(first posted 6/27/2011) After its full frontal assault on the U.S. luxury car market in 1957, Chrysler’s Imperial was destined to spend the rest of its days in a long series of small retreats until its unconditional surrender at the end of the 1975 model year. Other than a modestly successful surge with Elwood Engel’s 1964 restyle, Imperial’s history largely paralleled the slow fall of a military power as it was eventually overrun by superior forces. Today’s CC marks the final skirmish before one of the more significant fallbacks: Imperial’s exit from the luxury convertible market.
Before moving forward, let’s get one thing clear. This is NOT a “Chrysler Imperial”. Although the Imperial had been the finest version of the Chrysler brand going back to the 1920s, Chrysler was ready for some serious growth in the 1950s and registered Imperial as a separate make for the 1955 models. From this point forward, there was no such thing as a “Chrysler Imperial” any more than there was a “General Motors Cadillac” or a “Ford Lincoln”. But in the real world, nobody got the memo and the car would be forever known to the general public as the Chrysler Imperial.
By the mid 1960s, Chrysler’s irrational exuberance of the ’50s was long gone. In its place was Lynn Townsend, the company president who came into the job in 1961 from Chrysler’s outside accounting firm. Townsend was a practical man, and to him, the automobile business was all about volume. Volume was something that Imperial had never been able to obtain. Even with a freshened 1964 model (a year second only to 1957), Imperial barely managed to exceed 23,000 units, less than half of Lincoln’s production. By comparison, Cadillac sold over 150,000 cars that year. Townsend knew that this situation was not going to get better. The ’64 Imperial, nice as it was, was still a thinly veiled update of the 1957 car. Meanwhile, the ’64 Lincoln was 2 full generations removed from its 1957 model and Cadillac was one generation further yet. Worse, both would field wholly new cars by 1965-66, so something would have to be done.
With Townsend’s inability (or unwillingness) to make a business case for a new stand-alone Imperial platform, there was only one other option: Imperial would have to share the C-body unitized platform with the big Chrysler for its 1967 model. At least the new Imperial was given a 3 inch increase in wheelbase forward of the cowl (to 127 inches) over the New Yorker, and the car would otherwise have competitive dimensions (width and overall length) with the current Cadillac. A surprising fact is that the 67-68 Imperial outweighed the 4900 pound Cadillac by 300 pounds.
Chrysler’s 1965-68 C platform was a very good one, one of my all-time favorites. Unfortunately, it did not necessarily make for a class-competitive Imperial. While, the car’s sheetmetal was unique, the cars bore such a strong resemblance to the New Yorker that the differences may not have been readily apparent to the casual observer. Likewise, the dashboard was plainly a trim job on the same unit used by all Chryslers, even the lowly Newport. Where Cadillac was obviously a completely different car from a Buick, and Lincoln was clearly different from anything else made by Ford, the Imperial came off as a New Yorker Ultimate. The fact that the car was virtually identical mechanically to the “regular” Chrysler only caused stiffer headwinds for the car as it tried to be a legitimate luxury contender.
Even though the Imperial shared the Chrysler platform, the company really did spend a lot of money on the car. The plated die casting used for the grille is simply beautiful. Chrysler even used a unique door handle with a brushed stainless insert. It is a shame that these costly touches were so subtle and were probably not noticed by most people.
It was my experience growing up that someone shopping for a new luxury car in the 60s made a choice between Cadillac and (maybe) Lincoln. The Imperial was not so much a competitor of the big 2 as something for Chrysler to sell to an existing New Yorker customer when he was ready for a more expensive car. By the late 1960s, Chrysler had never been able to shake a poor reputation for quality, and the result was that Chryslers were very polarizing cars. A small number of buyers was extremely loyal and would consider virtually nothing else, while a majority of buyers would never seriously entertain the thought of buying a Chrysler product, no matter how appealing it may have otherwise been. Production figures tell the tale. In its entire time as a separate brand, Imperial only once exceeded 24,000 cars (1957) and never, ever, sold fewer than 10,000, no matter how bizarrely styled or poorly built. So, with roughly 15,000 units sold in 1968, it was an average year for the Imperial.
My anecdotal observations were backed up in the motoring press of the period. Popular Mechanics Magazine featured Owners’ Reports which polled actual owners of new vehicles. In its April, 1968 issue (here ), the Magazine featured the ’68 Imperial. The article noted an extremely loyal base of repeat buyers who were, on average, on their third or fourth Imperial. At the same time, though, these loyal owners had pervasive criticisms of workmanship. Wind and water leaks, electrical and carburetion problems and climate control issues and were the biggies, with fully 46% of owners complaining of a mechanical problem. However, a properly built car made for a satisfied customer, because when asked what changes owners would like to see, there was nary a response beyond the workmanship issue.
474. What is this number? It is the total number of Imperial convertibles that rolled out of the factory in 1968. Let me repeat this – the car pictured here is one of 474 ever built. Anywhere. I now nominate this car as the rarest passenger car ever profiled as a CC. Think of it this way: Most Chrysler dealers never saw one of these when they were new. Or this way: Lincoln cancelled its convertible after selling over 2200 of them in 1967. Cadillac shovelled over 18,000 DeVille ragtops out the door in ’68. In fact, the entire run of Imperial convertibles (1957-68, as there was no convertible for 1955-56) may be the lowest volume regular production car of its era. Only once (again, 1957) did the company crack 1000 units. The Imperial Club’s registry currently lists only 6 of these ’68 models worldwide, although there are likely a few others here or there (including this car that does not appear to be one of the 6). If you see an Imperial convertible of ANY year, you are looking at one rare automobile.
