1969 Imperial Convertible

[X-Frame]

No, I don't own one nor know of one for sale since they don't exist BUT...

With the various "Imperial" threads I thought I would pass along a fantasy I had years ago and no longer able to do this but will pass along the concept here.

There were no 1969 Imperial convertibles. They are unibody cars. There was a 1969 Chrysler convertibles including the Newport. The Imperial Coupe and Newport share the same base fuselage body design. The wheelbases are different but the difference lies in the front sub frame which can be swapped between cars. The mounting bolt positions are nearly exactly spot on and so negligible that technicians said there shouldn't be any problem (like a 1/32 inch difference). Then swap the front clip, rear light and bumpers, interiors, and of course the trim and you have a 1969 Imperial convertible.

Just something I thought I would pass along for the adventurous builders out there. This will result in a "factory style" convertible instead of a chop top.

Just give me credit if someone actually attempts this!

Eric

[keiser31]

I can see this becoming a Tucker convertible-like thread....

[X-Frame]

It is simple... take two cars, a 1969 Imperial Coupe and a 1969 Chrysler Newport Convertible. Swap the necessary parts and components to make a factory style 1969 Imperial Convertible using the Newport main body fuselage that has the factory built supports, etc. Final result, a convertible like the factory would have made but none were produced for Imperial.

[X-Frame]

I can see this becoming a Tucker convertible-like thread....

How is that? There is a debate about one Tucker prototype being built but a later model mass produced Imperial, I doubt they ever did this. The 1968 Imperial with a completely different body style and last year for the convertible with only 474 produced. The 1969 model year Chrysler products is when everything started to look the same which is why the Newport and Imperial conversion would work as they share the same body shell.

Eric

[keiser31]

Yeah, you're right.....completely different theory. Sorry.....I have not had enough coffee, yet.

[trimacar]

Reminds me of sellling a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible many years ago. The fellow picking it up said he had a 1960 Edsel sedan parts car, and between the two, he'd have a 1960 Edsel convertible when all was said and done.

Seems like I read somewhere that Ford produced 78 1960 Edsel convertibles, and there are over 100 known in existence!

[X-Frame]

Reminds me of sellling a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible many years ago. The fellow picking it up said he had a 1960 Edsel sedan parts car, and between the two, he'd have a 1960 Edsel convertible when all was said and done.

Seems like I read somewhere that Ford produced 78 1960 Edsel convertibles, and there are over 100 known in existence!

They made 76 Ranger convertibles... close

But his theory may have worked as well but why bother in this case outside of making one "if" the other is extremely rare and expensive to purchase?

There were a lot in 1958-59 but not 60. Not sure where the other 20+ cars came from unless others have done the same thing??? Hmmmm....

In comparison there were 44,768 Sunliners made in 1960.

Edited February 2, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[X-Frame]

To help with a little visual I have attached pics of a 1969 Imperial LeBaron Coupe and a 1969 Newport Convertible.

Edited February 2, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[The Continental]

Are you sure the doors and quarters will match? Might be easier to take the top frame and some quarter section off the Newport and put it on the Imperial.

Does not look to be a convertible unless it has a hardtop, but check out this 1973 model.

[john2dameron]

Lot's of the '60 Edsel convertibles that exist started out as Ford Sunliners. I also have photos of a Ford Ranchero pickup with an Edsel facelift and a '58 Edsel retractible (Skyliner) that has a perfect '57 Ford interior including the dash and rear seats; yet some guy tried to insist that it was a factory car and they built about 5 of them. Oh what a gift it would be if we could separate what is true from what someone claims is true.

[X-Frame]

Are you sure the doors and quarters will match? Might be easier to take the top frame and some quarter section off the Newport and put it on the Imperial.

Does not look to be a convertible unless it has a hardtop, but check out this 1973 model.

Yes, they match (may have to do some altering with the side light on the quarter but very little while changing over the trim anyway). Granted, there will be some minor modifications needed possibly with the rear subframe for bumper attachment and of course the complete front subframe is going to be swapped out anyway but the body dimensions appear to be the same per Chrysler... Imperial and Chrysler width - 79.0", height 55.1" (this is for 2-door models).

The idea is to have the shell that is made with factory reinforcements for convertible models with factory top.

The 1973 parade car above just isn't right... how ugly and made even worse with black wall tires. I had a black 1972 LeBaron as well... all black inside and out and looked 100 times better than this monstrosity.

I know Stageway made the post Ghia limousines but not sure about the car above?

Edited February 3, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

With all due respect, you MIGHT want to look at the rear seat legroom specs to see IF they are the same between the Imperial and the normal Chrysler C-body. IF they are not reasonably the same, then all of the wheelbase difference is NOT all in the front subframe dimension, but possibly some of it is also in the main floorpan section footwell (behind the front seat). IF my suspicion is true, then you'll also need some modifications to the Newport/300/New Yorker convertible top frame.

To better gauge the real differences, you'd need to check the body dimensions in the factory service manual. As in the diagonals for using a "frame machine" to put a bent body back to its original shape.

Still, though, the KEY to this whole process is finding a '69-(last year) Chrysler Newport convertible. There were very few built to start with, so even fewer exist today. You might end up starting with a bare hull from a salvage yard. Then finding an Imperial donor car, similarly-low production NOT hurt in the front end (from collision damage) would be another trick to pull off.

It might be better to start with an Imperial coupe, then use a Newport convertible for the convertible-only items. Then, you could get some 2"x4" channel and make some subframe connectors to keep the body from flexing without its roof. I suspect it would be much easier to do things this way as then you'd not need to worry about maintaining/blending body lines on the side of the car, front to back. If done correctly, it would be stronger and stiffer, too.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[X-Frame]

I will look into the other dimensions and post the results here.

But by "modifying" the body structural elements by adding homemade pieces will not result in a "factory made" type convertible.

Eric

[X-Frame]

Just checked the Newport and Imperial front and rear legroom and both match... Front: 41.8 and Rear: 42.2

Eric

[NTX5467]

But by "modifying" the body structural elements by adding homemade pieces will not result in a "factory made" type convertible.

With all due respect, such "homemade pieces" are very common practice for frabricators of pieces to strengthen unibody race cars . . . even everyday-driver Camaros and Firebirds (which benefit from "factory made" subframe connectors from a few vendors).

Such fabrications as I mentioned are usually out of the "homemade" category per se AND will be much more sturdy than any "factory made convertible", even one with body-on-frame construction. Many "factory" Chrysler convertible bodies have an age-related issue of cracks developing where the quarter panel mates with the "middle piece between the quarter panels", on the passenger side, in front of the leading edge of the deck lid.

Over the years, many "factory made" convertibles have had various issues which hardtops didn't. Cowl shake is one, which can also influence how much the windshield header might shake on rough roads. The '69 Camaro convertibles employed "hydraulic dampers" in each corner of the car to help control these harmonics, for example.

Certainly, a "factory made" convertible might be preferrable to a "homemade" convertible, but also consider that fwd Riviera and Toronado convertibles were conversions sold through new car dealerships. The Chrysler K-car convertibles were modified sedans, although done "in house".

In many cases, non-unibody convertibles can be better than unibody convertibles. Using the subframe connectors (although fabricated and installed by people who know what they're doing) makes the unibody car into a body/frame car with a very strong base body.

Regards,

NTX5467

[X-Frame]

But by "modifying" the body structural elements by adding homemade pieces will not result in a "factory made" type convertible.

With all due respect, such "homemade pieces" are very common practice for frabricators of pieces to strengthen unibody race cars . . . even everyday-driver Camaros and Firebirds (which benefit from "factory made" subframe connectors from a few vendors).

Regards,

NTX5467

What I am getting at is the "purist" point of view... not what some people do but what the "factory" would do.

They made convertibles for years and the Chrysler's had a cross bar in the middle of the floor pan in 1969 that adds strength on the hardtops. I am sure there is other beams added for the convertibles. My plan is not to make a street rod but a show car. They made 2,169 Newport Convertibles in 1969 which falls in line with convertible production of previous and following years. Convertibles are not made for "speed" anyway. Have you ever seen very many stock unibody convertibles on the NASCAR race track (even with roll bars) other than the 1958 style Thunderbird?

And I am sure it would be a whole lot easier to swap a body shell than to cut and fabricate a top and add the mechanics and fabricate the trim as well as alter the body frame work as you suggest. Remember not only is the structure different in the body but in the top area as well. The seats are narrower in the rear, the top has a dedicated area it folds down in, etc... all the factory has already done on the convertible shell.

The bottom line at the end of the day is that my idea is just that and I wanted to do it myself but can't any longer. I was offering the concept here in case anyone else wanted to make a factory made type Imperial convertible using "factory" parts. Imperial's have always been a low numbers production car and there were no 1969 convertibles which the above offers that opportunity.

FYI... there were 244 Crown 2-dr made and 4,572 LeBaron 2-dr made... total Imperial production in 1969 all models: 22,083.

Eric

Edited February 6, 2012 by X-Frame (see edit history)

[The Continental]

I know there was badge engineering, but I'm kind of surprised the lines on the side would match up. Granted different trim was used and the the quarter was cut out some for the Imperial rear bumper, so perhaps that is why they look different. Will it match up to just the Crown or the Lebaron too?

[earl e rizer]

I was going to make a 300 "Hurst' convertible a few years back, but ran into the usual roadblocks, ie; more dreams than cash & ambition. I just sold my 72 Imperial and I'm on the lookout for a 69 coupe. I would love to see you or someone build a convertible!

[NTX5467]

For my information, I'd like to see a picture of the hardtop crossbars that are referenced. Reason is that I was in and out of the local Chrysler dealer's service department in that general timeframe. Granted, they didn't sell that many two door hardtops, but lots of 4 door hardtops. I have a '70 Monaco Brougham 4dr ht myself. I don't recall anything different under it compared to our '72 Chrysler Newport Royale.

So, are these "crossbars" only under C-body hardtops or B-body cars, too? Just curious.

I'm not sure why convertibles were some of the first cars on the Florida beaches for the earlier NASCAR races. Possibly their heavier weight?

A side issue is that with Imperials and Chrysler C-body convertibles, you're talking about some of the lowest production number vehicles in their respective model years. The fact that you're mentioning making some serious body modifications to such cars might set many purists' minds to spinning.

In the middle 1970s, there seemed to be "convertible fever". Lincoln Marks and even some Chrysler Cordobas were "convertible-ized" back then. This proves that the issues with the rear seat upholstery and such are easy things to deal with when starting with a hardtop body. Just as they were dealt with in the Buick Riviera and Olds Toronado convertibles in the 1980s.

Actually, a "street rod" is from model year 1948 and prior. Street machine is model year 1949 and later. I guess either of these types of cars can't be "show cars"?

Regards,

NTX5467

[X-Frame]

Yes, they can be show cars in their own respective class. In my mind though show means pure bone stock.

The Continental: The C body quarter panel pressings have the same bends that is lined with different door guards trim. The rear bumper "cutouts" you call them is bolted onto the quarter.

I run into the same issue about "purist" when it comes to historical homes in our area. We own the oldest in our section of town (200 years old this year) and certain city groups frown on you trying to match features that are period to the house that have disappeared over the years unless it is documented. This they call "false historicism". But they have taken the code out of context and any changes can be documented. Just like we know there were no 1969 Imperial convertibles so that should be obvious a post factory fabrication but done using factory fabricated items that would replicate a period car as the factory would have done it.

Same principal.

I will try and post a unibody diagram showing the beam I mentioned.

[X-Frame]

There pages are from the Dealership Date Book for the 1969 Chrysler and Imperial. The unibody one for Chrysler covers all body types when it comes to the floor braces and is mentioned the same way for the Imperial one.

[NTX5467]

Eric, thanks for posting those pictures from the Chrysler Data Book. Those particular books have a world of information in them, plus mechanical specs not found in the normal sales brochures.

