Talk:Imperial (automobile)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconBrands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Early 2004 article discussion (resolved)[edit]

The name had been in the line since the '30s, so I assume those will be in the Chrysler Imperial article which doesn't exist yet, along with 80's & 90's revivals.

For the late 50's, I think any reference to these cars ought to note the famous "Forward Look" slogan.

The '67 redesign was more significant than noted here. It was the first total re-do since '57--note that all '57-'66 Imperials use exactly the same wraparound windshield. Chrysler spent a lot of money on this generation, which would prove to be the last that had its own body. Sales were still poor, and cost savings caused the high degree of commonality seen between the Imp and the other Chryslers beginning in '69.

The extreme tuck-in at top and bottom of the fuselage cars was called tumblehome. May or may not be worth mentioning. Also, I'm afraid it's misleading to say that the mod-top patterned vinyl was available. According to this page, briefly some was overprinted and reused, but it wasn't a real option and was never supposed to be visible to the owner. Here's a bit of trivia of the kind that gladdens my heart--for '70, inexplicably, the fender skirts vanished, only for that one year.

For the last generation, I think this overstates the effect of the gas crisis. Gas was back down by '75, and big car sales recovered nicely. It probably ought to be noted that the exact same car was continued under the New Yorker name for three more years, and sold quite well after a price cut of $3,000 or so. The Imperial's problem seemed to be a mismatch between the price and the perceived value of the car. RivGuySC 22:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Added most of these points; do you think that works?
As far as I can tell, the 81-83 cars were actually also Imperials (again, Chrysler was not mentioned in their marketing) and I need to write a section on that car. I'm not sure if it should be here or in its own article, though. Maybe in its own article; the 55-75 arc of Imperial as its own marque makes a better story on its own without that addendum.
Seperating this and Chrysler Imperial out is IMO justifiable on the grounds that the combined article would be just too big. Besides, the first Exner cars of '55 are a beautiful place to start a new article.
There are also the 90-93 Chrysler Imperials to consider, and I suspect they should be largely dealt with in their own article too. —Morven 08:11, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think that looks good. There's a terrific example of the last Imperial on ebay currently, and I've written to see if we could use the pictures. Doesn't hurt to ask.
BTW--is seperate a Briticism or a typo? RivGuySC 23:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but feel free to correct it. —Morven 08:00, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Fair Use" ???[edit]

I uploaded the 1981 Imperial pic. It is copyrighted by Chrysler Corporation. If I need to add additional info, please let me know. I am "testing the waters" here on this "fair use" thing. If I am wrong, then so be it. Otherwise, I need to understand right from wrong on this issue. Help is appreciated.UPDATE: Returned image to article. Placed "copyright tag" with photo. If this is not sufficient reasoning for retaining the photo on Wiki then image will probably be deleted by Admin.MJEH (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My compliments to all who have contributed to this artcle. Very nice! user: stude62 user talk:stude62 18:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I pass on any praise to my sources, particularly the Imperial club, who have put such a wealth of information at our fingertips. —Morven 18:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Imperials 1955 and newer to be split off from 'Chrylser Imperial' page and moved to this page ('Imperial') page[edit]

It has been suggested for a while now to merge the two separate Wikipedia articles. However, in order to keep the distinction between the Imperial marque and Chrysler Imperial, I plan in the near future on moving all infortmation and subsections dealing with 1955 and newer Imperials from the 'Chrysler Imperial' page to the 'Imperial' page. Within the 'Chrysler Imperial' page I will leave a clear marker to direct the reader to the 'Imperial' page for 1955 and newer models. Comments? Rockford1963 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Migration of information done Rockford1963 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like we were doing this at the same time. Agree completely. Fallout11 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice work, Rockford1963. Thank you for the contributions. Fallout11 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1981-83: Chryslers or Imperials?[edit]

The 1981-83 Imperials were indeed Chryslers according to Standard Catalog of American Cars 1975-99. Period Car and Driver and Road and Track reviews say so, as well.

Saying that the Imperial wasn't a Chrysler because the Chrysler brand name wasn't mentioned in advertizing is like saying the Oldsmobile Aurora wasn't an Olds because the Oldsmobile name wasn't feature initially in advertizing.

The Chrysler brand name WAS, however, mentioned in 1971-75 Imperial advertizing, as well as on the cars themselves, with their "Imperial by Chrysler" monikers.

