1970s Mercedes-Benz 450SE versus... mid-sized Imperial?

[Mahoning63]

Not sure there was any play for the Imperial theme. Pontiac and Chevy had been making a similar design since 1977. Chrysler Corp. should have stayed rounded while Ford and most of GM went square.

[58L-Y8]

Rounded as in aerodynamic was about to hit the market again like a whirlwind with the '83 Thunderbird, followed by the Taurus/Sable duo.  After a decade plus of evermore T-square styled cars, it was the visual relief the market was ready to embrace.  It was a tough transition for every maker, a real stylistic minefield particularly for luxury cars that built their design features on architectural themes. 

[Pfeil]

2 hours ago, Mahoning63 said:

Not sure there was any play for the Imperial theme. Pontiac and Chevy had been making a similar design since 1977. Chrysler Corp. should have stayed rounded while Ford and most of GM went square.

 

 

 

[Mahoning63]

4 hours ago, bryankazmer said:

The long overhangs are disfunctional.  They add weight and bulk but add no function beyond a bit more trunk room.  Raising of the deck lid above the belt line brings to mind the infamous "Bangle butt" at BMW.

 

The original trim design is only bloated by all this - keep it svelte.

 

Can we seen some brushed stainless disc or body-colored wheelcovers instead of the wires?

 

 

Can't do anything about the wheels without it looking like a hack job but did attempt to show the stainless roof. You didn't say whether you wanted the skirts so I omitted them. Unless rear track had been narrowed there probably wasn't enough lateral overhang to meet the tire flop criteria; i.e., the tires and wheel covers probably would have scrubbed against the skirts.

 

2 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

It was a tough transition for every maker, a real stylistic minefield

 

It sure was. Interesting how the European car companies were able to maintain more styling consistency than the Americans, who seemed to be driven more by the person in charge of design or latest trends and fads.

 

For Imperial perhaps square could have worked in these years provided they made better cars than GM and Ford. Volvo held onto square well into the 90's and did OK, even seemed to help their image.

 

Am done with the images unless someone absolutely needs more cowbell

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

2 hours ago, Mahoning63 said:

Not sure there was any play for the Imperial theme. Pontiac and Chevy had been making a similar design since 1977. Chrysler Corp. should have stayed rounded while Ford and most of GM went square.

 

Nice Pontiac until about 1980 or so. I love that body side molding with the rocker and wheel well molding.

[WQ59B]

Mention above of the '83 T-bird... and of course the watershed '84 Lincoln Mark, is a good reminder that a sharp-edged Imperial may have been stylistically hamstrung come '85.

[padgett]

The long nose GM cars of the 80s were an attempt to improve aerodynamics with existing powerplants.

[Mahoning63]

Hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving.

 

Fueled by the 15 pounder and pie last night I read up on the late 70s/early 80s Chrysler cars at allpar.com and the sales data was eye-opening, see allpar’s graphs below. Cordoba tanked with the downsized '80 model after having had a few bad years prior and Imperial and Mirada tracked closely with Cordoba, which suggests it wasn't an Imperial-only problem, more a problem with the overall body type they all shared. With the sedans it was a totally different story, sinking in '80-82 but rebounding sharply in '83 and climbing to great heights in '85-86. And the most expensive sedan version - the Chrysler - garnered most of the sales, which suggests that an even more expensive 4-door Imperial might have done well.

 

Have also attached key specs for would-have-been Imperial sedan versus key competitors. On the plus side Imperial would have been the longest in the group which, being also the lowest, would have given it arguably the most dramatic proportions. The car’s biggest problems besides a bit of a weight issue and its in-house EFI would have been drum rear brakes, rear leaf springs and deficient rear legroom. The latter would not have been a problem for empty nesters or families with small kids, particularly if the driver were short and moved the front seat way forward, but the skimpy rear no doubt would have cost some sales. For the suspension would it have been engineering feasible to develop an independent rear with transverse torsion bars similar to front? Could this have packaged under the existing floorpan? It could have been paid for in part by forgoing the electronic cluster. Seems that by the 1980s, certainly in the luxury market, leaf springs didn’t belong.

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Also, I circled back to the 112.7 wb sedan theme to add door and skirt cut lines, correctly locate and slant the B-pillar, add rear door quarter windows to allow side glass to roll down, clear the roof of trim and finesse the rear fenders. With Cordoba backlight and deck the rear fenders would have looked like subtle sail panels coming off the C-pillar as they dropped down to Cordoba level at rear. 

 

In establishing the door cuts lines I learned something: Cordoba/Mirada/Imperial’s front doors were located approximately 4 inches rearward relative to windshield touchdown versus sedans. This was probably done to move the B-pillar back for appearance but it also makes sense from a cost perspective because the inner body structure aft of rear doors was probably carried over from 108.7 wb coupe. Presumably front ingress/egress was still acceptable for foot swing with front door forward edge moved back.

