(first posted 8/24/2015) Poor Imperial. Despite Chrysler’s efforts, the automaker’s flagship luxury division never seemed to get both feet off the ground and pose a serious threat to Cadillac and Lincoln. The fact is that without serious sales figures, Chrysler simply couldn’t devote the same amount of resources to Imperial in the way that GM did with Cadillac and Ford did with Lincoln.
What this meant was that Imperial was often forced to endure the same body shells for longer periods of time and share more in common with lesser Mopar vehicles. Over the years, Imperial would gradually share more and more with other Chryslers, first losing its dedicated assembly plant, then its separate platform, and eventually its own body shell. While this was unfortunate for the brand, thankfully Chrysler kept up with the annual styling tweaks that were once standard practice across the industry.
This 1963 Imperial Crown 4-door hardtop was the last of the Virgil Exner-designed “Forward Look” Imperials that first debuted as 1957s. Following Exner’s ousting, former Ford designer Elwood Engel took over as Chrysler’s design chief, and the 1964 Imperial would display his substantially different tastes. Engel’s personalization was already noticeable in the 1963 Imperial, with new squared-off rooflines for Custom and Crown series, and the removal of the “gun sight” taillights in favor of integrated units.
Aside from the aforementioned changes as well as a new grille, the 1963 Imperial largely made do with the same body which dated back to 1957. In that time, Cadillacs and Lincolns each benefited from two complete redesigns, with Cadillac now exhibiting a very crisp, linear appearance, and Lincoln going for a cleaner, more understated look with the Continental. The Imperials were still quite attractive cars in their own right, but with curves, flowing lines and a wraparound-style windshield, the design was beginning to show its age.
Engel would substantially redesign the Imperial for 1964, drawing heavy inspiration from his own 1961 Continental, though I’ve never found the ’64-’66 Imperial quite as attractive when compared to the 1957-63 and 1967-1968 Imperials, or the Continental for that matter.
Nonetheless, the 1963 Imperials were still very competitive cars in the areas of luxury and performance. A standard torsion bar suspension up front and rear leaf springs (in comparison to Cadillac’s front and rear coil springs) gave the car superior handling over its competitors. Brakes were 11-inch self-adjusting, power hydraulic front and rear drums, and for 1963, total effective brake lining was up to industry best 287.2 square inches, for better cooling and less fade. Imperial also boasted best in class standard power, with its 6.8L (413 cubic inch) V8 putting out 340 horsepower and 470 pound-foot of torque.
What buyers in this class cared most about though was luxury, and the 1963 Imperial certainly didn’t disappoint. This mid-range Crown hardtop model offered three upholstery choices: a standard check-weave fabric with leather trim, optional nylon fabric with leather trim, or the optional full-leather upholstery featured in this car in Alabaster. Imperial offered no less than eight interior color schemes: Alabaster, Claret, Cord Blue, Fawn, Formal Black, Holiday Turquoise, Madison Gray, and Mayan Gold.
Befitting of its luxury car position, Imperial Crowns featured standard power windows, 6-way power front seats, air foam padded seat backs and cushions, and illuminated front and dual-rear cigarette lighters with ashtrays, among other convenience equipment. Door panels were graced with beautiful scrollwork engraved on either stainless steel inserts for the Crown series or “select” walnut veneer in the LeBaron series. All Imperials also featured padded armrests, interior courtesy lights and storage compartments galore.
Also standard in all 1963 Imperials was Chrysler’s TorqueFlite 3-speed automatic transition, controlled via push buttons (in their second-to-final appearance). A gripe among many reviewers was that like other Chryslers of this era, the Imperial’s steering wheel was not perfectly circular, making for a somewhat awkward steering experience.
These soft leather seats do indeed look supremely comfortable. Given the substantial leather wear and cracks, there’s no doubt in my mind this Imperial’s interior is all-original. Although there are no substantial rips or tears, some restoration might be something to think about in the near future to preserve its beauty.
This featured Imperial is painted in Glacier Blue (one of sixteen exterior colors) and one of just 6,960 Imperial Crown hardtops produced for 1963. What’s more is that this body style was Imperial’s most popular for 1963. Total 1963 Imperial production was a mere 14,121 units, compared to 31,233 Lincolns and 163,174 Cadillacs.
The reason why Imperial was never an astounding success unfortunately tends to be a chicken or the egg situation. Was it lack of substantial differentiation from Chryslers that caused a lack of substantial sales? Or was it lack of substantial sales that caused a lack of substantial differentiation from Chryslers? Imperial sales would typically jump in the first year of each significant restyle, but apart from the unusually high 37,593 for 1957, Imperial sales would never top 23,500.
At the very least, because of this Imperials of these years tend to have more of a “custom-built” feel to them when compared with Cadillac and Lincoln. Regardless of their imperfections, I’ve personally always found the Forward Look Imperials to be among the most beautiful and expressive cars of the late-1950s/early-1960s.
Related Reading:
When I saw this post come up I thought surely it’d be by JPC. It seems like the kind of thing he’d write up!
Also: That dashboard, ugh. Beautiful car otherwise.
I find odd that the Imperials dash layout is similar to ’63-64 Rambler. Horizontal speedometer and gauges flanked on both sides with protruding control clusters.
I don’t know how long Rambler had that dash layout ,but that imperial dash was first used in 61 .
I didn’t know that. So it must have been AMC copying Imperial. The only Imperial that ever saw up close was the one the cook owned at my first job in 1967. It had the toilet seat trunk
That dash layout was used in 1963 and 1964 Rambler Classic and Ambassador models. So it was probably “inspired” by the Imperial, though I’ve never read anything to confirm that. (The same dash design mirror-imaged was also used in Rambler’s 1965 and 1966 right-hand-drive export models.)
The dashboard and steering wheel could quite happily sit in any 1970’s Citroen.
My god, look at the thought that went into that front end. Part of the reason cars today lack “soul” is because it is obvious that a computer mostly designed the vehicle. Back in 1963 you can imagine a living, breathing human painstakingly drew out the details, then it was forged into something that didn’t obviously give away it was a petroleum byproduct.
It plays well into the tagline of these cars being “carefully built”. Indeed Imperials did spend an inordinately long time on the assembly line and quality control was relatively high for the industry. I can see fans of these cars back then today being devotees of bespoke clothing and guitars.
Note the lack of a seam where each front fender meets a header panel. Those seams were filled and finished, making it look like the entire front doghouse was a single piece other than the hood.
That solidly constructed front end is one of the reasons Imperials have been banned from a lot of demo derbies. Also, the large gap ahead of the radiator protects it from impact, plus simply that Imperials they were (very) large BOF cars.
First thing I noticed, too. I’m sure it affected insurance rates with the additional labor required in even a minor fender-bender.
One wonders how much of the demise of Packard coincides with Imperial’s best year (1957). The way the Imperial was presented certainly seems to be the type of old-world, baroque craftsmanship that would appeal to a Packard buyer (as opposed to the modern, au currant appeal of Lincolns and Cadillacs).
Good observation about the demise of Packard possibly being a factor in ’57 Imperial sales. I’d never considered that.
I don’t think so. Packard’s goose was cooked by early summer, 1956. Production stopped before the 57 Imperials went on sale (I think). The Packards of 57 and 58 were Studebakers with Packard clothes in 57 and in God know’s what in 58.
Edit: Now that I think about it, weren’t they actually Green Hornet cool?
Well, after 1955, Packard-minded luxury car buyers had to go ‘somewhere’, and I would imagine a lot of them (along with a few Lincoln and Cadillac people) gave the new 1957 Forward Look Imperials a try, which would explain the big Imperial sales jump anomaly for that one year. I’m sure that the Lincoln and Cadillac folks quickly returned to their home products but I would wager that those who had in the past owned (or were of a mind to consider in the future) Packards, kept on buying Imperials, and that was enough to sustain the marque until those people died, lost their fortunes, or Chrysler’s dilution of the Imperial to being nothing more than just a high-end Chrysler finally killed it off.
It simply cannot be dismissed out-of-hand that, after Packard shuttered, of the three remaining domestic luxury brands, Imperial was the one that came closest to embodying the Packard ‘ethos’.
My grandfather, a staunch and frequent Packard buyer, jumped over to Imperials after the Packardbakers were rolled out. He stayed with Chrysler until his death @ 99-years-old but by then the most he could handle were K-cars. (Probably a very good thing for the pedestrians of St. Petersburg, FL.)
I wish I had found this one, JG. I could happily live with either a 62 or a 63, as I find the rear end treatments equally appealing.
The odd steering wheel did not take so much adjustment as you might think. Chrysler’s “Full Time” power steering encouraged index finger by the spokes steering, so you never really needed to work the wheel with 2 hands.
One nit, the 440 arrived for 1966. From 1959-65, the Imp made do with the 413.
Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.
I’d take a ’61 myself. The gunsight taillights tucked into notches on the back edges of the fins instead of sitting on top is a cool look.
I like the split grille of the ’62s best, although I’m torn between either the fins on the ’61s or the integrated taillights on the ’63s. My all-time favorite Imperials are the ’67s though, especially with “IMPERIAL” spelled out across the grille.
Brendan, if you’re ever in Oklahoma City, drop me a line and we’ll go for a ride. (Please excuse the outdated TX plate.)
Such a beauty! A silver 1967 Imperial was actually the first “Curbside Classic” I ever photographed, in 2009, long before I was part of CC and before it even existed!
I love the front end styling of the ’67 Imperial. The rear with the bladed fenders and huge ribbed taillights is as nice as the front.
+1
I like these better, too. I love the rear end. These were almost Batman cool.
Edit. Argh, I edited the wrong comment. That’s what I get for being so chatty.
I wrote up a local ’68 a couple years ago. It was back at the same garage a couple weeks ago for its annual fall tuneup.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/curbside-capsule-1968-imperial-convertible/
Yes, particularly the rear of the ’67 type (whatever years it lasted) was awesome, incorporating a lot of Imperial tradition in a clean, simplified form. And really emphasizing the Engel concept of vertical walls and a body shape in between.
But Imperials by then were based on the Chrysler unibody, not a separate design. Lincolns also went from a unique to shared body, but in the other direction from unibody to body on frame, when they went from being different to sharing the basic engineering of big Fords and Mercurys.
Brendan, have you seen Jay Leno’s You Tube video of his 1967 Imperial Crown coupe? If not, I’m sure you’d enjoy it.
No, but I’ll have to check it out! Thanks for letting me know!
I’ve always been partial to the ’60 myself; it seems more integrated somehow.
I’ll second that.
Beautiful lines except for the flaky headlamp.design. I’d prefer the 64-66 or even the 67-68 unibody cars…The fuselage cars are awful again…ugh.
Oh, the homage to the ’30s headlights are what make the car great! No one else did anything that crazy!
Those fake grand classic headlights were particularly crazy when considered in the context of the wildly space age fins and sleek rocket ship styling of the ’61 and ’62 models they were introduced on.
The 440ci engine wasn’t offered until 1966 but I agree the late 50’s/early 60’s Imperial’s and other Chrysler models were really nice cars
Chrysler’s sales are not all that robust either, so the Imperial’s sales might be expected to trail behind Lincoln. But even though Chrysler’s sales do improve during the 60’s, Imperial’s do not. Probably the basic problem is that the Imperial is not an old luxury make. Even though the current Cadillac ATS is better than the BMW 3-series, people will still want the BMW for its recognized name as the ultimate driving machine (even though it isn’t). And so Cadillac is “the luxury car” with Lincoln second.
Imperials by Humber were all coach built by Thrupp Maberly which is the ultimate in luxury, Chryslers version not so much.
The ATS may be an excellent car, however I own a 335 and would not replace it with a Cadillac ATS. Building a car like a BMW does not make it better, and sorry it really is not better, magazine tests aside. The new Continental will sell because middle Americans will aspire to its glitz and glamour. BMW is German (and all of that it means), what is a Cadillac German-like car to potential buyers, when they can buy the real thing?
The French when down that German car (firm, and serious) rat hole, and now they are irrelevant. The French once made excellent, soft riding comfortable and unique cars. So did Lincoln and Caddie. I again have hope that the new Connie will make American style luxury relevant again.
Alas, you were mistaken about the most recent Continental. American soft-riding, comfortable sedans are history.
Best sales year 1957 and people still want Chrysler to revive the Imperial name. It’s been de-based too many times.
Better to appreciate what was in these incredible cars. There was an air of exclusivity about Imperial, at least up to 1967, in the product and how it was presented.
Old ads in National Geographic targeted Dr.s, lawyers and other professional people. I think Chrysler even loaned Imperials to this select group of potential buyers to promote it.
What an incredible era.
Remember that publicity stunt where the IIHS staged a head-on between a rusted-out and Bondoed-over ’59 Chevy and a new Impala? They wouldn’t have tried to create that propaganda with a ’57-’66 Imperial. These were unibody cars sitting on a full frame, and the result was greater strength than possibly any other steel-bodied car sold to the public.
I saw a write-up from the previous owner of that ’59 Impala. He said the car was properly restored, not a bondo buggy. Regardless, it was an X-frame car so structural integrity wasn’t their strong suit. I have no doubt that this Imperial would have cut the new Impala in half and just kept going. 🙂
Unlikely one was hauled into a wrecking yard I worked at it had been in a nose to tail so hit at both ends the doors had burst open and would not close, they might go ok in a derby at low speed but crash one at highway speed and the crumple pretty bad.
As Jay Leno once said of his ’56 Buick, they’d wipe you off the dash and sell the car to the next sucker.
Watch the video. You actually see the rust and Bonda dust explode out of the car on impact.
I read from someone who knew the car that it was quite original, and that the dust was likely from 50 years of driving in Georgia red clay.
I lived in Georgia in the mid ’70s. We never drove on any red clay. The roads weren’t any more clay-like when I criss-crossed the state in 1996. There was lots of precipitation and humidity during both periods though.
Ditto that.
The car was spotted by the seller on a farm in northwest Indiana. He purchased it from the farmer and restored it, mainly the interior. It was not rusted out or bondo’d over. Any older car that’s used for a crash test emits a large cloud of dust, dirt, and grit, caught in places where carwashes can’t reach.
The reason the ’59 Chevy was chosen is that is was the largest selling car in America nearly every year back then (ironically, Ford topped it in ’59 for either the model year or calendar year; I’m sure the Chevy’s wild styling put off some buyers).
Anyway, 1959 is the founding year of the IIHS, and the Chevy was chosen to go head-to-head with its most modern counterpart in size and body style in 2009, the Malibu. (Recall that the Impala was still on the ancient W body.)
Here’s the ’59 Chevy Bel Air as it looks today. From the back end, it’s hard to tell it’s been crashed. Certainly it hasn’t rusted away.
Some mild customization was done by the seller — the taillights and fake vent on the roof are Impala units, and the interior was upholstered in a Bel Air/Impala mashup with an Impala steering wheel.
And here is a shot of that engine that so many conspiracy theorists keep insisting was removed. Hope the image loads properly.
What isn’t shown in the video is where the steering wheel and post ended up in the ‘59. It likely would have skewered any driver in that car. In my opinion, well-mounted collapsible steering columns are a huge, underrated safety feature.
These were not unibodies in any sense. When the 1957 model came out, it was the same basic BOF design as every other Mopar line. When the rest of the big Mopars went Unibody in 1960, the low-volume Imp kept it’s older BOF design all the way through 1966. The BOF design was quieter but less rigid than the Unibody cars. My 64 Imp reminded me a lot more of my 59 Fury than of my 68 Newport, just a completely different feel.
Interesting. I’ve heard this explanation for why Imperials dominated demolition derbies so many times that I believed it. Oh well. You’ve freed me of my desire to have a Warren Avenue Imperial.
That 59 Chev was an original mint car not a bodded up rust bucket you obviously dont realise how weak and crappy a lot of 50s 60s cars were
cars aren’t engineered to perform well in crashes by remaining “strong”. Modern cars are designed to crumple properly. The crumpling absorbs the energy of the impact.
The passenger compartment is designed not to deform on modern cars something old cars like that chev didnt have going for it, the car disintegrates on impact.
Not ALL old cars were built like that Chevy. No doubt little thought was put into crash survivability in those days, and I’ll hardly defend any of them as being safe, but some were stronger than others, some so strong the occupants would be shattered like glass within, and some so weak like the X frame Chevy they become soup. The problem with that video is it’s become a sweeping representation of all old cars, which won’t all necessarily behave in that exact same way.
What’s really come a long way with safety regs is taking out that randomness and require a certain standard of consistency, and in the early days of crash testing, before computer modeling, it was something of a trial and error quest, finding the existing models that do good in the tests and seeing why they did, and finding the existing models that sucked and find out why they did as well. The net result applying that data into the next generation of models.
Personally I think a 1959 unibody Lincoln would be really fun to see in that test. Biggest, heaviest unibody ever and notoriously overbuilt.
It should also be mentioned that there was a significant shift on the theory of the best place for vehicle occupants to be during a crash. Back in the day, it was thought that the best thing was for the doors to fly open and vehicle occupants to be thrown clear of the vehicle in a crash. In that regard, the stiff BOF frames made sense. It wasn’t until much later (the sixties?) that the thought process was turned 180 degrees, that it was safer for occupants to remain inside the vehicle in a crash, and that’s when seatbelts and crumple zones came into effect.
And the Malibu is a substantially smaller car than the Chevy. There’s a lot more distance from the passenger compartment to the front bumper in the Impala than the Malibu, but it crumbled and the dashboard mashed into the passenger compartment.
The X frame would only make a difference in a side impact.
Modern cars just have 100X the engineering input, and a lot of it crash oriented, than before.
I had a ’62 Lincoln a few years ago. It was one really strong unibody box with a lot of weight behind it. It would no doubt crush a Corolla in a low speed collision. But in a higher speed crash I would rather be in any modern car.
I vote for freestanding headlights making a comeback. I love the elegant looks of the ads. Today we just have those annoying male models with their designer stubble, greasy hair and sloppy clothes, as if anyone would believe they even own a car.
Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.
Just an opinion though, not trying to harsh your buzz.
The same could be said about the unshaven, tie-less, patterned shirt guys who came in during the late-60s, replacing the army of lookalike gray suits, white shirts, and thin black ties. It’s all relative.
I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony……..
I’d like to buy the world a Coke.
Cost you a bit….. 🙂
That was the comeback of free standing headlights they were out of use since the 30s then consigned to the trashcan of history.
When Imperial could be just plain weird at times, I always thought the ’63 was a relative high point. It’s what the 1960 should have been.
Agree with Jim Grey’s comment on the dash – ugh. And, those square steering wheels – double ugh. Chrysler really did have a knack for poking itself in the eye in the early ’60s.
Of course to each their own, but I respectfully disagree.
The imperial dash with its electroluminescence lighting is beautiful when viewed at night and very functional. The square steering wheel also allowed added leg room for the driver.
Now if you want ugly dashes you need look no further the the BOP offerings of the late 50s….
Saw a two-door a few months ago.
Rear view
Very retro looking even by 1963 standards.The only `63 model that really looks more like a`59. Maybe buys felt the same way as the production numbers show. It does have a nice interior, but that science fiction dashboard and strange shaped steering wheel…Exner excess?
Bizzaro styling (cartoonish fins in 1960-61) a strange dash layout and square steering wheel were some of the main reasons Imperial fell way behind Cadillac and Lincoln. Had they dumped Exner sooner and cleaned up the design right away for the new decade, things might have been different. Exner had a lot of strange ideas about how a modern luxury car should look.
The ’64 models were much better but it was really too late and they now looked too much like Lincolns anyways.
Exner wasn’t as responsible as you presume. Read the excellent ate up with motor article.
I will do that thanks for the tip!
The Continental was by comparison very fresh and contemporary, and timeless even today. The Imperial looked like a leftover from the gaudy late 50’s by 1963!
Guess what?
For the Imperial’s built from 1957 to 1975, they are all on my lust list.
“Uncle” Tom McCahill sure loved these Imperials – for all of the reasons Brendan mentions, including the torsion bar suspension, great drivetrain, and superior comfort for his cross-country tests. I think he owned a few as his personal cars.
I’ve never thought the grafting of that formal roof line on the 63 Crown Coupe (it looks a little better on the four-door hardtop), an overall design going back to 57, was a total success. I much prefer the sleek lines of the original Exner design as shown on this 62 coupe and the earlier models. To be fair, the 63 was a quick attempt to update a very old design before the release of the new 64 body (I agree with Brendan that the 64 was not a total success).
A lot has been written about the failure to create a separate brand identity for Imperial from 55 onward (folks still called them Chryslers as I was growing up). Also, Exner really didn’t seem to know what he wanted Imperial to be in 61 – a space age interior and 1930’s headlights didn’t go together all that well. Plus quality control issues continued. Motor Trend’s August 1963 road test of a 63 LeBaron noted that hard stops produced rear wheel lock-up and considerable fade as well as caused the engine to die (don’t miss those old carburetors!). Unlike JPC, they also did not like the squared wheel (“We got used to it, but it was disconcerting at first to be making a sharp turn and to find our hands first 17.7 inches apart and then 14.7 inches and back again.”)
Having said all of this, as a kid, I found Imperials to be totally unique and fascinating and a very rare sight on the roads of the Midwest. Great piece, Brendan – thanks.
I totally agree about the formal roofline on the coupe. Combined with the short-looking front doors it made for an awkward profile. I too like the original “canopy” roofline, particularly when two-toned.
Also, good point about how some of its retro and space age styling features didn’t mesh quite well together. Combining modern and retro before it was fashionable to do so!
Was the ’64 really a new body? Always looked like a facelifted ’63 to me. Revised sheetmetal but the same hard points. That fishbowl windshield seems not to have changed since ’57 and looked woefully dated by 1966.
CC’s Robert Kim worded it a little more precisely back in November: “On the same chassis and body structure introduced in 1957, as evidenced by the continuation of the 1950s-style wraparound windshield that was long out of fashion in Detroit by 1964, Engel placed a completely new body style obviously derived from his earlier work on the Continental, with slab sides, bladed fenders, a squared-off roofline, and a similarly shaped inset hood.”
The main reason Imperial was never accepted as a stand-alone make was its long association as the top Chrysler model before 1955. Once that word association has been established in the public mind, its nearly impossible to break. AMC tried repeatedly to disassociate Ambassador; say the word and people thought “Rambler”.
The Forward Look Imperials were styling blockbusters in 1957, but once the restrained 1961 Lincoln appeared, began looking very dated. Being toned down for 1962-’63 helped but still were increasingly out of style. Chrysler had planned a completely restyled Imperial for 1962, switching it to their uni-body platform. But the Chrysler itself needed a restyle worse so the Exner ‘S-Type’ Imperial styling was, after further changes, given to the 1963 Chrysler. The ’57 styling theme was still too obvious in the cleaner ’62-’62 models, not a sales inducement. The space-age dash and TV screen-shaped steering wheel did give an odd feel for a luxury car. Engel would get to demonstrate his luxury car vision again with the ’64 Imperial, reprising his greatest hit.
Of Imperial taking up where Packard left off: only anecdotally but even back in the day, it was commonly talked about that many Packard owners traded for a new Imperial for their next new car. Chrysler emphasized their engineering reputation in those years as had Packard, even the torsion bar suspension was considered a similar reason to own Imperial.
