Photos by the author
In the year of 1962, if you were shopping for a 2-door hardtop in the luxury class, which would you pick–a Cadillac Coupe deVille, or this Imperial Crown? Let’s explore that question . . .
In profile, the Cadillac and the Imperial share some common styling themes, such as the angled roof pillar. Both cars are long, sleek, smoothly styled machines. However, to most observers, the Cadillac’s lines look cleaner, “purer”–more unified overall.
But as I have pointed out before, there is a difference between what a car looks like in a picture, versus the way you experience it in real life. And when you see the Imperial’s thrusting, highly sculptured forms, the effect is nothing short of dramatic!
Last year’s fins have been replaced with these chrome-and-black “grooves” topped by “rocket” taillights that seem to be shooting backwards into space at hypersonic speeds!
No, these are not ray guns pointed at the enemy, but the ’62 Imperial’s unique taillight housings which appeared for one year only.
Up front–there’s so much going on here. You have to wonder what kind of mind would come up with such a design. A truly baroque interpretation of both classical and futuristic elements in a violent collage that, believe it or not, somehow seems to work stylistically.
There are these graceful curves pressed into the Imperial roof. In previous years, there was a bright metal edging, and you could get optional “Silvercrest” inserts for a really classy look.
Big “bubble” type wraparound windshield and rear glass provide all-around visibility that modern cars can’t match!
Even the Imperial fender script, outlined in gold, is bold and artistic.
The rear view mirror still has fins!
An Imperial eagle leads the way.
Interior shot. We need a better look at that dashboard . . .
Here’s an image I got from flickr. Wow, just wow!
Back seat.
Inspection sticker from Pennsylvania expires December 1994.
Original dealer emblem.
Yes, I found this rare Imperial Crown Coupe nestled in with other cars awaiting service at Nostalgia Motors in Boonton NJ, just a short distance from where I live.
This is one big car–overall length 227″, and 81.5″ wide. Bigger than Cadillac in every outside dimension!
What did Consumer Reports have to say about the 1962 Imperial? I just happen to have that in my files:
The free-standing head lamps are “silly and expensive”, according to CU. (LOL)
Having once owned a ’62 Imperial, I can tell you that the testers at CU (Consumers Union) are correct: I found that ride, handling, and performance are generally more satisfying than Cadillac’s. I think that the Imperial’s 413 engine with TorqueFlite transmission is a smoother, more responsive powertrain than the 390/Hydra-Matic of the Caddy. Imperial’s Torsion-Aire ride is amazingly solid and level. And the Mopar “Full-Time” power steering is quicker and lighter. That combined with fairly flat cornering means this super-big car doesn’t feel ponderous at all (once you get used to seeing over the “aircraft carrier”-size hood!)
Apparently Chrysler Corporation “knew what they had”, and so they issued these “challenge” ads aimed at doctors, corporate executives, and other highbrow people. The thinking was, “If we could just get Cadillac owners to drive our Imperial, they would immediately see and feel how much better our car is than what they’re used to driving. Then they will buy!”
Um, it may not be that easy. Especially when you’re running ads in BLACK & WHITE while Cadillac is showing you full color, jewels, well-dressed models gliding through elegant settings in tuxedos and gowns, and sleek, clean looking cars that are unmistakably “Cadillac”.
photo from driveshare.com
Cadillac had the highest owner loyalty in the industry, and that’s hard to break. CU also reported that Cadillac had the highest resale value, and the lowest repair incidence of nearly all domestic cars. (Imperial was improving, but some of its earlier models had problems). Cadillac Motor Division was still screwing them together pretty well (but that would change before long!)
Me and Mechanix Illustrated’s Tom McCahill–two big Imperial fans!
To most people, the Imperial’s riding and handling virtues were not important enough to justify switching. Style and prestige trump all other considerations. Not that the Imperial didn’t have style–it was just a different kind of style that had a certain appeal to some, but not mass appeal.
So which to choose in ’62? Tough choice–Cadillac looks so good and is an excellent car in many respects–and you feel like a prince behind the wheel. But I’m the kind of person who appreciates the fine points of the way a car drives as well as its outside appearance. And the ’62 Imperial, while not as “clean and pure” as the Cadillac, is certainly unique and fascinating to behold–with a personality all its own. So once again, I side with the minority and choose Imperial for 1962!
Further CC reading:
My 1962 Imperial Custom-Rescuing The Big Green Monster by Stephen Pellegrino
Car Show Classic: 1962 Imperial Crown Convertible Coupe by Brendan Saur
Mr. Drysdale approves.
The ’54 Buick Wildcat Motorama show car had freestanding headlights so the idea was bubbling up in the early 50s.
As advertised *The INCOMPARABLE Imperial * And IMO the most INCOMPARABLE Imperial was LeBaron, with Limousine looks. Of course I preferred the 61 ,with FINS soaring high as the last of Exners fabulous finned fantasies for Chrysler. Unfortunately, not enough Luxury customers shared my belief. Imperial died a slow and agonizing death with two sad reincarnations.
Can I get mine without the square steering wheel please?
Imagine getting a Chrysler that was actually well put together without having to take your chances on a spin of the notorious Chrysler quality wheel.
If Imperials actually lived up to those claims, I’d have been tempted to overlook the horrible resale value & wannabe hypersonic exterior styling. I find the jukebox dashboard strangely appealing, but many luxury car buyers of the time may have been put off by the gaudy design.
Properly assembled, I can see where these would have been wonderful road cars. I once owned a ’59. It was a 12 year old back-of-the-lot special that probably wasn’t well made to begin with. However it retained impeccable road manners and performed quite well. Since it was essentially the same underneath as the ’62, I get the attraction.
