It was recently pointed out that CC has never done a feature on the 1957 Imperials. Considering that these were possibly the most radical and influential cars of their time, I decided to step in and fill the void. But finding one at curbside may not be so easy . . .
. . . so I decided to cheat a little and do an internet search to see what I could find. Apparently there are quite a few still out there, but I haven’t seen one parked or on the road in–I would say–decades! So after looking at many images, I picked the specific cars that I remembered after searching, focusing on original, slightly patina’d examples that stood out to me–such as this black 4-door Crown sedan offered for sale in Breedenbroek, Holland.
Voluptuous beauty! There’s something about the ample fins with their “nozzle” (or maybe “nipple”) taillights, the sensuous curves, the optional spare tire mount with contrasting silver and gold insert, the flamboyant Imperial script (and little gold crown) that makes these cars so fascinating!
Two different front ends were available; one with all-new double headlights, and another with standard single lights. Most of the cars I saw on my internet search had the optional 4-light setup. I guess most buyers who were spending big bucks on a new Imperial decided to go all out and get the most modern, futuristic design possible!
For comparison–the single headlight version. I really like the “geared” chrome housing.
The interior just “breathes” luxury and spaciousness!
I found another ’57 Imperial on the Imperial Web Pages. This was offered for sale on eBay in 2017, and is claimed to be one of the most original examples extant.
You can read the full story of this 20,000 mile example here.
Here we get a good look at the unique design pattern of original upholstery.
If you’re looking for a coupe, how about this Sunset Rose stunner with the two-toned canopy roof.
The canopy effect is even carried through inside the car!
The fins seem even more pronounced on the coupe!
Here’s a Horizon Blue 4-door hardtop once owned by the actress Lauren Bacall.
Overhead camera shot emphasizes the flowing curves of the Imperial body.
Interior looks spectacular!
FOCUS ON DETAILS:
First impressions count! These aluminum door sills are truly a work of mid-century modern art!
What a cockpit! Note the unorthodox sequence of automatic transmission push-buttons: N D R 2 1. No “P”–you have to use the parking brake. The chrome switch below controls turn signals. Knobs are rotated rather than pulled.
Somebody should count the number of crown emblems on these cars! All designed to make you feel like royalty!
The legendary Hemi engine, biggest in America: 392.7 cubic inches, a thundering 325 horsepower, 9.25 to 1 compression; teamed with Chrysler’s excellent 3-speed TorqueFlite transmission. Seldom has so much power been delivered so smoothly and quietly!
These ’57 Imperials must have been a sensation when they first came out! I remember seeing a photo of a Chrysler dealership with a sign in the window: “FLYING SAUCERS, ELVIS PRESLEY . . . NOW IMPERIAL!” Cadillac and Lincoln had new styling, but the new Imperial was much more advanced overall, what with its tradition-shattering Forward Look, Torsion-Aire ride, curved side glass–a completely new personality. Buyers responded. Sales jumped from 10,685 in ’56 to 35,734 in ’57! GM was forced to take notice, and promptly dropped its scheduled ’59s and come up with all-new styling derived from Virgil Exner’s inspiration: longer, lower, wider, with big fins; thin sweeping rooflines, and lots of glass.
What hath Exner wrought? Had he not produced his Forward Look, GM’s sweeping all-new line of ’59s would have never been created.
DRIVING IMPRESSIONS:
Consumer Reports, that ever-reliable arbiter of automotive goodness stated that the Imperial was the best riding car they had ever tested. However, they did say that “The Imperial is not free from the inadequate rigidity characteristic of the 1957 Chrysler Corporation lines . . . Accessibility of the Imperial engine is normal for the type, except for its deep-buried spark plugs which are hard to reach. As to gas mileage, not too much should be expected from so huge an engine and heavy a car. The Imperial’s frequency-of-repair record has been very good.”
As someone who has owned and driven Imperials and Cadillacs from this period, I can tell you that CR is 100% correct about the Imperial ride. The broad hood stays flat and level at all times. You combine this with the Full Time Power Steering (which turns about as easily as a raised bicycle wheel) and the ease of handling around corners is really refreshing for so large a car! Imperial would be my choice for a long highway trip.
However, Imperial does have some practical demerits. The dash-mounted turn signal switch is very difficult to use. You must take your eyes off the road and hunt for either R or L. How many prospects said “No!” after dealing with this during the test drive? Also the lack of “PARK” is a distinct disadvantage. While the Imperial impresses with its size and styling, it sometimes comes off as a kind of oversized Plymouth. The door slams with a tinny sound; the engine is not quite as butter-smooth as Cadillac’s.
The Cadillac suspension is softer, the whole car seems “silkier”, the quality of upholstery and dashboard chrome is very high, the doors close with a solid “click”; the styling, while still probing the leading edge of space-age gorp, seems more refined and “correct” somehow. Granted, these are small and esoteric observations. The driving experiences provided by Imperial, Lincoln, and Cadillac would be more than sufficiently luxurious and similar to each other to please nearly everyone. Which to choose would probably depend more on a buyer’s loyalty to the brand and to the local dealer with whom he had a good relationship.
Imperial’s promising 1957 success strangely enough did not last. Sales crashed to about 16,000 in recession year ’58, recovered a little in ’59, but the marque never became a serious competitor to Cadillac or Lincoln. So all we are left with are a few isolated examples of these fantastically exuberant, finely engineered (yet quirky) motorcars that are sure to inspire awe on those rare occasions when one is actually seen.
Working at a Philly suburban country club, a member asked me to pick his daughter up at the train station.I was 19 yrs old.I drove his ’57 Imperial and was appalled at the quality of construction.The huge hood may have remained flat, but it shook up and down.All in all, though quite a thrill to drive one, but sad to see such a lack of build quality
Mopar.Probberly the best and advanced engineered American cars with probberly the worst build quality. A shame. The “only 20 000 mile only car. A used car salesman dream. ” Never seen rain and driven only on Sunday’s to church ” . Wonder if some one ” borrowed ” the engine and did another 2000 miles a 1/4 mile at a time, on Sunday race ways only?.
This car’s launch pretty much coincided with my birth, so no first-hand experience there, but I still remember a lot of this generation on the streets as a kid, so the sales success (at least the first year) doesn’t surprise me. And the taillights and toilet seat trunk bulge made a big impression on young Dman. In general, the forward-look cars really stood out in the early sixties, and while mostly Plymouth and Dodge, there were plenty of Imperials and even DeSoto’s.
ChryCo’s quality hit bottom with the new Forward Look cars .
That’s a management failure no one up top cared .
This land yacht is too big for me but fun to look at .
The quad headlights were not legal in some states in 1957, why they had two options .
-Nate
I always got the feeling that dual headlight legality was corrected in all 48 states within months of the ‘57 cars being introduced, if only because of how few single headlight variants (DeSoto, Imperial, Chrysler?) were seen back then, and have survived over the years. Of the two (possibly three, was there a Chrysler variant?) I’ve only ever seen DeSotos, and that’s going back to my childhood and the dealership days.
The dual/quad headlight thing is puzzling since I don’t think GM or Ford had any such issues; AFAIK, their products were all duals for 1957.
So, why all the monkeying around over at Chrysler with quad options on their premium brands, not to mention the ersatz quad-looking duals on the Plymouths and Dodges?
I owned a ’63– last year of that body– and it rode beautifully, yet had particularly good handing for such an enormous car.
-Last of that body- and Elwood Engel menaged to give the 1957 chassis a new body for 1964 to allow the chassis to soldier 3 more model years.
I had ’63 Southampton.two tone cream over copper. traded it for a ten speed and 800 bucks in the mid eighties. I’m an idiot.
Bezels on the single-headlight version look like the Ford Rotunda turned on its side
No 1957 Plymouths and Dodges had quad headlights. They had their parking lights in the same housing but true quads on those cars did not arrive until the 1958s.