I saw this car parked outside of a business while driving across a busy street on the far north side of Indianapolis. Actually, I passed by it maybe 5 times before I had an opportunity to stop in and ask if I could photograph the car. Rich Kissling is one of the owners of Indy Sound & Performance, and was happy to allow some pictures. He was also kind enough to take me into the back where his craftsmen are finishing a beautiful restomod of a hemi orange 72 Road Runner. But as nice as the Road Runner was (and it was amazing), we here at CC will tread the less-travelled paths, so it was back outside to gawk at the Imp. This Turbine Bronze Imperial drop top is a beautiful original 78,000 mile car that is awaiting some interior and trim restoration. But as of right now, we get to enjoy the car with its original patina. Other than an older high quality repaint, you are looking at this car just as Chrysler built it.
Chrysler would retreat again when it chose to ignore the highly profitable personal luxury segment and yet again when Imperial would cease to be a separate brand. In 1974, Imperial would revert to its earlier role as the Chrysler brand’s highest model. Again, with an all new (and extremely attractive) design, Chrysler sold just short of 15,000 of them. But after a disastrous 1975, Chrysler would pull the plug (cc here). 8,830 cars was bad even by Imperial’s standards. But then again, considering the triple whammy of a terrible economy, rising fuel prices and Chrysler’s plummeting quality reputation, 8,830 cars may not have been so bad. There would be a couple of ill-fated attempts to bring the name back, but never as a legitimate luxury sedan.
Despite Imperial’s slow but total failure in trying to compete with Cadillac and Lincoln, the 68 Imperial was a very good car. If you appreciate the charms of the big C-body Chryslers of the 1960s, then you may agree that this car could have been the best ever on that platform. If the car-fairy were to appear on my doorstep to waive her wand and offer me the chance to choose a single car to love and cherish for the rest of my life, you may very well be looking at my selection, right down to the color. Oh, well (Sigh). Very few people will ever get to see one of these, let alone own one. But for a few minutes on a recent Saturday, I got to stand next to this rare and beautiful car. As I stood there, I imagined this Imperial in 1968 with its top down and its battle flags raised, preparing to make one last charge at the enemy. It would again turn out to be an ugly rout. However, unlike in a real shooting war, the result was pure pleasure for those of us with a thing for big convertibles.
My grandfather had a ’67 Imperial sedan (haze green). I drove the car quite a bit for him, and it was a very good road car and had generally better handling – better than my great-uncle’s Cadillac. The seating seemed to be superior to many other cars I drove. Several unique features were the full set of instruments with a master “idiot” light that indicated one of the gauges was out-of-normal. There was a small door that could be closed to cover-up the radio. There was a floor button (next to the headlight dimmer) that would initiate signal seeking on the radio to the next station (steering wheel controls weren’t invented yet). My favorite styling feature was the wall-to-wall taillights.
Love these cars in their many itinerations. Great write up.
The most barouque models tend to be my faves but these late 1960s models have a “tailored” look that IMHO looked better than the competeing Cadillacs. Sadly though Chrysler (like Lincoln) found out that people seemed to prefer the “in your face” nature of Cadillac.
I know the name plate “Imperial” was trampled on and dragged through the mud by Chrysler but perhaps Imperial would have been a better name than Crossfire for Chrysler’s last grasp at “exclusitivty.”
I felt like (and still do) they have their best shot at producing a unique version of the 300 that speaks: “I have arrived” and means it. I’m not talking about stick-on portholes, chrome B pillar covers, 30″ wheels w/spinners and other such garbage that screams “LOSER!”
As an aside, as a performance-oriented “halo” car for Chrysler brand, I thought that Crossfire was a flop from day one.
Through the years, Chrysler has made several 2-seater sports car concepts, eg:1955 Falcon, 1995 Atlantic, 2001 Crossfire, 2004 ME-412, 2005 Firepower. However, Chrysler has no history of SELLING 2-place sportscars under that brand, so the Crossfire made little sense to me. Of all the concepts that I listed, the Crossfire was also the least attractive IMO, yet that’s the one that made it into production.
Historically, Chrysler performance cars have been “banker’s hotrods”, large performance-oriented cars like the Chrysler 300 letter-models, the 1970 300 Hurst, and today the 300 SRT8. This is a brand that once boasted that they only sold fullsize automobiles! I don’t know if the Crossfire would have been better positioned as a Dodge, but it wasn’t a good fit as a Chrysler.
I started out as a Lincoln man- and so I used to see the Imperial as an also ran, but luckily I saw the folly of my ways and appreciate them for the stunning automobiles that they are. You really hit it on the head Imperials were for the Mopar fan who wanted more; I dont think they ever had alot of conquest sales, but then even Lincoln hardly had any sales at this time compared to Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial lacked the flash or prestige that Cadillac immediately conveyed. I think they even played it up in an ad- “Imperial is for the man who does not seek prestige because he already has it” So they were the “driving man’s” luxury car.
The 61 Continental is a deserved classic and even this Imperial still owes alot to it but I think they really had something with the Imperial, it always looks like it is in motion, almost like it is lunging at you, and the Continentals are always in repose, the lines are at rest, not athletic or aggressive like the forward canting Imperials.
The Imperial interiors 64-68 are almost architectural, like Mies Van de rohe/Mid century modern like, the seats even look like stylized Eames chairs, and the wood trim is like Danish modern cabinetry, like you said tons of little touches and yet to the untrained eye it can look like a Newport. What a shame- Although at one point I think the Chryslers had a juke box semi-circle dash cluster, not the nearly perfectly straight line sweep of the Imps(but by 68 maybe they shared the dash).
Stunning cars, great write-up.
As to the dashboards, the 65-66 Chryslers were the ones with the big semi-circular cluster. The 67-68 Chrysler dash was much like this one. Although the trim on the dash of this car looks like some kind of danish wood, it was actually a unique brushed metal finish called antique bronze.
The little expensive touches on this car are amazing. There is a chrome plated diecast pull-handle for the rear seat armrest. The thing must have cost a fortune in such low volume.
