(first posted 1/31/2017) Sumptuous American luxury with modern mechanicals, efficient packaging and a more compact size. Sounds like a winner! And indeed, much to the chagrin of many enthusiasts, the 1983 New Yorker was a commercial success, selling better than its larger, rear-wheel-drive predecessors had during the 1970s. But almost a decade later, Lee Iacocca was still stretching and contorting the same basic platform. What had seemed a novel idea in the early 1980s had become decidedly passé as the new decade started.
It’s easy to lambast the 1990 Imperial as being a rolling joke, a final nail in the coffin of Lee Iacocca’s credibility as he seemingly steered Chrysler back into irrelevancy. Chrysler had spent too much on diversifying their business in the 1980s – Iacocca brokering the purchases of, among other companies, Gulfstream – and had spent too little on engineering. The basic K platform had become a Hydra, growing more and more heads, and while some of those heads had been phenomenally successful – the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager in particular – Chrysler would find the bridge too far. That bridge was the 1990 Imperial.
That I spotted one in Mexico is remarkable. Despite Chrysler being one of only five automakers in Mexico during the 1980s, the majority of passenger cars they sold were humble Dodge Dart K (Aries) sedans. The New Yorker was not assembled in Mexico and therefore could not be sold there. By 1992, however, Mexico was opening their extremely guarded market, partially reversing their anti-import decree in 1991 and slowly increasing the percentage of imported vehicles allowable each year starting at 15%. The Imperial was one of the first vehicles to be imported by Chrysler de México and it sold in pitifully small numbers, being withdrawn from the market after only one year.
Like Imperials of the past, the ’90 Imperial was a more prestigious version of the New Yorker. The New Yorker had been redesigned in 1988 but much of the K-Car componentry underneath was carried over. While wheelbase and total length had increased by 1 and 6.4 inches, respectively, the new New Yorker was only 0.5 inches wider at 68.9 inches. The Imperial and its New Yorker Fifth Avenue sibling were stretched further, with a wheelbase 5 inches longer at 109.3 inches and a total length of 203.0, almost 10 inches longer. Despite this considerable growth, total width remained the same.
But if the Imperial was a smaller car than a Lincoln Town Car or Continental – and it was – Chrysler certainly did their best to hide that fact. Iacocca’s preferred luxury styling elements were liberally applied here, including opera lights, a padded vinyl roof, full-width taillights, a waterfall grille and even hidden headlights. The canted front fascia was the most daring touch on what was a dreadfully unambitious, by-the-numbers design. The Imperial looked much like the FWD 1990 New Yorker Fifth Avenue, which looked much like the FWD 1988 New Yorker. Oh, did I mention all of these were sold at the same time? The New Yorker Salon ostensibly rivalled the Buick LeSabre, the New Yorker Fifth Avenue tackled the Buick Park Avenue, while the Imperial was Chrysler’s best attempt at a Cadillac de Ville rival.
While to today’s eyes the Imperial looks intriguing (I personally love the front-end styling), with an interior as warm and inviting as any other domestic luxury sedan of the era, in its time it smacked of cynicism, desperation or both. Chrysler didn’t have the engineering resources of GM and by the end of the 1980s it had started racking up losses. The engineering fruits of Chrysler’s acquisition of American Motors had yet to ripen, as Chrysler and AMC engineers were still working on the 1993 LH sedans. The Imperial seems to have been just one last attempt to squeeze some more profit out of the K platform and tide the Chrysler brand over for the much more impressive Concorde and LHS/New Yorker to come. The Imperial may have had a new V6 and a four-speed automatic but the needle hadn’t moved much from the ’83 New Yorker.
What did an Imperial offer over a cheaper New Yorker Fifth Avenue? Not much, really, other than some different trim and a couple of other items. The main improvement was the fitment of anti-lock four-wheel disc brakes which made the Imperial safer to stop.
If only it felt as confident on the move as it did coming to a stop: Chrysler’s suspension tuning prioritized cushiness above all else. While that seems appropriate in a domestic luxury sedan, reviewers like those at Motor Trend found the Imperial pitched and yawed, the suspension bottoming out when the road got rough (or as Consumer Guide put it, “hammering over bumps”). In a Motor Trend comparison test between the Imperial, Cadillac Sedan de Ville and Lincoln Continental, the magazine savaged the Imperial’s handling, criticizing its “pallid, over-boosted rack-and-pinion steering and severe body roll.”
In comparison, the de Ville suffered from body roll and light steering but managed to filter out bumps with greater alacrity, perhaps due in part to its fully-independent suspension. The Imperial managed to handle like a de Ville or Town Car without offering the interior size, suspension travel and smooth V8 performance of either or the towing ability of the Lincoln. And while it was underpowered for its size, the FWD Continental offered a vastly better ride/handling balance; the Japanese similarly shaded the Imperial. Even the Imperial’s optional air suspension couldn’t make up for the deficiencies in the car’s ageing underpinnings.
It’s a good thing the Imperial cost around $4k less than the de Ville because it lacked both the cachet and the performance of the Cadillac, and, while it was as long as a de Ville, it remained 4.5 inches narrower. For those transporting only 4 passengers, that might not have been an issue. What would have been an issue for a domestic luxury car buyer was the Chrysler’s performance in comparison. The Imperial came standard with a 3.3 V6 with 147 hp at 4800 rpm and 183 ft-lbs at 3600 rpm, mated to a four-speed automatic. This powertrain was good for a city/highway mpg rating of 18/26, only 2 mpg better in the city than the de Ville’s brawnier 4.5 V8 (180 hp at 4300 rpm and 240 ft-lbs at 2600 rpm) and 1 mpg better on the highway. The Cadillac clearly had the edge in low-end torque, a desirable trait for domestic luxury car buyers.
