The 1961-69 Lincoln Continental was not the only car to have suicide
doors.
Chrysler Imperials had them from 1926 through 1948, then on the Crown
Imperial until 1954. Also the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham of 1957-58..
Unfortunately mounting the taillamps on top of the rear fenders would
look
worse than the present location, IMHO. The rear trunk is just too short
to
handle them. The 1959 LeBaron had twin rings, if memory serves me,
while
the 1962 had a black band around the ring giving the appearance of a
double
ring. Someone also mentioned fins, but again given the short trunk they
would not work. Also, fins to most people bring up memories of
monsterous
chrome-laden gus guzzlers. Not a very positive image.
And I do not see what the kurfuffle is about the headlamps. The
Imperial,
as a make, was built from 1955 through 1975 and from 1981 to 1983, for a
total of 24 years. During those 24 years the free-standing headlamps
were
used but three years - 1961-63. Hardly long enough to become an
Imperial
trademark. As well, the 1961-63 Imperials were not a sales success,
being
the 6th (1961), 8th (1963) and 9th (1962) from the bottom for the
1955-1975
era. The hideaway headlamps were used longer from 1969 through 1975, a
total of seven years, plus the 1981-83 models.. The fact they are round
evokes Imperials from the 1955-1975 era.
Personally I would like to see the grille imitate the 1955-56 Imperials.
Yes, the theme died and was never used again, but the large body of the
show
car could handle it. The only other grille theme that Imperial used
over a
period of time was the waterfall - 1974-75 and 1981-83, plus the Chrysler
Imperials of 1990-93 and 1934.
When looking back at previous Imperials, only the 1957-66 models were
unique
and did not share bodies with any other Chrysler product. And you get
much
the same result with Cadillac and Lincoln. Lincoln has shared bodies
with
other Ford products since 1970 while Cadillac started in 1941. Even the
Fleetwood limousines were based on the Oldsmobile-Buick body in 1950 and
the
Chevrolet body from 1959.
All costs of production, along with sales. If Chrysler decides to build
the Imperial, it will be in the market against the likes of Cadillac and
Lincoln, and not Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Maybach. Thus the need to base
it
on the big Chryslers, and not on its own body.
Another point to remember, too, is that the car's design details are not
cast in stone. Such things as grilles, headlamps and taillamps can still
be
changed if the car is to be in production for either 2008 or 2009. Let
DC
know now what you think of the car and not have a repeat of the Charger,
where everyone griped about the fact it had 4 doors AFTER it got into
production. Which was also over five years after the first proposal was
shown. DC may very well have built the Charger as a 2 door if enough
noise
was made when 4 door Charger show car was first shown.. (Yes, comments
were
made, but not in the volume during this past year.)
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher H" <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "IML (main)" <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Here is the Imperial article
I'm afraid the car in the pictures is the car that will be in Detroit.
I really have begun to wonder how simplistic and unimaginative car
designers
have become.
The taillamps are supposed to pay homage to the gunsights of 1956-62?
They're dual rings, for one, not single, and they're mounted low on the
car
in nacelles that merely duplicate the car's headlamps. If this is homage
to
the genuine Imperials, then Chrysler owes the Suzuki Forenza, Honda
Pilot
and Jaguar S-type each a note of thanks, among others, since they've
already
paid the same tribute. Really, must every car have the circle taillight
thing? It's soooooo tired now!
Ooh, suicide doors... Did they mistake a '61-69 Continental for an
Imperial?
(Wouldn't that be a change of pace?) Even the door handles are a direct
lift
from the new Phantom.
And yes, the grille seems monstrous, perhaps Chrysler's revenge on Audi
for
purloining the second-gen LHS grille as their corporate "design
language."
Who will win the Biggest Face award before the industry regains its
senses?
Now that a Ford Explorer and VW Jetta have the same enormous chrome
grille/bumper, what good is "design language" in defining a brand?
I just can't see any Imperial in this concept from here. Four round
headlamps are supposed to evoke the freestanding lamps of the '61-63
Imperials. Uh-huh. So the four headlamps on, say, a 1996 Mercedes
E-Class,
a
'76 Jaguar XJ6, or pretty much any fullsize car of the late 60s/early
70s
should, too, then?