Oh thats right it was the earlier C-body Chryslers with the circular dash. I forgot about that bronze trim! Thanks for the correction. I have never been inside one of these, I looked at one through the glass and assumed it was wood. My 64 Continental had a similiar horizontal dash- with horizontal ribs that the air registers “hid” behind, but I love the Imperial with all the doors that leave a clean sweep of dashboard if you close them. The mobile director was really cool with the swivel seat and stowaway writing desk. My Dad gave me his Motor Trend Guide to the 1967 Cars around 1987 or so, I was 10 and I would pour over that thing, And the Crown Coupe mobile director was one of my favorites.
The 65-66 Chrysler instrument cluster was designed to look like the 60-62 Chrysler “Astra-dome” cluster, just simplified and without the electroluminescent gauges.
The 60-62 gauge faces used EL panels to light the numbers from behind, and the needles themselves were electroluminescent. They used power supplies with high voltage inverters to light-up just the needles and numbers. At night, the readouts looked like they were floating in the dark.
Imperials from this era also had EL gauges, but more conventionally styled. The 1st generation Dodge Chargers used EL gauges as well.
J.P. Cavanaugh, I read your article about the 68 Imperial Convertible, from which you shot photos. May I ask if you know if Rich Kissling still owns the car? This is a very strange coincidence but I am almost 100% certain that it is the Imperial I owned for many years, which I know has changed hands since then. So I am simply curious to find the present owner, if possible, to touch base with and chat a little about the car. I would appreciate any response you have.
Thank you,
Larry Debord
San Antonio, TX
What a great write-up, and a beautiful car. This one has the tilt-o-scope steering column, which was actually a Delco (GM) part. I think I see the “POWER DISC BRAKES” text on the brake pedal. Front disc brakes, manufactured by Budd, were an option on these cars. Very expensive to maintain today due to lack of parts — even worse for Imperials. While most Mopar hubs used a 4.5″ bolt circle, Chrysler decided that Imperials would use a 5″ bolt circle. Consequently, hubs, rotors and drums from other C-bodies do not interchange with Imperials.
Before moving forward, let’s get one thing clear. This is NOT a “Chrysler Imperial”. … there was no such thing as a “Chrysler Imperial” any more than there was a “General Motors Cadillac” or a “Ford Lincoln”.
You tell ’em! Even though Imperial had their own unique BOF architecture through 1966, they couldn’t shake the “Chrysler Imperial” association in peoples’ minds. Even when the Imp went unibody in ’67 and was technically a C-body, it had a unique longer front subframe and longer torsion bars. Between that and myriad other small differences, there is little save for the drivetrain that is common between Imperials and other Mopars of its time.
A small number of buyers was extremely loyal and would consider virtually nothing else…
My dad bought my grandad’s 1966 Chrysler from him in 1977. (Grandad had ordered a 1978 Oldsmobile to replace it.) It was basically a new car because grandad always had a beater so his good car never saw much use. Anyhow, my dad told me that, not long after he acquired the Chrysler, he was talking to a gentleman that bought a new Imperial about every two years. When he would buy a new car, he’d park his old ones in his barn, so he had a whole barn full of Imps with only 2 years worth of use on them. The story goes that he offered to trade my dad his Chrysler for any car in the barn, but my dad turned him down.
This article is very inspirational to me; I should try to do a CC on my fleet of C-body Chryslers.
Tom Mc Cahill the famous auto tester swore by Imperials I think up until the Continental Mark IV came out. What a life, a new Imperial every 2 years! I could do that; my dream garage has 56. 58, 60, 62, 64, 67, 73, and a 75. I also want a Newport or New Yorker 6 window sedan in turquoise. How many C-bodies have you had?
I have a 66 Chrysler Windsor 2-door hardtop (my current avatar pic) and a 66 Newport convertible. My brother has a 66 NYer 6 window sedan. Our dad still has grandad’s 66 Windsor sedan. I have also had three parts cars: a 66 Newport sedan, a 66 Newport 6 window sedan and a 73 NYer Brougham. Before buying grandad’s 66, my dad owned a 67 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible, a 62 Chrysler Saratoga and a 56 Dodge Custom Royal.
A man after my own heart. I spent 4 years in a 66 Fury III 4 door sedan as my daily driver from about 87-91, then an air conditioned 68 Newport Custom 4 door sedan from 95-97. I also owned a 64 Crown Coupe as a plaything in the early 90s before I ran out of time and money from kids.
Also, I figured that you would nail the clue on this one within the first 30 seconds. I cropped out the washer nozzle to make it a challenge. 🙂
My 2-door hardtop is my first C-body. I have owned it since March of 2000, and I will never sell it. (The convertible I would sell for the right price.) I drive it fairly regularly when the weather is good. Numerous times I’ve come out from a store to find an older fellow hovering around my car, waiting to tell me that they owned a slab-sided Chrysler “back in the day” and it was the best car they ever owned.
It’s funny, I looked at the clue and immediately knew it was a cowl grille, and thought that it looked a lot like my Chryslers. If I was at home, I probably would have walked out to the garage to compare. I was at work however, and had no time to sit at the computer when I got home.
While I can identify most big-3 cars from the 50’s to the 80’s by just a glance at a headlight, taillight, roofline, etc. I have a difficult time with most of the CC clues. I can immediately spot any 1965-66 Chrysler parts on a swapmeet table full of junk, but I don’t have that level of detail memorized for other cars.
What a great collection. I had a neighbor back in 1989 or so who had an old Dodge Van and he wanted to upgrade the engine so he bought a 65 or 66 New Yorker as the donor. I thought the New Yorker was sharp and it was a shame its heart was gonna go into that 70’s van, I would have rather towed the trailer with the New Yorker!
I would love to read a write up of those C- bodies. There is some great stories there, I love Elwood Engel’s variations on the theme of bladed fenders and three box designs. I read an interview with Gene Bordinat who got the Ford design chief job over Engel after the 61 Continental resulting in Engel going on to head Chrysler design. Bordinat really didnt like Engel thought he was low class, not very intelligent, etc. very fascinating didnt say much about his design abilities just personal attacks for the most part. Bordinat had a long career at Ford(I guess Engel did at Chrysler too), his revisions to 61 Continental- squared off lines, flat side glass in 64 & 65 I hate to admit sort of watered down the elegance of the 61 Lincoln. I have come to admire & appreciate the 64 & 67 Imperials(and related Chryslers) more than the follow up Continentals but the crisp look had lost out to the Pontiac/Buick coke bottle profile of the late 60’s. I think the later 60’s Lincoln tried to split the diference.
