(first posted 8/29/2014) We had a lot of fun comparing two-door sedans with their four-door and hard top brethren yesterday, but the sight of this hardtop Imperial deserves consideration beyond yesterday’s mini-theme because it raises an interesting question: what if the donor four-door model is already a hardtop? And what if by measures of interior room and roof stampings, the cars are identical? Luckily, this gorgeous Helsinki find by LDeren gives us a change to mull over the question for a bit while admiring its deep red bodywork.
If I had any reservations about these Imperials because of their holdover windshield, the added length of the coupe’s doors really softens any incongruity it lends to its lines. The wraparound glass, so much more obvious on the sedan, no longer looks like a concession to accounting.
As the final Imperials built on its own separate platform, with a separate frame, these are also hard to compare to other Chryslers of the day. They drove their age, sure, but they were famously sturdy enough to be banned from demo derbies. It’s hard to know what to compare them to, really.
A yacht, perhaps. The decor is similar, are were the wallowy road manners, bad even for their day. Those seats, perched high to give a great view of the world outside, likely amplified the feeling of roll pitch and roll, but for the 18,409 people who bought one, it was a worthwhile trade off for all that real wood and heavy chrome trim.
Luxury of this caliber was truly world class, out of the realm of the suburban. As befits its name, I can imagine a high-level diplomat driving this through the streets of 1960s Caracas or some other outpost in silent, air-conditioned comfort.
Naturally, this sort of substance couldn’t last forever, and this would be the last Imperial so distinguished (though the ’67-’68s also hold a place in my heart). This Engel-penned vault is the perfect compliment to the ’61 Continental LDeren shared with us last week, one of the few cars to which I could think to compare this coupe. Big Detroit classics plying the streets of Europe aren’t unheard of, after all, but this sort of peerless American luxury is always extraordinary.
Related reading:
Vintage Review: Six Luxury Cars: A 1965 Comparison Review by Car and Driver
Cohort Outtake: A Sunny Day In Helsinki – Should These Cars Come With A Dress Code?
I have to say that I am mesmerized by the driver’s door controls. I just want to sit in there and play with the buttons and levers!
Until at least the later ’60s, most cars did not have an ignition interlock for most controls. At about the age of ten, I had the opportunity to play with a friend in his grandmother’s ’64 Cadillac Sedan DeVille that included the power vent windows and power locks, antenna, and seats. Throw in the wiper / washer, and I can assure you they were lots of fun!
Indeed, power accessories are mesmerizing for boys of that age. I remember getting scolded for fiddling with the rear-quarter power window in Grandpa’s ’58 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan. No wonder manufacturers have since added a lockout switch for the driver.
Same here I would ride my bike daily in search of unlocked cars that I could get in and play with the power accessories. Nirvana was finding a car with power windows that worked without the key. Certain GMs were that way for sure.
The ’64 Bonneville.
The 1965 New Yorker had the same interior door release – the best of any car I have ever had.
The door releases are super cool and a reminder of a more carefree and dangerous era. The releases on the Cadillacs were similar but nestled into the armrest somewhat, making accidental opening less of an issue. Here on the Imperial they fairly scream “pull on me!” to a youngster.
My younger sister was in the backseat of our ’61 WIndsor when the door went flying open on a family trip (thankfully she was not hurt). To this day we don’t know what happened but I remember playing with those rear door locks endlessly because they were tiny chrome levers that made a screeching sound when you moved them. My sister liked them too and wasn’t into cars.
Our Windsor had the push buttons for the tranny on the left side of the wheel but some Chrysler models had them on the right where the temptation to a curious child must have been overwhelming.
It’s not a stretch to say fun-to-use interior features were a danger to children, after all that’s why they have child safety caps on medicine these days — to a kid it looks like candy.
I don’t actually recall any Mopar pushbuttons that were on the driver’s right hand side. That was one of the raps on the Mopar system, that it was convenient only for lefties. I know that Packard had them on the right.
Maybe it’s a Packard I’m thinking of. In any event children doing things they shouldn’t with the primary controls of a car have always been a concern for automakers, at least in recent years.
