Re: IML: Fuselage Era - further notes

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, it wasn't that the dies wore out, it was due to Chrysler's
restyling for 1972.  If you look down the side of the 1969-71 Imperial, you
will see a character line a few inches down from the beltline that starts at
front end, sweeps along the side and up into the C pillar at the rear edge
of the rear door.   On the 1972 (and 1973) models that upper character line
was removed and to save dollars in redesigning the back doors, the line came
down from the C pillar and faded out.

The 2-door hardtops had the line removed completely as the roof was restyled
as well.

Also notice that the character line running from lower part of the parking
lights on the 1969-71 down the side to the point in the rear fender where
the fender edge changes direction is modified on the 1972-73 to be a raised
ridge.  On the 1969-71 models, below the line the sheet metal drops back
leaving an edge.

The 1972 restyling was so subtle on the sides that one writer reviewing the
1972 Chrysler Newport wondered why Chrysler went to all that expense.

The interesting thing about the vertical taillamps on the 1972-73 models and
the vertical blades on the 1969-71 models is that the theme can be traced
back to the 1955 Imperials.  The 1957-61 models had fins, while the 1962
models reverted to the 1955-56 style with taillamps mounted on top of the
blades.  Even the 1964-66 models had thin blades of a sort at the rear edge
of the rear quarter panels.   They did not reappear on the 1981-83 Imperials
while the 1990-93 Imperials copied the 1981-83 back end.

Personally I feel Chrysler should have offered the 2-door hardtop with a
more formal roofline based on the Chrysler/Imperial 4-door hardtop, as they
did in 1967-68.  The coupe look of the 1969-73 2-door hardtop looked great
on the Fury and not bad on the Polara/Monaco, but when on the Imperial with
its longer wheelbase and length, it looks like a pimple on a shoebox.   (By
the way, the Fury formal hardtops of 1969-73 used the Fury/Polara/Monaco
4-door hardtop roofline.)

My favourite fuselage Imperial is the 1970, although I do love the
taillights on the 1962-73 models.  Both the grille and taillight treatment
on the 1970 is cleaner than either the 1969 or 1970, and the cornering
lights are nicer on the 1970 than the gill treatment on the 1969.  But no
matter how you look at them,. the Imperials were the epitomy of C body
fuselage styling.

As an aside, the "70 Years of Chrysler" is so titled as the book covers the
history of the Chrysler and Imperial, plus Chrysler's predecessors, Chalmers
(1908-1924) and Maxwell (1904-1925).  The Chrysler plant on Jefferson Avenue
was originally the Chalmers plant while the Highland Park properties
belonged to Maxwell, as did Chrysler's properties in Dayton, Ohio.

Bill
Vancouver, BC




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kenyon Wills
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: IML: Fuselage Era - further notes


One interesting comparison is between the two fuselage body styles.

I have a 1970 and a 1973 (working on a 1972 with another club-member) and
the 1970 has a front end that is significantly higher off the ground in a
bumper to ground measurement, despite the bodies being at very similar ride
heights.  The lower bumper goes all the way down with a larger surface area
and a biger "face", as opposed to the later ones that have a "thin" lower
bumper above a body-colored valence. The crease where the sail panel meets
the body is also different.  Why in the heck they reinvented that portion of
the car is puzzling, as they are so similar.  Maybe the dies were worn out
or something?

Since I was born in 1970, I have a subliminal desire to like the 1970 car.
It has a flat hood that seems more "1970-esqe" than the other car for
whatever reason.  It seems to take off harder and accelerate better than the
1973, but to be fair, both are original engines that are older and tired, so
that may be some of the discrepancy, but I think that smog changes to the
engine of the 1973 may also be a contributing factor.

The 1973 "feels" heavier (not as much power?  heavier steering?) and lower -
being more prone to bottoming out on hard bumps.

I like driving around at dusk with only the side-marker parking lights on
for whatever reason - I just like the way it looks from the front, which is
so different from any other vehicle's face that I've seen.

The fuselage cars were, in their time at least, referred to the
backwards-looking car, as the front grille looked like it could also serve
as the rear of a car, and the rear was canted at such an angle that it could
conceivably be the aerodynamic front end.  Swap the front and rear glass and
throw some headlights on the rear of the car and drive around in
everse?  -Could be.....

Lastly....., is it just me?  Every time that I look at the rear end of the
fuselage cars, the  72/73 oval/teardrop tail lights and the 69-71 chrome
endcaps that are vertical remind me of the upswept wings of the eagle for
some reason.  Maybe I'm just spending too much energy on that sort of thing,
but take a look for yourself:

http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1970/Kenyon1970/images/05-reg.jpg
http://imperialclub.com/Yr/1973/Wills/73_Rear.jpg

When I have the cars together and the sun's out, I'll try to get some side
by side pictures.


-Kenyon



-----------------  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