The 1981-83 section should be added to the "Chrysler Imperial" section. Rhettro76 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DONE, obviously it was a Chrysler, if you don't believe simply look on this beautiful pentastar crystal hood ornament… Shaman (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Points above taken, however I do believe that the 81-83 models were still separated from regular Chrysler products in a meaningful way. This may be a gray zone with no definitive answer.Rockford1963 (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this article should be merged back into Chrysler Imperial as it always was Chrysler, there wasn't never 'Imperial Corporation', it was always sold in Chrysler dealerships, and this makes only things complicated to find specific model. Second, there (at Chrysler Imperial) should be only an overview of the consequent generations, like it's been done here: Mercedes-Benz SL-Class with links to articles about each generation. Shaman (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please put some more careful thought into your preference and think about its flaws. There is (or was) no Dodge Corporation or Plymouth Corporation or DeSoto Corporation or Jeep Corporation or Eagle Corporation or MoPar Corporation, yet we have articles for Dodge, for Jeep, for Plymouth, for Eagle, for DeSoto, and for Mopar. It's because each of these—like Imperial in some year ranges—is a marque. In other year ranges, Imperial was a model name under the Chrysler marque. It is reasonable and appropriate that the Imperial be treated separately from the Chrysler Imperial, for they are not the same car. Of course you can propose a merger such as you have in mind, but you're likely to get shot down for the simple, reality-based reasons I've provided here. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger would be easy, providing that the title of the page would state: "Imperial and Chrysler Imperial automobiles". When it comes to the 1981-1983 as I wrote before I still believe that it is a Chrysler - firstly because of aforementioned pentastar on the hood and because it was meant to be a flaghip of "The New Chrysler Corporation" (you see this sentence in every 1981-1983 Chrysler Imperial brochure), so obviously they wanted it to be bound to the Chrysler rather than separate brand which wouldn't help them to raise prestige of Chrysler after bancrupcy. SHAMAN 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're entitled to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but your beliefs are not an adequate basis for textual changes; we work by consensus here. When you make unilateral changes based on what you think you understand of what you think you know, others will come along and revert your changes and guide you to the talk page. Here is where you make your arguments and present your case—including whatever reliable support you feel makes your claims verifiable. If consensus is attained to shift the article text to align with your preferences, that's what happens. If no such consensus is attained, the text stays as is. Your argument so far evinces a lack of knowledge, awareness, and understanding not only of how Wikipedia works, but also of the history of the cars covered by this present article. The Pentastar on the hood does not constitute evidence of anything; remember, plenty of Dodges and Plymouths bore Pentastar logos—that did not make them Chryslers. Likewise, your assumptions and guesses about what might have motivated Chrysler Corporation to market the cars as they did are pure conjecture, which is not even remotely adequate basis for supporting a textual change. You'll simply have to do better than that, in accord with Wikipedia core policies, or drop the argument. In the meantime, I've moved the relevant text back to this article and copyedited it for grammar, syntax, spelling, and to remove opinion and personal essay. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scheinwerfermann, You don't have solid arguments to keep this section at Imperial (automobile) neither.

I improved this section vastly by adding proper infobox, finding engine details etc. Earlier version was horribly biased - there were some personal opinions about how it looks, as well as vague statements about reliability.

Instead of battling let's just improve each generation, that would be far more constructive.SHAMAN 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg[edit]

Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I named the generations with some basic data. I also reorganized and added verifiable detail to 1957-1966 Imperials, added some detail to the 1956 that recognized its superlatives, and corrected some minor errors in the Crown Imperial section.

Sadowski (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Green Hornet" 2011 film use depleted collector supply[edit]

I want to save this here for possible future use by one of you editors. Twenty-nine 1964-66 Imperials were purchased for the 2011 movie The Green Hornet Twenty-six were destroyed, thus making all others in collector's hands more valuable. The quote below, except for the last comment about a sequel, appeared in the Feb 2011 print version of Popular Mechanic magazine as well as online:, which was a little longer. QUOTE FOLLOWS. 5Q5 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To persuade director Michel Gondry to use a '65 Imperial Crown, car coordinator Dennis McCarthy bought and modified one of the vehicles. Low to the ground, with tinted windows, green headlight covers and hot-rod wheels, it garnered Gondry's seal of approval. McCarthy then had to find 28 more '64 to '66 Imperial Crowns for the production's needs. ... By the end of production, 26 cars were wrecked; only three survived in pristine shape. "We definitely took a big chunk out of the remaining Imperials on the planet," McCarthy says. "If there's a sequel, it's going to be hard to find 25 more cars."

— Popular Mechanics, Feb 2011, pg 22.

Mention of Lincoln Unibody[edit]

This is a touchy subject. Is unibody really an advancement for large cars? The evidence seems to be otherwise.

In any case the information concerning Lincoln was incorrect. Lincoln's first unibody car was the Zephyr in 1936. From 1949-1957 Lincolns were indeed built body on frame. But the 1958-1960 Lincolns were also unibody. And despite the cars excellent construction the general perception was that those cars were too big to benefit from such construction. So Lincoln downsized drastically in 1961. And Lincoln went back to separate body on frame construction in 1970, only three years after Imperial went to unibody.

So it's not at all clear that unibody was an improvement for Imperial. In any case, it certainly wasn't considered one for Lincoln.