Ignition key switches are a good example. Ever notice how it takes two actions (like turning and pushing a button) to remove the key from a manual transmission car where sometimes the A/T version of the same car requires a single action?
That’s because a mischievous kid can shut off the ignition, remove the key and lock the wheel in place. That could not happen on an A/T car after the shift interlock was introduced.
I wonder how much of the change in thinking since the days of this Imperial came from PL trial law and how much from safety regs.
Chrysler advertised their push button transmission controls were mounted to the left of the driver as a safety precaution; most probably curious/mischievous children. In many Chrysler Corporation Cars through the years, for the purpose of symmetry, heater and climate control push buttons were located to the right of the driver.
Anyone have an idea what that funny looking lever on the door is in pic 5?
It’s def not OEM.
Not a clue.
Beer tap for Imperial Lager!
Missile launcher
The lever is the interior door handle used to open the door from the inside.
No, that is the lever that comes up out of the armrest. I think Roger is talking about the thing that comes out of the upper part of the door panel and points upwards. It almost looks like a microphone.
Almost. But it has a button on top and appears to be some sort of crank.
Maybe this is a rare interior shot of the Green Hornet’s car, and that is the lever that operated those rockets under the front bumper. 🙂
These . . .
It looks like a lever that is long and stout enough to provide plenty of leverage. The button looks like some sort of lockout so I’m guessing it’s to open the curb side rear door like on some taxis, through a cabling system similar to what was used for remote control outside mirrors.
I am only speculating, and it does seem a bit over engineered for the task, but could it adjust that rather distant outside rear view mirror?
Cable-controlled remote mirrors were common on Mopars going back to the late 50s, and the control joystick was always on the dash. The remote control was hugely important when the mirror was waaaaayyy out there on the fender, impossible to reach from the driver’s seat.
It looks like the control arm for a spot light, like on cop cars.
Ejector seat control?
I just can’t like these. Reason 1. 1961-64 Lincoln Continental. Reason 2. Fuselage Imperials. Reasons 3&4. That windscreen and that rear bumper. Nice example, though. Great find LDeren.
Thanks for validating my Fuselage-love. Someone else had to see it, of course. Glad to see it’s coming from someone with such worldly good taste as you, Mr. Andreina.
A former Crown Coupe owner, here. I simply love these.
We must not forget how rare these are. Mine was a 1964, a very high production year by Imp standards, and mine was one of about 5,000 cars.
This was a very big, very heavy car. The body may not have had the structural integrity of the current Cadillac (I also owned a 63 Fleetwood) but the trim and fitments were every bit as good as those on the top Cadillac, if not better.
I almost got the impression from reading Perry’s write-up that these cars were an order of magnitude superior to Cadillac or Lincoln, that they’d set their target somewhat higher. 🙂 Bypassing Mercedes and approaching Rolls-Royce?
I don’t find what wraparound windshield a problem. It’s much less extreme than the others did, less styling-driven; a more conservative interpretation, and as such less susceptible to dating. Quite tasteful actually. Having said that, if I’d been in the market for a new American luxury automobile back then, my opinion may have differed. But viewing it from 2020, as a fifty-five year old car, it passes the eyeball test for me.
Lovely.
No time to research it, but these were priced (along with Lincolns) in the upper half of Cadillac’s price range. Expensive, but nowhere near Rolls Royce or other rarefied imports.
The ’64-’66 Imperial ended production as I was turning two. With low sales and time passing, these were pretty scarce when I was growing up. But, I knew they were special, and possibly Incomparable.
They really are the last ’50s car. I didn’t understand the windshield issue dating to the ’57 until Paul pointed it out in a past post. He didn’t like it at all, it was just the way it was for me. Now, it sort bugs me as an error Chrysler made.
I can see why these were a hard sell. The HVAC really is the last iteration of the typical Chrysler ’50s set up (dash top and below dash). All other ’65 Chrysler full-size cars received new, and much more modern and complete, integration. The very busy door panel would look right at home on a ’58 Lincoln. The windshield, I think, leads to a roof that always looked a bit awkward, especially on the coupe. The C pillar and backlight seem tacked on, like a removable hardtop.