And yet look at the Challenger concept...about as true to the '70 as a
modern car can be (thought what's with the missing bumpers?). I'll be in
Detroit and I'm hoping to get a few moments with the Imperial's designer
or
maybe Trevor Creed. I'll try to bring pix of my '67, which doesn't look
like
previous Imperials but was recognizable enough by its design ethic, not
rehashed details, for me to know it was an Imperial the first time I saw
a
new one drive past my grandfather's house. And I was four! (Yes, I fell
in
love with my '67 when it was new and I was only four years old.)
It took me a while to find the '68 Charger in the new Charger's
taillamps
(I
kept seeing Mitsubishi Galant), but at least they reinterpreted the
Charger
in a modern form that doesn't try to hard to be retro, just modern-cool.
But
then look at the new Grand Cherokee: a slabsided box with not a curve or
radius on it except the incongruous round headlamps slammed into the
grille.
Don't they know that a classic Wagoneer looked 100% like a Jeep (as did
every Cherokee and previous Grand Cherokee) without aping an army Jeep?
I think of the Chronos and Phaeton concepts and remember my jaw dropping
when I saw them in person. At Pebble Beach one year, the Phaeton drove
past
me, top down, as I walked along the upper lawn, and I felt a combination
of
awe, lust and pride (for being a Chrysler guy) that was only topped by
the
whirr of a '63 Turbine car approaching me from behind on the 18th hole
of
the same location. If they build this concept, and for the price a
premium
version of the LX chassis should command (meaning under $50,000), it
could
be amusing and even successful. But is it an Imperial? I guess it's more
of
one than a (pre-apologies to everyone with a '90s model) stretched a
dressed-up K-car is. But actually no more, since it's just a stretched
and
upgraded version of Chrysler's currently most-popular platform, just
like
the '90 (and '55, '57, '67, '69, '74 and '81).
Even though I've seen the late-50s styling clays in Engel's Lincoln
studio
that look alarmingly like his final version of my '67, Imperials still
had
their own identity. Originality is much of what makes an Imperial the
finest
Chrysler Corporation product, just as it's what makes any Mopar special.
It
should never be a cheap knockoff of another car, much less a Rolls-Royce
that's already essentially a parody of its own heritage. Anyone remember
the
Custom Cloud, a Silver Shadow knockoff using a mid-70s Monte Carlo? It's
back, only now using a 300C!
That said, maybe I'll actually grow to like it in person. But I'll
always
have to wonder what a modern version of a '62, '64, '67, '69 or even '74
would be. Teardrop taillamps, perhaps? Glass-covered headlamps like
'65-66?
An asymmetrical grille like '61? A glovebox in every door? Genuine Claro
Walnut, not hidden under an inch of varnish? A big round fuel filler?
Perhaps just the combination of stately and sporty that only a Chrysler
luxury car could pull off. Maybe I'll just end up loving my '67 all the
more, as if I could.
Wow, don't get me started, I guess! Happy new year, everyone (or for
those
of us with 1976-78 models, Happy New Yorker)!
Chris in LA
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon
On 12/30/05 7:36 PM, Greg and Russell at 65luxuryliner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
I hope the car at the auto show in Detroit in a few weeks looks better
than
the one in the photos. The grille is ENORMOUS and the car is too tall
(imho). Just a box on wheels to me. I was hoping for something REALLY
good
looking (like the Chronos). Where are the styling cues from the past?
Why
do they have to resemble a RR? Just don't see it, myself. I actually
was
dreaming of something more like the car Virgil Exner Jr. designed in
'03.
Now that had STYLE!
Greg McDonnell
'65 Crown convertible
----- Original Message -----
From: "ajl" <alacaria@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 6:39 PM
Subject: IML: Here is the Imperial article
I found the imperial article.
Anthony
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2005/12/28/new-chrysler-imperial-images-a-mini-r
olls-royce/
----------------- 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
----------------- 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
----------------- 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
----------------- 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