The encouraging sales numbers never materialized, 1957 being an anomaly, so the Imperial was kept in production so the corporation could field a full line. And…..so executives and management would have luxury cars befitting their position to drive to business meeting, the DAC and country club! Proof of the latter is the miniscule numbers of convertibles built each year, absolutely money-losers, essentially factory custom-builds.
One more comment: do wish Engel had carried over the wrap-over ’63-style taillights to his ’64 styling rather than the ‘turn-signal arrows’.
I agree about the turn signals on the 63 – very nice design. I’ve never liked the hump, propeller bumper, huge eagle, and arrow signals on the 64 Imperial. No comparison to the sleek rear of a 64 Lincoln Continental – or even a 64 Cadillac.
You raise some very good points, particularly about how a good majority of Imperials were probably purchased by Chrysler executives. Likely a reason why Imperial survived as long as it did.
Of Imperial taking up where Packard left off: only anecdotally but even back in the day, it was commonly talked about that many Packard owners traded for a new Imperial for their next new car.
I may have mentioned before that my Grandmother bought a Packard every year until they no longer existed. Then she bought Imperials. Even as a kid they made a huge impression on me with their quality and handling. (Grandmother was not an easy driver.) Since Imperial was defunct when I bought my first car at 16, my choice was a 1977 New Yorker. (Imperial Light if you will.)
I’ve had the pleasure of several Imperials, A 1962 LeBaron being my favorite. That car swiveled more heads than anything I’ve owned.
That’s an interesting theory on how Engel sacrificed the Imperial’s styling for the good of the general Chrysler model line-up. To Engel’s credit, it seems like he was trying to maintain the Imperial’s distinct, separate character from run-of-the-mill Chryslers, but he just didn’t have the budget to do it the right way. So, the Imperial got saddled with years-old styling long after it had passed (mainly that wrap-around windshield) which surely cost sales. Ironically, the Imperial would eventually get a me-too Chrysler chassis and styling, anyway, so it didn’t make any difference in the end.
It’s hard to understand how a car with such low volume could support 16 exterior color choices, eight interior color choices and three interior styles. And on top of that a new dash design every couple of years with all of that detail. Neat car, I like the ’63 better than the ’64 too.
I find it fascinating that Chrysler churned out these sales training films year after year for Imperial. They are really gems of history of the period. Sample:
Wow – haven’t times changed!
Love the ‘beep’ in the soundtrack when it’s time to go to the next slide – I remember that on slideshows at school, before we got a movie projector!
I remember this as well when I went to school. It made for some hilarious results if the presentation got out of sequence. And the teacher frantically trying to get it back on track. I don’t think they taught this skill to the future educators of children in their college curriculum. One of the schools I went to had specially trained 8th grade students to run AV presentations & movies rather than trust the job to our college graduate teachers. I often wonder about that.
They were filmstrips actually. One roll of uncut 35mm slides. The projector, once adjusted, advanced one frame each time. There were advanced models that did it automatically. The beep is for manual ones.
What a neat slideshow! I assume that only dealers saw this and not customers. If I’d been shopping all three cars back in 1960 and saw this, esp. the part about the handling, I think it would have persuaded me to buy the Imperial. Pretty scary stuff! Notice how they never mention braking performance.
Count me as a huge fan of these! This is one that “got away” and I wish that I had bought it. We stumble upon this 1963 Formal Black Crown convertible–one of only 531 Imperial drop tops produced that year, on a Spring Break trip to CA. The pristine beauty was at a specialty car dealer in Santa Monica, CA in 2011. We talked very seriously about going back to buy it, but by the time we had mulled it over and were ready to pull the trigger, it was already gone. I sincerely hope it found a good home, and am secretly hoping that one day it will make it to my garage. In the meantime, this image lives on as the screensaver on my phone.
Here’s my screensaver image with the car.
Very nice! An Imperial convertible would definitely make a stately summer cruiser today. I actually forgot I photographed this stunning ’62 at the same show at the beginning of this summer. After a grace period, I think it deserves its own write-up.
Just gorgeous! I’d have to agree that the ’62’s split grille with the horizontal bars looks better than the one on the ’63. However, I do like the ’63’s taillights better.
Cars with Class is just up the street from me – I remember when they had that Imp in the showroom! They currently have a Rangoon Red 62 T-Bird Sports Roadster in stock that I’d love to have…
There is a level of luxury in these Imperials that is just not available anymore. The paint colors, the fine upholstery, the ride quality and the massive presence is just not there anymore. Technowiz options, standard, just ain’t the same thing.
I can’t believe how tiny that hood is! A true “hatch” design for sure, as on a boat. At least it opens the right way (not forward-hinged).
