I was at the library researching magazine articles from the 1972-73 time frame to locate and put into my binder of items of interest for my 1973 Continental (alongside restoration pictures, and I found an article from Motor Trend in 1973. I scanned the article, and the PDFs attached have the contents. It's a fun article for those interested in the general view of these cars in the early 70s. My main takeaway is that they conveyed the perception of money much more modern Lincolns and Cadillacs do now, which really shows how badly the big 3 messed things up. But certainly a fun read!
I've included jpegs for a preview, as well as higher quality PDF scans.
Motor Trend Sept. 1973: Continental vs Fleetwood vs Imperial
Moderators: Dan Szwarc, Continental69
- Continental73
- Occasional Visitor
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 3:58 pm
- Contact:
Motor Trend Sept. 1973: Continental vs Fleetwood vs Imperial
1973 Lincoln Continental
2018 Lincoln Continental
2018 Lincoln Continental
-
- Frequent Contributor
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:50 pm
- Contact:
- TonyC
- TLFer for Life
- Posts: 10689
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Motor Trend Sept. 1973: Continental vs Fleetwood vs Impe
Indeed, excellent reference from the past. I knew Motor Trend did comparisons, but I never saw that one. Funny how they downplayed the Lincoln, which was little more than a carryover of the initial 1970 year, when they fawned, "If it is possible to improve an already-excellent luxury car, we think Lincoln has."
There is something else, too, that I noticed: They referred to the Imperial as the "Chrysler Imperial." Imperial in that year—in fact, from '55 all the way to its end in '75—was marketed as a separate division of Chrysler Corporation, just as Cadillac was with GM and Lincoln was with Ford (you never hear of Caddys being labeled as "GM Cadillac" or Lincolns as "Ford Lincoln"). And I think that had a pretty significant contribution to the demise of the marque. The Imp was originally stood up as a mere trim option for Chrysler-division cars, however more stylish; and I think that when Chrysler decided to transform it into its own luxury marque, it never got out of that stigma of being an insolent upstart. It might have, had the 1957 model year been kinder to Chrysler (but that was their own doing, not thinking about corrosion effects); but after the slap in the face of quality control being given low priority, right at the time that a flash recession pounded the entire auto market, any hope of it becoming a marque in its own right was dashed. Although Chrysler tried stressing the name as only "Imperial," the buying public and independent critics never got out of tacking the "Chrysler" name in front of it. Auto history has shown time and again that a car which does not have an established identity is not going to withstand the test of time—just look at what happened to Packard. Lincoln and Cadillac had much more distinct origins which they were able to hold onto for the most part, which was why they have lasted as long as they have, even against the combined assaults of all the insolent upstarts that came after Imperial.
---Tony
There is something else, too, that I noticed: They referred to the Imperial as the "Chrysler Imperial." Imperial in that year—in fact, from '55 all the way to its end in '75—was marketed as a separate division of Chrysler Corporation, just as Cadillac was with GM and Lincoln was with Ford (you never hear of Caddys being labeled as "GM Cadillac" or Lincolns as "Ford Lincoln"). And I think that had a pretty significant contribution to the demise of the marque. The Imp was originally stood up as a mere trim option for Chrysler-division cars, however more stylish; and I think that when Chrysler decided to transform it into its own luxury marque, it never got out of that stigma of being an insolent upstart. It might have, had the 1957 model year been kinder to Chrysler (but that was their own doing, not thinking about corrosion effects); but after the slap in the face of quality control being given low priority, right at the time that a flash recession pounded the entire auto market, any hope of it becoming a marque in its own right was dashed. Although Chrysler tried stressing the name as only "Imperial," the buying public and independent critics never got out of tacking the "Chrysler" name in front of it. Auto history has shown time and again that a car which does not have an established identity is not going to withstand the test of time—just look at what happened to Packard. Lincoln and Cadillac had much more distinct origins which they were able to hold onto for the most part, which was why they have lasted as long as they have, even against the combined assaults of all the insolent upstarts that came after Imperial.
---Tony
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, just because there is a picture with a quote next to it." (Abraham Lincoln, 1866)
"Question Authority!"
1966 Continental Sedan, affectionately known as "Frankenstein" until body restoration is done (to be renamed "General Sherman" on that event)
"Question Authority!"
1966 Continental Sedan, affectionately known as "Frankenstein" until body restoration is done (to be renamed "General Sherman" on that event)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests