Indie Auto has previously mentioned that the 1961-63 Lincoln Continental represented a partial and short-lived deviation from Detroit groupthink. Let’s flesh out that argument with a fake 1964 Imperial. Yes, folks, lowly Chrysler could have outdone the Continental.
What got me thinking about the Imperial was a Curbside Classic story (Shoar, 2014). Readers debated whether the squared-off styling of the 1964-66 Imperial worked very well when applied to a platform dating back to 1957. To my eyes the rounded windshield and tall cowl clashed with the otherwise low and slab-sided design. So I started to ponder how I might use Photoshop to better blend these elements.
The 1964 Imperial was called the roomiest and quietest American car. Click on image to enlarge (Old Car Advertisements).
But then it struck me that styling was not the key factor in the brand’s eventual demise. Imperial would never achieve a sustainable level of sales as long as it directly competed against Cadillac. Chrysler was arguably too small of an automaker to do so — at least with a stand-alone brand. The company’s original approach may have been best — focus on a high-end, limited-production Chrysler.
Imperial did poorly as a stand-alone brand
Imperial output averaged only 18,000 units per year between 1957 and 1968 — half as many as Lincoln and a tenth of Cadillac’s volume. I would speculate that this level of volume was not nearly enough for Chrysler to cover all of the costs associated with a stand-alone brand. That was a particularly difficult lift with a full line of models and a unique platform.
In other words, I suspect that Chrysler lost money on the Imperial despite the theoretical possibility of a higher profit per vehicle.
That said, if Chrysler was going to maintain its imperial ambitions, the brand needed to carve out a more distinct niche. The clearest alternative to a Cadillac would have been a luxury car that was more compact, efficient and roadworthy.
I am not suggesting that a fully European approach would have worked in the 1960s. However, a half step in that direction might have a smaller coupe-sedan somewhat along the lines of the 1961-63 Continental.
For 1965 Imperial ads emphasized the use of real wood paneling. Click on image to enlarge (Old Car Advertisements).
But didn’t Lincoln fail at going small?
One could reasonably argue that the 1961-63 Lincoln Continental proved that challenging Detroit’s holy trinity of bigger, glitzier and more powerful cars was doomed to failure.
This generation of Continental was not just noteworthy for its clean styling, which contrasted with the sci-fi excesses of Cadillac and Imperial. Ford also downsized the Lincoln. Length was cut by 15 inches, which made the 1961 Continental almost as short as a plebeian Ford Galaxie.
The 1961 Lincoln Continental’s clean styling contrasted with the gaudy Cadillac and Imperial (Old Car Brochures).
The “compact” Continental may have been lauded as one of the most beautiful post-war American designs, but it did not sell all that well. Total 1961-63 production was less than 8 percent higher than for the ungainly 1958-60 Lincolns.
Market share was even less impressive. In 1963 Lincoln inched up to 15 percent of the domestic luxury car field. That was higher than in 1960 (13.4 percent) but well below 1958 (17.7 percent).
Lincoln only began to gain traction when the Continental was reskinned in 1966. Production soared to almost 55,000 units and market share jumped to 20.6 percent — the highest since 1956.
Did Lincoln sell better because its cars got bigger?
The 1966 models were stretched five inches, which made them almost as long as a Cadillac. However, other factors may have influenced Lincoln’s increased sales.
The most obvious change was the addition of a two-door hardtop, which added almost 16,000 units in 1966. Perhaps equally important was that the Continental’s price dropped more than $500 for a four-door hardtop sedan, which brought it closer to the Cadillac’s most popular DeVille models.
I don’t doubt that most buyers preferred their luxury cars big. As a case in point, from 1961 to 1963 Cadillac offered a short-decked body style that sold poorly (go here for further discussion).
More 1966 Lincoln Continental two-door hardtops were produced than the entire Imperial line (Old Car Advertisements).
That said, a countervailing trend was the rise of personal coupes. Although the Ford Thunderbird and Buick Riviera were only slightly less expensive than the luxury brands, they were smaller and lighter cars. Yet personal coupes had become so popular by 1964 that their output totaled 58 percent of luxury brands. This was despite offering a more limited number of models and body styles.
