Re: IML: two-toned Imperials
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IML: two-toned Imperials
- From: Hank.Leskie@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:02:24 -0500
Very interesting comments re: accesorizing the Imperial. I am from that era
and we did all sorts of things to make our cars unique. I now have a 62 and
looking for a flight sweep deck lid. I see below the comment that people
used the 61 deck lid on the 62 but does anyone know if the if the 63 fits?
If anyone has one for sale, I would be interested.
Hank Leskie
62 Crown
|---------+----------------------------------->
| | "Neal Herman" |
| | <chrycordoba@mindspring|
| | .com> |
| | Sent by: |
| | mailing-list-owner@impe|
| | rialclub.com |
| | 20/11/2006 06:33 p.m. |
| | Please respond to |
| | mailing-list |
|---------+----------------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| To|
| mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| cc|
| |
| Subject|
| IML: two-toned Imperials |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
To make a slight correction to Chris' statements about
options/accessories/etc. Two-toned Imperials were available through 1960,
at least as it pertained to the roof. The forward section of the '57/8/9
Imperials could be ordered in a contrasting color to the body. In 1960,
the small roof panels between the doors and the chrome strip about a foot
into the roof could be similarly ordered.
There was only one year which could be ordered with, in effect, a
three-tone treatment - 1959 - the two-tone; or the body color + the brushed
stainless steel "Silvercrest" roof; either with or without a black
textured-paint rear canopy, the "Landau".
The stainless roof inserts continued into 1960 & '61, but then only in the
slivers over the doors.
In '64 & '65, two-toned paint was a $21 option, and perhaps also available
(though not listed) for '66 on cars without vinyl roofs. The sales
literature doesn't indicate whether the sides, hood and trunk were one
color, and the roof the contrasting color. Perhaps, instead, it took the
form of the only '64 Crown 4-door I've seen with a unique 2-tone. The
sides are Nassau Blue; the hood, roof and trunk are Wedgwood Blue. The
colors are nicely separated by the chrome trim along the tops of the
fenders and doors. It is a beautiful car, but I don't know whether it was
ordered that way, or the owners repainted it at some point.
I know that in 1962 the Flight-sweep trunk option was dropped because,
supposedly, Chrysler thought it made the rear too "busy", what with the
free-standing tail lights on the vestiges of the fins. However, people
liked the Flight-sweep and had dealers replace theirs with '61 trunks.
Personally, I like the extra "jewelry". If I had a '62, I'd not only want
the Flight-sweep, but try to find the '61 chrome roof strips and stainless
steel inserts to add as well. The roof lines look the same, with the same
ridge, so I'd think it would work. Anyone done it?
Neal Herman
1959 Imperial Crown 4-door Southampton Silvercrest Landau (3-tone)
1966 Imperial Crown 4-door (with vinyl top, I guess a 2-tone)
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher H
To: IML (main)
Sent: 11/19/2006 10:59:31 PM
Subject: Re: IML: "trunk flight tire trunk"
What Anthony seems to be referring to is called the Flitesweep decklid,
and it was optional in 1957 through 1963 on any Imperial model, with the
exception of 1962, in which is was not available (though you often see it
added, either by dealers or subsequent owners over the years to these
models... popular demand brought it back for one last year, 1963). Here’s
a pic from 1957:
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1957/FactoryPromos/index.htm
If you have a hump on your trunk on a later model like yours (1975), it
was something done in the aftermarket and added by the dealer (or a body
shop) to make it look like a Lincoln Continental Mark series. (I’d love to
see a picture of this! A neighbor when I was growing up had a 1973 LTD
with an opera window and fake tire hump added by the dealer...it always
amused me because the little old lady who drove the car seemed so p rim
and her car seemed a little flamboyant, even in nunlike white with black
vinyl roof.) I would find such a period-appropriate customizing detail
like this kinda cool today since it’s been on the car since it was
delivered new, even if it is not factory-original.
By the way, technically an accessory is something added after the car is
built (by a dealer, owner, etc.), whereas extra-cost factory-installed
equipment is called an option, though people and even carmakers have
loosely used the term accessory when they mean option over the years. And
it’s shocking the things you can add at the dealer level through the
1970s, even power steering. Fuzzy dice or dealer-added air conditioning
would be an accessory. Aftermarket (non-Mopar) items would be accessories.
Floor mats could be either, but often the factory ones looked different
than ones added afterwards. Anything that shows up on the original factory
price sticker at extra cost is an option.
That said, I’m not sure I understand Anthony’s question. Few factory optio
ns (since you are “not talking about aftermarket stuff”) ever detract from
the value of an Imperial, but rims, gold packages, woodgrain dashes (the
kind of stuff you see added to modern Chrysler 300s to pimp them out and
jack up the price at the dealer level today) were not factory options (or
even common dealer add-ons back then). Wood trim either came standard in a
given year (1965-67) or it didn’t. There were no wheel or even wheel cover
options from 1957-75, though in some years LeBarons had more elaborate
standard wheel covers than Crowns and Customs. Two-tone paint was not
offered after 1956. Upholstery is, of course, a factory-installed
selection. Well-equipped cars tend to be more desirable than low-option
cars, but even a low-option Imperial is nicely equipped and sometimes the
rarity of a low-option car makes it appealing just because it is unusual.
But pretty much every Imperial option ever offered by the factory was done
tastefully, unless you don’t happen to like the look of the Flitesweep
decklid any more than you pre fer certain colors over others.
Chris in LA
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon
On 11/19/06 6:35 PM, Andrew A. at canafornia@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
You said: : "the trunk flight tire trunk was an additional
cost"...??...On which year did this option appear?...are you talking
about a bump on the trunk of the 1975's??..because I have one on
mine and was wondering if it was an extra dealer option as the
previous owner seems to think it was or was it an aftermarket
item?...I can't find any record of this option anywhere on the net
or from this group so far, so any info you may have on it would be
appreciated.....if this is the option you are talking about that
is.....
----- Original Message -----
From: anthony romano <mailto:mamrom@xxxxxxx>
To: mailing-list <mailto:mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 3:52 PM
Subject: IML: Accessories on your car
What's everyone's opinion out there with accessories on your
car? Do you think that if done tasteful that it doesn't
de-value the car. There were a lot of extras that could have
been purchased throughout the yrs. of Imperials. I'm not
talking about after market stuff. I know the trunk flight tire
trunk was an additional cost, trunk racks, rims, gold
packages, wood grain dashes , two tone paint jobs, Leather
vs. cloth seating etc.
I thought I toss this out there! -Anthony
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary,
business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you
are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission,
dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken
in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
the views of the company.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network