However, I got used to these oddities decades ago. I’ve always loved these cars, and would welcome one in my driveway. But, its not hard to see how Cadillac was still very competitive with this in ’64, and simply blew it away with its new ’65 car. If I’d been shopping luxury in ’65, I’d have likely been in the Cadillac showroom, or possibly that snazzily updated Lincoln showroom with my favorite year of the ’60s Continental.
People carp on the ’67 Imperial as just another Chrysler because it moved to the contemporary C body unibody. But, I don’t agree. It’s about as well differentiated from the ’67 Chrysler as the ’67 Sedan DeVille was from its C body sisters. If the ’67 Imperial had appeared in the fall of ’63, Imperial might have been a better player.
Agree on the out-of-date aspect. I would have chosen a loaded ’65 New Yorker over this. It might not be a true luxury car, but much more modern.
I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made for Imperial if a redesign with the qualities of the ’67 came a few years earlier, but it’s an interesting possibility. The ’67s are my favorite year Imperials.
This has so much more unique styling than a 65 Coupe de Ville; I like it!
Just beautiful .
-Nate
Agreed CR, if I were a man of means of the mid sixties, a triple black every option model would have been considered. Who cares black is for hearses- I love black cars. I’m no Cadillac expert, but those seats and interior look better. My elder mentors told me these were the best domestic drivers of the day. It makes a statement: I bought this for me alone.
Funny how the four door looks far less appealing. GM got that mastered with the colonnades, the four doors were fugley, while some of the coupes, in the correct color looked decent. The successors were worse, the sedans with fixed rear glass. ( E body? If a chassis has no name I can’t remember.) Yea, I know it helped hip room, those little vents did little to suck out my Dad’s 53rd smoke of the day.
Couldn’t edit, but some of my elders liked the wallow. Sorry, unclear again.
“GM got that mastered with the colonnades, the four doors were fugley, while some of the coupes, in the correct color looked decent. The successors were worse, the sedans with fixed rear glass. ( E body? If a chassis has no name I can’t remember.)”
The midsize colonnades, as well as the designs that preceded and followed them, were A-bodies. When GM introduced a new FWD design in 1982 that was supposed to replace most of the previous RWD A-bodies (Celebrity, 6000, Cutlass Ciera etc.), it took over the A-body designation, and those RWD ex-A-bodies that were still in production were redesignated as G-bodies.
E-bodies were fullsize personal luxury coupes — the Toronado, Riviera and Eldorado.
Thanks fer fixxin’ me, I can sit here and drool, but I know a MB w112 vs W113, then they became W123. And they’re all gone. I go blank with GM’s, don’t make sense… & I loves me some E bodies. 83 Biarritz, all options inc. Bose ‘n Astroroof in that stainless. I’ll deal with our 4100 later. Think the last 4.9 or a 368 fuelie would work.
Put me right, I’m learning from the best.
“learning from the best”
+1!
I much prefer this to the Lincoln & Cadillac opposition.I used to see the occasional Cadillac or Lincoln from the USAF base near my Grandparents but I don’t remember seeing an Imperial in Britain ti the late 90s at a show.
I see some Italian design help, too. Can’t point certain details, just has the vibe.
Wasn’t this supposed to be the best car to enter in a Destruction Derby?
The derby people like the 60’s Imperials because the radiators are set back so far from the front of the car. The entire front clip is one piece adding a lot of protection to the engine compartment. Now if we could protect the Imperials from those derby people.
Imperials were banned by most demo derbies for that very reason.
That looks really nice. Love all the buttons and gauges though I also wonder what the push-button lever on the door is for.
I think the windshield looks good on this car. I always liked the wraparound (bubble) windshields.
Did people not like them because they looked outdated or was it a different reason?
Was visibility better with the wraparound windshield?
I don’t think visibility was improved, it just moved the A pillars farther back. Better vision some places, worse vision others. The one thing it did was force the outside mirror farther out to the front so that you viewed it through the windshield. It made for a teeny, tiny field of vision as opposed to a mirror right outside on the door that was closer to your eyes.
I never minded the look either, but objectively, I have to admit that it was sort of old fashioned by 1964-66. Even Studebaker eliminated the wraparound windshield by 1963.