The buying public was starting to question the notion that “bigger = more luxurious.” Although the 1961-63 Lincoln hinted at an alternative reality, it did not effectively challenge the status quo.
The Continental was naught but a pretty face
Thomas Bonsall argued that the Continental was such an influential car that it “formed the foundation for the unprecedented success that the marque was to enjoy during the next twenty years” (1981, p. 174). Paul Niedermeyer (2013) went a step further and suggested that the “Kennedy” Continental was “the last great American luxury car.”
That may well have been true when it came to styling. However, the Lincoln was so poorly packaged that it minimized the potential advantages of a smaller size and maximized its chief weakness.
Between 1961 and 1964 the Cadillac DeVille four-door hardtop declined in weight by 140 pounds to 4,575 even though length increased two inches to 224 — almost four inches shorter than a 1964 Imperial (Old Car Advertisements).
For example, you would think that a smaller car should get better gas mileage, be easier to park and offer more responsive handling. That mostly wasn’t the case with the Lincoln.
The Cadillac was more than 200 pounds lighter in 1961 — and almost 500 pounds lighter in 1964. So much for better gas mileage. In addition, the maneuverability advantages of the Lincoln’s shorter length were partially negated by poor rearward visibility due to a brougham-style roof. Nor did acceleration, braking and handling stand out among U.S. luxury cars (Mitchell, 2013).
The 1961-63 Continental’s roominess was reduced by sharply curved side glass and a C-pillar more appropriate for a snug two-door coupe than a sedan (go here for photo gallery of a 1963 model).
Meanwhile, the reduced roominess of a smaller car was exacerbated by inefficient packaging. The rear seat on the 1961-63 models was claustrophobic due to heavily curved side glass and unusually thick C-pillars. For 1964 Lincoln tried to rectify this by stretching the wheelbase and switching back to flat side glass.
For 1964 the Continental was stretched three inches, which added an extra hundred pounds to the sedan’s weight, which hit 5,055. Overall length was still a remarkably short 216 inches (Old Car Advertisements).
Thunderbird picks up where the Continental left off
Then what about the closest spiritual heir to the Kennedy Continentals — the 1967-71 Ford Thunderbird four-door sedan? Output almost hit 25,000 units in 1967. That was slightly higher than the Imperial’s peak production in the 1960s, which was roughly 23,000 units in 1964.
A dealer training manual predicted that the four-door model was “destined to revolutionize the buying habits of the American Luxury-Car Market” (Ford, 1967 p. 3). Instead, sales steadily fell to under 7,000 units per year in 1971, the four-door body style’s last year of production.
The 1967-69 four-door Ford Thunderbird outproduced the 1964-66 Imperial line (Old Car Brochures).
What happened? Much like the Kennedy Continentals, the T-Bird didn’t offer much in the way of practical advantages over more traditional full-sized cars.
For example, the 1967 Thunderbird may have been 14 inches shorter than a Buick Electra 225, but it weighed slightly more and only had a slightly smaller turning circle (Ford, 1967; p. 4).
Chrysler struggles with Imperial’s future
This brings us to the 1964 redesign of the Imperial. Chrysler management had gone back and forth on whether to keep the brand’s distinct body — and ended up in a holding pattern. The Imperial’s sheetmetal was redone but key components such as the windshield were carried over.
This was not the original plan. For 1962 the Imperial was slated to once again share the same platform as all other Chrysler full-sized cars (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 2020). That approach was aborted at the 11th-hour in favor of downsizing the Plymouth and Dodge.
Richard Langworth’s (1993) Chrysler & Imperial 1946-1975 includes photographs of other options that were explored. One approach was to roll back the clock to 1955-56, when the Imperial was based on a Chrysler body but included fancier design elements such as outboard taillights. That would have been the least-costly direction. However, dolling up the otherwise clean 1963-64 Chrysler body with gimmicks didn’t work very well from a stylistic standpoint.
Another option was to refresh the existing design at least one more year. Then, in 1965, Imperial could have been moved to a new unit-body platform shared by other Chrysler brands.