 

The strategy would have opened up possibilities for a 116.7 wb Imperial sedan with 4 more inches of rear legroom but this would have put overall length almost a foot longer than Seville, even more against Continental. For the 112.7 Imperial sedan the forward location of the front doors might have required use of LeBaron's front fenders and hood if Cordoba front fender could not have simply been trimmed. Speaking of trimming, the sedan doors would have needed the beltline lowered to match Cordoba's theme.

 

The now completed (sic) theme presents itself better when shown with Imperial ad copy,  see below. Had to steal the eagle back from the Chrysler thieves that appropriated it in 1978. Could have also taken back the Crown name (they can keep LeBaron). Compared to similar ads from Cadillac and Lincoln the Imperial presents itself quite well imho. With rear disc brakes and anti-lock all around, a lower cost independent rear suspension and reliable EFI the car might have been a surprise hit.
 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Forgot to mention, potential tire scrub against skirts might have been eliminated using earlier Aspen/Volare's one inch narrower rear track. 

[Mahoning63]

On 11/27/2019 at 10:41 AM, bryankazmer said:

Can we seen some brushed stainless disc or body-colored wheelcovers instead of the wires?

 

 

Yes! Was curious what the Imperial's front would look like with concealed headlights and a good pic of Cordoba with stainless discs was available in the same brochure as the other pic. The wire wheels' protruding center probably would have scrubbed against the fenders skirts anyway. 

 

Have again placed the car in an ad, this time with pics of Imperial's interior.  Didn't try anything with Cordoba's grill. It's rather plain and with hidden lights reminds me of a '72 Continental but would have probably been adequate for this car. I relocated the signal lights to the bumper to give an overall clean frontal appearance. The Cordoba LS had its own unique grill so maybe it could have come with a second more classy insert to free up the formal grill for Imperial alone. The LeBaron and Cordoba took lots of design elements from Imperial in these years because there was no Imperial to apply them to. LeBaron's hood ornament and taillights belong on this work-up.

 

Pulled an image from allpar.com showing the transverse torsion bars up front. Looking at the Cordoba's rear underbody am wondering if its gas tank could have been relocated to a position above and/or forward of the rear drive unit (in a very convoluted shape the way tanks look now) to free up space for and independent rear that basically rotates the front suspension 180 degrees and reuses as many parts from it as possible. The IRS on the '79 Cadillac Seville/Eldorado was well-received by the press and was shared with Toronado and Riviera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[61polara]

At least one '81-'83 Imperial four door sedan or limo was built.  I saw it in Atlanta around 1984 or 1985 parked at a gas station in downtown Atlanta.  When I had to go into the office in the afternoons and the parking lots were full I would pull into this station and have the oil changed and pick it up after work.  Lots of people figured out this trick.  These Imperials have always been a favorite of mine so I know what I saw.  I have no idea how did the coachwork and don't have a picture of it, but it did exist and was black.  Never saw it again.  It was a very graceful looking car and I thought that this is what Chrysler should have made as well as the coupe.  It must have been one of these two done by Andrew Horton Associates of Belleville, Mich.

Edited December 2, 2019 by 61polara (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Great story. If you didn't get that from the Imperial Club site you can find it here along with other info on the lmo.

 

http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1981/Limo/index.htm

 

Here's another go-around with the Imperial ad. Found Cordoba's grill to be a bit boring so made the mesh look more like my favorite from '70. Also realized that Cordoba LS/Mirada hood would have been needed because its surfacing supports this theme. The Cordoba with formal grill has different hood surfacing.

 

Here's an article from Imperial Club that compares Imperial with Eldorado and Mark IV. The Imperial struggled somewhat with handling and braking so this sedan would have fared no better against Seville. IRS and more performance-oriented tires would have allowed it to catch and possibly even best the Caddy.

 

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles/81PopSci/index.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

Great stories I'm sure, but what does all this have to do with a Mercedes vs a Imperial? Lots of what if's and what should have or could have been that never happened. Why not start a thread on Imperial and keep on embellishing on that.

[Mahoning63]

Because it's better to occupy the top of a small hill than to forever climb a large one occupied by others.

 

Mercedes had found a small and very rich hill that in the early '70s was still anyone's for the taking or at least sharing, and Imperial had the home field advantage. Folks knew who they were, they had lots of dealers, technical know-how and good base product to work from. And no competition from Cadillac or Lincoln. All they needed was to get out of the old mentality of what constituted a great car and get back to the kind of innovative thinking that Walter P. Chrysler had when he created the company. This didn't mean building a clone of M-B. It just meant dialing back Imperial's size and ratcheting up its content and quality. But it had to be Mercedes that drove them forward, there was nothing instructive that Cadillac and Lincoln had to offer them anymore..

 

What I didn't realize when I started this post is the incredible opportunity that Imperial had in the Eighties. I've gotten comfortable with the T-square if the final car is cool rather than a square.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Came across a clean period ad of a '75 Coronet and just had try on an Imperial suit for size. That workaday sedan cleans up nicely.