"Chrylser" + "Imperial" 1964-1966

Telecolor 3007

Telecolor 3007

I love old stuff
The "Imperials" of 1964-1966 seemed to be quite strong cars (in terms of structure) for theyr days, because they where banned from that stupids destructions races. Probably not safe by today's standards, but safer then other cars of theyr days. They also offered in 1965? headreasts for 2 front passanger, which was very rare at that time.
How where the top "Chrylsers" of those years? Did they where as strong in structure as the "Imperials"?
I know that they ate a lot of fuel... but they where relaible cars? I like the look of them. Allmost nothing like from that era in U.S.A ("Chrysler" got better looks in 1965, one year after the "Imperial"), they where out of the future. The 1964 "Imperial" was designed by the... Italians.
 
Register to hide this ad
Until 1966, the Imperial was body-on-frame construction while Chryslers were unibody.

Body on frame gave better isolation from road noise which is why it was used in the premium Imperial while unibody provides better structural integrity/collision damage resistance.

Regarding Imperial design from 1964 and later, I'm sure where you got the idea of the "Italian" influence. It was designed by Elwood Engel who had replaced Chrysler design chief Virgil Exner. Engel had worked at Ford and his Imperials had a decided "Lincolnesque" look to them beginning with the '64 model year.
 
Last edited:
Some one mentioned that the 1964 "Imperial" had "Carman Ghia" design. That's why I sayed about Italian deisgn. I know about Elwood Engel and that he left "Ford" for "Chrylser"; those "Lincolns" where better looking then "Cadillac", trough all probably "Cadillac" had some nice features because it was..."Cadillac" :)
Didn't "Chrysler" used some kind of unibody + body on frame on the "Imperial"?
 
If you really want to be excessively pedantic about it, the Imperial was not a Chrysler. The idea was for it to be the luxury brand of Chrysler Corporation, though I don't know how clear they made that. At a few points the Continental wasn't a Lincoln model either but they went back and forth on that multiple times.

Chrysler did have unibody cars back then, but I don't know which, if any, the Imperial may have shared a chassis with. Or when, its highly likely things changed over the 20-odd years they made these things.
 
Telecolor 3007 said:
Some one mentioned that the 1964 "Imperial" had "Carman Ghia" design. That's why I sayed about Italian deisgn. I know about Elwood Engel and that he left "Ford" for "Chrylser"; those "Lincolns" where better looking then "Cadillac", trough all probably "Cadillac" had some nice features because it was..."Cadillac" :)
Didn't "Chrysler" used some kind of unibody + body on frame on the "Imperial"?
Click to expand...
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. If sales numbers are anything to go by, it's pretty clear which look the market overwhelmingly preferred. Not to say that Imperial/Chrysler didn't also have some excellent qualities but styling tended to lag behind GM's - at least in the eyes of the buying public. As far as the comparison between the '64 Imperial and Karmann Ghia, I'm just not seeing it. Imperial went to unibody construction in 1967.

From 1955 to 1975, Imperial was separate division of Chrysler but it never really took hold as everybody kept referring to them as "Chrysler Imperials". Lincoln tried the same thing with the Continental Division but like Imperial it never caught on either. The Imperial nameplate was eliminated altogether in 1976 but returned from 1981 to 1983, when it was formed as a separate Division again. The later FWD Imperials that appeared from the late '80s to early '90s were Chrysler submodels.
 
Last edited:
Karmann was just a design house, they had a hand in a lot of things besides the fancy Beetle.

Karmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

No listing for any Imperial or any Chrysler product not made in this century.


and yeah the Continental thing didn't catch on either. Technically I own one, my diesel doesn't have a Lincoln badge or VIN number but the entire world calls it a Lincoln Continental. Ford had tried to reboot the separate nameplate thing in '84 and basically gave up after '85. They also went back and forth between being a brand and a model which certainly didn't help establish any sort of brand identity.

personally I kinda dig the late 60s "fusilage" Imperials.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the "Continental" was the base model of the big body Lincoln while the "Town Car" & "Town Coupe" were the deluxe versions. I'd have to check references to determine which model years this applied. I'm also not sure whether the two door was available in base Continental trim. The Mark III, IV and V series were branded "Continental" at least until 1983.
 
1960's Chrysler cars are well built and very reliable: their motors lasted a lot longer than other makes as they used lots of nickel in the engine block making the iron harder, less susceptible to wear, they also used forged crankshafts instead of cast (harder and stronger). The Torqueflite transmissions were bulletproof, the the torsion bar front suspension make for good handling and a comfy ride.

The only problem area is the starter system- the "high torque" starter used most of the current in the system and very little made it to the distributor, making them hard to start when cold (or too hot). The ballast resistors tended to burn up, also making them hard to start. The solution is very simple- add the 1970's electronic ignition (you can buy a kit) and put on a starter from a late 1990's Dodge truck, and keep a spare ballast resistor in the glove box. (I did this with my 1968 Newport).
 