After peddling only naturally-aspirated and turbocharged four-cylinder engines throughout much of the 1980s, Chrysler had come to realize larger engines were needed. Initially, they had sourced 3.0 V6 mills from Mitsubishi before developing the 3.3 in-house and debuting it in the 1990 New Yorker. But even the underpowered Lincoln Continental’s 3.8 V6 produced more torque so Chrysler bored and stroked the 3.3 to create a 3.8 V6, the new standard engine for 1991. This produced 150 hp at 4400 rpm and 203 ft-lbs at 3200 rpm and achieved an EPA-estimated 17/25 mpg. Only now, the Chrysler was even less efficient than the Lincoln and found itself out-gunned by the de Ville’s new-for-1991 4.9 V8 which produced even more horsepower and torque and managed the same gas mileage figures. Talk about bad luck.
The Imperial had very few selling points. Its anti-lock brakes were an option on the New Yorker. The optional Mark Cross leather interior and 3.8 V6 were available on the New Yorker Fifth Avenue. Hell, if you wanted a padded vinyl roof, a cushy interior and a V6 engine, the new LeBaron sedan offered all of that. The Lincoln Continental had more space, the Cadillac de Ville had more pace, and new GM models like the Buick Park Avenue and luxurious new imports like the Lexus ES250 had more grace. If the Imperial name had carried prestige in the past, it had been tarnished by Chrysler’s discontinuation-reintroduction-discontinuation dance with the name, not to mention the last Imperial’s reliability issues.
Did Iacocca really think people would pay $5k more for an Imperial than a New Yorker Fifth Avenue? 14,968 buyers did in 1990, less than half the figure recorded for the Fifth Avenue. But by its last two seasons, the Imperial was down to only 7k annual units. The New Yorker and Fifth Avenue were declining in sales, too, as newer, better rivals were introduced. While these sedans may have fallen behind, Chrysler’s brand of luxury still had some loyal followers and the Fifth Avenue managed to continually outsell the cheaper New Yorker until the triumvirate’s demise in 1993.
Chrysler had attempted to create buzz about the Imperial but rather than being a true luxury flagship, it was yet another stretched-and-pulled K-Car, a slightly longer Brougham sausage in Chrysler’s lineup. Overpriced, overwrought and underdone. Sounds like a loser.
Photographed in beautiful Hipódromo, Mexico City near Parque México.
Related Reading:
eBay Find: 1987 Chrysler New Yorker – Get Your Crystal Key
Curbside Classic: 1991 Chrysler New Yorker – Paging Bill Blass
Nice article. I always thought this was Chrysler’s version of GM’s 1985 C-body fiasco, where the silhouette of every car looks the same. With their narrowness, they could really only play in the luxury segment in name only. The various styling elements clearly exemplify Iaccoca’s “dress it up” philosophy.
These were grossly boxy for the post-Taurus era, and ludicrously narrow for their length, like a rail car.
Apparently people in Chrysler kept telling Iacocca this model was badly in need of a remake but he kept overruling them because they were cheap to make on the K-car platform and he personally found them appealing. His ego was blimpishly out of control by that time and he thought he could design the cars better than anyone.
I always thought that Chrysler intentionally went with late-’70s early-’80s boxy so late in the game as a marketing strategy: to leave the public totally unprepared for what was coming next: the LH (‘cab-forward’) class. Those things definitely out-Taurused the Taurus!
It looks fairly modern until I see the 1920s roof style which gives it a clown car appearance.
KiwiBryce
I agree, all the extra lines, chrome, carriage top etc etc takes away from the Imperials rather clean modern expensive front end look.
Often times less is more, look no further than a Rolls-Royce Corniche’ silhouette profile to get my point. No clutter, just a flowing profile with minimum add ons.
Two ways you could go with this design.
Either give it a shorter and more upright front end to go with the roof (oh, they’ve done that already….) or lose the ‘1920s roof style’ as Bryce so aptly calls it and give it some slope to match the front screen – like anything coming out of 1990s Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, South America….. heck even Russia probably! There was a time when that roofline was stylish. 1990 was not it.
Oh, and it looks like a broomstick. It desperately needs some width.
A roofline like a Volvo 9xx’s would’ve helped tremendously.
Even that.
Both the Imperial and New Yorker nameplates should have been retired and allowed to die with dignity. They fooled nobody.
I liked the New Yorker version of the LHS.
hubba
I agree, the 1993-94 Chrysler lineup was very beyond it’s time with the cab forward designs and exterior proportions. Chrysler knocked it out of the ball park with the 1993-1994 Dodge Intrepid, Eagle Talon, and Chrysler Concorde (l994 Chrysler New Yorker).
The Eagle talon was the ugliest of the four with it’s “Bird Beak” front end treatment. The other 3 were amazing, with the Concorde being the forgettable child out of that threesome!
Actually it was the Eagle Vision. The Talon was the badge engineered version of the Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Thank you for this very in-depth look at a rather awful automobile. The name Imperial is such a hallowed one, from the dreamboats of the ’30s to the limos of the ’50s, from the Exner spaceships of the ’60s to the fuselage yachts of the ’70s… and they went and put that name on this. That being said, when you look at the competing Caddy and Lincoln, it seems American car design was in a bad place overall when it came to large luxury sedans. Things got better eventually — quite soon after, as a matter of fact, but the late ’80s / early ’90s produced some of what I consider the worst of Detroit.
While there are a few styling cues I would have left on the drawing room floor as “trying too hard” to be something it’s not, I thought the Imperial interiors were top notch.
As a fan of Chrysler during the 1980s and 1990s, I vividly remember when these came out. My first thought was “what the hell???”.
A great name being used on a stretched and rhinoplastied New Yorker.
Traditional interior appointments (yes, I say traditional as such had been used for a mighty long time like it or not, and the M-body Fifth Avenue had just been canned) all dumped inside a car that was way too narrow for its length.
A derivative of the terrific Chrysler 3.3 mated to a less than stellar transaxle.
Upscale trim on a dashboard straight out of a Dynasty.
Tacky looking wire wheel covers on steel wheels at a time when Chrysler had several very attractive aluminum wheels in their arsenal.
I could go on, but this car was just ridiculous.
Jason Shafer
I have to admit that the Imperials very imposing cascading front grill (slightly tilted gave the car some luxury presence.
I can also see why Chrysler wanted to bring some competition to the very elegant and prestigious looking Lincoln Cont & Caddy De’Ville. The imperial was by far the least desirably of the three. Primarily because the other two brands just did so much better of a job and did not have to work off the “K” body. These were popular with the church going crowd!
Great write up. And from my perspective you’re spot-on about the Imperial being intriguing to today’s eyes, much more so than in the past. When new, I thought these cars were ridiculous (and rightly so, I presume), but today their excesses seem somehow captivating.
I rode in a 1990s Imperial once. In the late 1990s a friend of mine was having problems with his stripped-down ’87 Taurus, and for some reason wound up borrowing his brother’s Imperial for a few weeks. It was amusing, especially for my friend, who was used to a car with no power accessories — he acted like a kid in a candy shop playing with all the door-mounted power controls, etc. Quite entertaining at the time. Otherwise, I remember the car rode exactly like the Motor Trend review indicated — cushy yet somehow harsh at the same time.
I know it embodies almost the complete opposite of everything I personally prefer in a car, but I feakin’ love these final Imperials! Maybe it’s just a lack of having seen so few in my lifetime, maybe it’s just that this last-ditch effort was so over the top, but I’ve always been drawn to this car in an unexplainable way.
Despite all its inadequacies as a competitive large American luxury sedan, the very noticeable areas of cost-cutting (i.e. exposed screws for the landau roof on the inside of the rear doors), and its all-too-common parts sharing with other Chryslers, the Imperial didn’t come across as quite as bad as say, Chrysler’s TC by Maserati or the Executive limousine. Not that that’s saying much.
I still say that the LHS should’ve been called Imperial. Though it wasn’t perfect, it was a much better car to wear the Imperial name and it would’ve at least brought a bit more honor to the historic nameplate.
FWIW, I’d still take one of these over any DeVille, Continental, Ninety-Eight, or Electra of the same years. And dare I say the Imperial’s interior was actually more tasteful and understated than the Fifth Avenue’s tacky button-tufted seats.
Incredible to find one of these in Mexico period, let alone in such preserved condition! Great piece Will!
The LHS was available in a bench seat version called New Yorker.
The LH-based New Yorker also differed in interior trim (less wood), upholstery/seat sew pattern, exterior chrome trim, and suspension tuning.
After it’s discontinuation in 1996, the LHS gained a bench seat option for 1997.
There’s something appealing to me about how comically half-assed these New Yorkers and Imperials were, and I kinda like the looks. (I acknowledge how untidy and fussy they are in places, and that they are obviously too narrow)
I had forgotten that dull looking generation of Continental existed. It looks like a Tokyo taxi. I’d take the Chrysler over that.
That continental was once the best selling Lincoln at the time, and it was the most modern, roomiest FWD luxury sedan with the best accessory technology. ( Interior is very good too. I would say it was the best made interior in the late ’80s to early ’90s, even compared to Aston Martin ) But engineering wise, they stretched Taurus too far, and somehow not many parts turned out reliable in the long term. It’s almost the rarest post-war Lincoln these days ( when more Lincoln Blackwood, Lincoln Versailles, Lincoln Mark VI, VIII than ’88-’94 Continental are seen on the street, it’s rare )
orangechallenger
I agree 100% with you’re write up. To be fair the Continental was based off the Taurus/Sable which were pretty luxurious for the time. While the Imperial was based off the K” car platform. Essentially a stretched Dodge Aries.
Also I think the 1989 All new Cadillac De’Ville ran neck and neck with the Continental in regards to design, performance (the De’Ville actually beat the Continental in this area), and prestige. Your write up was excellent though!
The Sedan de Ville was not “all new” for 1989 – just stretched and facelifted. The coupe gives it away – it kept the stubby 1985 body shell until the bitter end.
Last time I seen one of these moving under its own power, about 8 months ago, it was beat up, groaning and squealing and smoking. It was a sad sight.
Since I seen way more Topazes than these Continentals over the years they always look just as cynical as an overgrown Topaz, if not more so, than the stretched and festooned K car Imperials. And I think they are really ugly to boot.
I like this era of Deville. It wasn’t the best Caddy ever but it was a huge improvement over the previous severe truncated version.
I also like the Imperial but Chrysler was really reaching thinking it goes toe to to with the Deville. At the time I would have gone with an old school Brougham or a Town Car. The Imperial is something I would enjoy if I just got a good deal on it used.
dominic1955
I agree, the Cadillac Deville/Fleetwood from 1989-1992 (1993 for the Deville). Were sensational design to me. As a teenager back then, I loved getting behind one in traffic and seeing the long tail light “blades”.
They looked expensive and regal, and had a road presence that rivaled that of a Flagship BMW, Jag, and Mercedes of the same era (visually). Especially, if purchased in the right color choice combination, without adding on carriage tops- pin strips etc. I know it was just a revision of the 1985-1988 model, but like you said the changes and upgrades made to the De’Ville were so correctly done. That the car looked like a totally new model with only hints of the prior model. Hints of the prior model were mostly seen under the hood, interior design, and the middle side body section. The rest was all new!
Chrysler by this time had ran the “K” car frame to it’s limits. It used the K frame on Minivans, small compacts, mid sized cars, even low rent sport cars etc. So to have the frame try and extend to a full size ultra premium car to take on the Continental/De’Ville was too much of a stretch (literally).
I’m constantly on the lookout for one of these Continentals to photo shoot but have had no luck in the past few years. The last one I recall seeing passed me in the other direction in upstate NY 2 years ago. I was tempted to pull a 180 and follow it. Seriously, Pre-1980 Continental Town Cars are more common sights on the road than these.
Speak of the devil, I saw one today. It was actually in pretty good shape too! No billowing smoke or funny noises either.
A few years ago I remember seeing one around my area of town that was triple green, including the crappy aftermarket fake convertible top and it had gold badging. It looked like it had gone through a couple Buy Here Pay Heres but I always thought it probably looked pretty striking when brand shiny new. It was about the only one I’ve ever seen that looked good to me-or at least it would have new or extensively cleaned up.
I’ve been going to junkyards for over 10 years, and this generation was probably one of the most common sights in the Ford section in my earliest days, but since 2009 or so, they’ve been completely nonexistent, complete mass extinction. I witnessed it happen before my eyes.
I personally like the execution, they still had that handsomeness Lincoln started with the Mark VII going strong in these, albeit not quite reaching it’s level or the 89 Town Car’s, but definitely a good fit in the brand before it went with the melted jellybean look of the 90s. And really, other than the knowledge that they share platforms with the Taurus, they really give no hint of it anywhere, in fact the Panthers and Fox bodies wearing the badge probably seemed more homogenous with the lesser Fords and Mercurys from a driving standpoint than these.
The notoriety of the Essex 3.8 really taints this generation, both in actual reliability and perception of it. That and the Mercury Topaz using a similar the greenhouse the same year they debuted – people instantly associate it with a cheap car because of it – and adding the 3.8 to the Taurus/Sable option list the same year certainly eroded the exclusivity of it.
Somehow I can appreciate the styling of this Continental more now that there aren’t rusty, knock-kneed Topazes (with a similar greenhouse) on every corner. I prefer its mix of formal and modern styling cues to the blocky 1993/earlier Sedan de Ville, bloated 1994 Sedan de Ville, and garish Imperial.
Of course, the Continental was junk mechanically – I don’t think I’ve seen one in a decade. I assume the 4.5/4.9 Deville was by far the most reliable of the bunch. I’d still rather have a 1991 Park Avenue 3.8 (heck, even a ’90) over any of them.
To me, the Imperial was not just a lightly warmed-up, cushified New Yorker…its Dodge Dynasty roots were all too plain for all to see.
While the Dynasty was pleasant and competent among its competition, especially when V6-powered, it just couldn’t be stretched to the luxury class especially since the small-car K chassis width was being retained. Best to think of this as a holding action until the LH sedans appeared. By the mid-80s they had been left far behind by the Ford Taurus, its Mercury Sable sibling and Lincoln Continental derivative, anyway.
However, I can’t help thinking that Chrysler did the Imperial on the cheap. Development costs could not have been high, which would make the price premium mostly bottom-line profit. At that, Lee wasn’t all that dumb.
Thanks for the fine article on a truly cynical effort by Chrysler to grab a piece of what was no doubt a lucrative segment. These put the final nail in the Imperial’s coffin. When these were introduced, I thought they were analogous to if Studebaker, after a 4-5 year absence of Packard on the market, stretched and dolled-up the Lark Cruiser and pasted the Packard name on it…….its a wonder they didn’t!
Excellent analogy, and this Imperial almost perfectly followed the playbook of the 1957-58 Packard. Like this Imperial, the last Packard was essentially the same car with essentially the same underpinnings as the Stude President or shorter wheelbase Commander. Both had unique front and rear ends and a genuinely nice interior. And both were terrible flops.
Both the Packard and the Imp were undersized (in width, particularly) and both were top end versions of cars not all that appealing to the general public. They both also had really great engines powering them, but at least the Stude-Packard had an automatic transmission that wouldn’t blow apart in short order.
These were not good cars, but there are many aspects I like compared to many of today’s boy-racer sports sedans masquerading as luxury cars.
But just think of the hood ornament that you got with the Imperial…
You also couldn’t get Mark Cross Ultrasoft (as opposed to the non-Ultrasoft M.C. leather in the Fifth Avenue) in any other car!
Tonyola
Very nice hood ornament, I miss fancy hood ornaments. It made you feel special when you looked down the hood of a car (especially long hoods). Now every emblem is on the front grille.
I got a chance to drive one of these in 1991. At the time I was impressed with how they drove around town. Never got to try one out on the highway, though.
These took the K platform to the nth degree!
Ah, American Luxury.
Now, before you think I am being a snob, let me assure you I am not. What I find is that what used to be considered luxury and what is currently being considered luxury is really very different. Then, you have the different tastes in luxury. Asian luxury seems to be different from European luxury, and American luxury is another beast altogether. IMHO, Asian luxury seems to be riding in the back seat of the car, wrapped in leather, and with all the latest electronics at hand. European luxury seems to be a solid car, with a torquey engine, that handles fairly well and has every driver’s aid installed in an effort to allow you to NOT drive the car but have the car drive you. American luxury died. It used to be a couch on wheels, bigger than your living room yet more comfortable, with a ride that never allowed you to feel any bumps. Engines were tuned for torque, not horsepower, and the quieter the better. Cadillac nailed it best, but Lincoln and the “real” Imperials got it right, too. American luxury was a way to tell the neighbors that you had made it, and the fact that it took up so much room in the driveway was a good thing. You cruised in these, or took long trips, or made a short hop to church on Sunday in them. Was it better or worse than any other style of luxury? Probably not. However, fit, finish, and choice of materials seemed to stall or move backwards in American Luxury, while it moved forward in Asian and European luxury. When the price became a point of contention, American luxury lost. What I would like to see is a return to American Luxury by the “American” marques (Cadillac, Lincoln, and perhaps Chrysler, should they be inclined) by making competent cars that have an American feel to them. Big engine? Check. Torque? Out the wazoo. Cushy ride, great for American roads? Check. Big interior, big trunk? Natch. If they hit those points and lay off the cheap parts bin use, and maybe a lot less plastic, then it may well work. Make the Cadillac something more than a tarted up Impala, and you may sell a few more. Make the Continental something other than a loaded Taurus, and see if Grandma buys one again. I really would like to see that work.
