I don't know how long it lasted (I suspect until 1973) but the 1969 "redesigned" Chrysler was the same chassis design as the 67/68. Maybe hard to believe but true. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx> To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Re: IML: Fuselage Era cars - 69-71 as only Fuselages a tough sell All 1969-73 Imperials shared windshields (2-door & 4-door hardtops share the same glass) while the 4-door hardtops used the same rooflne and side windows. They also shared the same rocker panels and doors sills. The changes in 1972 amounted to a reskinning - the basic understructure remained the same from 1969 through 1973. When you look at the 1972-73 Imperials from the front, you are looking at those large fender caps/bumper ends I mentioned on an earlier post. They give the car a more square design from the side and most definitely from the front. If you check a front view of a 1972 Chrysler, which uses the same body and basic sheetmetal as the Imperial and does not have those boxy fender ends, you can see the side flare. To see just how much tumblehome there was on a 1972-73 Imperial, park a 1969-71 Imperial next to a 1972-73 model and open the doors. You will see the outside curve on the 1972-73 model is virtually identical to the 1969-71. The 1972 reskinning removed the upper character line from the sides while the lower one was changed to a line parallel to the body sill, making the car look boxier and more massive. But, the curve is still there. You just cannot see it from the front due to those massive fender caps/bumper ends. If you have a copy of Uncle Tom's test of the 1973 Imperial, look at the front end shot on the article's first page. You can the see the curvature on the body sides between the wheelwells and the lack thereof on the fender ends ahead of the front wheelwell. I am a great fan of Engel's fuselage C bodies.and, in particular, the Imperials. The saddest part about them is how unappreciated and undervalued they are today. And sadly, the same situation existed when they were new. (Well, maybe undervalued is not so bad if you want to buy one . . .) Bill Vancouver, BC ----------------- 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