The senior 1957 Chrysler products did have the dual/quad option if permitted by the state. But how would one of the “no-quad” states deal with visitors from other states with quads?
I think you were allowed to drive a quad-headlight car into those states; you just couldn’t register it there and/or pass a state inspection.
It would be interesting to know how the ‘no quad’ states checked to ensure that the car did not have quad headlights. Did they inspect them all or were there just the few models known to offer quads for 1957 that actually had to pass some sort of headlight inspection?
The 1957 Mercury came with both the single and dual options.
And the single option.
The 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Bougham had quad headlights. That model was produced in such small numbers that it was probably not offered for sale where quad lights were not yet legal.
Actually almost all 1957 GM and Ford cars had single headlights. The two most common models (Ford and Chevy) had all new or at least new front (Chevy) designs with no room for duals. Pretty much everyone went for duals in 1958. Chrysler obviously thought that the duals would be legal by 1957 and styled all their front ends to accommodate them, but then found out that wouldn’t necessarily be the case.
The first photo (white car, fin, taillamp) suggests a much less wildly-styled car than the rest of it (rear window, trunklid hoop). Part of me would like to see a car like that.
Interesting car I haven’t really noticed before, it looks sort of bent when viewed from the side though like it’s collapsing from its own weight. The ’59 Cadillac is far more graceful (relatively, still quite baroque) to my eyes and instantly seems to date this one and make it look a bit heavy or, perhaps, Checker-esque. The Cadillac I think I would recognize as a Cadillac even without badging, the Imperial I don’t think I would.
Did people bitch about the various automatic shifter formats and especially the different sequences back then as they do today about the formats, thank goodness the sequence is standardized now?
“it looks sort of bent when viewed from the side though like it’s collapsing from its own weight.”
That is a good way to put it, especially for the 4dr.
I think that’s camera distortion.
Here’s a better photo of another car:
Yes a large part of it was distortion, it’s still there a bit visually though, I think it has to do with the length of the fin and how it flows uninterupted into the door. The Cadillacs (as a convenient example, both the ads show it) have a break in the fin’s angle and various other lines that counteract it. Not a biggie, certainly, just what jumped out at me.
The roof hoop thing perhaps exacerbates the effect of looking like something pushing down in that exact area but otherwise is an interesting styling touch as opposed to the later (’59) Cadillac’s more floating roof effect.
No my feelings are not based on that single picture. Yes some angles do make it less noticeable.
At least it doesn’t have the square steering wheels that came a few years later. These always looked awkward.
And here we are today with all kinds of cars having some kind of squared off steering wheel. Unlike others Chrysler went to all 3.5 turns lock to lock with power steering (which all Imperials would have) so there would be less wheel spinning.
If I’d been a luxury car buyer in ’57, this would have been my first and only choice. But I would have paid the dealer to install one of those clip-on aftermarket turn signal gadgets, which were still fairly common for trucks in ’57.
I’d love to see one of these in-person sometime to get the full effect. Popular Mechanics has helpful comparisons; I’d forgotten about “Pounds per Horsepower”:
Those ads remind me of (30 Rock’s) Jack Donaghy:
“Of course I’m wearing a tux. It’s after six. What am I, a farmer?”
Thanks for taking up this long-ignored subject.
I find that the ’59 Cadillac’s hooded headlights to be a very blatant crib of the Imperial, and one they then made a styling feature for a number of years.
The ’57 Imperial was a true milestone car, very advanced like the rest of the ’57 Chrysler lineup. It’s too bad that it quickly lost any traction it had in its first year, a combination of the recession and its poor build quality.
It must have been painful for Chrysler to see that happen, after such a promising start.
Even though Chevrolet had hooded headlights two years earlier on the 1955 model ? .
-Nate
A visor, not a hood. The similarity of the Imperial and later Cadillac is obvious.
