Talk:Imperial (automobile)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The name had been in the line since the '30s, so I assume those will be in the Chrysler Imperial article which doesn't exist yet, along with 80's & 90's revivals.
For the late 50's, I think any reference to these cars ought to note the famous "Forward Look" slogan.
The '67 redesign was more significant than noted here. It was the first total re-do since '57--note that all '57-'66 Imperials use exactly the same wraparound windshield. Chrysler spent a lot of money on this generation, which would prove to be the last that had its own body. Sales were still poor, and cost savings caused the high degree of commonality seen between the Imp and the other Chryslers beginning in '69.
The extreme tuck-in at top and bottom of the fuselage cars was called tumblehome. May or may not be worth mentioning. Also, I'm afraid it's misleading to say that the mod-top patterned vinyl was available. According to this page, briefly some was overprinted and reused, but it wasn't a real option and was never supposed to be visible to the owner. Here's a bit of trivia of the kind that gladdens my heart--for '70, inexplicably, the fender skirts vanished, only for that one year.
For the last generation, I think this overstates the effect of the gas crisis. Gas was back down by '75, and big car sales recovered nicely. It probably ought to be noted that the exact same car was continued under the New Yorker name for three more years, and sold quite well after a price cut of $3,000 or so. The Imperial's problem seemed to be a mismatch between the price and the perceived value of the car. RivGuySC 22:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Added most of these points; do you think that works?
- As far as I can tell, the 81-83 cars were actually also Imperials (again, Chrysler was not mentioned in their marketing) and I need to write a section on that car. I'm not sure if it should be here or in its own article, though. Maybe in its own article; the 55-75 arc of Imperial as its own marque makes a better story on its own without that addendum.
- Seperating this and Chrysler Imperial out is IMO justifiable on the grounds that the combined article would be just too big. Besides, the first Exner cars of '55 are a beautiful place to start a new article.
- There are also the 90-93 Chrysler Imperials to consider, and I suspect they should be largely dealt with in their own article too. —Morven 08:11, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I think that looks good. There's a terrific example of the last Imperial on ebay currently, and I've written to see if we could use the pictures. Doesn't hurt to ask.
-
- BTW--is seperate a Briticism or a typo? RivGuySC 23:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure, but feel free to correct it. —Morven 08:00, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wonderful!
My compliments to all who have contributed to this artcle. Very nice! user: stude62 user talk:stude62 18:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I pass on any praise to my sources, particularly the Imperial club, who have put such a wealth of information at our fingertips. —Morven 18:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Imperials 1955 and newer to be split off from 'Chrylser Imperial' page and moved to this page ('Imperial') page
It has been suggested for a while now to merge the two separate Wikipedia articles. However, in order to keep the distinction between the Imperial marque and Chrysler Imperial, I plan in the near future on moving all infortmation and subsections dealing with 1955 and newer Imperials from the 'Chrysler Imperial' page to the 'Imperial' page. Within the 'Chrysler Imperial' page I will leave a clear marker to direct the reader to the 'Imperial' page for 1955 and newer models. Comments? Rockford1963 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Migration of information done Rockford1963 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