Unfortunately for Chrysler, it was going to take more than a few black & white advertisements to overcome their well deserved reputation for shoddy assembly even absent the rather bizarre styling.
Cadillac had mastered appealing to luxury car buyers better than any competing make going into the 60s. Too bad they lost their touch – or had it taken away.
Please remember how Baroque and out of style this car appeared in comparison to the competition. The Lincoln Continental was Mid-Century Modern. The instrument panel was quality, yet restrained, with innovative new designs. It looked like nothing else. Still powerful iconic automobiles.
Cadillac was the leader. They made good cars. Their resale was amazing. While I do not like fins, its fin styling is passable. Cadillacs met expectations.
Then there’s Imperial. Exner styling. Good lord. The Imperial wasn’t new, had poor resale, and was just wierd. Exner did stuff, just to do it. No reason to not have a turn signal stalk. No need to have the oddball jukebox design. No need to have that front end. The Imperial tries much too hard and looks like it’s trying too hard.
Imperial and Cadillac just had different takes on what a luxury car should be. Caddy with its classic styling and Imperial’s ornate, futuristic and gaudy touches. Both are neither good nor bad. Just a matter of personal taste. But just like plain vanilla ice cream greatly outsells more exotic flavors, the familiar Cadillac was more appealing to the luxury buyer.
Both the Cadillac and Imperial are beautiful autos. If it was 1962, and I was buying a new convertible I most likely would select the Cadillac. But in 2025, I would definitely want a 1962 Crown convertible just because it is rare, only 554 built, and its just so over-the-top styling. Fully restored please…as I would hate to try and undertake the restoration of one today.
This would be a tough choice, and this from a guy who owned one of each from the same generations. The 62 might be my favorite of the whole 1957-66 run, with styling that strikes a fascinating balance between outlandish Google and tasteful conservatism.
Very rare car over here but I saw one at a recent cruise in, 4 door hardtop like the black illustration but in a badly faded pinkish colour, quite a car once you drink in all the details, what were they smoking at Chrysler in those days?
This is a tough one so far as a comparison. Part of the problem with the Imperial, to me, is that it really looks pretty different in photographs versus in various illustrations. And I’m guessing that if I were walking around the car in person right now, I’d have yet another set of opinions. Perhaps that’s because the design is just so busy. I don’t know.
For example, the blue one in the first advertisement illustration really doesn’t work for me. It looks squatty compared to the Cadillac. Plus, the blue manages to make the rear window nearly invisible in the ad and the C-pillar that much more odd shaped. The same portion in your photographed car looks much cleaner, although kind of anachronistically rounded and fat. I expect that the same sort of effect is in play relative to the dash. It looks just too busy and angular (and yes, the steering wheel looks decidedly rectangular), but I’ll bet it is a lot more charming in-person.
One thing that I know from seeing both of these cars for real in the metal (at least once for the Imperial, and much more frequently for the Cadillac) is that the square on rear view of the Cadillac is superior. I think the rear end of a 1962 Cadillac is a sight to behold. I particularly love the angle of the lower part of the fins. The Imperial just looks…big.
So, I donno…I want to like the Imperial, but if I were flush in 1962 and not consumed as I was in real life by doing things like learning to walk and hold my head upright I might have had to choose the Cadillac.
Then again, I’m not one of “the nation’s leading doctors”. What does that even mean??
I like the Imperial, but I love the Cadillac. In terms of ’60s Cadillacs, I usually prefer the Sedan DeVille, so I’ll take that one. Or a convertible. Or any of them.
Good profile of a nice vehicle! I love Exner-era Mopars and the more extreme aspects of the 62 Imperial make it an interesting collector car. As a car overall, though, I’ve never been a fan of the headlights. I side with CU, they are rather silly. Expensive doesn’t bother me, though replacing them would surely be a bank buster.
Do we know why Lincoln never built a coupe in the early sixties? I’ve always thought it was a strange omission, given the apparent popularity of Coupe de villes.
But given the absence of an equivalent Lincoln, if I was dead set on having a coupe in size XXL, I’d give the Imperial the nod. The Cadillac has too much of the rocket-ship look about it, and it still has those by-now dated fins. Imperial has (finally) moved on, and done it so neatly.
The Continental was conceived as a two-door, since it was an alternate proposal for the 1961 Thunderbird, and was turned into a four-door. Because Lincoln was doing incredibly badly financially during its development, they didn’t want to incur the additional tooling costs of a more extensive lineup, and there was probably some concern about wanting to separate it from the Thunderbird.
I recall as a kid, glancing out the window of my Dad’s car and seeing just the taillight of a 62 Imperial, at nighttime. It was a striking image, one that stuck with me. Something so different as that really stood out.
The Cadillac is certainly the one most people would choose if funds were available. I’d love to have another look at an Imperial today, to admire its beauty. Styling eccentricities indeed, undeniably so.
Reading this website everyday has made me love GM products as much as other brands, but in this case I would choose the Imperial, the lure of the 413, Torqueflite, torsion bars, reduction gear starter, and alternator is too much (I’m sure Cadillacs had alternators by this point though).
The freestanding headlamps are the worst aspect, but there is a real dynamic look to the front fender / wheel arch area.
The blue rendering makes the C pillar look like a late 50s Ford, but in the metal it is very well done and nothing like the Ford.
The windshield, despite being out of date by 62 still looks really good from some angles.
Headlamps not (with)standing, this is a handsome car.