Everything old is new again- I’ve always thought the RR Phantom Coupe windshield and roofline recalled the Imperial. Is it just me?
The Imperial looks better.
Perry: regarding your question about the two-door/four-door issue. These cars are quite rare in having the exact same whole roof structure for both body styles. Very few other examples of that to be found anywhere. And obviously a key cost-cutting issue for Chrysler, given the low volumes of the Imperial. Personally, it works well enough, and I like the similar New vintage Yorker which also had a roof that was also essentially the same as the 4 door hardtop. But I doubt it helped them in the market, as the very distinctive coupe roof of the Caddys was undoubtedly a selling point.
These really were the last chance to buy a car from the 50s, except for a Checker! The skin was changed, but in almost every other way, this was 1957 revisited.
It’s tempting to call these two-door sedans, for sure. But I’ll let this slide as a coupe.
Can’t call it a sedan, for lack of a B Pillar. “Two door hardtop”. But the word “coupe” is impossible to contain, it just wants to appear all sorts of places.
In an article I read years ago, the late L.J.K. Setright pointed out that coupe derived from the French couper, to cut. He tried to sort out just what was a coupe and what was not – IIRC he came to the conclusion that some “coupes” were not, but could not definitively say what was.
Is it possible that the ’62 GM big bodies, the Olds 98, the Buick Electra, and the Cadillac, had the same roof structure for both the coupe and 4-window sedans? The designs were the same, anyway, but maybe they were just elongated versions in the sedans.
Always loved these Imperials, the epitome of luxury and elegance. I always liked the carryover windshields, and those unique vent windows, it gave continuity to the brand, in a way, and the tall roof structure looked so formal and limousine-like. These Imperials had such a custom crafted aura, and even though they were Lincoln-esque, they still stood in a class by themselves.
They did, as far as I can tell. The roofs look to be identical. Good point.
Paul, ironically I’ve read an interview with on of the designers who explained that the distinctive ’63 – ’64 Cadillac 62/Coupe DeVille roof was actually the 4 door hardtop roof from those years’ Chevy 4 door hardtops!
You’re obviously right about cost forcing the decision for the Imperial, but the one nice trick they played was to use the LeBaron roof with the limousine style rear window.
GM was all about mix and match. Looking at those two, the basic roof structure may well be the same, but the Cadillac had a smaller, more formal rear window, meaning it wasn’t the exact same pressing.
What’s interesting to me about this car is that it was designed by former Ford stylist Elwood Engel, who replaced Virgil Exner. If I recall correctly, this was the first all-Engel design for Chrysler to reach the marketplace (the corporation’s 1963 cars had actually been designed by Exner, with a few touch-ups by Engel).
Engel had made his mark with the clean, elegant 1961 Lincoln Continental, which he designed as a rebuke to the fins/Dagmars/excessive chrome that were the norm by the late 1950s. This car still has a 1950s air about it, however, even apart from features that Engel obviously wasn’t given sufficient funds to change (that carryover windshield). The entire rear deck lid and bumper ensemble, for example, would not look out of place on a vehicle from the late 1950s. I would assume that Engel was given more freedom to design those aspects of the car. But when I look at that back, I can’t help but think, “Suddenly, it’s 1957” – minus the fins, or directional stabilizers, of course.
As a young teenager in the 1960’s automobile styling became my passion (and still is). I loved the large luxurious cars of that era because their lines seemed to extend in gentle sweeps and curves until their artistic purpose was accomplished -and not when the engineers or accountants said they should. If a car needed to be over 18 feet long to be beautiful, then so be it!
Back then, Lincoln, Cadillac and Imperial were distinctively different and elegant, yet Imperial was daringly unique as well. For a young man like me whose thrill in life was seeing all the new cars every September, Imperial was always one that took my breath away…and still does.
The first car I spent considerable time in as a youngster was Mom’s second-hand ’61 Chrysler Windsor, the one with the domed instrument cluster and canted headlamps. Oh how it bothered me that we couldn’t have had a ’62 without the fins but that’s a story for another day.
