Actually, the 1964 Lincoln's wheelbase was increaed from 123" to 126". That
extra 3" is all in the back doors. The other major change was the use of
flat glass on the side windows instead of curved glass. That changed the
whole feeling of the Lincoln design, But the rest of the car was little
changed from 1963. The big change came in 1966.
By the way, the 1963 Lincoln was 213.3" in length while the 1964 was
216.3" - again a 3" difference. Both years were 78.6" in width.
It should also be pointed out that the 1963 Chrysler Corporation designs
were the last of the Exner era. When Engel came on board in November 1961
the 1963 designs were all but done. The front ends of the Plymouth and
Dodge were actually finalized in late 1960. It seems Chrysler management
knew they had a disaster on their hands with the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge
even before the cars were introduced!
Engel's hand in the 1963 models was to refine grilles, trim, etc. 1964
would be the introduction of the Engel touch to Chrysler styling. By the
way, ever compared the front of the 1964 Dodge Polara with the rear end of a
1962 Ford Galaxie 500?
I, too, am a great fan of Elwood Engel. Under his leadership some of the
most beautiful Chrysler vehicles were built. And that includes the most
graceful and elegant Imperials ever built.
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Suicide doors / Engel designs
> Styling studies of the era have indicated that the Lincoln was
deliberately designed as a rectangle while the Imperial was deliberately
designed as a parallelogram. If Engel had wanted to simply copy the Lincoln,
this never would have been the case. Great effort was made to differentiate
the styles from each other. Admittedly, the Lincoln came first and if it had
not been successful, the similar Imperial would not have followed it.
>
> Also, the original Lincoln design was executed coincidently with a
significant reduction in size, while the Imperial remained as large as ever.
Early '60s Lincolns were criticized for this so the '64 was larger all
around. Even though they look similar, the '64 Lincoln was a totally
different car from its predecessors.
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 3/23/2004 7:33:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
65luxuryliner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> >
> >
> > Well said Mark! And of course, being the very proud owner of one of Mr.
> > Engel's designs ('65 Crown convertible), I think he did an excellent job
of
> > 'imitating' the immensely popular 'suicide door' Lincoln he helped
create.
> > I personally like the clean look of those Lincolns and was just saying
to
> > Russell the other day, I wish I had one from '61 thru '63 (those still
had
> > the dual cowled dash)!
> >
> > Actually when you take a look at the Imperial parked next to the Lincoln
> > ('64 thru '66),at first glance they appear similar. But (in my humble
> > opinion) the Imperial is more stylish and less boxy. The 'spare tire
hump'
> > in the deck lid adds a tremendous amount of interest to an otherwise
flat,
> > boring piece of sheet metal. The tempered glass covered headlights were
> > also a styling exclusive! Both cars were good looking but I think the
> > Imperial has the edge in the styling department. But you've got to
give
> > credit to Ford Motor Company for coming up with the original, slab
sided,
> > 'downsized, understatedly elegant look to begin with. The '61 Lincolns
were
> > a huge breath of fresh air as far as automotive styling was concerned
and
> > they were hot selling cars as well. Who could blame Engel for
'borrowing
> > some of his styling cues? I mean, if you're going to emulate something,
it
> > makes sense that something should be good looking and successful!
> >
> > Greg McDonnell
> > Mobile, AL
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: IML: Suicide doors / Engel designs
> >
> >
> > > Hugh,
> > >
> > > Normally I agree with you but I have to take issue with you on this
one!
> > >
> > > A designer as talented as Elwood Engel almost certainly could have
come up
> > with a
> > > totally different design for the '64-68 Imperials if he chose to-- or
if
> > his corporate bosses
> > > wanted him to. I find the notion that he simply fell back on his work
for
> > Ford and "couldn't
> > > think of anything better" when he came to Chrysler an implausible
theory.
> > >
> > > I think he was stolen, if you will, from Ford, precisely because
Chrysler
> > leadership
> > > wanted to take their Imperial in a direction similar to what Engel had
> > already done for
> > > Lincoln, and who better to take them there than the very man who
created
> > the look? It
> > > was a way of hurting Ford by taking one of their top men and also
updating
> > your look at
> > > the same time.
> > >
> > > Second, the resemblance to Lincoln was, in my opinion, no accident. I
> > don't like this
> > > trend, but it is common practice in the auto industry to copy the look
of
> > your competition.
> > > Today you have Japanese luxury cars imitating the styling of BMW and
> > Mercedes. The
> > > perceived leader, or the next one up the ladder, is always copied in
an
> > effort to lure
> > > buyers from the competitor.
> > >
> > > For Imperial, their closest competition was Lincoln. Conceivably,
> > Imperial could take
> > > buyers away from Lincoln and eventually beat Lincoln out of the #2
slot.
> > It wouldn't make
> > > sense to copy Cadillac, I believe their thinking went, because
Cadillac's
> > sales figures
> > > were so far above Imperial's as to be unreachable. But they could put
a
> > dent in Lincoln,
> > > so that's who they targeted by imitating their styling.
> > >
> > > So I don't think it was an accident or a case of Engel lacking the
> > imagination; if you look
> > > at the fuselage cars you can see he was quite capable of coming up
with a
> > totally new
> > > look-- when he was directed to do so. I think it was a decision made
at
> > the corporate
> > > level to take the styling in that direction.
> > >
> > > Just my opinion! :)
> > >
> > > Mark M
> > >
> > > > From: "Hugh & Therese" <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: 2004/03/22 Mon PM 01:38:32 EST
> > > > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: IML: Suicide doors / Engel designs
> > > >
> > > I am no Engel fan, and it speaks to a timidity on both his part and
that
> > of Chrysler
> > > Corporation that his designs for Imperial were so similar to the
Lincoln.
> > While the
> > > underpinning chassis and engine were pure Mopar, not being able to
come up
> > with
> > > something different from his work with Ford, is not the mark of
genius.
> > No wonder after
> > > almost forty years, the casual observer has difficulties. "My" museum
has
> > a 63 Lincoln
> > > convertible. It is an unreliable money pit. I'd love to unload it,
but,
> > on the other hand, it is
> > > one of the nicest cars we have and the public seems to enjoy seeing
it.
> > It is a pig on the
> > > road. Give me an Imperial any day.
> > > >
> > > > Hugh
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network