Chrysler Imperial concept a poor man's Phantom

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/

Chrysler Imperial concept a poor man's Phantom
Posted Jan 3rd 2006 8:00AM by John Neff
Filed under: Concept Cars, Detroit Auto Show, Sedans/Saloons

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/1/bilde.jpg

Here is the first official pic of Chrysler’s Imperial Concept that
will debut next week at the Detroit auto show. Pics of the Imperial
lifted from the current issue of Motor Trend have already surfaced
elsewhere on the net, and reaction has been unanimous in that the new
Imperial looks like a poor man’s Rolls, especially with its
pedestrian-flattening grille.

Autoweek reports that the Imperial rides on a 123-inch wheelbase,
which is three ticks longer than the 300C’s wheelbase. Overall the
concept is 17-inches longer at 214 inches and six inches taller. Those
wheels are twenty-twos, so it’s a good thing Chrysler is using the
monster 5.7L Hemi with 340 hp and 390 lb-ft of torque to rotate them.

Entrance into the large sedan is achieved through b-pillar-less doors
that welcome occupants into an interior orgy of leather, California
burl wood and satin-finished aluminum. Many of the components inside
are handcrafted, as well, and set off by a bath of warm interior
accent lights.

Based on first impressions we’d venture to guess the Imperial Concept
has less of a chance to see the inside of an assembly plant than does
its concept cousin, the Challenger. If produced the Imperial would
occupy the top slot in Chrysler’s sedan lineup above the 300C

Comments:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...ntom/#comments

See also:

http://info.detnews.com/dn/joyrides/...masspecial.jpg

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:

> http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
>
> Chrysler Imperial concept a poor man's Phantom
> Posted Jan 3rd 2006 8:00AM by John Neff
> Filed under: Concept Cars, Detroit Auto Show, Sedans/Saloons
>
> http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/1/bilde.jpg
>
> Here is the first official pic of Chryslers Imperial Concept that
> will debut next week at the Detroit auto show. Pics of the Imperial
> lifted from the current issue of Motor Trend have already surfaced
> elsewhere on the net, and reaction has been unanimous in that the new
> Imperial looks like a poor mans Rolls, especially with its
> pedestrian-flattening grille.
>
> Autoweek reports that the Imperial rides on a 123-inch wheelbase,
> which is three ticks longer than the 300Cs wheelbase. Overall the
> concept is 17-inches longer at 214 inches and six inches taller. Those
> wheels are twenty-twos, so its a good thing Chrysler is using the
> monster 5.7L Hemi with 340 hp and 390 lb-ft of torque to rotate them.
>
> Entrance into the large sedan is achieved through b-pillar-less doors
> that welcome occupants into an interior orgy of leather, California
> burl wood and satin-finished aluminum. Many of the components inside
> are handcrafted, as well, and set off by a bath of warm interior
> accent lights.
>
> Based on first impressions wed venture to guess the Imperial Concept
> has less of a chance to see the inside of an assembly plant than does
> its concept cousin, the Challenger. If produced the Imperial would
> occupy the top slot in Chryslers sedan lineup above the 300C
>
> Comments:
>
I like the center-opening the doors, I think that Chrysler should put
them on all their cars, especially the PT Cruiser. Always easier to
enter/exit. Hey, it works well on my 1940 Royal
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Count Floyd wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/

And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...


Matt

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:32:09 UTC, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> Count Floyd wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
>
> And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
>
>
> Matt
What does that have to do with center opening doors? Have you ever
had a car with the old-fashioned "suicide doors". If you have, you
would make more rational comments on what I was saying. I was not
commenting on the "looks" of the new car, I was just saying that
Chrysler should return to the clamshell doors, especially on the PT
Cruiser. BTW, I had a 2003 four-door and I really wished that it had
had the old-fashioned doors. We now have a 2005 PT Cruiser
convertible. I think that a convertible sedan in the PT line would be
cool!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Count Floyd wrote:
>
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
>
> What does that have to do with center opening doors?

It's got nothing to do with the doors.

It's got everything to do with the fact that it looks like a Mac truck
from the front.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:31:14 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:

> Count Floyd wrote:
> >
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > > And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
> >
> > What does that have to do with center opening doors?
>
> It's got nothing to do with the doors.
>
> It's got everything to do with the fact that it looks like a Mac truck
> from the front.
I know how you feel about the looks of the front end, but what I was
trying to say was that the concept of center opening doors is a good
one that should be extended across the line.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Count Floyd wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:32:09 UTC, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Count Floyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
>>
>>And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
> What does that have to do with center opening doors? Have you ever
> had a car with the old-fashioned "suicide doors". If you have, you
> would make more rational comments on what I was saying. I was not
> commenting on the "looks" of the new car, I was just saying that
> Chrysler should return to the clamshell doors, especially on the PT
> Cruiser. BTW, I had a 2003 four-door and I really wished that it had
> had the old-fashioned doors. We now have a 2005 PT Cruiser
> convertible. I think that a convertible sedan in the PT line would be
> cool!
>

It wasn't about the doors, I just didn't feel like enabling the "view
all messages" option, going back and finding the preceding post,
replying to it, and then enabling the "view only unread messages"
option, when your post was right in front of me and easy to reply to!
Satisfied?