Instead, Chrysler decided to squeeze three more years out of Imperial’s already seven-year old platform. A reskinning proved to be more contemporary but it had an also-ran quality, with its Cadillac size and dime-store Lincoln look.
Carrying over the old windshield was not the only money-saving measure that made the car look half baked. Chrysler also used the same roofline for the two-door and four-door models. The coupes looked okay (if rather boxy), but the four-door models had weird proportions around the C-pillar.
The squareness of the C-pillar clashed with the rounded windshield (Old Car Advertisements).
In the photo below of a four-door model, note how the rear door angles back at an unusually extreme angle relative to the tire. This results in a stretched toffee look.
Why not a ‘lean breed’ luxury car too?
In a previous essay I pushed back against the demonization of the downsized 1962-64 Plymouth and Dodge. The so-called “lean breed” was a good idea that was poorly executed, particularly with regards to styling.
Given Chrysler’s panic over the weak sales of the 1962 models, I could see how management would not have considered downsizing the Imperial as well. Even so, I think this would have been the most plausible way to keep the Imperial viable. For relatively little extra cost the brand could have exploited the advantages of a smaller car better than the Continental.
Compare the real and fake versions of the 1964 Imperial (see below). Do you have a hard time telling the difference? That’s intentional. Roughly 15 inches was cut from the Imperial’s length, making it about as short as a 1961 Continental. This partly comes from reducing the wheelbase by seven inches, both behind the B-pillar and in front of the cowl. The front and rear overhangs were also trimmed.
1964 Imperial LeBaron. Click on images to enlarge (base photograph courtesy Old Car Advertisements).
In a Curbside Classic comment, Ate Up With Motor (2014) made the useful point that, while the 1961-63 Continental was “eminently tasteful,” it “always struck me as a little bland” and “almost antiseptic.” This raises an interesting question: If something like the fake Imperial had been produced, might its less austere styling have given the Lincoln a run for its money?
A downsized Imperial could have had real advantages
Shrinking the Imperial could have translated into a weight loss of around 500 pounds. This would have made the car a bit lighter than the Cadillac (see dimensions table below). With a smaller V8 the Imperial could have plausibly offered at least somewhat better gas mileage.
More importantly, the smaller size could have allowed Chrysler to accentuate the theoretically superior handling characteristics of its torsion-bar suspension. I say “theoretically” because Car and Driver road testers found a 1965 Imperial to lag behind other Chrysler products (Niedermeyer, 2012). Engineering updates would thus have been needed.
The Imperial’s Lincolnesque styling would have resulted in similarly weak rearward visibility. This could have been partially fixed with a C-pillar that had a more rounded shape in sync with the windshield.
The 1963 Imperial’s glassier greenhouse could have worked well on the 1964-66 models if it was somewhat reshaped to look more like the 1971 full-sized Chevrolet (Old Car Brochures).
A reduction in interior room and trunk space would have been inevitable. That said, the Imperial would presumably have been roomier than the 1961-63 Continental. The Imperial was almost three inches taller and had less side window curvature.
Other stylistic options might have worked better
The photoshopped design above focused on cutting the Imperial’s length rather than giving it new styling features. However, if Chrysler placed a greater emphasis on practicality, it could have improved trunk space with a more squared off deck. And, as mentioned above, visibility could have been improved with a larger rear window.
If we are going to rethink the Imperial’s styling, why not crawl outside the box? The 1963-64 Chrysler could have been a better basis for a downsized Imperial because it had a clean, almost European look that would have worked much better with the Imperial body’s curved side glass.
The 1963 Chrysler New Yorker Salon hinted at what the Imperial could have become. Few were sold, perhaps partly because the $5,860 price was higher than a DeVille’s (Old Car Brochures).
In addition, the wrap-around front character line with a radiator grille was a more logical evolution for Imperial than Chrysler. The rear was rather generic, but that could have been reworked.
The 1963 Imperial’s (top image) front looked more similar to a 1963 Chrysler than a 1964 Imperial (Old Car Brochures).
