I agree that the Fuselage era cars are very interesting; my favorite is
probably the 1971.
In regards to the relationship these cars had to the 67-68 models; a
friend was having body and paint work done on his 1970 Chrysler 300H and
the trunk floor, a-pillars, and windshield header were terribly rusted. He was
shocked to find that an NOS 67-68 Imperial trunk floor he had was the exact
replacement for his fuselage 300.
Bryan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:28
AM
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
----- Original Message -----
From: <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
<mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent:
Friday, August 19, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: IML: Fuselage Era cars -
69-71 as only Fuselages a tough
sell
> Yes, I have made a
side by side comparison between the Imperials of the
fuselage era and the
72-73's,
> and though there are many similarities, there are more
differences.
"Different" and "similar" are
> subjective terms and
hard to quantify, but I would say that, objectively
speaking, the
differences far
> outweigh the similarities.
>
> Tumblehome
doesn't refer to the front glass, only to the shape of the body
when viewed
in cross
> section. It is not defined by the rake of the
windshield.
>
> The body of the 1970 has the exact same curvature
as a '69 or a '71. If
you look at a '72 or '73, the
> middle of
the body has been flattened out to blend into the massive
front
fenders. You could NOT
> interchange doors between a '72
and a 1970. If you tried, you would
immediately see the difference
I
> am talking about. If I could draw in this e-mail I could show
you. It's
a totally different shape.
>
> If anyone goes
to the website and looks at pictures of these years you can
see that in
1972 they started
> out with the same basic shell or platform as the '71
but retooled it to
distinguish it from the years before.
> This is
MORE than just a grille or taillight change, which is all that was
done in
the previous 3 years.
> The shape of the body itself was changed.
This, to me, is enough of a
break to constitute a different
> "era,"
or design trend.
>
> Mark M
>
> > From: Kenyon
Wills <imperialist1960@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Date: 2005/08/19 Fri AM 01:44:18 EDT
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > -So what DOES one call 64-66?
> >
> >
64-66 are Engel cars to me (patently ignoring the fact
> > that he
designed later ones, too - they were his first
> > stamp on the
company). What he was thinking by
> > putting a car-wide
aircraft propellor shape into the
> > back bumper is beyond me,
although it works.
> >
> >
> > 67-68?
> >
The Haze Green Era? (I like that quite a bit!)
> >
> > Since
nobody else has named those, aren't we, as the
> > carriers of the
torch entitled some licence?
> >
> > Kenyon Wills
>
>
> >
> >
----------------- 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
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network