Sadowski (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Unibody and Separate Platform Edits[edit]

I made major revisions today reverting many of the recent changes. Much of it contained errors concerning options, body styles and trim levels. I recommend that people who volunteer to make such changes read Krause's Standard Catalog of American Cars before contemplating such changes. I also recommend that people read the entire article in order to understand the basic narrative. Sadowski (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep seeing reedits in this regard. I'm trying to make my modifications as limited and respectful as possible. Again, I remind that making claims that are unsupportable should be avoided. Sadowski (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exner vs Engel division[edit]

I never thought I would have to comment or do something about this. I'm a huge Exner AND Engel fan. The fact that the two spanned the design of one of my favorite automobile engineering triumphs, the 1957-66 Imperial, only excites me more. But I'm a little grieved at the recent turn of events on this page. I personally liked the previous labels applied to the 60-63 and 64-66 Imperials. I thought "The Iconic Years" perfectly captured the last Exner designed Imperial and that "Engel Design" captured the first of the Exner designed Imperials. I have no quarrel with the added content, as it only adds to the picture. I just hope Exner and Engel fans can overcome their apparent mistrust to appreciate the world's greatest automobile of all time, no matter who styled it.

Sadowski (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for subsequent changes. I'm a perfectionist.

Sadowski (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Sadowski. You are making some invalid assumptions. The change I made had nothing to do with any kind of an Exner-versus-Engel rivalry or fan club grudge or preference or anything of the like. Like you, I'm a tremendous admiror of both designers' talents alike. The reason I changed the heading was because "Iconic years" is a subjective point of view based on your favourite Imperials. As such, it is not in keeping with our NPOV core policy, and it is not an encyclopædic section heading here unless you can find reliable support for those particular Imperials being generally and routinely referred to as the "iconic" ones. That kind of a subject heading would be right at home in an enthusiast report on these cars, but this is an encyclopædia. If no reliable support is forthcoming, I'm afraid "the iconic years" is going to have to go away again. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good. I appreciate your positive input. But it still seems to me that a more positive tag could be applied to this name change. If you insist on a more neutral tag you should come up with a much better one.

Sadowski (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, if you can come up with a better label for the 64-66 Imperials I'll be very aggreable too.

Sadowski (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is it about Exner's last Imperials and Engel's first Imperials that you consider sub-optimal? They are factual, free of judgement (positive or negative), concise…what would you be looking for in a "better" section heading? I do agree that the '64-'66 header ("Engel Design") is vague and insipid; have you a better suggestion? —Scheinwerfermann T·C13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with that suggestion. Your previous suggestion was in fact "Exner's last Imperials" and "Engel Replaces Exner." This seems more poetic, and more balanced. Personally, I'll abide. Sadowski (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I'd like to see Engel's design credentials more fully described to match the Exner description you have so well done. But perhaps I'll leave that to another time.
Oh, you're right, my 2nd suggestion wasn't the same as my first. I think the 2nd one's better, too, and have put it in. We do have a bit of a conundrum to deal with regarding "Forward Look". By convention, that term is applied to '57-'61 Mopars, even though the '62s were definitely(!) Exner's babies, and their long-hood/short-deck proportionality was in accord with one of the primary main underpinnings of Forward-Look design. The '60 Imperial surely fits with the '57-'59 cars as a Forward-Look design -- probably not much debate there. The '61 probably also does, though perhaps there'd be more to discuss on that point. But if the '61 is a Forward-Look car, then so are the '62 and the '63. This louses up the easy demarcation of the end of the Forward-Look era. I think the way we have it now with '61-'63 cars grouped as "Exner's last" is probably satisfactory, though we ought to say a few words about the phaseout of the Forward-Look design philosophy. What do you think?
Totally agree we ought to have more info on Engel. It's easy to talk about Exner, because it's easy to find material about Exner, because his designs were so unconventional that people talked about him a lot! Harder to find info on Engel because his designs were conventional. Very thoughtfully and masterfully so, but still…conventional. One way in which good design can manifest is by transparency: design so good that people don't see it per se. Any thoughts on where we might dig up some good material on Engel?
We've also got a lot of images in this article, to the extent that it's a little clogged up. We may want to think about shifting some of them to a gallery section. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were 1971-1975 Imperials actually Chrysler Imperials (again)?[edit]

I quote from the book "American Cars, 1960 to 1972": "Imperial reached the end of an era for 1971. Chrysler Corporation made the decision to demote the Imperial from an individual sales and marketing division to a model within the Chrysler division lineup. This made the 1970 models the last 'official' Imperial models. The 1971 cars were sold as Chrysler Imperials."

No, they were marketed as an Imperial. In 1971 they did away with the Imperial sales and marketing division but not the brand name.

Mhrogers (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crown Imperial Limousine[edit]

It's a Crown Imperial Limousine made by Ghia, which uses the same words as but is not the base series Imperial Crown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial (automobile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chairman ref[edit]

@Dyno Tested: it looks like you forgot to fill in this "Chairman" ref when you added it last year. Do you happen to remember what your source was? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention; I'm still pretty much a novice here! Dyno Tested (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]