Car buff magazine writers didn’t know it at the time, but the new-for-1967 Imperial would be Chrysler’s last big push in the luxury-car field. Although the brand lost its exclusive platform — just like Lincoln would three years later — Chrysler Corporation gave the Imperial unique sheetmetal, an expanded lineup, and a splashy ad campaign headlined, “the newest prestige automobile in a decade.”
The Imperial’s biggest change was its styling. Car Life described it as “in unity with the remainder of the corporate fleet. Relatively clean lines weren’t objectionable — or particularly exciting” (1967, p. 65). That was a more positive take than that of Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye, who called the design “conservative and not very distinguished” (1985, p. 207).
For 1967 the Imperial was based upon Chrysler’s full-sized, unit-body platform. But unlike Imperials built from 1969 onward, the 1967-68 models did not share any sheetmetal with lower-priced Chryslers except for rooflines.
Imperials were also given a three-inch-longer wheelbase ahead of the cowl, but the roughly $1,000 extra for an entry-level model over a top-end Chrysler New Yorker did not buy you any additional interior space.
What your extra money did buy was Chrysler Corp.’s biggest dinosaur in the driveway, stretching almost 225 inches in length. That was a hair longer than the lower-priced Cadillacs and almost four inches more than the Lincoln.
You also got a 440-cubic-inch V8, which for one more year would win the “mine’s-bigger-than-yours” contest with Cadillac (but not Lincoln). On the other hand, this engine lacked the exclusivity of its competitors, for those who cared about such things.
For 1967 the Imperial’s lineup was expanded to include a new entry-level model. Called simply the Imperial sedan, it listed for $5,374. That was almost $500 less than the mid-level Crown series and in the same ballpark as Cadillac’s low-end Calais.
Otherwise, the Imperial’s lineup tended to be priced a notch higher than Cadillac’s. For example, whereas the Imperial convertible was priced at $6,146, the equivalent DeVille body style went for $5,608. Meanwhile, the Imperial’s top-of-line LeBaron listed at $6,540, which was slightly above a Fleetwood Sixty Special’s price of $6,423.
Car Life: Imperial indistinguishable in blindfold test
A Car Life road test of the Imperial was fairly upbeat: “It is clear that Chrysler, after running a poor third to Cadillac and Continental for longer than Chrysler management cares to remember, is aiming for a larger slice of the booming luxury market. And it might just earn that bigger piece of the action, provided Imperial can overcome its rich-little-old-lady’s-car image” (1967, p. 65).
When assessing a Crown four-door hardtop, Car Life suggested that one “comparison that came to mind during several days of living with the car was that it would be quite interesting to blindfold a series of subjects and drive them in one example each of the Luxury Three. Though it wasn’t practical to conduct this experiment, there was little doubt that test subjects would have been unable to distinguish Imperial from Cadillac or Continental by virtue of shortcomings in any of the sensory areas — ride, noise level, seating comfort, acceleration or cornering sway” (1967, p. 65).
Car Life concluded its road test with an awkwardly worded punt: “Taken as a package, and relating to its two traditional luxury competitors, the Imperial is well worth the consideration of anyone ready to purchase in this price range. Does it have the indefinable quality of prestige which equates closely with the appeal inherent in Continental and Cadillac? Who can say? The sales figures a year from now will be the only positive indicator” (1967, p. 69).
Also see ‘1964 Imperial could have been a better Lincoln Continental’
Imperial output grew by 28 percent in 1967, but it was still under 18,000 units. This was good for only 6.7 percent of the luxury-car field, which was lower than the bad-old days of 1961-63. Even the 1969 Imperial sold better despite sharing most of its sheetmetal with the Chrysler brand.
Perhaps the key problem was that the 1967 Imperial was merely competent. It didn’t stand out enough to make a sales breakthrough akin to back in 1957, when the brand came close to knocking Lincoln out of second place in model-year production (go here for further discussion).