The Windsor was a fun car to ride in. So easy to go from the rear seat to the front with one well-timed body roll. Poor Mom! Dad would comment endlessly on how much better a car it was than the ’57 Fairlane it replaced. As a result of these stories I had a high opinion of Chrysler engineering from an early age.
He had nice things to say about 64-65 Imperial styling and when I ventured on my own to check out cars in the neighborhood I was impressed too, at least by the things I could notice from my three foot high peepers. The glass headlamp covers had these super cool white lines in them. The hood cutout was similar to the one on the Continental and seemed very “class above” to me. Never noticed anything odd about that carryover windshield, I think people here obsess about that too much.
The only thing I didn’t like was the rear end styling. The fender blades were awesome and gave the front and sides a sort of canted Lincoln look but the rear fins reminded me of a 50s style car. It was odd to read later that the design was done by Engel, you would think he could do better.
Yes, I have the same reservation about the rear. But, you know, when you like the rest of a car so much, you overlook certain aspects if you can.
The rear was always one of my favorite parts! That big, bold Imperial eagle in the center with the big chrome pieces that turn into petite little arrows for the taillights. And the Continental hump before Lincoln resurrected it. That was one tush with loads of personality!
It’s not that bad, it’s that the rest of the car is so squared-off, the shape of the light clusters doesn’t match, to my eye.
These were truly special cars. Everything was crafted for a “custom built” aura. I do prefer the 4-door over the 2-door though. Something about the rear windows on the 2-door give the illusion of a taller roofline and thicker C-pillar. It may have been outdated, but from today’s perspective, the windshield looks perfectly fine. It really doesn’t look all that different from the Continental’s non-wraparound/vent window combination.
Having owned a 65 Cadillac Sedan Deville and a 65 Imperial (still have it) I find the Imperial drives and rides more like a modern car than the Cadillac. The Imperial also is a more finished car than the Cadillac. I like them both, just one a little better.
The pre-1967 unibody Imperial always reminds me of the theory that Packard should have been absorbed by Chrysler instead of Studebaker. IOW, they’re the embodiment of the same kind of view of what a luxury car should be. I can easily envision the people who used to buy Packards easily shifting to Imperials when Packard ceased to exist.
Truly, something was lost the next year when the Imperial went to unibody construction. It ceased being old world and started down that road of being just another Chrysler with dwindling sales reflecting it. Sure, finances dictated it was an inevitability, but it was still the end of an era.
I agree about Chrysler buying Packard, probably after the war. They shared the same body builder, Briggs, which Chrysler would later buy, causing Packard a load of problems in its final days. And Chrysler really didn’t have a luxury presence in those days, the few Crown Imperial limousines they shifted barely counted.
There wouldn’t have been any anti-trust objections, and they could have slow rolled to body integration, with the ’55 Imperial becoming the first “Chrysler” Packard (you can see how those split grilles could translate into a Packard yoke).
But I suspect strong egos on both sides of the deal would have made any merger effort unrealistic.
‘Strong egos’ is probably the answer to why a Packard-Chrysler merger never happened (if anyone even put forward the idea in the first place). It’s highly unlikely that Tex Colbert, the president of Chrysler at the time, would have been too interested in giving Jim Nance, the head of Packard who engineered the Studebaker-Packard merger, much authority, let alone retaining the Packard brand, at all.
OTOH, from the little I know, the heads at Studebaker were more than happy to tell Nance anything he wanted to hear if he’d merge with them. Of course, that didn’t pan out, either, but Nance must have figured he’d have a better shot with Studebaker than with Chrysler, regardless.
Still, it’s a shame, because Packard would have been a much better fit being incorporated into Chrysler in some way, even if it would have meant the elimination of either the Imperial or Packard name in the process. Nance probably figured that anything Packard came up with would be labeled Imperial.
As it turned out, that would have been a more fitting end to Packard then what ultimately happened with Packards being nothing more than thinly disguised Studebakers. A thinly disguised Imperial Packard would have worked much better.
Wallowing handling? Maybe when compared to a sports car. My 64 handled great. Better than my 72 imp. Compared to Cadillac and Lincoln, these handled much better.
