Quick correction on the 68...Round light A/B/ C Dodge & Plymouth. Square- Chrysler and Imperial.
Were Imperials related to the C-bodies of this time frame?
- Thread starter RCB
- Start date
Quick correction on the 68...Round light A/B/ C Dodge & Plymouth. Square- Chrysler and Imperial.
patrick66
Old Man with a Hat
Yup, correct
fury fan
Senior Member
Correct on all the sidemarker stuff, I was originally going to say I couldn't tell 67-69 apart, then I remembered 68 was start of markers.
It might be best to term the '67-'73 Imperials as "modified C" rather than just "C". The ties to "C" were more mechanically obvious in the '69-'73 cars, I believe, although there were strong ties in the '67-'68 Imperials. Chrysler "C" sedans/hardtops were on 124" wheelbases and the '67-'73 Imperials were 127" wheelbases. I understand some of that extra wheelbase was done with a longer front subframe, which had the engine a little farther away from the cowl area.
Somewhere in the mix, on the '67+ Imperials, was an isolated K-frame. In an attempt to further have engine and suspension isolation more like the body/frame cars had (especially GM). A similar architecture appeared on the '79-'81 Newport/New Yorker/St. Regis.
In the world of Mopar, there seems to be more general knowledge of "other" Mopars than just what one might own or be interested in. The noted "non-knowledge" gets worse with some GM carlines' enthusiasts . . . whether it be models, model eras, or engineering differences.
During the earlier years of the 300 Letter cars, many New Yorkers were used as organ and parts donors, so the original numbers of those New Yorkers took a hit so a triple-digit price 300 Letter car could live. Just as B/RB engines/transmissions were transplanted from C into B or A or E.
CBODY67
Somewhere in the mix, on the '67+ Imperials, was an isolated K-frame. In an attempt to further have engine and suspension isolation more like the body/frame cars had (especially GM). A similar architecture appeared on the '79-'81 Newport/New Yorker/St. Regis.
In the world of Mopar, there seems to be more general knowledge of "other" Mopars than just what one might own or be interested in. The noted "non-knowledge" gets worse with some GM carlines' enthusiasts . . . whether it be models, model eras, or engineering differences.
During the earlier years of the 300 Letter cars, many New Yorkers were used as organ and parts donors, so the original numbers of those New Yorkers took a hit so a triple-digit price 300 Letter car could live. Just as B/RB engines/transmissions were transplanted from C into B or A or E.
CBODY67
ALL of the wheelbase stretch on 67-73 Imperials was achieved via the different Imperial stub frame. Floor stampings some glass from 67&68 were the same as other C bodies... 69-73 the unibodies/ glass (a lot more) from the firewall back were identical with some modified pieces across the rear to accommodate the different Imperial bumpers.
I think the 67-73 Imperials are best described as "Stretch or extended" C bodies.
I respectfully believe that "modified" might be better as the Plymouth and Dodge sedans/hardtops/convertibles had different wheelbases (119 and 122, respectively) and this additional wheelbase length resulted in the Dodges having more rear seat legroom than the similar Plymouths, although the front seat area was the same size. Chrysler models, with the 123.5" or 124" (whichever one was stated) had even more rear seat leg room. C-body station wagons were all on 122" wheelbases, whether Plymouth, Dodge, or Chrysler.
I'll have to check the specs, but the sales brochures all looked to me as if the Imperials had more rear seat leg room than similar Chryslers ('67-'73). Therefore, I always suspected some of the longer wheelbase allowed some of that, too, as on the other C-body carlines. I'll have to dig out the old Mitchell Crash Manual for my own research. In any event, it's quite a task to put wax on the quarter panels and painted tops!
CBODY67
I'll have to check the specs, but the sales brochures all looked to me as if the Imperials had more rear seat leg room than similar Chryslers ('67-'73). Therefore, I always suspected some of the longer wheelbase allowed some of that, too, as on the other C-body carlines. I'll have to dig out the old Mitchell Crash Manual for my own research. In any event, it's quite a task to put wax on the quarter panels and painted tops!
