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)
Contents |
[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)
[edit] 1981-83: Chryslers or Imperials?
The 1981-83 Imperials were indeed Chryslers according to Standard Catalog of American Cars 1975-99. Period Car and Driver and Road and Track reviews say so, as well.
Saying that the Imperial wasn't a Chrysler because the Chrysler brand name wasn't mentioned in advertizing is like saying the Oldsmobile Aurora wasn't an Olds because the Oldsmobile name wasn't feature initially in advertizing.
The Chrysler brand name WAS, however, mentioned in 1971-75 Imperial advertizing, as well as on the cars themselves, with their "Imperial by Chrysler" monikers.
The 1981-83 section should be added to the "Chrysler Imperial" section. Rhettro76 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg
Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