That’s not how the editors of Car and Driver felt in their comparison test: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/six-luxury-cars-a-car-and-driver-test-from-1965-with-some-cc-pictures/
They noted that the ’65 Cadillac handled “notably better than the Lincoln or Imperial”. And its performance, braking, steering, a/c, and fit and finish were all better too.
The Imperial’s chassis was from 1957; the Cadillac’s was completely brand new. In those years, there had been some work going on at GM regarding handling, as well as the other qualities that defined a modern luxury car. The Imperial was pretty hopelessly out of date by this time.
Paul, As someone who has lived with numerous Imperial’s, Cadillac’s and Lincoln’s of the era mentioned (and especially 1965) and has preformed most of the maintenance myself I will agree and disagree with a few of the points from the “Car & Driver” article you mention. Just “my” observations after owning the cars for years rather than visiting them for maybe a few days:
Cadillac seemed easier to drive and more responsive. It felt smaller than the Imperial, more controllable. The Imperial seems so wide, large. Cadillac stops much easier. Cadillac engine seemed more problematic.
Imperial has the best ride of the three and less noise. I think Imperial has the best engine in terms of dependability. I have “never” owned a pre 472 Cadillac that didn’t give me engine problems at some point. The exterior and interior fit and finish of the Imperial is far above Cadillac or Lincoln; nicer chrome, more leather covering, more secure switches and knobs, etc., no comparison once you have taken them apart with your own hands. The Imperial A/C is too overpowering.
I find the Lincoln about even with the Cadillac maybe one step behind but too close to mention. I have always found the Lincoln too rear end heavy which only got worse starting in 1966.
As for the rest of the “Car & Driver” article, it was unfair to put our cars up against the likes of Mercedes, Rolls-Royce and Jaguar. Our cars where not hand made and certainly were not world class. The domestics had thin paint jobs, clips where those cars had screws, plastic instead of wood, no advance hydraulics, basic suspensions, cardboard instead of wood, vinyl in places the others had leather.
Having said all that I am a fan of all the cars mentioned in the “Car & Driver” article and appreciate the part they play in the history of the automobile.
As a kid, I did not recognize the extent to which the “all-new” Imperial for 1964 was a re-skin of the old design. Of course it was not sold that way at the time. Motor Trend’s road test of a 64 Crown Coupe indicated, “about the only thing former Imperial owners will recognize is the familiar hood ornament.” They also stated, “In addition to the new styling, Imperials boast 154 significant engineering improvement that isolate or insulate road noises and make the car even quieter and smoother than before.” The reviewers did note the same problems with carburetor flooding on hard turns, wheel lock-up, and brake fade that plagued a 63 Lebaron tested the previous year. They gave well-deserved praise to the overall handling, and Chrysler’s superb Airtemp heating and cooling system.
I wanted to like the 64 but the rear styling killed it for me – such a mishmash of design cues. And I disliked the headlight covers on the 65. Contemporary offerings from Cadillac, Lincoln, and Thunderbird all seemed more sharply styled. I agree with those who find the 65 Chryslers more attractive, especially the cleanly styled rear end. A more integrated design by far. I found even my aunt and uncle 65 Newport more appealing.
One thing you could always say for Imperials was that they were unique. And the name continued to be a bold statement (borderline offensive?) given the way many were characterizing US activities abroad during those years.
Wallowing? For it’s day, Imperial was considered one of the BETTER handling full sized cars, although in comparison to an all-new Cadillac for 1965, the big Caddies weren’t too mushy and did get praise (for their day) on the compromise with ride and handling. Imperial’s low volume dictated many carryover items – the beltline, hood panel, ‘a’ pillar and many inner body stampings did go back to the ’57 car . . . . I for one don’t mind the ’57 style a pillar and windshield. It gives the Imperial a distinctive Mopar look . . . . one that wasn’t out of touch or style when stacked against the big Chryslers and Dodge 880 of ’64 . . .
Chrysler products of the push-button years had similar pushbutton controls for the heater/defrost/optional air conditioning mounted to the right of the instrument panel. It was a sort of “mirror” for the left sided transmission controls. Ease of operation and symmetry were the order of the day for Chrysler Corporation cars. (Now, opinions on how successful that was varies).
