Sorry. I can't resist . . .
The thing of it is, Paul, size does matter.
Hugh
----- Original Message -----
From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Biggest Imperial, a conundrum
> Since you mentioned it, actually, the wheelbase is more meaningful when it
comes to handling and ride characteristics. All Imperials are BIG cars. I
don't see what a few extra inches of bumper, or black rubber bumperettes,
really has to do with very much of anything at all.
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 5/28/2004 5:45:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hugtrees@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
> >
> >
> > I asked about which year yielded the biggest ever Imperial. Usually
such a
> > request is snapped up like a duck on a June bug, but not this time. I
think
> > there was general agreement that length was the key indicator, and also,
> > pretty much, we were talking about regular production models, not
vehicles
> > that were subsequently stretched by an outside company. I started
looking
> > myself, in a Collector's Guide I have and then our own Imperial club web
> > site and I have realized why the silence. Instead of length, a fairly
> > useful measurement and not, one would have thought, impossible to
obtain, we
> > seem to be plagued by all but useless 'wheel base' numbers. There may
be a
> > marginal benefit to knowing wheel base but, in real terms, it describes
> > little except to hint at what the real length is. What a drag.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network