Yeah, I’ve always noticed that rather small hatch-hood on these period Imperials, as well. There must be a logical reason for it. Was it necessitated by how the front fenders have the seems filled and finished where they meet the front header panel?
ca guy mentioned uncle tom mccahill was a fan of these imperials and he was right. he had several as his personal cars and talked about how great they were for the many coast to coast trips he used to take.
my all time favourite line of his was about the ‘gun site’ taillights on them.
he called them ‘sparrow strainers’! much more descriptive, don’t you think?
Love these cars! A good friend had one in the mid 80’s and what a runner. Best fuel economy at 75-80 mph and would cruise at well over triple digits effortlessly with more pedal to go.(I was party and witness to this one ) . Square steering wheel falls to hand just right and if memory serves it was fast maybe 3 turns lock to lock. His was gold but the color was changed from red at the factory. A careful going over showed gold where only the factory could put it, but there was bright red underneath. Lincolns and Cadillacs of this era were for old people. To me Imperial says “young money”.
That hood is insane – it seems to end a foot and a half short of each fender. How do you reach stuff under there?
I think Imperial may have fared better if Chrysler, having given the Imp a separate wide BOF platform and body built on a separate assembly line, would have stretched a bit more and insisted their own dealership channel, at least in larger cities. Having to go to the Chrysler store to buy an Imperial only served to make it seem like a model, not a marque.
This is a model i have intimate knowledge of, having owned an Aztec Gold Southampton for about 5 years, ending in 2011. I can say unequivocally that this series of Imperials was a superior handling luxury car. It was so nimble for its size that it was hard to believe it weighed in at two and a half tons and measured 229 inches long. I apologize if this has already been mentioned, as I am adding my two cents on the run, but “Uncle” Tom McCahill, the voluble car tester for Mechanix Illustrated magazine 5 to 6 decades ago thought the Imperials of 1957 to 63 were the best all around highway cars available outside of Stuttgart, and better than much of what was obtainable from that city. He drove them as his personal cars, and I am qualified to second his “bald headed opinion” in the attached. (Note that it appears he is in the middle of acting as an apologist for the poor quality control of the ’57 models in this snippet about the ’58.). My car had dual air conditioning, and it was like being inside a house with central air… no sound, just comfy cool. It also predicted the glowing dash instruments of today with its high powered (225 volts!) luminescent dash. The squarish wheel was a bit odd, but really not all that weird to use, given the overboosted power steering. And these cars had less in common with Chryslers than received wisdom implies, being built with brutally strong body on frame construction, the last of the Mopars to have it. My Imperial was shipped to Germany when I sold it, and I imagine someone there is enjoying it as much as I did.
Apologies if I missed it in the great essay, but a survey of ’63 Imperial ads (eBay) shows Chrysler also talking up its 5yr/50k warranty:
I really enjoy these cars. I don’t particularly like the looks (I’m more partial to the 1960–1961 Chryslers), but it’s so out there that I’m heartened that it existed at all.
Here’s an anomaly, how did this convertible come to be? ’63 front, ’60 rear. Body shop repair after an accident?
As nice as that Imperial is, I’ll take that 1957 Bel Air convertible in the background!
The overall design of the Imperial is way too busy and isn’t cohesive. It looks like the designers watched “Forbidden Planet” and “The Jetsons” too many times and tried grafting on space-age design elements on a mid-50s car. It just didn’t work too well.
Still, that’s a beautiful example and is certainly worth a gentle restoration to keep it around for the ages.
I’ve heard the same criticisms of the 57 Chevy by people who think that the 55 Chevy is the holy grail. To each their own.
I arrived at work today, switched on my computer and came over to CC for the latest. This ’63 Imperial got the morning off to fine start. The Glacier Blue with Alabaster is great, but make mine black with red leather. Thanks for the lift, Brendan!
I can honestly say that the 1963 Imperial is one of the most beautiful cars I have ever seen. I never realized how graceful the lines were until seeing one in this write-up. We forget how from year to year the manufacturers changed grills, taillamps and such so often that a particular one year model could be quickly and easily forgotten. Great write-up as usual, Brendan!
I love seeing one of these cars today, but I can also see why this Imperial would have been tough sale against a contemporary Cadillac or Lincoln. The combination of Jet Age styling and classic cues such as the free-standing headlights and prominent grille is distinctive, to say the least.
The entire effect, however, screams “1950s” at the top of its lungs.
By 1963, that definitely was not a good thing.
While an interesting idea, and making for some very interesting sheetmetal curvature, I’ve never been a fan of the freestanding headlamps on the ’61 to ’63 Imperials. Too neoclassical on a car that is otherwise chock full of space-age design elements. And the best description I’ve heard for the ’62 taillight design was “eveready flashlights with red lenses bolted on to the top of the fenders”. However, I do like these cars, even given those criticisms. They were truly something else, and seeing one today is a treat!