Also, the 1956 Packard featured, either standard or optional depending on the model, a pushbutton Ultramatic transmission. The pushbuttons were mounted in a square pod that extended on a metal arm from the right side of the steering column.
I know that someone else posted a pic of The Green Hornet’s Black Beauty from the horrible movie remake but it is just a gorgeous car. The “nose” withstanding, BB was a prime example of how a 60’s era sedan can make for an awesome, modified hotrod.
I was thinking what that lever on the driver’s door could be. I think that it is a door release for the passenger door. Not only would the door be opened I’d bet that a spring popped the door a couple of inches. This car might have been used by a Chauffeur, and the owner would sit in the passenger seat or more likely the right rear position. The driver could pull the lever after pulling to the curb then exit the vehicle and open the door and pull the passenger seat forward. Perhaps the passenger seat was also moved forward by pulling the lever. The driver then could assist the passenger as they exited the vehicle. I’ve seen articles on 1930’s Classic limousine coupes. They would also provide more security for the passenger, as they are not sitting next to a door.
1937 Series 85 V12 Limousine Coupe.
As to the six-year lever mystery…
Looks like a “de-barked” steering wheel (previous “necker knob” location?) and possibly another lever visible attached to one of the control knobs at left side of dash. With that, I’d speculate that the auxiliary lever is part of a handicap driving aid package.
Sorry, guys: Hate to disappoint, but the black interior belongs to the black four-door, not the ruby coupe. Interestingly, while the 4dr is clearly a Crown, it looks like it has the LeBaron interior, and while my Crown Coupe was a ’66, the interiors are similar enough …and I’ve seen a few ’65 and ’66 LeBarons over the years, too, that I’m confident that the instrument panel knobs are stock ’65’s. I do notice, however, that the driver’s outside mirror (only partially visible in this photo) seems too far back on the fender, and perched at an odd angle.
I do recall that the ’58-’60 Thunderbirds had an optional outside mirror which was mounted on the back of an accessory spotlight.
On my ’66, the inside cable control lever for the left-side fender mirror was mounted in the same position as the odd control on the black car. I can’t help wondering if the white button on its top could be the on/off switch for a similar device; which, like the standard mirror, would be well out of reach for the driver, if mounted where the stock mirror would have gone.
If the car had been ordered with the right-side remote mirror, as mine was, the control for that would have been mounted to the right of the steering wheel, on the lower dash panel (to the right of the auto-pilot control: if so equipped).
Having driven a friend’s ’65 coupe, I’ve gotta say that the 440 in the ’66 was Waaay better; as that first-year’s extra 27cid. came with the freer-flowing heads from the earlier DeSoto 383RB engine (which I suspect were mostly responsible for the improved mid-range response.
No disappointment, John Bruce, the color was obvious. However, I’m not sure how to link the interior image to THEE same pictured dark car?
I’m viewing from a mobile device, and when I *pinch” the image it sure looks like “wings” on the dash knobs.
I’m familiar with the ‘Bird spotlight/mirror. That was operated via a rotatable tube that pierced the cowl and fender, with a small thumb actuated lever for a power switch. Rolling the knob swept the lamp L-R, while rolling the tube controlled up-down. Direct acting and very intuitive.
I’ve seen cable operated spotlights also. The type I recall had a “fist grip” knob that was slid in/out and rotated; with a logical link between hand movement and desired lamp aim. Emergency vehicles were a typical application.
I’m not sure how the pictured door lever would provide the required multi-axis mirror/lamp control?
Whether it’s the very same car or not I cannot say, but clearly it is a black 4-door (a Crown Coupe wouldn’t have a bench seat), and the upholstery pattern marks it as a ’65.
There ARE wings on the dash knobs. The knobs are shaped sorta like large toothpaste caps i.e.: a tapered cone shape with a slightly concave tip, as this could have been difficult to manipulate (especially in the dark) they added a wing, or fin shape at the top. Weird Jet-Age styling: but it worked well in practise.
