IML: Fuselage Imperials, Engle's influence upon the Imperial...my $1.02 cents worth (hey, there's been inflation since that phrase was coined!")

["twolaneblacktop" <twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The 64-66 is TECHNICALLY referred to as "The Incomparable Imperial".  I
sometimes, jokingly, refer to it as the Imperial Crowntinental.  This is due
to so many un-educated, not stupid, but not AUTO educated people really
think it is a Lincoln (Note: people who refer to an Imperial as an Impala
ARE stupid!).  I then have to explain it is an Imperial, BUT it was designed
by Elwood Engle, the man who designed the slab sided '61 Lincoln then was
snatched away from Furd, Turd, whatever that place is referred to as, by
Chrysler.  The first car that was his total design, skin wise, was the '64
Imperial.  His Furd influence is also EXTREMELY evidenced in the Turbine
concept car with more than merely subtle resemblance to the '61-'63
Thunderchicken.

His first real touch was the '63 in which he did away with the Sparrow
Strainer Tail lights, and incorporated the lights into the rear slope of the
fender line toward the bumper of the '63.  I don't know if the '63's unique
to it own year rear bumper was pre-destined by Exner, or Engle, but it fit
the car well, and broke the style away from the bumper of the '60-'62's.
There is a marked difference in the rear window treatment as well on the '63
from the '62, but forward of that, there is little difference, except for
the body side trim.  The alien invasion headlight (Body-snatcher) pods were
kept intact for '63, but only due to the fact that there just was not time
to overhaul the whole car in time for production.

The interior, the dash specifically is I think my very favorite in the
'61-'63 line.  The '62 steering wheel center design remains my personal
favorite of the three years.  The '63 was just to plain, but the ribbed
center in the '62 was primo, and as a whole the '61-'63 Electroluminescent
dashes were by far the most "Jetsons-esque" dashes.

I find it interesting to note that 6 model years after the disastrous
effects upon the minds of the Cad/Lin/Imp buying market were still being
fought off by Chrysler evidenced by their use of the marketing phrase "The
most carefully built car in America", and that they were giving the car to
"Professionals" for long periods of time to test drive, and the introduction
of the 5 year/50,000 mile warranty killed the Electroluminescent feature
after the '63 model.  Chrysler KNEW they could not guarantee the
Electroluminescent without losing their shirts on repairs of same, that they
killed it in '64 forward.  Bummer, Dude, AND just to add insult to injury
the brain tank, which must have been pretty shallow by this time, brought it
back on the Dodge Charger of '66-'67!  How rude is THAT!!!!!

Of even more interest is in '99 when Lexus introduced their "invention of"
Electroluminescent lighting, Chrysler frowned upon this, and in pure
marketing stealth like spite, brought EL back to ALL models, down to the low
line Neon.  Basically said, without actually saying it: "Bull***t, WE
invented it in the '50's you little morons."  Toyota, err, Scion, err,
Lexus, yes, Lexus dropped their touting of EL.

Soooooo, anyway, all that being said, I also think that the '69-73 are all
Fuselage cars, BUT the '69-71 bear the true initial intent of the design,
especially when you look at a coupe.  The differences in a 4dr hardtop are
much less obvious then in the coupe.  The '69-'71 coupe rear quarter window
is rounded, and keeps the bubble roof look, and the '72-73 is more squared
with what I consider a more angular roofline.  The '69 is so offbeat, in a
good way, with its Battlestar Galaxtica enormous length, and teeny, tiny,
itsy, bitsy little bubble in the center for the passenger compartment roof,
it really looks like a 747 cockpit jutting up in the middle of the car.
That or it looks like a really big zit in the middle of an otherwise flat
surface.  Your choice of which analogy works best for you. I love all the
Fuselage years, personally, and would love to have one, but I think I would
stick with '69-'70 only due to power output dropping in '71.  A good rebuild
would fix that issue, but if I bought one it would need to be a really,
really super nice original car, or the cost to buy and fix it up is a losing
proposition, as of this day.  Hopefully they will be noticed more, and
appreciate faster, as they should have done so by now, IMHO.

For those that want the best of both worlds, and this goes with the thread
of the last Imperial 'vert, the '69-'70 300's were built in Convertible
style, but the '70 300 HURST was fitted with the bucket seat interior of the
Imperial of 1970 as well.  I do not believe a '70 Hurst 'vert was even
offered, but if it was, then with Imperial interior being included, it would
certainly be a hybrid car worth including on our list.  

Have a really summer day everyone!  A great weekend to all, and to all a
good drive!

Wm. R. Ulman
Seattle, WA  
'66 Crown Convertible Coupe - Doris Day
'95 Buick Roadmaster - Rock Hudson
twolaneblacktop@xxxxxxxxxxx 

-----Original Message-----
From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kenyon Wills
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:44 PM
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IML: Fuselage Era cars - 69-71 as only Fuselages a tough sell

--- Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 in
> my opinion, the fuselage era only lasted for three
model years,1969, 1970, and 1971.  
> After that, the Imperial was redesigned and lost the
> curved cross-sectional look associated with the
previous three years.  Some people like to think of
this period as "2nd generation fuselage," but 
> there really is no mention of this term in any
> Chrysler literature that I'm aware of.  If you look
at a '73 next to a '69 there is very little
resemblance between the two.  


Ummm.  you're entitled.

I have a 1970 and a 1973.  

Park them next to each other.  They seem more similar
than different in overall feel until I start comapring
details.  I'm sorta bummed that its dark right now, or
I'd go out and take a close look and go farther with
this because I've been working on that 1962 like mad
this week.  (engine's done and in - just got to
reconnect and fire it up).

The front glass for 1970 to 1973 interchanges, so
perhaps the assertion that the tumblehome is different
in 72-73 isn't quite as solid as can be?  The front
glass defines the tumblehome as the A pillars are
parallel to the glass shape?   

The 1970 has what seem to be "flatter" or more slab
sideed, where the 1973 seems more curved?  This
statement from memory...  I "think" that the
tumbleunder on my 73 is more pronounced, not less.

70 has higher chrome on the front end, the 73 lower -
look at how the hood flares downward and the lower
bumper bar is thinner than the 1970.

Rear quarters are almost identical until you look at
the crease right behind the C pillar, and it's in a
different place.

All subtle differences.

The 1970 seems to have considerably more forceful
pickup under its gas pedal, and it was made within a
few months of my own birthday, so I do like it a
"little" better, although the 1973 is a higher
mileage, lower compression, smog car.

I also co-own a 1972 with Pauline, and it took me a
month of wrenching on it to notice that it does not
have wing windows, and unusual feature considering
that they were a defacto design element on every other
postwar Imperial that I've come to know (no, I'm not
personally counting post 1973, as that's not my bag.


My vote would go to all 5 years being Fuselage, but I
guess that you could make an argument either way.








-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm