Dear Chuck,
You offer an interesting perspective, and I have to take your words
seriously since you say you worked for a Chrysler dealership during
1967-68 (did I read you right?), but what you say doesn't jibe with
what I've heard from other knowledgeable people regarding the 67's and
68's, nor does it correspond with my own experience, having owned both
68's and fuselage era Imperials.
The 67's and 68's were among the highest quality years for Imperial, in
my opinion, and also according to a guy I know who was a district
manager for Chrysler Corp. during those years. By contrast, the 69's
had a lot of problems (and I love the 69s!). The 69's were known for
their leaky trunks, not the 67's-68's. I don't know about the brake
problems you mention. However, I would agree, the Holley carbs on the
67's-68's were problematic, and were known to be at the time. The
reason Chrysler stuck with them, my friend informs me, was cost. They
were incredibly cheap to buy.
As far as the transition from body-on-frame to unibody being a cause
for Imperial "languishing," I'm not sure I see your point. Could you
explain how that transition caused Imperial to languish? It seems to
me that Imperial going to unibody was, far from being a negative, was a
tremendous positive. Not only were they ahead of their time, it
resulted in a stiffer body that was cheaper to produce. (The
transition to unibody was inevitable. It had to happen sooner or
later.) The causes of Imperial's demise went a lot deeper than that,
and a lot further back than 1967, in my opinion, and have more to do
with marketing than the actual construction of the cars. However, I
agree with your general point: inconsistent quality hurt Imperial
sales. I just think you single out the 67-68 years unfairly.
Inconsistent quality was the hobgoblin of ALL Chrysler products
throughout the whole decade.
In my opinion, having driven 64's, 65's, 66's, and 67's-68's, the
quality of the 67's-68's is at least as good, if not better, than in
the earlier cars. These cars still have a great deal of metal in them,
especially in the interior, and at the time metal was synonymous with
quality. The first really "plastic" Imperials were the 69's-- but from
today's perspective, the amount of plastic in their interiors seems
almost insignificant in comparison to today's all plastic wombs.
In my humble opinion, I think you are way off base when you say the
interiors of the Imperials in 67-68 were virtually indistinguishable
from the New Yorker or even the Newport of the same period. In fact, I
wonder how you can even say that! :) The 1968 New Yorker had
simulated woodgrain on the dash (in the form of a vinyl applique). The
1967 Imperial, by contrast, had real wood on the dash, and the 1968
Imperial had a bronze/copper alloy. The impression this real wood and
real bronze makes is much different than the impression made by the
fake wood of the New Yorker dash. The NYer dash is not cheesy-- in
fact, I like it a lot-- but you're very aware you're looking at vinyl,
not genuine walnut or antiqued bronze.
In addition, the New Yorker, 300, Newport, and Town & Country in these
years all shared the same basic dash design. The Imperial had a
totally unique and separate design. The Chryslers also had very
similar upholstery, whereas the Imperials had much plusher upholstery
unique to them alone. If you sit in at a Newport from 1968 and then
sit in an Imperial from the same year there is no chance you're going
to get them confused. It's quite clear which is the top of the line
and which is the "economy" model.
The door panels were also totally different. All the Chryslers shared
the same little rectangular armrest that stuck out from the door (which
was also found in the Dodge and Plymouth). ONLY the Imperial had the
unique door panel with the concealed glove compartment, the angled
panel of power switches, the door pull, the wood or bronze inlay, etc.
I don't mean to bust your chops but I feel like you've kind of glossed
over a lot of very significant differences between the 67-68 Imperials
and the 67-68 Chryslers.
Also, Imperial stood up very well against its competition in those
years. If you were to park a 67-68 Cadillac side by side with a 67-68
Imperial, you would be hard pressed to say the Caddy outdid the
Imperial. The Cadillacs did have a very nice interior, I agree, but
they were going with a semi-"pod" design for the dash, where all the
instruments are clustered together for the driver's convenience around
the steering wheel, whereas the Imperial had a wide open, symmetrical,
"door to door" design that offered easy access for the front passenger
to things like the radio, ashtrays, etc. Which style you prefer is
really up to individual taste, but in terms of opulence or luxury, I
can't see the Imperial talking 2nd place to either the Caddy or the
Lincoln. If you look at the sheer amount of vinyl or plastic in the
Caddy of those years vs. the amount of real metal in the Imperial, the
Imp wins hands down. Caddy really started "cheapening" their cars at
least 2 years earlier than Imperial, in my opinion. (Again, by today's
standards we tend to see metal as a negative because of the safety
issues involved, but back then metal = solid & strong = quality, while
plastic = flimsy & cheap = poorer quality.)
The 64's-66's have a smoother ride, in my opinion, due to the 413s, but
in terms of overall quality I do not see a big break between them and
the 67's-68's. I think they were "all of a piece" during those years--
each year having strong pluses and minuses, but being very comparable
overall.
I'm sorry to get carried away but I have to defend my 67-68s! In my
opinion they were not a "watershed" but a pinnacle.
Mark M
On Friday, January 23, 2004, at 06:44 PM, chuck milverton wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network