CONTINENTAL MARKS MUST NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS LINCOLNS

[Dan Szwarc]

The 59 and 60 mark series are the most controversial of them all when it comes to giving them a designation. It was even a jumbled mess when they re-introduced the Continental MarkIII in late 68. As a matter of fact I owned a "68 Mark III". Production records say that it was 1 of 7770.

There is no such thing as a 68 Mark III. They are all 69s. Check your VIN for proof. Everything else was marketing.

[Gerald F. Chase]

Wow; eighteen pages of debate on this question! BTW, FoMoCo never referred to the 1940
Continental as "Mark I".

Pardon me, but it reminds me of the debate as to when Imperials were a separate marque from
Chrysler, and when they were not. BTW, opinions differ on that, too!

[Dan Szwarc]

There is no such thing as a Mark I. It's something that people started using in 1956 AFTER the Mark II came out.

[Barry Wolk]

I don't believe anyone knowledgable here did, Gerald.

[LINC400]

Pardon me, but it reminds me of the debate as to when Imperials were a separate marque from
Chrysler, and when they were not. BTW, opinions differ on that, too!

There is no debate on that. Imperial was a separate division from 1955-1975. All Imperials before and after that are Chryslers. Anyone calling a 1955-75 a Chrysler Imperial (such as Jay Leno) is simply wrong.

[ContiFan]

Anyone calling a 1955-75 a Chrysler Imperial (such as Jay Leno) is simply wrong.

I don't think calling a 1970s Imperial a Chrysler Imperial is necessarily "wrong." Even Chrysler's own marketing pieces did so e.g. 1975 brochure text below. I think marketing references as "Chrysler Imperial" go back to at least the early 1970s. The 1980s Imperial was marketed less as a "Chrysler Imperial" than most 1970s models.

[Barry Wolk]

[OldSchool1]

Way to go Barry.

[LINC400]

Not very much off topic at all. (especially considering the bizarre direction some threads here have gone) Both were model names that turned into divisions. And while they were both good names, the divisions might have done better if they had used entirely new names instead since they would always be linked to the less expensive original division in the general public's head.

Imperial was a sales disappointment for Chrysler. First they dropped the dedicated plant, then the unique body. They tried everything including touting its low sales as making it more unique. That included making odd references to it being a Chrysler in the 1970's as everyone was still calling it that anyway. And in 1976, the exact same Imperial would be rebadged the Chrysler New Yorker Brougham, price dropped, and it sold better.

However, Jay Leno refers to his 1967 Imperial (still with unique Imperial body that year) countless times as a Chrysler Imperial. As the supposed car god, he should know better.

There is also an idiot in the Chicago area that has a huge sign special made for his "1956 Lincoln Continental Mark II". Below that he always has an article he found stating how Continental was a separate division, and it is not a Lincoln. I guess he never read it. Go figure.

[Dan Szwarc]

There is also an idiot in the Chicago area that has a huge sign special made for his "1956 Lincoln Continental Mark II". Below that he always has an article he found stating how Continental was a separate division, and it is not a Lincoln. I guess he never read it. Go figure.

That's pretty funny.

[Suicidekid63]

[Barry Wolk]

I'll say. This thread should die.

[OldSchool1]

[Suicidekid63]

Is there an echo in here? lol

[toddallen]

Damn.

Am I late to this party?

My finger is wearing out clicking "Mark topic read" on this thread since I don't care what our cars are called. I finally entered to see what all the activity is about- was it fun?