CBODY67
You are confusing things. The question was regarding Imperials and how the 127 inch wheelbase was achieved, which means you are by default discussing manufacturing similarities between Chryslers and Imperials 67-73, Convertible, 2 dr and 4 dr hardtop only. Wagon, Plymouth and Dodge discussion here is moot. Wheel base was stretched via stub frame- period.
Thanks for your comments. One stated reason for the change from the body/frame Imperials to the UniBody Imperials was to gain economies of scale by using existing C-body architecture, but modified for Imperial use.
I'll admit that I have always admired Imperials and knew they were better vehicles, in many ways, than their USA competitors, but the local dealer did not sell that many, so my exposure to them was limited. I would see them in the shop and look at them on the Weaver Twin-Post lifts, but didn't do an involved analysis of what was different and what wasn't, compared to the Chrysler 124" wheelbase models. I did notice the much heavier rear leaf springs, which at the time, reminded me more of 3/4 ton pickup leaf springs than a luxury automobile.
I knew the rear seat legroom varied with the 119" and 122" wheelbases, compared to the 124" Chrysler wheelbase, so it was my suspicion that a part of the Imperial wheelbase equated into still more rear seat legroom, BUT my research in road test specs for the '67 Imperial and specs noted in a '69-'73 Imperial-specific article at Allpar.com, it appears my suspicions were possibly more optical illusions in the photographs, or that I wanted the bigger car to have more room in the rear seat. So, the figures do not bear this out. The '69-'73 Imperial rear seat is no bigger than the similar '69 Chrysler. Therefore, that would support your comments on the longer front sub-frame being where that added wheelbase would be. Thanks for your tolerance as I proved I was incorrect.
In the Allpar.com article, I also learned that many of Chrysler's later-standard equipment was first debuted on Imperials. With some Imperial-specific items which did not migrate to the less expensive Chrysler-brand vehicles.
CBODY67
I'll admit that I have always admired Imperials and knew they were better vehicles, in many ways, than their USA competitors, but the local dealer did not sell that many, so my exposure to them was limited. I would see them in the shop and look at them on the Weaver Twin-Post lifts, but didn't do an involved analysis of what was different and what wasn't, compared to the Chrysler 124" wheelbase models. I did notice the much heavier rear leaf springs, which at the time, reminded me more of 3/4 ton pickup leaf springs than a luxury automobile.
I knew the rear seat legroom varied with the 119" and 122" wheelbases, compared to the 124" Chrysler wheelbase, so it was my suspicion that a part of the Imperial wheelbase equated into still more rear seat legroom, BUT my research in road test specs for the '67 Imperial and specs noted in a '69-'73 Imperial-specific article at Allpar.com, it appears my suspicions were possibly more optical illusions in the photographs, or that I wanted the bigger car to have more room in the rear seat. So, the figures do not bear this out. The '69-'73 Imperial rear seat is no bigger than the similar '69 Chrysler. Therefore, that would support your comments on the longer front sub-frame being where that added wheelbase would be. Thanks for your tolerance as I proved I was incorrect.
In the Allpar.com article, I also learned that many of Chrysler's later-standard equipment was first debuted on Imperials. With some Imperial-specific items which did not migrate to the less expensive Chrysler-brand vehicles.
CBODY67
78Brougham
"Chump"
Being an owner of a '67 and a '73 LeBaron, and a '78 NYB (Imperial in NYB clothing) I think you guys are spitting hairs here. Just enjoy them for what they are and don't over think it. I know I don't, they all have their faults and hi-lights, mostly due to the passing of time and designs. I love them all.
Last edited:
Boomer
Active Member
So I'm a bit late to the discussion, as usual. Curious as to the '64 Imperial designation - is it also a D body? It's my understanding that the same guy (re)designed the 64-66 models. Did he start with one platform then switch to another the next year?
These early 60s Imperials have really grown on me over the years and (oddly enough) the good wife has taken at least a mild interest in the convertibles recently, so I want to be able to capitalize on that if the opportunity presents itself. Has to have A/C, of course. Apparently not a given with '64 Imperials.