62caddy said:
If I'm not mistaken, the "Continental" was the base model of the big body Lincoln while the "Town Car" & "Town Coupe" were the deluxe versions. I'd have to check references to determine which model years this applied. I'm also not sure whether the two door was available in base Continental trim. The Mark III, IV and V series were branded "Continental" at least until 1983.
Click to expand...

At various points, yes. When it was a Lincoln Continental, that was your base car and the Continental Town Coupe and Continental Town Car were up trimmed 2 and 4 door models. That held through 1981. In 1982, the Continental was downsized and moved to a different platform. The Town Car became a model instead of a trim level, and the Mark VI was on that same chassis until it ended production in 1983.

There was the Continental Mark series through the Mark V, then there was the Lincoln Continental Mark series which shared some of the same numbers and had no relation to the ones from the 50s and early 60s. Its all just very confusing.
 
Some one made a vlog about that mess...

krautmaster said:
1960's Chrysler cars are well built and very reliable: their motors lasted a lot longer than other makes as they used lots of nickel in the engine block making the iron harder, less susceptible to wear, they also used forged crankshafts instead of cast (harder and stronger). The Torqueflite transmissions were bulletproof, the the torsion bar front suspension make for good handling and a comfy ride.

The only problem area is the starter system- the "high torque" starter used most of the current in the system and very little made it to the distributor, making them hard to start when cold (or too hot). The ballast resistors tended to burn up, also making them hard to start. The solution is very simple- add the 1970's electronic ignition (you can buy a kit) and put on a starter from a late 1990's Dodge truck, and keep a spare ballast resistor in the glove box. (I did this with my 1968 Newport).
Click to expand...

Why it was better to be forged then casting?
 
Telecolor 3007 said:
Some one mentioned that the 1964 "Imperial" had "Carman Ghia" design. That's why I sayed about Italian deisgn. I know about Elwood Engel and that he left "Ford" for "Chrylser"; those "Lincolns" where better looking then "Cadillac", trough all probably "Cadillac" had some nice features because it was..."Cadillac" :)
Didn't "Chrysler" used some kind of unibody + body on frame on the "Imperial"?
Click to expand...
The way I remember it, Imperials were for old couples while Cadillac were for executives. Continentals of the big type were for well heeled Texas ranchers. Thing is, if I remember right, Cadillac would outrun either of them and that wasn't lost on buyers. I would have had a Thunderbird for everyday and a Cadillac for Sunday.
 
Telecolor 3007 said:
Some one made a vlog about that mess...



Why it was better to be forged then casting?
Click to expand...
Forged steel is twice as dense as cast iron and therefore doesn't wear nearly as fast, and won't break under stress like a cast crank can (they can break, nothing is perfect but they can take a lot more abuse than a cast iron one). Cast iron cranks are common on regular engines, but high performance engines use forged steel. Those old Mopar big blocks would run 200,000 miles if you kept up the oil changes (back when most engines were burning oil by the quart with only 50,000 miles on them).
 
I saw the thread title and the one thing I instantly thought of is the Chrysler Imperial is absolutely the best for a derby car. Extremely strong frames and durable engines. Outlawed in smaller and lower cost derbys. Now they command big bucks because most have been trashed.

The rest mentioned in this thread I believe we're either to weak or to large for a derby car ( the continental)
 
Telecolor 3007 said:
The "Imperials" of 1964-1966 seemed to be quite strong cars (in terms of structure) for theyr days, because they where banned from that stupids destructions races. Probably not safe by today's standards, but safer then other cars of theyr days. They also offered in 1965? headreasts for 2 front passanger, which was very rare at that time.
How where the top "Chrylsers" of those years? Did they where as strong in structure as the "Imperials"?
I know that they ate a lot of fuel... but they where relaible cars? I like the look of them. Allmost nothing like from that era in U.S.A ("Chrysler" got better looks in 1965, one year after the "Imperial"), they where out of the future. The 1964 "Imperial" was designed by the... Italians.
Click to expand...
Yes they were solid cars the used Chryslers best running gear
 
Chrysler didn't have quite the array of engine families that others had. By '65 the old hemi was gone, so it would have been a 413 or a 440. Essentially the same engine where it counts and very reliable.

They had lots of different displacements, but they were in two basic engine families that shared a lot of parts and design.
 
krautmaster said:
Forged steel is twice as dense as cast iron and therefore doesn't wear nearly as fast, and won't break under stress like a cast crank can (they can break, nothing is perfect but they can take a lot more abuse than a cast iron one). Cast iron cranks are common on regular engines, but high performance engines use forged steel. Those old Mopar big blocks would run 200,000 miles if you kept up the oil changes (back when most engines were burning oil by the quart with only 50,000 miles on them).
Click to expand...
1979 425 Cadillac set world record of 585,000 miles back in 1994.
 

Attachments

  • 1762787030684.png
    1762787030684.png
    682.7 KB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom