In 1967 a new Imperial was released and Car Life magazine was there to test it. This time the Imperial carried unibody construction, in keeping with the way all other Chrysler Corp. vehicles were built. It was a much-needed update, as the new body finally allowed to drop some outdated bits like the long-running wraparound windshield.
So, was the new Imperial a good contender in the luxury leagues? Chrysler was certainly putting all its best, but the question remained: Would the new Imperial have that indefinable quality of prestige to take sales away from Cadillac and Lincoln?
The review basically confirms what Imperial fans have known all this time; when it came to cold stats, the Imperial was as good a product as anything from Cadillac or Lincoln. Chrysler had spared no expenses in making the Imperial a quality product, and in ride, noise levels, seating comfort, acceleration, and cornering, the vehicle clicked all the right boxes. If anything could be questioned, it would be the Imperial’s styling, which didn’t offend nor excite and had a bit too much corporate identity.
Dynamically speaking, the Imperial 4-door performed as well as a large 5230 lb. vehicle could. The ride was deemed soft and pleasant, without being mushy, and its handling was excellent. For its size, that is. In the engine department, Chrysler’s 440 in. provided 350 hp at 4400 rpm, delivering 480 lb. ft. of torque at 2800 rpm. Only braking came under criticism; for a model possessing power discs up front, the results were somewhat unsatisfying.
The Imperial came with all the luxury appointments Detroit could imagine then, and then some more. The Cruiser Lounge option offered a revolving front passenger seat, folding table, and reading lamps, also known as the Mobile Director. Rarely ordered, it’s a collectible item nowadays. Also, the Imperial couldn’t do without Chrysler’s Auto Pilot, better known today as Cruise Control. As for the Auto Pilot, reviewers were rather pleased and seemed to be new to the experience. Well, how could they not enjoy it? When something good arrives, people know it.
Some specific items date the review to early 1967. I’m referring to upcoming safety regulations, and Car Life refers to it as a ‘safety package.’ What the ‘safety package’ meant at the time was a revised dash and controls, with new padding and an energy-absorbing steering column; all aimed to diminish bodily injuries in case of an accident.
We know the Imperial didn’t set the sales world on fire, and that the ‘indefinable quality of prestige’ remained elusive to the brand. Yet, for 1967 the model did have an uptick in sales, with 17,614 units sold, against the 13,742 built in 1966.
The Imperial would remain at the bottom of the US luxury brands for the remainder of its production life, but Imperial devotees know that in spite of sales numbers, the vehicle was a true contender in the luxury class.
Further reading:
Car Show Classic: 1967 Imperial Crown Coupe – For The Last Time, It’s Not A Chrysler!
I don’t think I’ve ever read so much criticism directed at a turn signal before. If they had to pick such nits, it must have been a pretty impressive car.
*raises hand*
Noticed it had front disc brakes.
The brochure mentions them on the first of the two photos of the dash board highlighting options and features.
Appears they were standard equipment. Wow!!
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chrysler_and_Imperial/1967_Chrysler/1967_Imperial_Brochure/1967%20Imperial-20.html
As a young guy, Late 50s and 60s Imperials (especially LEBARON) always seemed to have an air of upscale exclusivity with limo like roof lines. One of my dream cars is a black 61 LEBARON, Grand Finale for Exners fabulous finned fantasies. When the fuselage styling was introduced in 69, personally think Imperial look too much like other Chrysler Corp vehicles. Almost bought a 75 LEBARON, unfortunately quality was not satisfactory. However had 83 and 85 RWD Fifth Avenues and loved them. Friend bought 83? FWD LeBaron. Nice car, but had transmission issues. For me, FWD Imperials and Fifth Avenues were a sad end for traditional Chrysler famed nameplates.
No matter how fancy a ’67 Buick was, nor how highly optioned, it was not a Cadillac. But this ’67 Imperial was perceived by many as “just a fancy Chrysler”. I believe that Chrysler Corporation had to make that change for financial reasons; they simply could not afford to continue the Imperial as a totally separate car as GM could.
My father (perhaps among others) was always suspicious of Chrysler Corp. build quality, which he didn’t perceive so much as “poor” but more so as “irregular”. I really don’t know if that was true or false, but I imagine that some irregularity in build quality might have been acceptable on a Valiant, but not for folks spending Imperial money.
My grandfather had a ’67 Imperial sedan. I drove it quite a bit for him. It handled better than GM products of the time. The interior had high quality parts – the seats were very comfortable. Yes, the front turn signal lenses were very prone to damage, but they were very elegant with the etched Imperial bird. It had a floor button (next to the headlight dimmer control) that activated the signal seeking radio – not available in Cadillac. My favorite styling feature was the wall-to-wall rear taillights.
I got my grandpa’s imperial as a hand me down car. The radio floor button would sometimes freeze up and make the dial indicator keep searching across the AM band over and over again! You had to turn the radio off to get it to stop. My sister had a front end accident that took out the the turn signal lens. I had a part lined up from a bone yard up in Minnesota, but my dad told me not to spend the money. That was really a great highway car, and you would only have to put your thumb on the lower part of the steering wheel, and it would hold the road! Not a Lebaron model, but it was a crown. I’m not sure if that was a particular trim package or not?
Crown was the basic Imperial trim level, while the LeBaron was the higher trim model.
Those front-of-fender-blade items aren’t the turn signals; they’re combination front position (“parking”) and cornering lights. Two bulbs, two reflectors. The position light function is a steady-lit dim white light visible roughly 45° inboard to 45° outboard and 15° above to 15° below horizontal. The cornering light function is a steady-lit bright white light covering a field roughly 45° to 90° outboard while the turn signal is operating and for a couple seconds after. The turn signals were completely separate, mounted in the front bumper bar, indicated here by the amber arrow. Why’d they do it this way? Probably because putting the turn signals in the fender blade lights would have been copying the Continental just a leetle too closely.
And here are the relevant illustrations from the factory parts cattledog:
Okay. I knew that the turn signals were down in the bumper (I presumed these functioned as “parking” lamps too), and that the fender blade lenses housed cornering lamps, but did not know that there were bulbs for “parking” lamp duty in these as well. How are these wired? I know 1967 Caprices have additional park/position lamps behind translucent white lenses outboard of the headlamps, in addition to the usual position lamp function in the main turn signal assembly; these extinguish when the headlamps are on as most 1967-earlier American cars do, but the fender lamps remain on. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a 1967 Imperial at night, so I’m in the dark.
Also, did 1967-68 Imperials utilize all three bulbs per side as brake/turn signals, à la 1966-67 Charger, or was it just the outer two? And did the 1968 have cornering lamps, or were they deleted? I can’t tell if there’s a lamp stealthily hidden behind 1968’s wraparound grille treatment or not.
I can’t be fully sure, but preponderance of evidence suggests the turn signals also provided a front position (“parking”) light function, in addition to the one provided by the low-power bulb in the fender blade lamps. All four front position lights would come on at the first click of the headlight switch, together with the tail lights, dashboard lights, and licence plate light.
As you note, on most ’67 and earlier vehicles—at least American makes—the front position lights switch off when the headlamps are on, but some vehicles kept them lit (Barracudas, for one model) with the headlamps even before that became required for ’68.
Unfortunately, the (non-factory) wiring diagram I have access to for the ’67 Imperial is incomplete in the front lighting area, which is one reason I can’t say whether one or both pairs of front position lamps remained lit with the headlamps. I’d like to guess at least the upper/fenderblade ones did, but it’s just a guess. Like you, I’d have to see an unmodified ’67 Imperial in good repair to be sure.
The ’67 Imperial had three stop-turn-tail bulbs on each side. The ’68 had two stop-turn-tail plus one tail-only (inboard) on each side.
The ’68 Imperial did have cornering lights, hidden (and substantially blocked) by the grille bars:
Thank you for the details! I’m hoping that they saw fit to at least keep the fender lamps illuminated with the headlights, as that would at least give a gentle nod toward making the car visible to others at night from a sideward angle when it’s in motion… I specifically remember our neighbor’s 1967 Chrysler Newport only being identifiable as a puddle of light (cast on the ground by its headlights) as it rumbled by on the very dark street in front of our house at night. You could just see the also quite shrouded tail lamps come into view as it got a couple of houses beyond ours.
Re: The ’68 Imperial having two tail lamp only positions out back brings back another Mopar memory: 1095 bulbs (as do the single function park/position lamps on the ’67). That’s probably going deeper into the lighting trivialities file than most readers here would be interested in, so I’ll cork it for now.
Maybe it’s just me, but these mid-sixties Imperials have the typical Maxwell Smart “missed it by ‘that’ much” approach to either the front or rear styling.
In the 1967 car’s case, it’s putting the ‘IMPERIAL’ lettering right in the middle of the otherwise clean grille. In the previous year, the lettering was a nice, understated stamping into the metal trim along the hood line.
But, for some strange reason, someone decided to not only have it in the middle of the grille, but do it in such a way that they cut-out a section of the grille to put each individual letter. Besides not looking so great, doing it that way had to be more expensive.
A real shame because the rear taillight treatment of the 1967 Imp was very nice with the full length, hidden light treatment giving it an upscale look.
Of course, the 1967 grille is still better than the 1968 grille with the goofy center drop and Imperial eagle emblem schmucked into the center.
The 68 grill was much cheaper to build over the 67.
I own a 67 Imperial Crown Coupe those taillights are very impressive
Whereas previous generations of Imperials were instantly identifiable, one had to look closely to make sure this isn’t a Chrysler New Yorker. A fine car no doubt, and in many ways better than the old one, but this is when the Imperial began to lose its identity. No free standing headlamps, swoopy roof/C pillar or any other such distinctive features. It got worse and worse each year forward until the Imperial finally met its ignominious end as a tarted up K car.
Its 1963-1964 Lincoln Continental front end styling looked out of date by 1967. As to the rest of it, did it really more distinctive or upscale than a New Yorker? In my opinion, it looked less so than the very fine ’65-’66 New Yorker.
The beginning of the end for Imperial.
Ditto. From 1955 when Imperial became a separate nameplate, I generally considered the Chrysler New Yorker a more tastefully styled car. In some years the Imperial may have been more distinctive, but it wasn’t better. In 1967, I don’t think it was either distinctive or better than a New Yorker.
The 1955 Imperials, while obviously upscaled Chryslers, had open rear wheels that I think made the look. The mildly facelifted 1956’s just used Chrysler rear fenders. But both years had the grilles repurposed for the Chrysler 300’s.
The article noted that this was the very first of the 1967 models the magazine received for testing. Perhaps this explains the curious omission of the fact that this car was really a Chrysler New Yorker with another 3 inches of wheelbase and with nicer interior trim.
I will confess that I have never driven a 67-68 Imperial, but I have never seen anything to suggest that the experience was significantly different from driving the New Yorker, save for some extra sound deadening and possibly better seats. In the end the Imperial remained what it had always been – an alternative to Cadillac or Lincoln for those who liked Chryslers.
An elderly neighbor was a serial Imperial guy, and owned one of these in the late 1970s. He got ill and his wife kept the 72 Imperial they owned and sold the 67. Had I been paying more attention, I probably could have bought a really nice car.
Elements of the already four-year-old Turbine Car, looked cleaner, or just as modern. Or more modern, in some details. Much prefer, the Turbine Car’s softer edges. Though the Turbine’s nose, looks early ’60s, and outer space. Profile and rear flanks of the Turbine, look more sophisticated and cleaner IMO.
I have no idea what Drysdale drove, but I could see an old banker, driving this Imperial. lol The Turbine Car, actually looks more related to the Fuselage Imperial, than this one.
Mr. Drysdale did in fact have Imperials through the run of the show.
It figures! They were made for each other. Thank you!
Yes, Milburn Drysdale did in fact drive Imperials. Chrysler supplied all the vehicles for the show. I enjoyed the show because it always featured Chrysler Corporation cars. Mr Drysdale had a black 65 LeBaron that was just gorgeous. I remember seeing a dark colored Chrysler 300, driven by Dash Riprock, and Miss Jane always had a red Dodge Corenet convertible. My favorite Imperials were the 64 through 66s. They resemble the Lincoln Continentals of the 60s, and why wouldn’t they since Elwood Engle left Ford Motor Company and moved to Chrysler. But even with the obvious simular styling of the Continental and Imperial, I liked the way the Imperials managed to project a strong presence that was unmistakably Chrysler. I actually had a 66 Crown, 4 door hardtop. It was a great car, with it’s newly introduced 440 cid, and it’s famous Chrysler Corporation torquion bar front suspension it handled like a massive locomotive. It felt very solid and sure of it’s self at all times. I loved the shape of the taillights, they looked very sophisticated and somehow European, and the “headlights under glass” with the gold outline that framed the lights gave the front grill a very regal look that only Chrysler could have pulled off. The 67 and 68s never did too much for me, especially when compared to other Chrysler styling. However, I do like the 69 fuelsage styling, it fit the Imperial very well. Admittedly it does resemble the 69 New Yorker, but not so much to not be able to tell them apart. I also had a 69 300, 4 door hardtop, it was sorta a cream color with a dark blue vinyl top and interior. It came with the 440 cid as standard equipment. That was one fast and powerful car. I loved the sound of the exhaust, and the unique sound of the Chrysler starters. They somehow gave Chryslers a cute personality, but that’s just me.
I remember one episode where “Mrs Drysdale” was driving the “Imperial”.
I always liked the clean elegant look of this car, but the’68 grill gave it a more imposing look it needed to complete it.
Maybe if it had a bigger engine, not shared with other models, it would be more exclusive and interesting.
Styling too much Continental like.
It’s funny how Chrysler went from these to the other extreme: the convex, high-waisted fuselage cars, which made them look larger than they were instead of smaller, as this one does. I’d like to see them both next to contemporary Cadillacs and Lincolns, which were also restyled for bulging visual enlargement in ’71 and ’70, respectively, when they didn’t really need any.
The 25 gallon tank says it all.
I just bought one of these a few days ago. When it comes to luxury cars I’ve always been an Olds 98/Buick Electra guy.
I do find the styling better than the ’61-’69 Lincoln but those sort of things are subjective.
I wasn’t aware that the Auto-Pilot cruise control was available back in 1967. Then again, I have never experienced this class of auto. It must have been quite an impressive feature at the time.
My first experience with cruise control was an aftermarket install on a ’73 Fury III that I bought from a coworker of my dad’s in ’83. He had it installed at a Sears auto center and claimed it was the first one that Sears ever installed. It featured a row of magnets taped to the driveshaft. Believe it or not, it continued to work for many years.
The Chrysler Autopilot speed control was introduced on the 1958 Chrysler and Imperial. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-history-capsule-chryslers-1958-auto-pilot-56-years-before-teslas-autopilot/
What’s in a name? I’ve often wondered if that’s what did the Imperial in.
As evidence, look at how sales of the final, 1975 C-body Imperial were so low compared to the virtually identical, following year New Yorker Brougham, which sold many times over (8,830 versus 62,127). Not GM-level success, by any means, but compared to the Imperial, the NYB was a home-run.