Hey Scott KC! We had the ’65 Dodge Custom 880 six-window sedan in our California house growing up. 383 2-bbl . . . would still lay rubber smartly!
I recall Dad taking it back three times in the 5/50 warranty years for new Torqueflites! On a fishing trip to Lake Berryessa (Napa Country, Cal.), rerverse died and it was a good thing we were parked in a boat ramp to make a u-turn.
Sadly, even some period auto magazine reviewers inadvertently described the Imperials as “Chrysler Imperials” — the problem, I suppose, of using “Imperial” as a model series, rather than a brand, for the previous 30-odd years.
I remember shopping in a garden store in the 80s and discovered a rich red variety of hybrid tea rose called “Chrysler Imperial” that dates from the early 1950s when the car really was a Chrysler Imperial. Of course, I bought some and planted them.
My Mom planted Chrysler Imperial roses in our backyard, I drew the name on a tag in that over the top Imperial script for her. I had forgotten all about that til you brought it up. I dont believe there are any Lincoln Continental roses.
I guess they had a similiar problem with the Continental Mark II, the Continental division only lasted a few years but the namimg convention went on til the mid 80’s- “Continental Mark III,IV,etc.”. But the public stilI called them Lincoln Continental Marks or even Lincoln Marks.
Humber were still making Imperials in the 60s calling these Chryslers distinguished them from others of the same name
With the rare exception, Humbers were not sold in America and I assume (Chrysler) Imperials were not sold in the UK. If you told someone, “I just bought an Imperial”, I think the context would have been fairly clear in either market.
From 1989-93, Daewoo also sold a car model called Imperial in the Korean market. That’s a strong overlap with the K-car based Chrysler Imperial, sold from 1990-93. Again, I doubt that Chrysler execs were worried though.
My take away from this entry is that given the opportunity to choose, this is the car you would spend the rest of your days with.
I guess it is a testament to your “reporting” skills, but I am surprised to hear the Imperial would be the one, considering all the cars you have written about and photographed and your terrific knowlege.
I was a child of 7 in 1968, but very much into cars. Whenever I saw an Imperial I considered it’s owner the 7 year old’s definition of an eccentric or oddball…why didn’t they choose a Cadillac?
I have the following “things” for cars – Big land yachts, Old school luxury cars, Big convertibles and Chryslers (and Lincolns too). I will also confess a fondness for this unusual copper hue and leather interiors. There are actually very few cars that I could not work up an interest for, but this particular car is sort of at the intersection of most of my old car wants and stimulates all the pleasure sensors.
As a kid, I had the same impressions. Anyone who drove Mopars was, well, kind of unique. Sort of like Rambler/AMC drivers. If you put too much stock in what other people thought of you, well these weren’t for you..
Apologies JPC, I did not note your were the author, I thought it was Paul.
(It was very early where I am and jetlagged and unable to sleep.)
I should have known with the Mopar love flowing!
In that case, I understand your confusion. I am not seeing this as PN’s single lifetime old car either. But it would sure stand out in Eugene 🙂 BTY, having this piece confused with one of Paul’s is a fantastic compliment, as I have always been a huge fan of PN’s pieces.
Probably one of the main reasons I do CC is because it allows me to fall in love with so many cars, albeit very briefly. I have car love ADD. My wife of 33 years is good with that.
Car love ADD is helpful – infatuations are normally to transient to be acted upon!
ps JP I have seen one of these, I couldn’t swear it was the same year however. I will see what I can find in my pictures.
I have the same taste in cars JP, I thought your tribute to the Mark V was spot on! The Mark V was my all time favorite car when I was a kid, I even bought a Tomica pocket car of a Mark IV and squinted and told myself it was really a Mark V. I even bought a Minnie Mouse souvenir Matchbox over Mickey or Donald because she was driving a Mark V convertible. The Mark V was the gateway drug that led to my landyacht obsession- I’ve had a Continental(the Engel connection led me to Imperial & Chrysler), a Mark III, Town Cars but someday I will have a Mark V and Imperials, lots of Imperials.
Fantastic find, and a superb car (and write-up). I’ve always been fond of the big C-Bodies of this era, and how they marched to such a different drummer than GM. The Imperial represents this to the best extreme, and as someone said earlier, conveys a dynamic quality and elegance that the Lincoln was starting to lack by then. A veritable yacht of the finest sort.
When I had my paper route in the late 60’s early 70’s one of my customers had a white 66 Imperial convertible. I knew even then is was a very rare car as you just never saw another one…ever! I remember him driving around the neighbourhood with the top down , one hand on the wheel and the other arm draped across the top of the white leather seat…ahhh, memories!
http://www.imperialclub.com/Movies/Point/index.htm
The world lost one early on- Point Break 1967.
Don’t let Lee Marvin drive your car.
There used to be a clip of this, maybe there’s still one out there.
One of the finest Corgi Toys ever (they called it a Chrysler, too) … I put many miles on mine …
I had one of these in Aqua Blue. Somehow My nephew got into it and tore it up.
I have a couple of these Corgi Imperials now-the miniature golf cart is the perfect touch!
An Imperial with War Vets at the 4th of July parade. Can’t get anymore American than that.
Also in my Flicker pics.
trying to attach picture again.
My memories of this car are clear… as an 8,9 year old in my Bro in Laws Dads car. He let me play with the windows for 20 minutes while he went in the Valley Deli. It Was a 4 door, and I probably questioned him endlessly with WHY DIDNT HE BUY A CADILLAC or a LINCOLN Even??? Yes even @ 8 I was prejudiced against CHRSLER . Rust … weird stodgy styling.
It did seem to me to be a clear step Downmarket from the 66 Imperial… Yet More Modern.
I did get to drive a 1968 Newport quite a bit in the Bicentennial when I was 17. I Liked the VROOM of the V8 if I Floored the good 4 door… It Beat The Dodge Dart Whioch was also nice in my cousins family.
By nice, they were Basic, NOT plush. But They giot from A to B with a minimum amount of fuss.
The Grampa who had the Imperial traded It In on a 1969 Fleetwood Brogham in Gold/ Black Vinyl top. I rem the huge Funeral director front seats in those….Wow. Sadly He Died shortly thereafter.
in 1965 when my sister turned 17, she got a car for her birthday, at first she was given a 1961 Southhampton Imperial…. 4 door… As I Remember it was so OUT OF Fashion by 65, that she truly would have hidden it a block away. I Would have been proud of its uniqueness…. They traded it back, and eventually gave her the 62 RAmbler American.
There Was a neighbor of our who bought cars like these, he had a 63 Imperial, that again as kids we played in, I seem to remember the windows working without keys. Crazy?
I Was also OBSESSED With Power Windows & the Switch styles, I rem I loved the Rock switches on some Chryslers.
@ As I Remember it was so OUT OF Fashion by 65
I think that the 61 Imperial was out of fashion in 1961. I would say April. That said, I would have thought I had died and gone to heaven with such a car at 17.
“I would have thought I had died and gone to heaven with such a car at 17.”
Me too! I was really into the forward look as a teen, and the Engle designs of 64-68 as well. I confess though that the subtlety of the ’68 Imperial was lost on me — I never realized until you mentioned it that the body wasn’t basically the same as the Newport. So you inspired a google image search, which was rather fun as well.
Just an awesome write-up on a splendid classic. BTW, I’ve been mostly bedridden for awhile now due to illness, so consume a lot of reading material. It sure is nice to have this site, and especially I appreciate how prolific you and Paul and the other contributors have been. It makes being stuck in bed far less of a bother.
Wow, a 1961 Imperial traded for a 1962 Rambler! Quite a difference! Like trading a 2005 Town Car for a 2007 Focus today.
ELVIS drove onethese Crown ragtops in “Live A Little – Love A Little” – 1968 MGM film all through L.A. and Beverly Hills. Give me one of these – the anthesis of the Toyota “Pious” . . . I mean “Prius” !
At a car show in Petaluma (California) in ’06, I did see a ’67 Crown ragtop – decent shape – although the front seat was recovered in vinyl vice the hand-tooled and one-hide-stretch seats Imperials were once noted for (at least it was a perfect match).
Also, on the ’67 Crowns and LeBarons, above the stainless steel door handle was a small wood (faux wood) applique which added a nice touch of class.
At least in ’67-’68, although with shared bodies w/Newport/Newport Custome and New Yorker, these Imperials still had some distinction (all cars beginning in ’67 reverted back to E. Jefferson Avenue assembly alongside Chryslers). ’69 and onwards – not so much. Check out a ’69 Imperial with the taxi-cab plain-jane Plymouth Fury I steering wheel !!
It’s a shame Chrysler could never differentiate the Imperial from the regular Chrysler line in the way Ford and GM did with Lincoln/Mercury and Cadillac/Buick. Saying, “It’s not a Ford, it’s a Lincoln” or “It’s not a Buick, it’s a Cadillac” was a lot more believable than, “It’s not a Chrysler, it’s an Imperial”.
As stated, over the years, the closer the Imperial got to being nothing more than a ‘New Yorker Deluxe’, well, there just wasn’t enough justification for anyone to pay the Imperial’s higher price, lowering sales steadily until there was little reason to keep the once proud marque alive. In fact, the 1976 New Yorker Brougham was really just the last 1975 Imperial with optional equipment that had been previously standard.
Chrysler has a history of doing the same thing with other models, too, one of the most notable examples being the Chrysler TC by Maserati, which was way too close to the Lebaron convertible (but at twice the price). Needless to say, few were sold and it was quickly discontinued.
Great writeup on a gorgeous car!
I had pretty much decided my next story would be on the sad 1990-93 Imperial just based on how unlikely it would be someone would beat me to it. Looks like I’m still safe. Now I just have to find one…there are a few clean examples still yet in this town, one of which I half considered buying.
I’ve always known anything after the last ’70s Imperial was just more of Lee’s snow jobs, but this featured ’68 looks…special. Just beautiful. Sure makes the ’90 like like the stretched K turd it was (but of course I am drawn to them anyway.) I don’t recall ever disliking any car associated with Elwood Engel.
LOVE those broad, clean, simple late ’60s Mopar dashes, also.
I was a fan of the 90’s Chrysler Imperial when it came out, of course I was 12 so it didnt mean alot. I think If you look at those Y-bodies as updates of the New Yorker and Fifth Avenue they are clean contemporary looking late eighties cars, certainly visually and size wise in the same league as a contemporary DeVille. The Imperial didnt justify the premium over the Fifth Avenue, but that grille at almost 45 degrees is pretty sharp. The Town Car refresh offered full size luxury and even more sleek design so it made them both very dated. Oh well. In most cases any American car in 1990 was a shadow of its former self so I saw no reason to hold Imperial to such a high standard, it was still based off the finest Chrysler available at that time. The LHS could have been an Imperial. I always thought Chrysler-Imperial has a nice ring to it, like Lincoln-Continental. I think it is unfortunate that American car companies ditch long used nameplates. Imagine if Toyota renamed the Camry every 5 years?
Not sure if anyone mentioned this already, but one of the neat things about these cars was that their doors had built-in storage areas, right underneath the armrests (at least the four doors did).
This is one of my favorite Imperials, but I also wonder whether Chrysler blew it by ever going down this road. Over the years they spent a huge pile of cash on the Imperial. Any bets on the return on investment?
What if they had instead kept the Imperial as a limited-production, top-end limo and made the Chrysler brand more distinctive? In a worst-case scenario the economies of scale would have been much more favorable.
Alas, in those days Detroit was too obsessed with “GM envy” – that irresistible, lemming-like drive to slavishly copy Sloan’s brand hierarchy.
This one is nice, but I can only get a boner for the 64-66 generation.
Seems Lincoln is following the same route, with the same result. Hopefully not the same ending… it’s not too late yet.
If you look at Lincolns vs equivalent Ford models, there are a lot of small differences. The shape of the fenders, etc. So from designer/production point of view they’re quite different (and to the accountant as well, I’m sure!) But those small differences aren’t noticeable for the general public, today’s Lincolns simply looked too much like Fords at a glance.
What a beauty. I learned how to drive in my dad’s ’67 Chrysler 300 convertible. It wasn’t nearly as nice inside as this Imperial. I wonder if the steering was any better. Dad’s 300 had awful steering and handled like a barge. None of that mattered when you mashed on the 440 4 bbl though.
Indeed a nice write up there on these gorgeous Imperials. While I didn’t have an Imperial, I DID have the lowly ’68 Newport 4 door sedan in HS, and yes, it HAD the rare power front disc brakes, but had the basic 383 with 2 barrel carb however.
When I got it in 1981 or 82, it was badly weathered, the muffler was in dire needing of replacement, needed NEW tires but made do with retreads, but it ran even if it smoked some and had 113K miles on the clock and even had the factory thumbwheel AM radio and had the Chrysler Air temp under dash AC unit that didn’t work but it was MINE. 🙂
So since then, I’ve had a soft sport for those old concave sided Chryslers, especially the 68 Chrysler 300 2 door hardtop or the convertible, however, they sported the mighty 440 V8 if I recall right.
In 1983, my Dad and I went to replace that old Newport and found several other cars, a 73 beige Newport 2 door hardtop and a 72 Imperial in brown that had the cruise that needed to be fixed as the stalk was broken, but the rest of the car looked to be in decent shape at the time. Both too expensive and too big. I would end up with my oldest sister and her husband’s ’74 Chevy Nova that my Dad bought for them in ’79 from a Gov’t GS fleet auction to replace their badly rusted ’72 Vega coupe when they lived in Nashota Wisconsin at the time.
I think Imperial lost its make status for 1971. I have a C-P brochure from that year and it has Imperial under the Chrysler models.
Bob Hope’s TV shows used to have Chrysler as a sponser and he’d joke about “being late with my Imperial payments”.
And, I remember the ads for the “New 1976 New Yorker, It’s the talk of the town”. As if it never existed before!
Here is one on eBay at the moment:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chrysler-Imperial-/290658070890?pt=US_Cars_Trucks#v4-49
I am one of the luck ones to have owned and still own a rare 1966 Crown Imperial Convertible. It was sold to me by a museum that was folding and I got it for less than $13,000 It is now in storage for the last 6 years and has only seen 138 miles since purchased. The odometer read 89467 and is correct and documented to prove it.
I will now attempt to ship it over to Spain where it can join a parade of American Classic Cars at the Marbela Classic Car Club. Active Duty U.S. Navy (Rota Spain)
It just dawned on me that the Imperial emblem could very well be the inspiration for the Trans Am screaming chicken hood decal. It sickens me to see a car like this at a Mecum auction because they act like they can’t move it out fast enough to make way for the 27 th Mustang or the 32 nd Camaro of the night. These were very fine cars.
Gorgeous car. These probably would have sold much better had they in fact been marketed as the “Chrysler New Yorker Ultimate”. In fact, Chrysler pretty much took this route in 1976 when they offered the previous year’s Imperial, slightly decontented, as the new New Yorker, and it sold very well.
A very stately car, but I can see how its crisp creases and upright styling would have looked very dated to someone car shopping at the end of the Swinging Sixties.
Fine article on one of my favorite cars. One of the additional challenges that faced Imperial was the lack of an exclusive dealer network. I know, Lincoln shared space with Mercury, but at least it was mid-priced car, and fairly low volume, avoiding too much hoi polloi in the showrooms. And, Lincoln may have still suffered for this at the hands of Cadillac.
Imperial was, of course, paired off with Chrysler and Plymouth – one of the “low price field” cars.
There is a reason Don Draper of “Mad Men” visited a Cadillac dealership for his first luxury experience. Heady stuff surrounded by only expensive cars and exclusive clientele. No sweaty families looking at base model Valiants 50 feet away.
Even Chrysler had a hard time managing the Imperial brand and avoiding the “Chrysler Imperial” syndrome. Look at the top of this 1967 window sticker……(from ImperialClub.com)
wish I could have been in IT in those days. It sucks now.
This beauty has one of the longest 1/4 panels I’ve ever seen. I had a ’68 4 door hardtop New Yorker for a short time. From memory the doors on this convertible 2 door don’t look much if any longer then the front door of the 4 door. It was so much fun stepping on the gas with that powerful 440. Great color, unlike the puke green of the $100.00 slightly battered beater I had.
I should probably know this, but dont.
How much did the ’55-’59 Imperials share with those year’s Chryslers?
In other words, was ’60-’66 the only time the Imperial was a completely different car?
A good question, and one I probably can’t answer completely to your (or my) satisfaction.
Comparing basic body stats (as well as just from looking at them), it appears that the ’55-’56 Imperial shared the basic body shell with the Chrysler, but had a longer wheelbase.
But the 1957 models differed from the Chrysler more substantially, with a body width 2.5″ wider than the Chrysler, and a rear track that was also 2.5″ wider.
If I had to guess, the ’57-59 Chryslers and Imperials probably shared some significant aspects under the skin, but the Imperial clearly had some not insignificant differences too, like that wider rear axle, longer wheelbase, and other changes. The ’57 was by far the most ambitious Imperial ever.
When all the other Chrysler products went to unibodies in 1960, Imperial kept its separate frame, as well as its body, with just some small exterior skin changes during the ’57-’63 period. And even the ’64-’66 kept the frame and same basic body under the re-styled exterior. For instance, the distinctive windshield was the same from ’57’-66, and was a give-away that it was basically the same car under the skin.
In ’67, the Imperial shared the Chrysler unibody, and was now much less distinct than it had been before.
Hope that helps some.
I think Paul has it right. The 1955-56 was pretty close, other than a longer wheelbase. The 1957-59 models shared zero sheetmetal with the New Yorker. I am sure that many mechanical components were shared, but I even wonder about the frames. The roofs of the 4 door sedans are the most similar looking, but a close look indicates that even these panels are different. The windshield shape and front vent window shapes are also unique to Imperial. Imperials in 1957 also featured curved side glass which Chryslers did not get. I think that the styling on the sedans was so similar that it is easy to jump to the conclusion that there is a lot of the inner body shared. But I don’t believe that it is. I saw that the 57 Imp’s interior shoulder room measurement set a record and was not surpassed until the 1971 GM C body.
After thinking about this, I found PDFs of several ’50s Mopar parts books, and that verifies what you two are saying.
For ’55-’56 It looks like Plymouth & Dodge share most body & glass parts, & DeSoto, Chrysler & Imperial share a different set of numbers.
In ’59 it looks like the Imperial was completely different. I didn’t see any shared body, frame or glass part numbers.
Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, & Chrysler all used the same cowl & windshield, so I suspect they were all basically one body design that came in 3 or 4 lengths depending on model starting in ’57.
I am used to the mid ’60s stuff which seems less complicated, but I think that’s because I have really only concentrated on the C bodies.
My dad’s most “fun” cars, to me, were his ’66 Toronado, and his ’68 Imperial. It was bronze with a black vinyl top. The only problem it had was a never ending deal with the auto temp control where it would get stuck on full cold and it was brutal when my dad would pick us up after swimming and the inside of the car would be like 50 degrees. Those seats were COLD. When he got it, he immediately complained it was too “slow”, even though it would fry the tires easily. It went into the shop where a lot of his cars went to “get it faster”, and came out about 10 days later with a cam, intake, and big dual exhaust system installed, and it sounded mean. A trip up the entrance ramp to I75 showed it was a lot faster. His “quickness test” was to go from a standing start across a very wide intersection and see what his speed was when the front tires hit the seam from asphalt to concrete. The Imp was over 54 MPH. My ’10 Challenger R/T will do just about 60, so that’s not bad at all. As usual, two years in, it was replaced with his last car, a leftover ’69 Lincoln MKIII, which he hated so much he traded my uncle for his newish ’69 Caddy Sedan De Ville, which he wrecked in 1973 in fine style, knocking out power to a large section of Toledo to end his driving days, and begin mine..
what is the car that Lee Marvin crashes in “Point Blank” with the salesman inside? Is that a Chrysler or Imperial?
edit – i checked – it was an Imperial convertible.
Though I personally prefer the ’67 Imperial because of its multi-piece grille and frenched headlights, I still think these Imps are really elegant cars. The strong horizontal lines on the sides make the car look a block long, and that was no bad thing in 1968.
This generation of Imperial is one of those cars that looks better now than it did when new.
Today it looks crisp and clean next to a Cadillac of this vintage. At the time, however, it probably looked too small and plain when parked beside a 1967-68 De Ville convertible.
This car gets my vote for Convertible of the week, for convertible week on CC.
I understand why Chrysler was trying for a seperate Imperial brand.
But as another commenter has noted ,the words
Chrysler & Imperial sound and looks so right.
If I owned one ,I would proudly tell anyone who asked ,
Its a Chrysler Imperial.
It does sound right. Just like Lincoln Continental, or Ford Thunderbird. There was equity in these names and there still is. The trouble is that some executives in the auto industry don’t appreciate that equity so we get Chrysler L H S and Lincoln M K S instead. To think that the Thunderbird name is collecting dust is a crime. Pontiac had equity in the G T O name, but they put it on the shelf for too long and when they brought it back the young generation didn’t remember it and the old generation didn’t recognize it. The Japanese get it. There will always be a Toyota Corolla.
This is Olympia (‘Pia) and she’s mine all mine. I bought her from the estate of a man who had three of the 20 identical imperial convertibles built at the start of the production run for the Shriners of Omaha Nebraska. I know of at least two others in Dallas, TX and I believe there are more than six… But I doubt there are more than 25. Nice to look at and even better to cruise on an open road with that big 440 and a cloud-like float. I had a 1966 Imperial Convertible and it was a better built car. That said, ‘Pia is still my favorite car I’ve ever had the pleasure to own and love. If you’re ever in Dallas, I’ll take you for a ride. Cheers.
I am so lucky to have one of these rare convertibles. This pic was taken on one of the weekly cruising events here in my hometown.
It’s as far as I know one of 3 in total here in Norway. Don’t know if the 3 cars here in Norway are listed in the total of 6 cars…????
Jag har en som importerades från USA 2013. Den är nu till salu. Högstbjudande.
Chrysler imperial Crown conv. 1968
I just picked up this beautiful 66 Imperial Crown and marvel at its styling. The luxury is over the top and I am not surprised that they could not keep it going if they only sold 512 of these beauties. I giggle as I sit in the plush seats and hit the power vent window buttons and admire the 100 year old walnut trim. If anyone in the Connecticut or Charleston area needs a car for a wedding or special event, check out my website and give me a call.
Happy sailing!
My Triple White in 🇳🇴
I just ran across a 1968 turbine bronze imperial convertible, and was looking it up when I found your article that talked about the same exact make and model car.
I wonder how many of the 474 were turbine bronze
Chrysler had so thoroughly established the make and Imperial model name association for the public for decades that extricating the two for Imperial to stand alone as a separate make was simply impossible by 1955. Chrysler didn’t really become serious in the postwar years about developing Chrysler Imperial volumes as a luxury car until the 1950 model year. Even then, its shared platform with the New Yorker reinforced the perception generally held of its place in the nameplate hierarchy. Prior to 1950, the only full-on luxury Imperials were the lwb Custom and Crown Imperials that barely kept the model alive.