The 1963-64 New Yorker would have been a good size
Even if a downsized Imperial had maintained a Lincolnesque look, it could have been an effective — albeit aging — design. This is partly because our fake Imperial adopts a long-hood, short-deck look that better fit the zeitgeist of the time. The old-fashioned dog leg windshield would have actually been an advantage because it would have visually counteracted the length reductions in front of the cowl.
This illustration of a 1966 Imperial convertible’s interior shows the dog-leg A-pillar (Old Car Brochures).
The proportions for a fake Imperial two-door hardtop would have looked more sedan-like. However, in 1964 the Imperial’s sole two-door model represented only 22 percent of total production, which reached 23,295 units. Was a two door even needed?
The real Imperial was one of the largest and heaviest of premium-priced and luxury cars. In contrast, our fake design would have been closer to the Chrysler New Yorker, which was somewhat downsized for 1963.
Chrysler stopped giving the New Yorker a four-inch-longer wheelbase than entry-level Newport models. This made the New Yorker seven inches shorter and 200 pounds lighter than a Buick Electra 225. You might think this would undercut the New Yorker’s stature. However, production was up 38 percent in 1963.
Lowering prices was also worth considering
Downsizing the Imperial could have given Chrysler a pretext to stop competing directly with Cadillac on price. The list price for an entry-level 1965 Imperial Crown four-door hardtop was just under $5,600. This was between Cadillac’s entry-level Series 62 and mid-level DeVille but well below the Continental.
If Imperial prices had instead started around $4,900, they would have been a comfortable notch below Cadillac but above the Chrysler New Yorker and Buick Electra 225. The lower price would have been more in sync with the Imperial’s level of finish and luxury, which Car and Driver road testers judged to be lower than a 1965 Cadillac or Lincoln (Niedermeyer, 2012).
Imperial marketing for 1966 compared the brand’s features with those of the Lincoln Continental (Old Car Brochures).
Imperial shows how ‘playing it safe’ can be a bad move
Keeping the already ancient Imperial body in production through 1966 was arguably a penny-wise, pound-foolish move. However, if Chrysler felt the need to better amortize the Imperial platform’s costs, it could have carved out a more distinct market niche by offering a downsized luxury car with more functional advantages than the 1961-63 Continental.
Instead, Chrysler chose to play it safe with a “me-too” line of big luxury cars. For 1964 Imperial captured 10.3 percent of the luxury car market, second only to 16.6 percent in 1957. Alas, by 1966 the brand’s market share of the luxury car field fell by 50 percent as production sank to under 14,000.
In a year when Cadillac hit 200,000 units for the first time, the 1967 Imperial’s output failed to reach even 18,000 units despite an all-new body and a price cut for entry-level models (Old Car Brochures).
And even in 1967, when the Imperial received its first complete redesign in a decade, market share only edged up to 6.7 percent — which was slightly lower than in the bad old days of 1963.
Here we have a particularly acute case of GM envy that did not end well.
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story that was first posted Oct. 30, 2014 and updated on Oct. 2, 2020. Brand production figures come from Wikipedia (2013); figures for individual nameplates were calculated from base data found in the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2002) and Gunnell (2002). Prices and vehicle weights are of base four-door hardtops from the above sources and the Classic Car Database (2015).
Thomas Bonsall (1981) argued that the Continental was so heavy because of its usage of unitized construction rather than bolting the body onto a frame. Richard Langworth offered an interesting overview of the technical complexities of unit construction and described how Chrysler engineers significantly overcame them (1993, pp. 144-145). As a case in point, the full-sized Chryslers gained minimal weight when they switched to unit-body construction in 1960, and the Imperial lost more than 100 pounds when it finally switched in 1967.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
More proof that humans have evolved to a higher level of consciousness. Parking dings are a thing of the past. Bumpers? They’s so 20th Century. Share your reactions to this post with a comment below […]
The marketing wizards are trying to present the 2022 Wagoneer as a big grand deal; a triumphant return of a legendary nameplate. The only problem is that the forthcoming new Jeep is as generic as […]
“(The AMC Javelin and AMX) were very handsome cars. They look great on the road. They were fine, and they still look today. They’ve held up very well. But I was in Pontiac at that […]
18 Comments
I kind of like these Imperials, I’m an Imperial fan. Maybe it’s because I’m so enamored of the lines, the reworked one looks just stubby. Perhaps someone could do a ’63 Chrysler based Imperial? BTW the old joke about the Imperial was it’s only purpose was to have something Chrysler Corp executives and dealers would have something to drive to the Country clubs.
