Onwards to 1964. As with pretty much every year so far in the CCOTY saga, new car buyers were just spoiled for choice. Not only did the usual Big Three makes offer near unlimited choice in colors, options and bodystyles, but there was also the burgeoning import maket, not to mention American Motors, International and, for at least a couple more years, Studebaker. But as a card-carrying U.S. luxocruiser connoisseur, I have to humbly nominate the beautiful 1964 Imperial Crown Coupe.
The Imperial had stumbled with its far-out 1961 restyling. Just as cars were becoming more restrained, the goggle-eyed Exner ’61 model was a throwback to 1959. Production fell to 12,258, down some 5K units from 1960. Subsequent ’62 and ’63 models were more restrained, but with Elwood Engel heading up Styling in Highland Park, the 1964 model was a beauty.
All ’64 Imperials got new sheetmetal, from the Crown series to top-trim LeBaron. It was the same old Imperial underneath though, dating to 1957. The giveaway was the ’50s-style wrap windshield, which may grate on Paul’s nerves, but never bothered me. Actually, I never noticed that the later Imperials still used the ’57 windshield, until I read it on CC.
The Crown convertible was still available, though seldom seem with just 922 built. What a way to see the country, for those fortunate few! Sales jumped to 23,295, up over 9,000 from 1963 sales of 14,121. I will posit that without the relative success of the 1964-66 Imperial, the Imperial nameplate may have vanished around 1968 instead of 1975.
Yes, there were probably more important new cars in 1964, but I have to vote with my heart and endorse the ’64 Imperial. I especially love the classy Crown Coupe. This mauve example was at the 2012 Maple City Cruise Night, in Monmouth, IL. It was love at first sight, with its unusual color choice and white leather. So snazzy! I also love the split ’64 grille, which reminds me of the original non-Chrysler ’55 Imperial.
But there are plenty of other good choices for 1964 CCOTY. To give the CC Commentariat some additional options: the 1964 Chevelle. To say that it was important to Chevrolet would be a major understatement. If the full-size Chevy bloat hadn’t started in 1958 and continued through the Sixties, the Chevelle/Malibu could well have been the ’64 full-size, with dimensions notably similar to the classic 1955-57 model. Though perhaps a bit plain compared to its A-body corporate cousins, it still sold amazingly well. And the two-door wagon was unquestionably cool.
The T-Bird was also revamped, with squared off lines that, although less sporting than the 1961-63 Bullet Bird, was still handsome. And it had perhaps the coolest interior of the Sixties.
Keeping the FoMoCo theme going, the ’64 Connie was also heavily redone. It still wore its classy 1961 shape, but the ’64 corrected several of the compromises of the original ’61–not the least of which was a somewhat cramped interior. A wheelbase stretch offered more room, much more in keeping with the Cadillac and Imperial competition. Then there’s the ’64 Rambler American, the Falcon Sprint, Electra 225…the list goes on and on.
But, my heart’s still with the Imperial. What say you?
While not my favorite 1964 model cars, I’d have to place my vote for either a goat or a certain horse.
If this were a “what 1964 model cars would I want in my garage?”, my first choice would be the beautiful Thunderbird. Second would be a Riviera and third would probably be an Imperial 🙂 Fourth would be a Continental, fifth would be a Galaxie XL 4-door hardtop with bucket seats/console……
Fine choice, Tom. I honestly might take that T-Bird as my two-door and go with the Imp sedan. Proportionally, the extra doors make better use of the enormous wheelbase. And then the Connie convertible….
Wow, ’64 was a good year.
I’m with you on the Imperial for ’64. Like you, I never noticed the hold-over windshield until I read about it here. Ever since, I can’t help thinking that the Imperial would look better with the Continental’s windshield, but still nice nonetheless.
The Lincolns are good looking too, of course, but I’d take a Mopar 413 under the hood over a Ford mill most of the time. I’m also not a big fan of the “Flair-bird” T-bird redesign.
Others will certainly nominate the Pontiac GTO and possibly the Aston martin DB5, made famous by the 1964 James Bond movie Goldfinger.
I’m sure the Mustang will get mentioned because Mustang fans call the first ones “1964 and a half” models. Ford made running changes on the production line to Mustangs built after Jan 1, 1965 so Mustang fans like to distinguish between early and late cars, but I read that the VINs of these were all 1965 numbers. If so, then to my (admittedly not Mustang enthusiast) thinking, there is technically no such thing as a ’64 Mustang.
The Imperial was a clever updating of an ancient body, but it was hardly a breakthrough car for the brand. Indeed, Chrysler might have had greater success if it had waited a year and placed the Imperial on its brand-new, big-car platform. The resulting design would have looked a bit more modern, e.g., no more dog-leg windshield.
For better or worse, the Mustang — which, if I recall, was introduced as a 1964 and a half model — made the biggest splash that year.
I agree – the 65 Chrysler is a much crisper design than the 64 Imperial. I’ve never thought this Imperial was a very integrated design; now that attention has been drawn to the dated windshield, I better understand. While the 64 is somewhat sleeker than the previous year, the spare tire hump doesn’t work well, nor does the gigantic emblem/bumper in the back, and I can see why they put headlamp covers on the next year’s model as these lights look kind of bug-eyed in the square mesh grille. The Thunderbird and Lincoln-Continental for 64 are much better looking cars.
Sixty-four was a fabulous year, wasn’t it? The Imperial is a fine choice, but as a Fordista, my heart belongs to the Continental first and the T-Bird a close second. And to be honest, I really liked the redone Falcon, especially with a droptop and a 260 V-8.
You are correct. There are no 64 Mustangs, all are titled as ’65s even though they went on sale April of ’64. Ford did the same thing with the Maverick, out April ’69, all are ’70 MY
No there are lots of Mustangs titled as 1964 hence the term 1964 1/2. Many states didn’t know what to do with them due to their extreme early introduction and would not title them as 1965s. At that time there were no federal regulations denoting what constituted a model year like there are today. By 1969 however annual safety and emissions regulation changes were starting and gov’t started defining aspects of what constituted a model year and what regulations a car that was sold as a particular model year had to meet.
Also, even Ford has gone back and forth about whether they consider 1964 or 1965 the Mustang’s anniversary.
Ford celebrates calendar year anniversery, usually.
But for COTY, which is usually announced in January, the Mustang was not for sale.
Ford did offer the 20th Anniversary Special Edition Mustang in 1984, the 30th in 1994 and the 40th in 2004. So at least in more recent years they seem pretty consistent.
Yeah, well, everybody celebrated the new millennium on Jan 1, 2000 which was a year too early. Popular opinion does not necessarily equal technically correct.
When you have a huge fanbase that is fixated on distinguishing the early production as “1964 1/2” then it makes sense for Ford to cater to them and celebrate a year early.
I think this sums-up the Mustang 1964 versus 1965 issue pretty well:
http://www.joshuastarling.com/mustangs/64v65.htm
The discussion over whether the original car is a 1964 1/2 model or a 1965 model is lost on the general public. If the car debuted in April 1964, they consider it to be a 1964 model. Ford isn’t going to argue, judging by when it has offered anniversary edition Mustangs.
I’d nominate either the Mustang or the Pontiac GTO for the award. Both were extremely influential – each essentially created a new market segment – and gave their respective manufacturers a huge lift in both sales and image.
The Imperial isn’t a bad car, but it didn’t set any trends, and didn’t do all that much for the Imperial brand. This car’s failure to make headway against Cadillac or even Lincoln encouraged Chrysler to abandon the Imperial-only body and base the 1967 and later models on the Chrysler body. This ultimately sealed the Imperial’s fate.
Well in the case of the Mustang it’s “Birthday” was on Apr 17th 1964 so it isn’t technically incorrect to celebrate it based on that even if they were technically serial numbered as 1965 Models.
I personally consider the first Mustangs ’65s, that is why I went for the Imperial.
Now if we’re talking CCOTY for 1965, it’s a shoe-in!
they were always 65’s.
Were any Front turn signals sold with Amber lense before the 1966 model Year?
What other external differences are there?
I thought amber came in with the 64s.
Amber came in 1963. I remember well when my uncle’s factory-ordered white 63 Bel Air arrived with these lenses. We kids were all fascinated (didn’t take much re: cars in those days:-)
“There are no 64 Mustangs, all are titled as ’65s even though they went on sale April of ’64. Ford did the same thing with the Maverick, out April ’69, all are ’70 MY”
“No there are lots of Mustangs titled as 1964 hence the term 1964 1/2. Many states didn’t know what to do with them due to their extreme early introduction and would not title them as 1965s. At that time there were no federal regulations denoting what constituted a model year like there are today.”
A better way to put the original comment would be, “There are no ’64 Mustangs, all are VIN-coded as ’65s even though they went on sale April of ’64.” Are there any examples before the Mustang of a U.S. manufacturer introducing a car this far in advance of the model year that they were marketing it/coding it for? As noted, Ford did this again in 1969 with the Maverick, and by the ’80s it had become commonplace.
I have heard stories (I can’t vouch for their accuracy) that back in the ’40s and ’50s some states would not let you title a car as any year later than the current one on the calendar. So if you bought a brand new 1955 Chevy in November 1954, it had to be titled as a ’54, even though it was obviously a 1955 model. For vehicles where the distinction between multiple model years might be less clear from visual clues, subsequent owners may not have known the true model year and just called the vehicle by what it said on the title, resulting in a vehicle that was really a ’55 going through its life being called a ’54.
I nominate the 64 Pontiac GTO Please.
That is all
Totally Agree
If we’re talking calendar 1964, the Mustang was the big newsmaker, no question. But now, I’d probably have the Imperial. You can’t go six blocks in LA without seeing a ’60s Mustang (OK, maybe ten blocks); the Imperial is much more distinctive.
As for the Mustang, it is my understanding that the original did not meet Motor Trend’s qualification for COTY in 1964 as it was not offered during the first half (or more) of the production year, and I think that we should abide by that restriction. I am aware of a rumor that the car will be in contention for 1965.
The 64 Crown Coupe is a sentimental favorite of mine, having owned a white example with a black vinyl roof and white leather interior. This was the car that finally brought Imperial into the 1960s while still maintaining the car as completely distinct from the “regular” Chryslers. That it was the last year of the pushbutton Torqueflite only adds to the car’s esteem in my (prejudiced) eyes.
The Imp’s windshield design did not stick out that much in 1964 (although it would in 1965-66) because all other Chryslers and even the Dodge Custom 880 continued to use pretty much the same style. It was just a “Chrysler thing.”
As much of a Mopar homer as I am, I might still be convinced to vote for the 1964 GTO. That was the car that pretty much started the mid-sized muscle car craze, and (for better or worse) started the process of sucking all of the performance models out of the big car lines. In another five years, there would be very few big cars with any legitimate performance cred.
No R2 Avanti, GT Hawk or Daytona, JP? I’m surprised. It didn’t do much to save Studebaker’s car division, but the Granatelli-prepped Studes at Bonneville set all kinds of records.
Here’s a nice article on them from Hemmings:
http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2009/12/01/hmn_feature9.html
As much as I would like to, the Avantis and Hawks were minor refreshes of 62 or 63 models. As much as I love the 64 Commander/Daytona/Cruiser (particularly the hardtops and convertible), it was too little too late and the world had passed them by. I did read something once about an R4 Lark that was pretty impressive, but I think that there may only have been a single one built. Cool, but hardly CCOTY material (he said, sadly.) 🙁
Did your car look something like this?
I’d have to vote for the Goat, the first super car as they were called by the press back then. It started the large car engine in the intermediate car craze.
