Mine don't leak either, not even the '68. The one that did was the '60 Custom,
but that was because the rubber seal had become unglued from the water canal.
My '65 began to leak after I bought it, but I was able to repair it when I
realized that it was due to some bad seals in the bolt on panel between the
back window and the trunk lid.
Paul
In a message dated 1/25/2004 8:52:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard.woolf@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I've been reading a lot about Imperials with leaking trunks. I own two
>Imperials ('66 and '73) both trunks don't leak.
>
> Could it be that I'm lucky?
>
> Rich Woolf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsadowski [mailto:jsadowski@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 2:53 AM
> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler marketing-product quality
>
>
> I've never owned an Imperial that didn't have a leaky trunk.
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: RandalPark@xxxxxxx
> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler marketing-product quality
>
>
> 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