I’ve never minded the ‘64-6 wraparound windshield. Elwood Engel did a great job of transforming those baroque Imperials into a handsome automobiles, as he did with the ‘61 Continental (the best looking sedan ever made -without exception- in my opinion). The reason they didn’t sell was… they weren’t a Cadillac.
When the pinnacle of success was Cadillac, it was a tough sell for anyone else. Cadillac’s resale value was so outstanding that many traded in every year, as there was a ready market. They were at their zenith as a perceived quality best-buy value, and unquestioned status leader. Their buyers were younger, Imperial’s buyers were the oldest.
It was a rare Cadillac that was really good looking between ‘49 and ‘65, in my book (with ‘56 a Distant runner up). The rest? Chrome-laden overwrought Harley Earl designs and subsequent hangovers after his retirement. That didn’t stop buyers; it’s perceived status and value, not aesthetically pleasing design, that sells cars.
Look at Toyota and Lexus today. Point made.
As I once mentioned elsewhere, had Chrysler rechristened the big Imperial more earlier then 1976 as Chrysler New Yorker, if things would have been a little different?
I think its worth mentioning and very important to note that the problem with the very well crafted Imperials were the fact that buyers still had to deal with a Plymouth sales and service staff, something that still to this day has been the Achilles heel in the buyer experience with Chrysler…fast forward a bit to 1981, Americas most expensive luxury car? 1981 Imperial FS edition @ north of $22K, sold and serviced by same staff selling a $6K Reliant K car vs a Lincoln or Cadillac dealership experience was painful at best.
I thought that the 64-66 Imperial was gorgeous. Not perfect, but large and substantial looking. I never really got why folks loved the 61 Continental. To me, it’s ugly.
Indeed, when Dean Jeffries, who was a friend of famous customizer George Barris, chosen a 1966 Imperial to transform it into the “Black Beauty” for the tv series The Green Hornet and a very different front end who could be a tribute to Duesenberg or Packard.
I agree, I love the 64-66 Imperials. I think the styling was beautiful, the lines all worked perfectly from front to rear. My uncle had a 66 Crown 4 door hardtop, 440 Cid with a 4 bbl carburetor. I thought it handled great, had plenty of power and it sounded great. I was sorry to see the push button drive disappeare in ’65,that along with sound of distinct Chrysler starter were what made Chrysler what it was. The Imperial’s styling was unique and yet it fit perfectly with the styling of big luxury cars of the time. Other than keeping the push button drive, I wouldn’t have changed a thing from the glass covered headlights trimmed with a gold boarder, to the elegant shape of the taillights, the car mesmerized me then and now.I wish I still had one. Just gorgeous.
“Given Chrysler’s panic over the weak sales of the 1962 models, I could see how management would not have considered downsizing the Imperial as well.”
Let’s take a look at a Plymouth-based ’63 Imperial that I created several years ago. Hidden headlights was an opportunity that Imperial should have jumped on at this time. I also added skirts. Done right, such a car could have successfully competed with Mercedes-Benz and Imperial could have built a growing loyal following.
Paul, that’s a fun design. A downsized Imperial with its own sheetmetal could have been really interesting. One approach could have been to start with a two-door hardtop model and price it a bit above the Thunderbird. Then add a four-door hardtop. An Imperial on the mid-sized platform could have been a wonderfully nimble and roadworthy car (at least by American standards of the time). As you say, it could have been viewed as the American Mercedes.
It still looks like a Plymouth from the cowl back. It more reminds me of the various mix-n-match products that Chrysler sold in Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
Good point. It would have been more mundane than the other American luxury cars though less so than its new competitive rival, Mercedes-Benz. To my eye, the taillights were probably the ’63 Plymouth’s worst design feature. Assuming only Imperial would get the ’63 Plymouth design and Plymouth would mostly carry over its ’62 styling, best if those taillights never made it to production.