NOTES:
The January 1967 Car Life road test article is among the materials in the Automotive History Preservation Society’s Digital Documents Library. Prices and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006) and Gunnell (2002). Data from these two sources was used to calculate production totals and market share.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Car Life; 1967. “Imperial Crown: Comfort Competitor in the Luxury League.” January issue: pp. 65-69.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation 1924-1985. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Imperial (1967)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Imperial (1967)
You’ve hit on the main problem with the 1967 Imperial: “Imperials were also given a three-inch-longer wheelbase ahead of the cowl, but the roughly $1,000 extra for an entry-level model over a top-end Chrysler New Yorker did not buy you any additional interior space.”
That $1,000 wasn’t nothing at the time; it represented about a fifth of the Imperial’s base price. I’d certainly have gone with the Chrysler New Yorker.
Couldn’t the same be said about the differential between C body Cadillacs and the Ninety Eight or Electra?
I think dealer experience must have been a significant factor. When you bought and serviced a Cadillac, you dealt only with Cadillac people. You bought and serviced an Imperial dealing with people who also dealt with Plymouth customers. So not a very exclusive ownership experience.
When I was a kid I’d pore over automotive data much like a baseball fan would dwell on batting averages. Did all those numbers matter much to the average car buyer? In retrospect, I suspect that what mattered more was a potential car buyer’s sensory experience in checking out a car at the dealer or auto show. For example, whether the Imperial had the same back-seat room as a lowly Chrysler Newport may not have mattered as much as whether the customer fit comfortably in the car.
I didn’t mention dealer experience because I didn’t have enough information on it. In theory, it would make sense if a luxury-car owner felt more “special” at a Cadillac dealer than a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. That said, I have no idea if the biggest Imperial dealers tried to mitigate that problem at least partially with the likes of separate showrooms or designated sales people. The other thing I wonder is whether a lot of Cadillac and Lincoln dealers were paired with popularly-priced makes in more rural areas — which make up a goodly portion of the nation’s geography. If so, how might that have impacted a buyer’s experience with sales and service?
My recollection of rural dealerships in the 50s-70s were usually Chevy-Olds and Buick-Pontiac-GMC. These were the small town dealers, little more than store fronts. I don’t recall Cadillac dealers either stand alone or combined in any of the small towns. I vaguely recall a Cadillac dealer in Green Bay paired with Studebaker, but don’t quote me.
How about Lincoln? (My memory is too foggy.)
Lincoln was always paired with Mercury as far as I recall. Which is a less plebeian pairing than Imperial with Plymouth, but does tend to indicate a competitive disadvantage of Lincoln relative to Cadillac.
Never any Lincoln/Mercury pairings with Ford dealers in smaller markets?
I don’t really recall. Offhand I;d say the Ford dealers were back from the Model T days. When Ford took on Lincoln in the 20s they had their own mostly urban dealer network, and Cheney’s Ford Sinclair and A &W in Lakewood Wisconsin (a real place back then) had no use for Lincolns. If I may add, cars from a given manufacturer have a certain corporate look. You don’t need potential customers for your flagship car noting a family resemblance to a more plebian car in the showroom.
There were Cadillac dealers who were paired with Olds, even Chevy dealers, but these were old-line dealerships in small markets in Indiana that dated from the 1930s. By the turn of the century, that changed. One dealership was Mark French Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac-G.M.C. in Brazil, IN (until the 2009 G.M. bankruptcy). The French’s also owned the Cadillac dealership down U.S. 40 in Terre Haute. There were was Inskeep Ford-Mercury-Lincoln in Greenfield, IN as well, also located on the National Road.
210delray and DECG50 are both right, in my opinion. While I like the 1967-1968 Imperials’ styling, both the added length only ahead of the cowl with no added rear-seat room and the dealership experience might put me off if I found a 1967-1968 Cadillac or Lincoln superior. I felt that Chrysler’s high-line interiors were superior in terms of opulence, but the build quality of full-size cars by 1967 were visible in the showrooms. Too bad for Lynn Townsend, but he could have demanded a fix to the problem.