The new Continental is rather more than a loaded Taurus, and I think it’s being billed as something like you’re suggesting. Yes, it shares a basic platform, but you can’t tell by looking at it. And most of the reviews I’ve seen have been positive. No V8, but that turbo V6 puts out healthy power numbers (400HP/400tq on the hottest version).
If I have read correctly, the Continental is actually built on a stretched Fusion chassis, with an engine specific to only the Continental. They should have made it a bit more like the show car, but it is a start for Ford. They seem to be selling here in retirement land central Florida, so perhaps it may be a success. Now, if Cadillac will stop trying to be a BMW….what’s wrong with being a Cadillac? They all seem to have inferiority complexes.
You’re right, I had that confused. Continental is stretched CD3, Taurus is D3. The top of the line engine is specific to Lincoln, a 3.0 twin-turbo ecoboost V6. The other two choices are shared (NA 3.7 V6 is the base Mustang engine among other things, TT 2.7 V6 is shared with the F-150, Flex, and Fusion).
I’ve spent a bit of time looking at the configurator on the web site and some of the options are quite impressive. The price range stretches very far as well–from $43k for a 3.7 FWD with no options all the way to just shy of $80k for a loaded Black Label 3.0 AWD.
I miss American Luxury, but I also have to admit that even past 40 years old I wouldn’t have much interest in buying something like that today. Maybe in another 20 years.
It has puzzled me for a while that nobody seems to target senior citizens anymore. They are the market with the most buying power. My mom ended up in a Ford Edge and today’s idea of luxury exasperates her. And I know a lot of others with the same complaints.
I don’t know it is an age related thing, but you may be on to a good marketing ploy. The senior market is booming (pardon the pun), and the seniors are finding that their hips, knees, and backs are going to make some of the choices for them. Goodbye, lifted truck or SUV when you can’t step up into one. Goodbye low slung, low headroom coupe like sedan, or heaven forbid, your Corvette or Porsche, when you can’t bend over and still wedge in. The classic luxobarge was known for easy ingress and egress, which is lacking in most models in vogue. Just like you see the 3 wheeled motorcycles (yes, trikes!) as the seniors can no longer ride their 2-wheelers, you will see the return of the land yacht.
Nothing snobbish about it. You spoke the truth. American luxury these days is to be found in pickup trucks.
Everything else domestic luxury seems to be knock off German or Japanese, overloaded with tech that we are told is what makes a modern luxury car.
Exclusivity is also something that’s been forgotten in the race to the bottom.
The super lux pickups are loaded with the same stuff as Euro luxury cars, plus all the trailer-towing technology that anyone can imagine, like hitch cameras and power extending mirrors.
Love the nose styling (and the hood ornament). A very successful modern update of the ’81 Imperial’s “face”.
The rest of the styling is dreadful. As is the platform. A pretty face and nice seats can’t save a package this cynical…
I do like the look of these cars… utterly obsolete when they were launched, but today it’s fun and retro (even if most people would guess it’s a 1983 design).
Too bad about the miserable mechanicals. If it were smooth and reliable, this would’ve been a fun near-classic to own when we lived in Boston… the narrow body would’ve been a benefit!
These days I drive a 1991 Cadillac Brougham, which is similarly anachronistic (non-car people think it’s from the 1970s or early 1980s). But at least it’s comfy and rock-solid.
Attractive nose, but I could never get past the front overhang.
I don’t understand the hate. I own a ’91 in Black Cherry, which shows the chrome really well. Replaced air suspension with Strutmasters. Use Chrysler ATF with Slick 50 additive; no Ultradrive troubles. Like a Town Car or Brougham without the bulk, and distinctly unique. As lush an interior as you could want. Smooth, torquey, quiet engine. Only “modern” car with real chrome bumpers! A certain “jewel box beauty” (to quote the 1957 Packard brochure). Narrow? Well, so was Mercedes!
That black cherry was a *great* color on these cars.
Why I hate this car?
A- hubcaps without rims available
B-sunroofs/moonroofs could not be ordered
C- no rear headrests…..which were in New Yorkers…..terrible joke of a car
What have you done about your ABS? I know they have a lifetime recall.
I’ve LOVE my Chrysler Imperial. It’s my daily driver. I like my ’87 New Yorker too!
I’ve made some modifications to the 3.8L power plant.
My ’87 New Yorker K – 2.2L Turbo
Greetings Poindexter. If you still have your Imperial, how is the ATF4 slick 50 combo working? I have a 57k 1990 Dusty Rose over Quartz Grey Imperial. (I changed the ATF4 trans fluid at 50K one year ago). It mostly shifts smoothly, with an occasional mild “clunkiness” when driven more aggressively. I enjoy my car and would like to keep it running well for a long time!
Hello Poindexter.Do you still have your ’91? Did Slick 50 keep your transmission in good working order? I picked up a clean 1990 Imperial back in 2018 and changed ATF4 fluid at 40k. Now am about to hit 80k miles. It’s been good so far.and I want to keep it in good shape for a long time!
With all due respect, this article and the comments have the car and its market completely wrong.
This car was targeted, enormously successfully, at The Greatest Generation. Iacocca said as much when it and its sisters debuted in 1990, he said it was meant for the 60 year old retiree in Florida who had money (Iacocca was not willing to tell the absolute truth, which is it was meant for the 70 year old retiree in Florida who THINKS he has money.) Iacocca knew he could never wring something genuinely competitive out of what he had on the shelf, at that time the K platform, and he also knew that Chrysler had not been competitive in YEARS in the near-luxury market so to develop a new platform would not be worth the investment. He did two things: Enough plastic surgery on the K to make it suitably dressy, sort of like how Madonna has had enough work done so – someone- apparently thinks she’s 30- and sharply engineer the price, as he had done with the Omnirizon and Aries/Reliant in making them into America models.
I don’t remember exactly how much these things went out the door for in the ’90’s but I bet without much dealing you could get it under 20K, as compared with the Cadillac/Lincoln in the low 30’s and a Park avenue probably in at least the mid-20’s. The profit margin must have been enormous on every one of these things, and that was Iacocca’s goal. There’s no point in comparing with the German/Japanese because people who served on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima were Not. Buying. A. Jap. Car. Ever. Not to mention they would have found a German/Japanese car to be cramped and austere compared with the domestics.
It wasn’t the most modern automotive platform, but like another Greatest Generation Favorite, the Piccadilly Cafeteria, it did the job and at a blue plate special price, and delighted the owners. It was narrow and somewhat tinny, but for people who had lived through the Depression and WWII, all those buttons and winky lights and automatic air conditioning and plush leather were heaven. That was what was really wanted, and if it came on an outdated platform, who cared? It was just fine for cruising the interstate at 70 to visit the grandkids.
I say all this because this was my Grandfather’s final car. My grandmother was very much of the Depression mentality and refused to let him buy anything fancier than a crank window Aries with plain hubcaps. She said the wire wheels were too hard to clean. When she passed away, he immediately went out and bought one of these, not an Imperial but I think a New Yorker Fifth Avenue. It was his dream car and he absolutely loved all the toys and he thought it was very powerful and boasted of getting it above 90.
I remember seeing a lot of them well into the late 2000’s so they were successful and seemed to live long lives even after hitting all the rungs down on the buy here pay here ladder. It’s odd today, with the constant emphasis on youth marketing, to think of an automobile so directly targeted at the old and frugal consumer, but this was it and it did the job admirably.
First and foremost, if you read my comment above, you’ll see that I am part of the minority here who actually has an appreciation for this car.
I see what you’re saying, and yes there is validity to it. But a few things.
You must remember that the people who bought these and their slightly lesser Fifth Avenue and regular New Yorker siblings were probably well-seasoned Chrysler owners. Despite any discounts, I doubt that these Chryslers were bought by many former Cadillac DeVille drivers.
Chrysler just didn’t have the same status as Cadillac, not to mention the fact that buyers of The Greatest Generation tended to be very deeply rooted in their Big Three and even brand of choice. Keep in mind that there were Oldsmobile buyers who’d never even consider a Buick.
The other point to make is that the Imperial commanded quite a price premium over the Fifth Avenue, which offered 95% of the same features. Especially if your grandfather took somewhat of a leap and bought a Fifth Avenue, is it plausible to expect that most people in similar shoes would’ve paid several thousand extra for the same car that offered little more than slightly more distinctive styling?
Just some more food for thought though, and I want you to know that I’m not disagreeing with you completely. I also am glad your grandfather enjoyed his last Chrysler and was able to obtain a car he really was proud to own.
BTW, I recently saw a clip of Madonna doing carpool karaoke on the Today Show, and she actually looks quite good for her age, and not in a fake overdone plastic surgery kind of way. Not many women her age can get up and bounce around stage for hours. Props to her.
The funny thing about the criticisms of this car is that so many people who mock this as a tarted up K car, don’t have a problem paying $50,000 or more for an F 150 which is just a tarted up work truck.
Thank you !!!
LOL! I agree.
Hey Lido, 1976 called, they want their car back.
I’m mixed on the styling, on the one hand, I can appreciate that there was some work to make it seem upscale. I can appreciate the front end, as I think that looks alright, and I can also respect the effort to bring back the Imperial nameplate.
On the other hand, it shows its K-car roots too much, and it’s anachronistic as all hell. By the time this car was released, the brougham aesthetic had become outdated and tacky, and the appreciation for it just wasn’t there anymore. And when you consider the Lincoln Town Car’s refresh the same year, it was no comparison between which car seemed like the joke.
Even the Cadillac Fleetwoods from 93-96 look better, and those also had the advantage of a better engine than the Mitsubishi V6.
As an Imperial fan (my father had a ’66 Crown imperial Coupe), I thought these were an abomination, even back in the 80’s when my parents were still shuttling us around in a Volare.
That said, I find these lipstick on a pig K-cars to be both intriguing and nostalgic today. The digital dash, cheesy fake wood, faux luxury trim pieces, and typical 80’s squareness all combine to create a form that stands out from the typical German/Japanese boxes that survive today. A low mileage, well maintained “survivor” from Craigslist would make an interesting conversation piece at any cars and coffee event.
Volvoguy
You hit it on the head with the lipstick on a pig comparison. Spot on, albeit a prettier pig!
As others have comented the front end of this Imperial was quite nice esp. the waterfall grill. The rest, however, was just a mishmash of styling cues that didn’t really work together. That, plus it’s K-car narrowness made this car inferior to it’s competition.
I think it was a worse flop than the Lincoln Versailles.
Visor phone!
This car line deserves a major deadly sin status for Chrysler during the 1988-1993 time period. Not only did it crib earlier GM formal squared off rear roof lines that GM did far better it forgot to put some width in the interior and it was very obvious these were stretched K-cars done on the cheap made really obvious by the short wheelbase and long overhang. The lousy Ultra-drive 4 speed did so much damage to Chryslers reputation during this period just like the Volare/Aspen did back in 1976. They also forgot the beef with underpowered oil smoking Mitsubishi 3.0 V6’s and too small 3.3 Chrysler engines. The 3.8 helped but they forgot to include torque in the recipe.
The Deville/Fleetwood and Continental to some degree were better executed save the 3.8’s destructive head gasket ways and low 140 hp rating initially.
Joe, this K-car platform’s roots made it relatively easy to stretch the floor pan but nearly impossible to widen it cost-effectively, so that’s why Imperial ended up so long and yet still only as wide as a Reliant/Aries. This is definitely one of Lido’s Deadly Sins!
I wanted to like these. In the midwest, the FWD Park Avenues and Ninety-Eights sold very well, and Chrysler had been absent from that market for years.
As Joe Yoman noted, the styling with the upright C pillar was very GM in its proportions, but with Chrysler’s more angular treatment of almost everything. But the stupid car was just way too narrow to be competitive in that segment.
You would think that with all the money Chrysler was making then that they could have widened the basic structure of that body for the upper level versions of the K. A New Yorker/Fifth Avenue/Imperial triumverate might have worked if the basic size had been what the market was looking for.
That said, I knew one guy who traded a Park Avenue in for a Fifth Avenue. He said at the time that he really liked it, but I lost track of him and never had the chance to follow up after a few years. He was certainly in the minority.
I dig the looks of the Salon pictured in the ad. Probably the cleanest look of all of them.
Never been a fan of these hate how there were no options for rims….you also couldn’t order a sunroof/moonroof….and the lack of rear head rests….not worth it
There’s a Driveway Dowager one of these I’ve walked by for years, parked front end first, so I can admire that part of the car. Broughminess of the rest, not so much, although the non-wire wheel covers are nice. The car is frozen in time, like Norma Desmond in “Sunset Boulevard”. One of its tires has slowly leaked out all its air, a sad, tell-tale sign of neglect. Its lustrous white paint job is flawless, however. I guess it’s the only pleasure left for the old dame.
Minus the front end the Fifth Avenue was better looking.
Even the front ends are a lateral move, either or. But the Fifth’s tail lights look far better than the phone it in, seen it all before tails on the Imperial. Zero imagination back there.
Imperial: best sales year 1957, continued dilution of the name for decades, and I still read suggestions from people wanting to bring it back as a Chrysler “flagship”.
The rear tail light configuration of the Imperial was designed to match the Chrysler TC by Maserati…everyone remember the Chrysler TC roadster, right? It was developed to go head to head with the Cadillac Allante and the Buick Reatta.
It actually manages to make the 1988-1994 Continental look attractive. The LH cars couldn’t come soon enough.
MT
To be fair the Continental was a beautiful car out the gate.
For a short amount of time was the benchmark (for American luxury modern Cars)-until the 1989 updated De’Ville/Fleetwood came along.
I’m sure the criticisms are correct, but I bet I’d enjoy driving one.
They are not (all) correct, and you would (enjoy driving it).
I had a non-mechanical friend who found (a 1993 5th Ave version) at a bargain price when they were relatively new; the reason being it had just over 100k miles. I gave it a good look and pronounced it healthy. He drove it a few years without issue, adding perhaps 25k miles. He asked me if I wanted to buy it… My girlfriend at the time had a mobile upholstery business (gym equipment) and the enormous back seat would swallow plenty of vinyl and bench-press pads. She added an easy 50k until I took at back and made it my daily-driver. Within a few years it had just over 200k and I sold it for what I’d paid 5-6 years earlier. I replaced it with a 1st gen 3.5L LH car.
In all the time I was aware of the car, (the second 100k) we never replaced anything beyond wear items and the driver’s window regulator. I sold it mostly because I was sick of driving the same car and I figured the deferred maintenance would mean it would one day fall to pieces Bluesmobile-style. It never failed to start or get me home.
I swapped on some 15″ LeBaron rims, tinted the glass and added vent visors. The paint started to take leave on the roof/hood so I brought the fuel door to Home Depot and let them color-match it oil base. *TIP.. use a foam roller. I was virtually invisible to the po-po. Some kid went road-rage on me and I think I surprised the crap out of him when a 75-y/o grandma didn’t emerge from the driver’s seat at the light… Because he ran the light.
Old platform, yes. Not up to 65-78 C-body standards, guilty. Too narrow, yes. Something for a race course, no. Although I never found it lacking for torque.
3.3/3.8s were great engines. They did not have head gasket issues as someone wrote (probably thinking of the junk 3.0s that never came in the 5th/Imp stretches). The Ultradrive failures were most often in minivans, not these.
If I had infinite room for cars I liked, I’m sure I’d have one. But I don’t, so I’m on my second-gen LH now and keeping an eye out for a cheap post ’11 LX 300/Charger.
I still see a couple of these, in excellent condition, by the way, being driven by little old ladies and men. There’s a white one driven by a woman who visits the public library once a week like clockwork.
Back when these were new, I was not a fan. The length of the car was impressive, but it was n a r r o w. Too narrow for it’s intended mission, I thought. And this is coming from an EEK fan. At the time, the car did not appeal to me in any way shape or form. With the exception of the sun visor phone. That was cool.
Fast forward all these years later and I find myself wondering if I could find one of these in decent condition. If I’m honest, I’d much rather have one of the Spirit R/Ts or even a Euro-market Chrysler Saratoga, they’re much more my style from this era of Chrysler.
Like the stunning gray haired woman I met in the grocery store last week, I don’t think I’m in her league, but I may be soon…
I forgot to add this…
I loved this design when it came out for 1990. Very graceful front end. It is very narrow, but that just makes it easier for egress in parking lots. Having said that, if only Chrysler had widened it a little so as to be competitive with GM or Ford/Lincoln. I keep squinting my eyes to pretend it so, but then I’d have to visually lengthen it too to keep it from looking blunt. A brain exercise that maybe Lumosity should look into…
Anyway, for me, this car passes the ‘litmus test’ of “if it was given to me, would I take it?”: a definite yes. To meta-test this so-called self-test; if a gleaming, never driven, barn-find 1982 Ford Exp with the biggest engine was given to me, would I take it? No.
Google is spying on me again. Last night this showed up in my YouTube recommended list:
Good write up on an underwelming car. Like most such vehicles, it has a little more appeal today as a throwback than it had when new. Thank you also for reminding us that Mexico has beautiful places. The image here in the U.S. tends to be of poor, violent wasteland.
I always found these cars intriguing and amusing. So much, in fact, that I bought a used one and drove it around for a while. The ride was mushy and harsh at the same time. The air suspension was quirky — and the air compressor was really loud. Dealer told me it was normal. Chrysler put all sorts of jewelry on it — right down to the faux-gold lion’s heads imbedded in the faux-wood trim on the back doors.
Iacocca was good at transforming the Falcon into all sorts of variants that bore no external resemblance to the Falcon. Maybe the platform was more malleable than the K car was, in both length and width. But no matter how the K car’s descendants tried to move away visually, the family resemblance was all too clear.
We rented a Dodge Dynasty once for a trip. It was competent, bland, boring. It carried three people OK, but the whole thing was not something I would have rushed out to buy. I can’t imagine that the New Yorker or Imperial would have been much more memorable.
So sad that we will never see another proper stylish Imperial, Continental/ Mark Series/Versailles or Deville/Fleetwood/ Eldorado/Seville ever again. Loved the big luxurious rolling living rooms of the past. Now all we get are boring SUV’s with no style whatsoever. End of an era for vehicle design. Get me a Delorean to go back to the past and buy something beautiful to drive…and bring it back here to the present.
All these cheesy ’80s/’90s Chrysler ‘mini-limousines’ may have been better served as premium taxis. The great use of K-Car parts, could have kept them significantly more affordable than Crown Vics or minivans, in this role.
In this article photo https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/chrysler-imperial-2.jpg
WHAT is parked in front of the white Imperial – is that a Fit?
It makes the Imperial looks small, or at least, very low by comparison.
Yes it is. I had to research it to make sure. It’s most likely a late 2000’s (maybe 09, 10, or 11) Honda Fit. Honda Fits have a very short wheel base. This is why they had to make the car tall… so that there’s enough room for occupants to sit “upright” and still feel relatively comfortable. They are very narrow too. FWD Y Body Chryslers skimp on the hip and shoulder room (due to their K-car underpinnings), but have TONS of leg room (front and rear)…especially the Imperial and New Yorker Fifth Ave., which was 6 inches longer than the New Yorker Salon and Landau.
When they were new, I thought that Chrysler was a big car! Due to psychological issues 25 years ago, I had size perception issues.
What it all points to is those really huge cars, from the late 1960s and ’70s, really weren’t that big at all. Just very wide and very long. I overheard someone’s teen, at a car show, getting into a 1970 Buick full size whatever, utter “Yo, this car is LOW, it’s like getting into a toy car!”
The teen himself must have already been 6’2″. He probably finished at nearly 6 and a half feet tall. That’s who cars are being made for nowdays. I think the adults of 2020 are averaging at least 2 inches taller, and also larger, than someone who would easily fit into a Mustang or tiny Corvair!
Hence so many crossovers and SUVs.
Remember these well – they were pretty eye catching with that front clip. But, all I I see now is the enormous looking front (and rear) overhang. It makes them look cartoonish to my eyes. You could almost fit front mounted rumble seats ahead of the axle.
Would be interesting to know which cars of this era (the 80’s/90’s Detroit FWD era) had the most overhang as a percentage of the wheel base…guessing it was a K product or a GM product – maybe a FWD fleetwood or an A body? Not exactly a look/proportion that stood the test of time.
Eye balling the Imperial the overhang looks to be easily over 80% of the wheelbase. I know they weren’t going after handling, but man that thing must plow.
Even if they only sold 7,000 in the final year, I am sure Chrysler made a mint off of these. The tooling was all paid for, they were built on the same line as the New Yorker and Dynasty, and Chrysler charged a mint. Iacocca and Chrysler shareholders couldn’t have been happier. And it was a very nice K-car, too bad the issues with the Ultradrive and the ABS. As far as tarnishing the “Imperial” brand-name, well, that had already been tarnished beyond repair with the 1980 fiasco, and before that it wasn’t great shakes anyhow, otherwise it wouldn’t have been discontinued in the mid-1970’s.
It really made a lot of sense – get the very last bit of $$ out of the K-car before the LHS arrived.
I suspect they launched such a boxy product for dramatic effect – right before letting an already designed and ready to build LHS family out of the gate.
Both generations of LHS cars were stunning at the time of launch, and even now.
It was NOT some kind of planned marketing. The FWD Y-Bodies were developed from K-cars and specifically designed for the middle-income “older” buyers. So think of the buyers for New Yorkers and Imperials to be the same buyers who would’ve considered Cadillacs, Lincolns, Buicks, and Oldsmobiles, but were priced-out. Chrysler competed in this market by developing new models very cheaply using derivative designs from existing platforms and “blinging” them up by adding gimmicky things like: FWD, EFI, electronic 4-speed transmission, ABS, Mark Cross Leather, Electronic gauges, and automatic load leveling shocks. These are all things that buyers of domestic luxury cars expected. If the Imperial, New Yorker Fifth Avenue, New Yorker Salon, New Yorker Landau, Dodge Dynasty (combined) sold about 100,000 units (of 700,000 cars), it would’ve been considered a financial success. Official sales figure from 1987-1993 are 744,674 units which makes this endeavor a successful venture for Chrysler. The Cab-forward design introduced through the LH platform and other “Cloud” cars from Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth was just an eventual evolution in car development. Push the wheels to the corners to increase interior room and more stability, rake the windshield for less drag/wind noise/fuel efficiency, round-out the corners for less drag.
I don’t know.
Just seems kind of intentional, going from sharp-edged, upright boxes to the smooth compound curves and aerodynamics accomplished eight years prior by Audi and Ford on the 5000 and the Taurus.
It`s a Kimperial
It’s interesting reading the comments in this one, and it reaffirms my belief that I’m pretty odd in my automotive preferences. Though it *can* be fun to chuck a vehicle through the turns on a winding road, I mostly couldn’t give a toss about handling prowess. Bumps are to be seen, not felt. The ride in my Peugeot 404 was perfect… and it was still able to cling to the road during emergency maneuvers, even if it felt like the door handles were going to scrape the pavement.
I was a preteen when these Imperials came online, and I didn’t think much of them either way. They’re the last of the Iacoccans, and most of the gingerbread fits them pretty okay. The landau top is the only bit that I really don’t like, as it’s execution looks much like it was built in a backyard shed by someone who only had a mental image of the actual car, then quickly nailed on as the paint was drying. Never loved super upright rear windows either, no matter what car they were employed on. Thumbs up for opera lights, though. And that interior looks comfy!