Am thinking this redirection in Imperial strategy would have needed an advocate, and the most logical person would have to have been Engel. He could have made the argument that Imperial had no chance in the full-sized luxury market but would need to compete only with M-B in the mid-sized market, and could have made a major effort to sell globally, becoming the preeminent American luxury producer around the world.
Soon after Engel arrived, when he was asked if he would change anything for ’63, he could have replied: “Only Imperial. I think we should consider using Ex’s Plymouth design to reposition the marque for ’63. I’d rather do that than reskin the current car around the existing windshield. There is still time to make the needed changes to the Plymouth design to create the Imperial, and time to mildly update the ’62 Plymouth to keep it fresh.”
As he would later demonstrate, we know that Engel preferred hidden headlights and full-width taillights, and he sometimes liked to add fender skirts. Let’s try the last two on this R3Q view (courtesy Classic Car Brochures for image, AACA for host site). Am not a fan of the splitter on the decklid, would have removed it for production.
Sounds good Steve and glad you like it. It’s a different way of getting to your downsized vision of Imperial. That ’63 Plymouth design is one of my favorites of that era. Wish we could have seen more examples of Ex’s new way of thinking.
I would include the pillared sedan too, maybe even the wagon. Can envision the ’63 Plymouth keeping most of it’s ’62 design, which would give each car a differentiated look. Those canted side lights flanking Imperial’s grill could have matched Imperial’s canted I/P styling of the day. Oh that rich look of leather that Imperial offered in those years! Including on the steering wheel, though probably best if the wheel was round!
First, I have always thought the “Clean, Lean Breed” of the 1962 Dodge (pre-880) and the 1962 Plymouth were great clean-sheet designs, but both car brands needed larger cars, although Dodge received the 880 “full-size” Dodge-ized Chrysler Newport-derived sedan, hardtop and wagon. I guess a re-worked 1961 Plymouth could have been there for the full-size Plymouth. I also felt the 1963 Plymouth was a success, but the Dodge was a step-backwards, except for the 880s. An Imperial based on the 1963 Plymouth ? Maybe as a “Cordoba” !
I genuinely believe the 1964 – 1966 Imperials were greatly styled cars, much nicer than the Cadillacs after the 1957-1958s and the 1960. Cadillacs were gimmicky in 1959 and between 1961 through 1964. I also love the Lincolns, especially the 1961 through 1963, the same way I love the 1961-1963 Rocketbirds !
I fully agree that the problem that the Chrysler Imperial was most unable to fix was dealing with dealers that dealt with customers buying Valiants and Plymouths. If only Chryslers and Imperials were sold by a separate staff in a separate location, but again, for all of the virtues that Lynn Townsend brought to Chrysler Corporation, he either did not recognize or refused to see the problems with build quality and moreover, the dealer networks. In Indianapolis, in the 1950s and 1960s, the real quality Chrysler-Plymouth dealer (whom also sold the occasional Imperial) was the Tom O’Brien family, since 1933 to present, now in its fourth generation. Similarly, the best Dodge dealers were Eldon Palmer (and son) and Gene Beltz, both of whom are no longer Chrysler dealers.
I like the idea of a re-worked 1961 Plymouth but with a less ugly front end as the full-size version as a “1962½” model, with the Savoy, Fury, Sport Fury nameplates used for the full-size while Belvedere is keep for the lean breed model who would have turned into a “mid-size/intermediate” for 1962½ or 1963 instead of 1965. By the way, strange Dodge didn’t recycled the Royal nameplate for the 880/Custom 880 to revive the Custom Royal monicker or even reviving the Coronet nameplate more earlier instead of waiting for the 1965 model year.
I kind of like these Imperials, I’m an Imperial fan. Maybe it’s because I’m so enamored of the lines, the reworked one looks just stubby. Perhaps someone could do a ’63 Chrysler based Imperial? BTW the old joke about the Imperial was it’s only purpose was to have something Chrysler Corp executives and dealers would have something to drive to the Country clubs.