Did they ever recover. In Europe?. Mopers legacy Is only they took down Mercedes Benz to their quality. Level. One UK Dodge dealer was doing a two for one on their sedans back 10 years ago.
Had an Imperial for awhile, but eventually it attempted to exploit the smaller vehicles in the garage and had to be overthrown.
They really tilted the rear seat back to improve headroom, but it must have been difficult for older, infirm, or bulbous people to exit.
Good article! Thanks for all the sweet pics and detail shots. It may be cheating, but it worked and if you waited to find a curbside example, the article might happen by, oh, about 2040.
I like the 57-59s better than the 60-63s. That 20k mile blue one struck me for some reason, really nice looking car. I much prefer the pillared sedans over the coupes, the coupe roofline is a little too fussy for my taste.
I remember seeing one of these in Loving You, Elvis’ second movie. It was a convertible with the two headlights, white IIRC. There were some great car shots in there. Maybe Chrysler was a sponser? One of his better movies, too!
The rarely seen sedan pictured seems a bit heavy and ponderous compared to the lithe hardtops. No surprise the sedans didn’t sell well, not that the hardtops set the world on fire.
Still, an important car for Chrysler, as it gave it a true, serious luxury offering to compete with Cadillac and Lincoln. Old Tom McCahill of Mechanix Illustrated loved them, owing several as his personal vehicles.
Such an amazing time, car and planet. Love all those amazing details.
We must include here street photographer Vivian Maier’s 1957 photo of cats from outer space.
“Cats from Outer Space.” Ha! Brilliant!
Never saw that photo before!
If you image search Vivian Maier, you’ll find a lot of great photos, some of which have old cars in them:
Tom McCahill’s favorite enough so he was a repeat buyer
read it was Virgil Exner’s favorite design
Jay Leno has a one and loves it
whoops that was the 1958\\here’s Leno’s 1957
We had quite a ’57 Imperial, which arrived when it was about 10 years old. The LeBaron was a six-window sedan that my father bought from one of his best friends whose brother knew Jack Chrysler (Walter’s kid) in New York. My brother took to calling the car, “Mr. Chrysler’s Imperial” and that’s him working on it.
Equipment included A/C. IIRC the cool air came into the car through a couple of round vents that when pointed one way defrosted the windshield, then when spun around with the temp at “cold” cooled the interior. The silver genuine leather was so highly polished you’d have sworn it was vinyl – but it wasn’t. The Highway Hi-Fi 16-2/3-RPM record player did work OK but the selection of records was so dull even my parents didn’t bother with it. We had the quad lights which were a non-issue by 1958.
The big tank really moved. My father towed large travel trailers easily and my brother and I used it to tow old cars. The power steering was really easy to use but completely numb, though handling was surprising agile while ride was comfy. I got used to the daffy turn signals, and the dash – with a full set of gauges – was a joy to see at night, with a stunning, purplish glow.
That flat, steady hood blew open once when Pop was driving it; luckily not much else happened and we fixed it. The 392 Hemi threw a rod on the Interstate near home. By the time I found a rebuildable one the body rot had gotten too severe and we had to kiss it goodbye. Too bad.
We are recently returned from a week in Cuba. We requested a “pink convertible” for a tour of Havana and were treated to a ’57 Imperial for the morning! A nice picture on my travel blog, Tom’s Travel Blog.
Have a 59 crown 4door in copper pink metallic. Better built than my 59 Cadillac coupe or a Lincoln. Truck chassis and motor. Undersealed from new and also treated internally. They rusted no worse than the above mentioned. Better motor and box. Highly underrated cars which were better engineered and ahead of their time. The 59 Cadillac was a knee jerk reaction to the Imperials and quite shoddy in its build quality overall. I have restored both so know what I am talking about. If you live in a wet or salty area the other models faired just as bad. I reckon all the bad publicity came from the other two car makers because Chrysler was certainly pushing the boundaries and was there before the conservative public was. Chris Perth Australia.