than my 4 doors, it felt
>lighter
>than my Imperial doors, and it did not close with the same feel. Then I
>looked
>at the engine compartment. It had the same q-jet type of carb as my
>LeBaron
>(unlike the LeBaron, could that have been original equipment, anyone?).
>The
>air cleaner was tiny though. It appeared that the air flow demands of that
>engine were not quite that great, and it was ecquipped accordingly. 400
>hp?
>Yeah, right! The exhaust manifolds looked pretty bad too.
>
>Still, a good looking car, far ahead from modern Caddies, at least in terms
>of
>appearance.
>
>D^2, 2x68
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network