It's technically true that Imperial was its own marque from '55 to '75. However, this fact was completely and universally ignored in general conversation, and was probably unknown to most people outside the auto industry. Younger readers and those outside North America may not even recognize what "Imperial" alone is supposed to convey. Consequently, removing "Chrysler" from in front of it may slightly improve the article's accuracy, but I believe it damages its readability. RivGuySC 06:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Is that better? Links to the Imperial article correctly, yet puts Chrysler in front of it.
- It's like mentioning 'Continental' ; the 55-57 (or thereabouts cars) were technically not Lincolns, but everyone calls them that anyway. —Morven 07:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's quite an acceptable solution. You're right that the Imperial situation is analagous to the Continental division's--neither ever made any impression on the general public. RivGuySC 17:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I regret that I gave some bad info above. It kept bugging me about when the Imperial turned back into a Chrysler, so I went googling. This page says it was '71. That's probably right. That's the kind of thing I hate when somebody else gets it wrong, so I hate it twice when I do! RivGuySC 01:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You were right the first time. The research I did for Imperial (automobile) showed Imperial ending after '75. However, in 1971, the Imperial began to bear 'IMPERIAL by Chrysler' badges, and began to be associated with Chrysler again in advertising and the like. It was still just the Imperial, though, and was not 'Chrysler Imperial'.
- It's quite understandable that the public never really understood Imperial or Continental; both used names that had formerly been model names as marque names, both did not truly have models within the range (Imperial had things like LeBaron, but those were more along the lines of trim level designations). Plus, manufacturers sometimes just didn't put their name on some cars. My '67 Thunderbird carries the Ford name only in two places: on the door kick plates and on the keys. The name does not appear externally nor on the normally visible interior. Given that manufacturers do that, it wasn't exactly surprising that when a vehicle came bearing just 'Imperial' or 'Continental' on it, people just thought it was a styling touch. —Morven 18:21, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- This is a debatable point. I'm not sure exactly what would settle it, but I'm inclining to think the webmaster at the fuselage website is right. He shows the change in dealer brochures from the separate '70 Imperial one to the Imperial's being included in the Chrysler book for '71, and as you note, that year the Chrysler name reappeared on the vehicles. After thinking hard about it, I also believe I remember the sign at the dealer in our town being changed from Chrysler/Plymouth/Imperial to just Chrysler/Plymouth about that time. (Even as a young'un, I had a sharp eye for automobilia!) So I'd say in reference to '71 and later models, Chrysler Imperial was correct again. Your Imperial article is shaping up well, BTW, and I'll probably post a few comments there.
- Yes, personal luxury cars were often badged differently, at least those below the Eldo and Mark. After '63, the Riviera never again had the Buick tri-shield on the outside. On my '95, it exists only molded into the airbag cover. Even the Monte Carlo had its own crest and seldom showed a bowtie. They were trying to give the impression that these models were a cut above the ordinary run of Chevies, Fords, & Buicks, I guess. This maybe should be worked into the PLC article somewhere RivGuySC 21:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What is it good for?
Any practical or safety advantages? Lighter or heavier than a steel roof? Does it warm up more or less in the sun? I can imagine it can be a problem when recycling a used vehicle at the end of its lifecycle .... --18.104.22.168 17:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some interesting questions above!
- I once had a Ford brochure from '69 or '70 (which I've since lost) that claimed the vinyl had some insulation value. (If it were padded vinyl, I guess that would be added insulation.) This is the only advantage I ever heard claimed, and I'm a little doubtful about it.
- Since the vinyl just covers the standard steel roof, it would have to be heavier. But since a thin vinyl coating doesn't weigh much, the difference would be marginal.
- Vinyl is grainy and not as reflective as sheet metal, so I'd say it would heat up faster in the sun than a metal roof of the same color. But white vinyl would surely reflect more heat than black metal, etc.
- I don't think the recycling effect would be very great. After all, there's so much polyvinyl in the interior anyway that the roof couldn't add much additional.