Its most useful to think of these 1955-1975 Imperials as the ultimate Mopar vanity project. No full-line, Big Three automaker could legitimately be considered as such if it lacked a luxury car nameplate in its portfolio. Regardless of how much was lost annually on each Imperial, there were always volumes of low-priced cars to cover those losses. It was simply the cost to show up at the Detroit Athletic Club or Grosse Pointe Country Club in the company’s most prestigious luxury car. Imagine the embarrassment arriving in only a Chrysler New Yorker in a parking lot filled with Cadillacs and Lincolns!
Within this vanity was the ultimate vanity: the Imperial convertibles such as this 1968: impossibly low volume, essentially a factory series-custom-bodied car continued in production so the executives and their spouses could attend exclusive social events and arrive in a car so rare few every saw one. By 1968, convertibles were losing popularity to air conditioning and sunroofs which were deemed acceptable luxury replacements so an Imperial LeBaron so equipped would suffice.
Rumor has it a convertible was to be included in the 1969 Imperial line but nixed as industry-wide sale trajectory for convertibles was manifest, no longer worth the bother or expense.
Good points. And for whatever reason, Chrysler people were never really convertible people. Mopar convertibles always seemed to sell relatively poorly, even when they were regularly offered. Mopar buyers tended to be sedan people, and maybe that was because the cars were so seldom the kind of style leaders that drew “convertible people” into the showrooms.
I remember researching 59 DeSotos once and was amazed to find that they offered a convertible in each of their 4 models – Firesweep, Firedome, Fireflite and Adventurer. The rough production numbers for each was 600, 300, 300 and 100. For comparison, Studebaker sold around 700 Daytona convertibles in 1964, itself a pitiful number.
Indeed, Mopar buyers were by and large sedan buyers, the convertible production numbers returning far lower percentages of total sales annually than did their comparable competitors. Just a random example, for 1959 of the total model production by percentage: Chevrolet w/o Corvette: 4.9%; Ford w/o T-Bird: 4.2%; Plymouth: 2.6%. No surprise Imperial customers selected all other body styles except the convertible.
The other downside to this low annual production played out in the used car market. Imperial convertibles were the least in demand and least expensive, ended up with owners that regarded them as expendable when any major repair arose. Combine the low production, perceived low quality of Mopars in general, quickly obsoleted styling and poor resale value and dismissive subsequent owners, its a wonder any survive at all!
This is a really nice car, but it’s not hard to see why to most people this was just a top-of-the-line Chrysler and not a separate entity. It didn’t help that Imperials were sold at Chrysler (and Plymouth) dealers, most of which looked nothing like the spiffy showrooms Cadillacs usually had to themselves. And of course, for many years before they were Chrysler Imperials; once the brand and model names are closely associated, it’s hard to break them free (see also: Nash Rambler, Hyundai Genesis, Dodge Ram, etc.). Imperial was in a downward spiral by this point; the low sales numbers meant it wasn’t worth spending much money on, which in turn meant it wasn’t unique enough to woo Cadillac or Lincoln prospects further depressing its sales.
Was “turbine bronze” the actual color used on the Chrysler Turbine Cars?
I never understood why Chrysler thought that people would think that an Imperial was not a Chrysler. Hyundai made the same mistake with Genesis. There was no Toyota Lexus, Honda Acura or Nissan Infiniti. To start a luxury brand, you need a car that looks different and has a unique name. I can accept bringing in unique cars that were sold in other countries (Honda Integra etc). But it has to be unknown to the average buyer.
I agree. It would be as if Toyota had decided to call their new luxury brand Cressida instead of Lexus. By not using a name already associated with a well-known lower-priced marque (and selling them from their own newly-constructed showrooms), Lexus was able to easily claim their own identity. Yes, it will take a bit longer for people to learn a new name, and you’ll need to expend more on your marketing efforts to expediate that process, but it’s easily worth it in the long run.
I ran across an odd example of Chrysler’s perpetual brand confusion recently. From the start in ’24, Chrysler always had one top-line sedan called an Imperial. From ’29 to ’33 the Imperial became nearly a brand, with a wide range of custom and semi-custom bodies. Then the Airflow gummed up the works. Imperials were all Airflows, and all ugly. After the Airflow was done, the Imperial returned in ’37 to ’39 as the BASE series of Chrysler 8s. New Yorker was a cut above, and Saratoga above the New Yorker. They finally straightened it out in ’40.
During the pre-war years only first the Custom (1931-’39) then the Crown Imperials (1940-1965) for the long-wheelbase sedans and limousine remained exclusively in the luxury segment consistently. Of course it didn’t help in the 1950’s-’60’s that they applied the mid-line ‘Crown’ moniker to a standard wheelbase Imperial as a model name to accompany the by then, entry-level Custom and top-line sedan LeBaron. Quite the confusing mess…
Definitely the finest expression of Chrysler Corp’s boxy lines from this era. Their other full-sized models seemed overly sculptured, especially the Newport/New Yorker/300 line, but the Imperial has that all the solidity of those models in a much more restrained and elegant form. Really splendid front end. 1969 would introduce the microcephalic fuselage look that seems like the beginning of Imperial’s end.
The Imperial’s biggest problem was simply that it was a Chrysler product. IOW, when you got a good one, it was very good, but if you got a bad one, it was really bad. Few domestic luxury car shoppers will put up with that and would go for a Lincoln or Caddy where your odds of getting a good one were significantly better.
A real shame since, as pointed out, Imperials had some very nice details worthy of a premium luxury car. But, as the years went on and economic reality settled in, they just became more and more just another, slightly fancier Chrysler. In fact, one of the ironies is how much sales picked up with the 1976 New Yorker Brougham which was effectively a 1975 Imperial except that most of the standard equipment had been moved to the option list.
I am most curious about the specific 68 Imperial Convertible shown in this article. My I ask that you get back to me? I believe it is the exact car that I owned for many years. I would be delighted to find out.