For some reason the center of the car screams 1975 but the front and the rear of the car screams 1959, still a really nice car
I’m late to the party, but must nevertheless commend you on a very fine piece, Brendan. Your writing, while excellent from the beginning, somehow seems to improve with each article.
Thanks Tony, that means a lot!
” though I’ve never found the ’64-’66 Imperial quite as attractive when compared to the 1957-63 and 1967-1968 Imperials, or the Continental for that matter.”
See, I’m the opposite; I find the 64-66 Imperial to be a clean, pure-looking design, and more than a bit aristocratic. And much better looking that the Continental. To each his own I guess.
When I was 3-5, some family friends had a New Yorker of this vintage which my memory has given the Imperial’s separated headlights, I guess because they were so unusual, or maybe the rich grandparents had one. Their other car was an MG Midget, into which 5 kids and one adult were squeezed.
That steering wheel–did the designers of the Austin Allegro know about it?
America’s most carefully built car? I think I’d put the 56-57 Continental MKII or maybe the 59-60 Eldorado Brougham made in Italy before any Imperial. JMO.
They were claiming the ’63 Imperial was America’s most carefully built 1963 car, not talking about all cars made in the history of ever.
Aha, thanks.
As noted above, it did seem to carry over the late-1950s look as much as any 1963 model in Detroit.
Those ads in professional/prestige magazines offering the loaner-tester are quite something, and I like the touting of both the 5/50 warranty and a body “unshared with lesser cars”:
Great ad. One thing that stands out is how Imperial was in its own divison. It’s a real shame that Chrysler couldn’t afford to keep Imperial that way.
Great ad. One thing that stands out is how Imperial used to be its own divison. It’s a real shame that Chrysler couldn’t afford to keep Imperial that way. The sales just weren’t there to justify the cost, and Townsend knew it. The more Imperial was absorbed into the Chrysler line, the less exclusive it became and sales, while never stellar, declined accordingly.
In fact, it’s worth noting how much sales picked up the next year after the last ‘real’ 1975 Imperial rolled off the line and was effectively replaced by the virtually identical (but more expensive when equally equipped) 1976 New Yorker Brougham:
1975 Imperial: 8,830
1976 NY Brougham: 33,732
Many bemoan the loss of Imperial, but it was the smart business move.
Getty Images: assembly-plant testing for leaks:
Popular Mechanics writes up the technical details; interesting about 2-door sharing the 4-door’s roof….
Jay Leno has more than one of these cars and he recommends immediately fitting disc brakes to them. The drums were not good for stopping that much car.
In 1966 my cousin, who was seventeen years my senior, had bought his new 1966 Imperial Le Baron two-door hardtop which was white with a white vinyl roof and a white leather interior. He asked me if I would like to drive it. Silly question! I was driving my 1966 Dodge Coronet two-door sedan. All I can say is WOW! What a spacious, smooth riding and comfortable automobile! He was newly wed. His wife had a 1966 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. She was afraid to drive the Imperial tank. Fabulous automobiles!
Somewhere (Imperial Club?) I read that the ’63 2 door had a larger rear seat than previous years. That’s kind of what I like about the Imperial, even though it was very low volume (at least for awhile) they seemed to put lots of attention on it…probably as it should be as the most expensive model, but it did take away from other models.
The ’63 is probably my favorite, though I prefer the ’60 interior. It is amazing on such a low volume vehicle that they completely redid the dash on the ’59 (and the car was brand new in ’57) and then again on the ’60, and then the ’61 (though that lasted through ’63). Sure that wasn’t cheap, wonder if Chrysler could afford such extravagance, though clearly they were trying to increase their volume, and I guess changing the interior was one way (though they also changed the exterior those years too!).
My Father was driving a ’56 Plymouth back then (he bought new) a complete stripper, though by ’63 he had traded it for a ’61 then a ’63 Rambler. He had some nicely optioned “regular” cars before he passed, but never a luxury car, such as the Imperial. Plus, his family lived in Pennsylvania, where a lot of the roads (even main roads) are pretty narrow. Didn’t stop “Mike” from piloting his Cadillac down those roads in “The Deer Hunter”. I had issues backing up my Dad’s ’06 Impala down the narrow driveway at my Uncle’s (used to be my Grandparent’s) house, without hitting the house, the telephone pole, the fence or the gas line. I did get what I consider a big complement from my Uncle (who’s a car guy) when I finally figured out that I had to get as close as I could to their house to give me enough “slack” so I could turn the wheels ever so slightly to maneuver a bit so when the driveway eventually “widened out” behind their house I could avoid other cars parked directly in the path of the driveway in back. Can’t imagine doing it in a ’63 Imperial (or Cadillac or Lincoln).