Mark, you are absolutely on target with this post. I also agree that the '69
model was really cool, even if they did cheapen the trim a little bit. I still
don't think that any single year of Imperial can be said to have a leaky trunk.
I have heard from owners of all years who have and also who have not
experienced that problem.
Paul
In a message dated 1/24/2004 11:03:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> 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