In the first picture of the body shell . . . the items noted there are normal items for ANY UniBody vehicle. In the case of the "Heavy-gauge floor reinforcements", note that the word used is "heavy", not "heavier". Also, in a UniBody-type vehicle construction, the "Structural rear roof pillars" ("C" pillars) are an integral part of the body structure, just as they would also be on a body-on-frame body.

The "Diagonal steel braces" are on regular Chryslers, too, of any size. Not to forget body-on-frame bodies, too. Where they've been deleted is on more late model vehicles (also of UniBody-type construction, regardless of manufacturer) which can have a fold-town rear seat. In those vehicles, the U-shaped metal from the package tray to each of the rear wheelhouses is reinforced to make up for those diagonal braces not being there.

Compared to similar Ford and GM vehicles (Imperial competitors), which are body-on-frame vehicles, the "heaviness" of the various reinforcements and braces IS most probably "heavier" in gauge than the similar Ford and GM body areas, heavyness which is a normal feature of UniBody-type body construction. IF it had noted that the Imperial's body contained "heavier" bracing, that would have been different AND would have needed to have a reference to "heavier than what" the comparison vehicle might have been.

So, please understand that what the attached thumbnails illustrate are attributes and characteristics of Chrysler's UniBody construction body structures, just customized with an Imperial's picture rather than a New Yorker's, a 300's, a Newport's, a Dodge Polara/Monaco, a Plymouth Fury, or even A and B body vehicles.

In some cases, the particular "heavy-gauge" items can be there not only for body strength, but also to help decrease any sympathetic resonances which UniBody construction can tend to accent, which body-on-frame vehicles seem to ignore or plain just not have.

Thanks again for posting those picture.

In the later 1980s, we did some courtesy deliveries of Chevy Impala police vehicles. These were the "square" body cars rather than the later "round" body Impalas and Caprices.

When I got the "plain white wrapper" out on the Interstate, I was impressed at how solid it felt, compared to normal Caprices of that body series. It went past the heavy-duty suspension components, too. So, when I got back, I got into the parts book to see what was different in the structure area. On the window sticker, it noted "Heavy Duty Frame", so I looked for that.

What I found, in the police car parts section, was ONE frame listed. "Ah haaa!, there it is", I thought . . . until I looked in the "normal" parts listings and found the SAME part number listed. NO additional notes, just one part number for one frame for the Impala/Caprice cars of that year . . . or even the prior model years.

So, that raised the question of "As there is only ONE frame part number listed for replacement parts, is it 'heavy duty' or 'normal'? Or is the normal frame considered "heavy duty"? My general orientation is that the normal frame could be termed "heavy duty", but not cataloged as such. Again, what constitutes "heavy duty"?

If the window sticker had read "Heavier Duty Frame with additional reinforcements", that would have been a whole different part number! It might have also generated some additional notes in the regular frame parts listing of "For COPO Law Enforcement Use, add braces PN ________, ________, and ________" (for example). But NONE of that was there, so the interpretation is that the normal frame might be termed "heavy duty" in some particular realm of strength-related things. It would have been inappropriate to, unlike in Chevy pickup trucks where frame strength is something to ballyhoo, say this particular model year's frame was stiffer than last year's model.

Also consider that in the case of law enforcement vehicles, the descriptive words "heavy duty" are generously used to describe almost every aspect of the higher-performance vehicles. Remember the dialogue from "The Blues Brothers" where Dan Ackroyd is telling John Belushi about the Dodge ex-police car as they head to Chicago at night (with sunglasses on)?

When Chevy redesigned their Camaro/Firebird cars for the 1982 model year, the literature I found in the car magazines mentioned "purpose built" bodies. What this meant is that when the base body was welded together, "it knew" if it was going to be a 4 cyl, V-6, or Z/28 end vehicle. At first, I grinned an amusing grin, BUT further investigation into the body structure parts listings revealed that the Z/28 models did get extra bracing and gussets in some areas of the vehicle, which the 4cyls and V-6s didn't require. But, by about the 1985 model year, they were back to building "ONE" body as in the past.

Regards,

NTX5467

Edited February 8, 2012 by NTX5467 (see edit history)