Always loved this vintage Imperial. You can list me as one of those who did not know it used the ’50s windshield until I read it here. IMO the wraparound windshield makes the car look better than it would have with a “modern” flat windshield. If you look at the picture of the black 4 door you’ll notice the light shining off the curvature of the glass. Squint a little and it’s not hard to see those reflections as A-pillars and that gives a rough idea what the car would look like with an updated windscreen. It wouldn’t look that bad, in fact it would look a lot like the Lincoln of the era, but I prefer the wraparound look. I’m not usually a fan of spare tire bulges but this is one of the exceptions. It was done very well. Kudos to Mr. Engel. Always liked the rear bumper on these cars too.
While there might be several variables at play in the sales numbers, my hunch is that styling played a big part in the sales of this generation Imperial.
Sales weren’t all that good for the 1964-66. Production peaked at roughly 23,000 in 1964 but fell to less than 14,000 in 1966. The latter is less than the almost 15,000 produced in 1962 (amazingly enough).
I suspect that the 1964-66 Imperial aged so quickly for three reasons. First, the curvaceous windshield clashed with the slab-sidedness of the rest of the car. This is particularly apparent when comparing the A- and C-pillars. That’s why the more rounded convertible roofline may be the best proportioned of the 1964-66s.
Second, the cowl was meaningfully taller and less flat than mid-60s cars. That clashed with the more conventional look of the Imperial’s back. What saves the design are strong character lines at the top of the fenders that divert the eye’s attention.
Third, in an effort to save costs, the two- and four-door models shared the same roofline. The result was a sedan-coupe look that is awkward for such a large car. For example, the rear-door cutouts thrust forward to an odd degree.
I’d agree that Engel did a nice job. I just wonder if it would have worked even better on Chrysler’s new-for-1965, full-sized platform.
Of course in ’67 the Imperial DID move to unibody based on a modified C-body fullsize platform. If you missed them, 1967 and ’68 Imperials have been covered here.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/car-show-classic-1967-imperial-crown-coupe-for-the-last-time-its-not-a-chrysler/
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1968-imperial-crown-convertible-fall-back-men-fall-back/
Now that you mention it, the 4 door rear doors do look a bit odd. (Though I’d say it give a forward thrust to the overall look) The roof line looks quite similar to the continental, but I wonder why they chose to reflect the C pillar angle in the door?
It’s always interesting to try to evaluate sales data. ’64 was the second highest sales ever for Imperial (at least to that date, don’t know about subsequent years) As you point out, it’s appeal seemed to fade quickly. We often see this in sales figures – the ups and downs of Camaro sales are a good example.
1957 was the Imperial’s biggest year ever, and 1964 was second. Every other year seemed to average around 15,000 units, some years a little more and some a little less. The new 1967-68 cars and the new fuselage cars did not do as well as these 64s.
I thought that the first fuselage Imperials – the 1969 models – sold about 23,000 units. The Imperial’s problem was that sales spiked when a new body was introduced (except for 1967 and 1974, which was when the gas crisis hit), and then declined the next year and remained there for the rest of that body’s production run.
I just checked the Imperial Club’s figures and you are right – 22083 units. However, in 1970, production collapsed to about 12K.
If I recall correctly, sales of all Chryslers were hit hard in 1970, for some reason. It would be interesting to see if the sales slump extended to the Cadillacs and Lincolns (which were all-new that year), as well as the full-size Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Mercurys.
Meanwhile, Dusters and Mavericks were selling quite briskly.
I recall reading that there had been quite a few quality issues with the 69s (even for Chrysler). I think 1970 was a repeat of 1958 where word got around and buyers shunned the big C body cars. Many of them must have bought Fords because Ford (I believe) outsold Chevy that year for the first time since 1959 (also partly due to the GM strike).
Just to be contrary I nominate the Sunbeam Tiger.
More than just a poor man’s Cobra, could these be the most usable version of the classic English chassis + American drivetrain combo?
A classic in the tradition of Allard, Shelby, Jensen, etc.
Plus it would fit in my garage, which you can’t say for the Imperial Crown Coupe.
Seconded.
Get Smart!
I have to vote for the GTO.
That ’64 Chevelle was a memory jogger. Our neighbors across the street, who also had a brood of kids, had one in acqua; a popular color that year.
She would ferry the neighborhood kids around on occassion and while the others were acting like a bunch of kids in a station wagon, I was enthralled with her deft manipulation of the clutch, column shifter, manual steering and ever present cigarette with the lipstick mark on the filter.
Should would always give it too much gas though from a stop…I would always tell her she was going to ruin the clutch.
My father wound up with a 1964 Chevy BelAir station wagon. I remember sitting in a ’64 Corvette Stingray in the showroom– Marina Blue with blue interior while he signed the paperwork until (probably) I was dragged out of it, kicking and screaming.
The ’64 Chevelle brochure is burned into my psyche as I studied every picture and detail– my one souvineer from the dealership. We were a ‘Chevy’ family, and even today, a car dealership is one of my favorite places to be.
Having been a Mopar and Cadillac man all my life, I love the 64 Imperial, especially in coupe form. But, if I had to pick between 64’s, an Imperial or a Coupe deVille, I have to pick a Cadillac.
The Imp would get 9 points, but the Deville 10. Both are fantastic cars.
See my comment on the Barracuda thread.
I forget the premise here, but it appears that we are nominating here considering a modern perspective, as opposed to what one might have nominated during 1964.
Looking back it’s pretty much a slam dunk for the ’64 GTO. The goat was the first salvo in a muscle car war that changed the way that cars were built and marketed afterward. We saw vestiges of that war through the 70’s. Once might even trace them to the Pony car wars that continue to this day with the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.
The 1964 Imperial was a nicely styled car, but it is hardly the most worthy of COTY when you look across the automotive landscape of 1964 with the benefit of today’s perspective.
Wasn’t a ’64 Imperial in the movie ‘It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World!’? In the movie it was driven by Jim Bacchus (?), a character actor in movies and TV at the time.
I remember, as a boy of 8, seeing that movie at the good old American Drive-In movie theater! Even at that tender age, I just loved seeing all of the cars that were featured in the movie– everything to me had color, style, and wheels– Matchbox cars, Corgi’s, promotional cars from car dealerships (my favorites, not a one of my fleet survived to this day), car brochures, car ads, I even have great memories poring through the Operator’s Manual from my Dad’s ’60 Chevy. I could tell you the year, make, and model of every car in our neighborhood and who it belonged to. But I digress…
Anyway, I secretly wanted the Imperial people to find the treasure– and in fact, I think it was the agitated wife who, in a pique of anger, located the ‘W’ where the treasure was, in fact buried.
’64 Imperial– at least a Top Contender, no doubt.
Actually it was a ’62 Crown Convertible.
Did you see the writeup on IAMMMMW we did on CC?
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema-imperial-day-continues-the-cars-of-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world/
Perfect, thanks! Impy is not as I remembered, but enjoyed the link and the trailer.
I’d go:
1) Pontiac GTO
2) Ford Thunderbird
3) Imperial
4) Chevelle
I believe the MT COTY went to the whole Ford line of 1964: Galaxie, Thunderbird, Fairlane and Falcon……….NOT the Mustang, because it wasn’t out in January 1964.
They were all heavily restyled (refreshed in today’s parlance) so each IMHO could be a contender. I’ve owned three of them! T-Bird……….(circa 1990).
BTW I saw my old T-Bird at a car show last summer…….still looks exactly the same! I waited around for the owner to show, but had to go.
Falcon Sprint…………in 1987 or so
A little-known fact is that the Falcon Sprint beat the Mini Cooper S’s in the 1964 Monte Carlo Rally, but the outright win was awarded on a handicap basis which is where the Mini’s took the win.
My first car in 1972 when I was 16. Not the actual car, it’s a photoshop to look like how it was then.