I’ve never minded the ‘64-6 wraparound windshield. Elwood Engel did a great job of transforming those baroque Imperials into a handsome automobiles, as he did with the ‘61 Continental (the best looking sedan ever made -without exception- in my opinion). The reason they didn’t sell was… they weren’t a Cadillac.
When the pinnacle of success was Cadillac, it was a tough sell for anyone else. Cadillac’s resale value was so outstanding that many traded in every year, as there was a ready market. They were at their zenith as a perceived quality best-buy value, and unquestioned status leader. Their buyers were younger, Imperial’s buyers were the oldest.
It was a rare Cadillac that was really good looking between ‘49 and ‘65, in my book (with ‘56 a Distant runner up). The rest? Chrome-laden overwrought Harley Earl designs and subsequent hangovers after his retirement. That didn’t stop buyers; it’s perceived status and value, not aesthetically pleasing design, that sells cars.
Look at Toyota and Lexus today. Point made.
As I once mentioned elsewhere, had Chrysler rechristened the big Imperial more earlier then 1976 as Chrysler New Yorker, if things would have been a little different?
Stéphane, I suspect that you’re on to something. And if Chrysler was insistent about keeping the Imperial name alive, they could have used it as a limited-production top-end series.
I think its worth mentioning and very important to note that the problem with the very well crafted Imperials were the fact that buyers still had to deal with a Plymouth sales and service staff, something that still to this day has been the Achilles heel in the buyer experience with Chrysler…fast forward a bit to 1981, Americas most expensive luxury car? 1981 Imperial FS edition @ north of $22K, sold and serviced by same staff selling a $6K Reliant K car vs a Lincoln or Cadillac dealership experience was painful at best.
Excellent point, Paul.
I thought that the 64-66 Imperial was gorgeous. Not perfect, but large and substantial looking. I never really got why folks loved the 61 Continental. To me, it’s ugly.
Indeed, when Dean Jeffries, who was a friend of famous customizer George Barris, chosen a 1966 Imperial to transform it into the “Black Beauty” for the tv series The Green Hornet and a very different front end who could be a tribute to Duesenberg or Packard.
What do you find ugliest about the Continental, e.g., the lack of character lines?
I agree, I love the 64-66 Imperials. I think the styling was beautiful, the lines all worked perfectly from front to rear. My uncle had a 66 Crown 4 door hardtop, 440 Cid with a 4 bbl carburetor. I thought it handled great, had plenty of power and it sounded great. I was sorry to see the push button drive disappeare in ’65,that along with sound of distinct Chrysler starter were what made Chrysler what it was. The Imperial’s styling was unique and yet it fit perfectly with the styling of big luxury cars of the time. Other than keeping the push button drive, I wouldn’t have changed a thing from the glass covered headlights trimmed with a gold boarder, to the elegant shape of the taillights, the car mesmerized me then and now.I wish I still had one. Just gorgeous.
“Given Chrysler’s panic over the weak sales of the 1962 models, I could see how management would not have considered downsizing the Imperial as well.”
Let’s take a look at a Plymouth-based ’63 Imperial that I created several years ago. Hidden headlights was an opportunity that Imperial should have jumped on at this time. I also added skirts. Done right, such a car could have successfully competed with Mercedes-Benz and Imperial could have built a growing loyal following.
Courtesy AACA Forum.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2019_11/127423843_1963ImperialMid-SizedLuxury.jpg.ebe232490cd23689e5dc2f6bdd5400d4.jpg
Paul, that’s a fun design. A downsized Imperial with its own sheetmetal could have been really interesting. One approach could have been to start with a two-door hardtop model and price it a bit above the Thunderbird. Then add a four-door hardtop. An Imperial on the mid-sized platform could have been a wonderfully nimble and roadworthy car (at least by American standards of the time). As you say, it could have been viewed as the American Mercedes.
It still looks like a Plymouth from the cowl back. It more reminds me of the various mix-n-match products that Chrysler sold in Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
Good point. It would have been more mundane than the other American luxury cars though less so than its new competitive rival, Mercedes-Benz. To my eye, the taillights were probably the ’63 Plymouth’s worst design feature. Assuming only Imperial would get the ’63 Plymouth design and Plymouth would mostly carry over its ’62 styling, best if those taillights never made it to production.