I’m guessing that the mechanism for the mirror was largely unchanged, except for having a hollow tube in the small stem/toggle/whatever it’s called, used to adjust the mirror. This would allow thew wiring for the light to pass thru it. The black arm stands out from the door panel enough that it wouldn’t interfere with ordinary mirror adjustment. I suspect that the arm pivots back and forth, twisting the stem-thingie to control the vertical movement of the light (whose range would need to be greater than the mirror’s). My guess would be that since the cable mechanism already had to pass thru the hinge area, this was simply cheaper than adding another cable, which would have been hard to integrate into the space between the A-pillar and the instrument panel, anyway.
It´s a mystery to me how people made rational decisions about vehicles that were so essentially similar – without Googling it I find I have to characterise and remember the differences between four- and two door hardtops, sedans and coupes. Can someone tell me what the customers thought was the difference between these formats? And why are they now exctinct – there are sedans, coupes and convertibles but not hardtops or the like. I apologise for my ignorance on this one. I am not from the US.
Richard, the B-pillarless hardtop style, in most cases, feels noticeably more open & airy to back seat passengers, and in many cars had a different (lower) roof stamping. Depending on how thick the B-pillar is, and its relationship to the driver’s seatback, the sedan’s B-pillar can make it harder to turn your head to check the driver’s side blind spot. Generally, I’ve found, the pillarless “hardtop” style, being lower and often with a more forward-slanting back window (“rear windscreen”, if you’re a Brit), has less headroom for back seat passengers.
In some vehicles (usually 2-dr hardtops) the rear seat is moved forward in the cabin by a few inches, leaving less rear leg room, too. I don’t have pics handy, but if you google the ’58 Chevy Bel Air & the ’58 Chevy Impala, the difference is obvious. The reason the body style went out of fashion is that lacking a full length B-pillar, they are generally less safe in a rollover crash, and manufacturers were concerned that the government would outlaw the style (which is also the reason that they discontinued convertible models for a decade or so.)
I hope this clears it up for you.
Thanks for that- I think the reason it was not clear was because the differences you mention are not that apparent in the photos. So, am I right in viewing the hard top as a hybrid between convertible and saloon? And would it be the case that it´s a development of the convertible which went on to spawn the four door hardtop? Again, please excuse my ingorance.
I am thinking the regular coupe was derived from the saloon; the coupe gave birth to the convertible; then someone wondered if a metal version (hence “hardtop” moniker) of the convertible might be nice; then someone suggested a four door version of the hardtop?
The common terminology for body styles has evolved over time. traditionally, a sedan(saloon) had an enclosed body that extended far to the rear, to allow maximum room for rear seat passengers. It came in two and four door versions, but in either case, the roof was essentially the same for both.
“Coupe” comes from a French term “couper”, which means to cut down. It refers to a body/roof line that has been shortened; is shorter than a sedan’s roof line. This was most obvious in the ’20s through the ’40s, when a coupe generally only had a single seat, or possibly a very small rear seat. This traditional coupe style mostly petered out in the early ’50s.
The hardtop coupe was originally very much based on the convertible body. It was very commonly referred to as a “hardtop convertible”. In essence, it was a convertible body with a fixed (and unique) hardtop roof fitted. Hence it had no center pillar, since it used the same frameless doors and windows of a convertible. That is the origin and practical reason for the existence of the hardtop, meaning no B pillar and frameless glass.
The 4-door hardtop changed the equation, as now it was no longer directly based on the convertible. Some four door hardtops had unique roofs, others used the roof of the 4-door sedan, but without the B pillar and window frames.
Strictly speaking, this Imperial “coupe” is not really a coupe, as it uses the same roof structure as the four door version. A more accurate name would be simply “two-door hardtop”. But the word “coupe” increasingly came to be applied to any two door car that wasn’t an obvious 2-door sedan, and in more modern times, it is now widely used to describe any two-door body style, as the term “2-door sedan” has completely gone out of use.
This might be of some help:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-the-two-door-sedan-1920-2008-its-history-and-the-last-2-door-sedan-for-each-brand-and-model-us-market/
The “wing” that I see when zooming the image is clearly an add-on, retained to the OE knob with a clamp and pinch bolt arrangement. The “wing” is several inches long, as if to give a person with limited grip a way to manipulate the control.
As to what the door lever would actuate is pure speculation. However, myself, given the lever’s