These early 60s Imperials have really grown on me over the years and (oddly enough) the good wife has taken at least a mild interest in the convertibles recently, so I want to be able to capitalize on that if the opportunity presents itself. Has to have A/C, of course. Apparently not a given with '64 Imperials.
rumpfox
Member
had a 68 imperial and it was a y body. c body parts wouldn't fit the front suspen. broke a torsion bar and couldn't find one. ended up junking the body. the body wieghhted 4800lbs. without the running gear. ctill have the 440 block in a 64 valiant
Seems like there were some mention of the "Sales Code" and "platform code" designations, a while back. It seems that the platform code for the earlier Imperials was "D", but the VIN sales code was "Y"? As a C-body Plymouth had a different VIN "sales/producing division code" than a similar Dodge?
I always liked the Imperials and gained new appreciations for them as "Special Chrysler Products" as time has progressed. There were some great articles on them in the "WPC Club News" and also a HUGE amount of information on them in the Online Imperial Club website. ONE great thing about that website is that it was the first place I found all of the Chrysler Service Tech publications/film strips/videos archived, from the first ones to the last ones in about 1975 or so. GREAT STUFF! Not TSBs, but training information for techs, including New Product Information and how various systems on the vehicle operate (theory of operation, etc.).
CBODY67
I always liked the Imperials and gained new appreciations for them as "Special Chrysler Products" as time has progressed. There were some great articles on them in the "WPC Club News" and also a HUGE amount of information on them in the Online Imperial Club website. ONE great thing about that website is that it was the first place I found all of the Chrysler Service Tech publications/film strips/videos archived, from the first ones to the last ones in about 1975 or so. GREAT STUFF! Not TSBs, but training information for techs, including New Product Information and how various systems on the vehicle operate (theory of operation, etc.).
CBODY67
78Brougham
"Chump"
It's my belief that the "Y" on an Imperial vin code is because the letter "I" could be misread as the number "1" on the vin tag or fender tag stamping's. It has nothing to do with body style classification. Chrysler vins began with C, Plymouth with P, Dodge with D. Imperial with Y. Earlier models who knows. Probably some were just all digits.
I'm sure there may be some exceptions. For example, I found the sales receipt for my '79 Trail Duster the other day and it's vin began with AA, but that was a truck.
Stan's C-body spread sheet is the best tool for clarifying all the c-body models.
I'm sure there may be some exceptions. For example, I found the sales receipt for my '79 Trail Duster the other day and it's vin began with AA, but that was a truck.
Stan's C-body spread sheet is the best tool for clarifying all the c-body models.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Sorry, but this has been covered extensively...your 68 Imperial (like mine) is a C body. The Imperial stub frame was different from other C's to give the 127 inch wheelbase and a cushy ride, as you found out, had different parts from the rest of the Chrysler Corporation car lines. That does not change the body designation of the car. Plymouth C bodies had different length torsion bars in some of the years too and that did not make them "P" bodies. Y was the car line. I have heard that the 80's Imperials were designated Y body, but I defer to others on that as I am not as savvy on the 80's stuff.
Commando's spread sheet is the closest thing to the definitive list there is out there.
oliver
Senior Member
C, D or Y, let's face it... we like big Chryslers
Kenny, open the hood on your 78 NYB and look at the front lip and you will see a "Y" stamped on it. If you look at a 78 Newport at the same location you will find a "C" stamped on it. They are totally 2 different hoods. It will interchange but won't line up properly with the header. The crease in the center of the hood on the NYB is higher than the Newport. A lot of the 1974-1975 Imperial "Y" body parts were carried over from 1976 on when Chrysler rebadged the Imperials and made them in to NYB's. There are other places designated/stamped "Y" on the 76-78 NYB's too....
The '80s Imperial coupes had their platform heritage in the F-body (bent front torsion bar suspension), I believe. There were also fwd Chryslers that were allegedly "C"-designated cars. The similar fwd Imperials? Mere K-car-upgraded platforms?
Relish, preserve, and enjoy the cars for what they are. Some mechanical parts that we suspect are "common" are not, some others are. Model year specific, typically. Enjoy and celebrate the differences and WHY Chrysler made them that way.
CBODY67
Similar threads
- Locked