Am thinking this redirection in Imperial strategy would have needed an advocate, and the most logical person would have to have been Engel. He could have made the argument that Imperial had no chance in the full-sized luxury market but would need to compete only with M-B in the mid-sized market, and could have made a major effort to sell globally, becoming the preeminent American luxury producer around the world.
Soon after Engel arrived, when he was asked if he would change anything for ’63, he could have replied: “Only Imperial. I think we should consider using Ex’s Plymouth design to reposition the marque for ’63. I’d rather do that than reskin the current car around the existing windshield. There is still time to make the needed changes to the Plymouth design to create the Imperial, and time to mildly update the ’62 Plymouth to keep it fresh.”
As he would later demonstrate, we know that Engel preferred hidden headlights and full-width taillights, and he sometimes liked to add fender skirts. Let’s try the last two on this R3Q view (courtesy Classic Car Brochures for image, AACA for host site). Am not a fan of the splitter on the decklid, would have removed it for production.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/1008398573_1963Imperial.jpg.2b750f2adc664649e3c43549291cd04c.jpg
Now with a clean decklid.
https://content.invisioncic.com/r277599/monthly_2022_05/97409278_1963Imperialnosplitterondecklid.jpg.d4ce608e92b63eb8657ea8ed80328283.jpg
Sounds good Steve and glad you like it. It’s a different way of getting to your downsized vision of Imperial. That ’63 Plymouth design is one of my favorites of that era. Wish we could have seen more examples of Ex’s new way of thinking.
I would include the pillared sedan too, maybe even the wagon. Can envision the ’63 Plymouth keeping most of it’s ’62 design, which would give each car a differentiated look. Those canted side lights flanking Imperial’s grill could have matched Imperial’s canted I/P styling of the day. Oh that rich look of leather that Imperial offered in those years! Including on the steering wheel, though probably best if the wheel was round!
First, I have always thought the “Clean, Lean Breed” of the 1962 Dodge (pre-880) and the 1962 Plymouth were great clean-sheet designs, but both car brands needed larger cars, although Dodge received the 880 “full-size” Dodge-ized Chrysler Newport-derived sedan, hardtop and wagon. I guess a re-worked 1961 Plymouth could have been there for the full-size Plymouth. I also felt the 1963 Plymouth was a success, but the Dodge was a step-backwards, except for the 880s. An Imperial based on the 1963 Plymouth ? Maybe as a “Cordoba” !
I genuinely believe the 1964 – 1966 Imperials were greatly styled cars, much nicer than the Cadillacs after the 1957-1958s and the 1960. Cadillacs were gimmicky in 1959 and between 1961 through 1964. I also love the Lincolns, especially the 1961 through 1963, the same way I love the 1961-1963 Rocketbirds !
I fully agree that the problem that the Chrysler Imperial was most unable to fix was dealing with dealers that dealt with customers buying Valiants and Plymouths. If only Chryslers and Imperials were sold by a separate staff in a separate location, but again, for all of the virtues that Lynn Townsend brought to Chrysler Corporation, he either did not recognize or refused to see the problems with build quality and moreover, the dealer networks. In Indianapolis, in the 1950s and 1960s, the real quality Chrysler-Plymouth dealer (whom also sold the occasional Imperial) was the Tom O’Brien family, since 1933 to present, now in its fourth generation. Similarly, the best Dodge dealers were Eldon Palmer (and son) and Gene Beltz, both of whom are no longer Chrysler dealers.
I like the idea of a re-worked 1961 Plymouth but with a less ugly front end as the full-size version as a “1962½” model, with the Savoy, Fury, Sport Fury nameplates used for the full-size while Belvedere is keep for the lean breed model who would have turned into a “mid-size/intermediate” for 1962½ or 1963 instead of 1965. By the way, strange Dodge didn’t recycled the Royal nameplate for the 880/Custom 880 to revive the Custom Royal monicker or even reviving the Coronet nameplate more earlier instead of waiting for the 1965 model year.