The 67-68s, was leaky trunks

My trunk does not leek water ether.I like all the years,each one has that Chrysler querk that twangs the hart strings.I prefer:56,67,68 .They all perform better then all at the times they were built,but remember performance from Chryaler in the upper level cars,was the bastion of the 300s.Imperials were not sloutches either.

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

From: dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:27 PM

Subject: IML: The 67-68s, was leaky trunks

I very much agree with Paul on that one. The 67-68 Imperials have the type of
styling that it takes a while to appreciate. When you do, you realize how
superior they were to most cars of their era in terms of appearance, both
inside and out.

I recently visited a 70 Caddy, and when Mike P. was in Austin, we also checked
out a 68 Caddy. The interior appearance and quality is far inferior to my
LeBaron. The Caddy was all plastic inside.

There are many subjective opinions when comparing different years in terms of
styling. However, the fact of the matter is that each model year had technical
improvements compared to the previous. The 68-69's for example have the beter
engines in terms of performance compared to the 67's and the 67's were better
than the 66's. Unfortunately, the emission regulations in 72 set an end to the
overall drivetrain improvements, even though there may have been improvements
in other areas (Dick B. for example said once that the the 81-82 seats were
better in termos of comfort than the 68).

Given my preference to performance options, and given the fact that I do not
particularly like the fuselage cars, I think the 68 year suits my needs best.
The close second would be the 67 model year.

D^2, 2x68

PS, none of my trunks leak water

Quoting RandalPark@xxxxxxx:

> Sorry, Chuck, if leaky trunks had killed the Imperial they wouldn't have
> built anymore cars after 1957.
>
> I would also have to disagree with you about the overall quality of the '67
> and '68 models. While they may not have been the same as the separate body
> and frame models, they really were very well put together and essentially
> equal in quality to anything else offered as flagship models from GM or Ford
> at the time.
>
> I vividly remember Tom McCahill complaining about the differences between the
> 1967 Imperial and its predecessors, and even agreeing with him at the time.
> Over the years I have been convinced that those cars really were good cars
> and have a style and elegance all of their own. When in top shape, I actually
> think they are as nice or in some ways nicer to drive than the cars that came
> before them.
>
> I can speak from experience since my parents bought a new '68 LeBaron when I
> was learning to drive. Since then I have driven and inspected many of these
> cars. In high school, I spent every weekend polishing both our venerable 1960
> model, and the new '68. I can remember my mother saying that she liked her
> '68, but that it wasn't the car that the '60 was. I later wondered why she
> said that because as it turned out, they drove that '68 Imperial for 100,000
> trouble free miles. The '60 only had 32,000 miles on it when they decided
> that they needed a new car. It had required many expensive repairs including
> a front end rebuild, a/c overhaul, and several incidents with the power
> windows mostly caused by wire problems in the door hinge area.
>
> Even though the '67 and '68 models were not really considered a big success,
> they really weren't any less so than so many other years of Imperials that
> came before. Imperial went on and actually sold a lot of cars in the early
> '70s. As I recall production numbers in those years were some of the best
> ever.
>
> There may be some that don't like Imperials built after 1966, but I don't
> believe that those cars did any damage to the name Imperial. To the contrary,
> I believe that they were great cars for their time.
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 1/23/2004 7:44:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> chuck_milverton@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > I have been driving Chryslers since the 1950's and have worked for a dealer
> in my time. We went thru the dealer crisis in '62 and all the other screw ups
> that the bean counters launched down the tube. Probably the biggest reason
> why Imperial languished was the transition from body on frame to unibody
> fuselage ie. the ' 67 - ' 68 model years . These cars were plagued with brake
> and carb problems - the 440's fouled plugs on a regular basis and the fit and
> finish was terrible particularly when it came to the lead body filler which
> could be seen when viewed at the wrong angle. The trunks leaked in heavy
> rains, and I had more than one body shop helper spend an hour or two inside
> the trunk while we hosed it down to spot the leak. What really hurt was that
> Lincoln and Cadillac really went all out in those years in terms of the
> interior embelishment and appointment while except for the Coupes, Jefferson
> cheapened the interiors to the point that they were virtually
> indistinguishable from the New Yorker or even the Newport. Lincoln and
> Cadillac seating comfort and style was superb while the Le Baron was
> diminished from its' ' 64 - ' 66 magnificence. To me this was the watershed
> period for Imperial and it
> > really never recovered.
> > Chuck Milverton
> > Looking for ' 64 Crown Coupe
> > Kildare , Texas
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
>
?Ûiÿü0Â)©z¸s.ÉnmÊ&N¬Të,j°jËzÛhÊ<>ÊØ^"j^®&¥1¨¥Sx SËO.æ¬z·©-+hT¨¥Sx%SËbs-«?©\-æÜ¢f§w*.®·¬¦?ì{¥.·¬.ªÞw.ëÞ¯*'xúâ½«^Të,j¬jwZ¶Öo?g§¶Çè®Ø^Ù¢z+-«h®Ë!¢é]mëzÛhÁææjË^®)©z¸s.ÉnmÊ&N.
I@x
> -¢m§ÿâs-«?©\-æÜ¢oîzË>±Êâmèm

----------------- 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