The 1964 Imperial was mega blah with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. From a sales standpoint it barely registered a ripple. Hardly CCOTY material.
Sorry, I dont get it, its a nice car the Imperial, but its not unique, its styling is a reaction to the 1961 Lincolns, its not all new, with its chassis dating back to 1957, so whats so special. If were going with luxury cars, 1964’s Cadillac has it all over this. If were looking for signifcant, we need to look no further than Pontiacs GTO for 1964, not only did it launch the intermediate muscle car movement, within a year or 2 there was one at every GM division except Cadillac, and one at every cross town rival, everyone wanted their own “GTO”.
I like the ’64 Caddys, but they still had a foot in the ’50s with their fins–though they wouldn’t look half as good without them! The Imperial, while clearly a reaction to the ’61 Connie, was attractive in its own right, and a worthy luxury car competitor. Elwood Engel’s design took the crazy ’61 model and brought it into the the new decade, and its success–23,295, a big number for annual Imperial production–kept the marque in business for longer than it otherwise may have. I freely admit I’m biased.
That said, there’s no questioning that the GTO and Chevelle were much more influential on present-day cars. My head says Chevelle/GTO, and my heart says Imperial.
I have to go with the GM intermediates of 64. First cars from the big 3 that where affordable to offer curved side glass. That was something that differentiated the new from the old for me. Though the Imperial got it in 57 and the Lincoln and Thunderbird got it in 61 nothing affordable to the masses got it til these came out except for the Rambler Classic in 63. In 65 all the big cars got them and by 67 practically all cars had that design feature. As far as my list of what I wanted in 64 it would probably be the Thunderbird, the Lincoln, the Imperial in that order. The Cadillac was to much like the 63. The 62 Imperial to me is the cream of the whole make to me.
We had a gorgeous, but unreliable, ’64 Continental. My vote goes for the long wheelbase A-body Buick Sportwagon/Olds Vistacruiser. My uncle had the Buick and it was the ultimate 1960’s “Family Truckster”.
Reguarding the ’64 Imperial. Please allow me to wipe the drool off my keyboard.
Perhaps a ridiculous detail to nit pick about, but I never cared for the license plate setting all the way on the left side of the rear bumper on the ’64 Imperials.
Gosh, 1964 was a great year for cars. Love the Imp, the T-Bird, the Continental, and the Mustang.
What about the full sized Chevy that year – might be no trail blazer, but it’s iconic – for some reason, it’s a favorite of low riders.
I’m late to the party as usual, but here are a couple more notable cars from 1964…
Triumph TR4A – these are still competitive with hot Porsches on tarmac-based rallies in Europe today
Reliant Scimitar – The car that made the ‘shooting brake’ available to a lot more than the handful of Aston Martin-based versions.
Renault 16 – popularized the hatchback body
As beautiful as the ’64 Imperial was, neither it nor the suicide-door Continental had any impact on Cadillac’s domination of the luxury market. This even though the ’64 Caddy was an evolutionary refinement of a 1961 design — which itself was the ’59 Eldorado Brougham adapted for mass production.
The ’64 Cadillac, shrunken tailfins and all, is my suggestion for ’64 CCOTY because it contained all the ingredients that defined the American luxury car for the rest of the 20th century. It was the first year for fully automatic climate control; just set a dial to the desired temperature and forget it. It was also the first year in Cadillacs for the modern Turbo-Hydramatic transmission. A fully equipped ’64 Caddy could have, in addition to the aforementioned climate control, a signal-seeking AM/FM radio, power windows (including the vents), power locks, power seats, tilt steering wheel, Twilight Sentinel, cruise control, automatic headlight dimmer, rear defroster ( fan type), trunk release button, and probably a couple of things I am forgetting. Outside of fancier sound systems, American luxury cars had basically the same equipment up until in-car nav screens started appearing in the 2000’s. Even when Cadillac downsized in ’77 and went FWD in the 80’s, the cars were defined and marketed by how well they duplicated the same features and feel of, more or less, this car.