Although, now that you mention it, suicide doors are stupid and are
called suicide doors for a good reason.

Then again, on a car this ugly, the door configuration will be the least
of its problems. I just hope they actually make the challenger look
like the original so as to have ONE decent looking vehicle in their
line-up. Now that the Excaliber is replacing the Neon, and with the
redesigned Dakota, etc., the minivans are now Chryslers best looking
vehicles. What a sad commentary...


Matt

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 03:28:23 UTC, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> Count Floyd wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:32:09 UTC, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Count Floyd wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
> >>
> >>And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> > What does that have to do with center opening doors? Have you ever
> > had a car with the old-fashioned "suicide doors". If you have, you
> > would make more rational comments on what I was saying. I was not
> > commenting on the "looks" of the new car, I was just saying that
> > Chrysler should return to the clamshell doors, especially on the PT
> > Cruiser. BTW, I had a 2003 four-door and I really wished that it had
> > had the old-fashioned doors. We now have a 2005 PT Cruiser
> > convertible. I think that a convertible sedan in the PT line would be
> > cool!
> >
>
> It wasn't about the doors, I just didn't feel like enabling the "view
> all messages" option, going back and finding the preceding post,
> replying to it, and then enabling the "view only unread messages"
> option, when your post was right in front of me and easy to reply to!
> Satisfied?
>
> Although, now that you mention it, suicide doors are stupid and are
> called suicide doors for a good reason.

Matt,
Then why are so many four door trucks and other vehicles returning to
the center opening doors. There are ways to make them not like the
suicide doors of old, although on my 48 Plymouth and 40 Chrysler
Royal, the doors never came open during driving.
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Count Floyd wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 03:28:23 UTC, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Count Floyd wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:32:09 UTC, Matt Whiting >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Count Floyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
>>>>
>>>>And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>What does that have to do with center opening doors? Have you ever
>>>had a car with the old-fashioned "suicide doors". If you have, you
>>>would make more rational comments on what I was saying. I was not
>>>commenting on the "looks" of the new car, I was just saying that
>>>Chrysler should return to the clamshell doors, especially on the PT
>>>Cruiser. BTW, I had a 2003 four-door and I really wished that it had
>>>had the old-fashioned doors. We now have a 2005 PT Cruiser
>>>convertible. I think that a convertible sedan in the PT line would be
>>>cool!
>>>
>>
>>It wasn't about the doors, I just didn't feel like enabling the "view
>>all messages" option, going back and finding the preceding post,
>>replying to it, and then enabling the "view only unread messages"
>>option, when your post was right in front of me and easy to reply to!
>>Satisfied?
>>
>>Although, now that you mention it, suicide doors are stupid and are
>>called suicide doors for a good reason.
>
>
> Matt,
> Then why are so many four door trucks and other vehicles returning to
> the center opening doors. There are ways to make them not like the
> suicide doors of old, although on my 48 Plymouth and 40 Chrysler
> Royal, the doors never came open during driving.

Because the extended cab trucks don't have room for a full-size door and
thus eliminating the center post is an advantage. Also, most that I
have seen aren't really suicide doors as the back doors can't be opened
independently of the front. Maybe the newer trucks are this way, but my
brother-in-laws Chevy requires the front doors to be opened first.

Most of the club cab trucks I have seen that have the full size doors
open the doors with a hinge at the front.

A car the size of the Imperial has no need to remove the center post and
doing so not only gives you a door that opens the wrong way, it reduces
the ability of the car to resist a side impact.


Matt

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 03:43:18 UTC, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> Count Floyd wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 03:28:23 UTC, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Count Floyd wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:32:09 UTC, Matt Whiting >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Count Floyd wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:30:45 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/03/c...man-s-phantom/
> >>>>
> >>>>And I thought the 300C had set a standard for butt ugly...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Matt
> >>>
> >>>What does that have to do with center opening doors? Have you ever
> >>>had a car with the old-fashioned "suicide doors". If you have, you
> >>>would make more rational comments on what I was saying. I was not
> >>>commenting on the "looks" of the new car, I was just saying that
> >>>Chrysler should return to the clamshell doors, especially on the PT
> >>>Cruiser. BTW, I had a 2003 four-door and I really wished that it had
> >>>had the old-fashioned doors. We now have a 2005 PT Cruiser
> >>>convertible. I think that a convertible sedan in the PT line would be
> >>>cool!
> >>>
> >>
> >>It wasn't about the doors, I just didn't feel like enabling the "view
> >>all messages" option, going back and finding the preceding post,
> >>replying to it, and then enabling the "view only unread messages"
> >>option, when your post was right in front of me and easy to reply to!
> >>Satisfied?
> >>
> >>Although, now that you mention it, suicide doors are stupid and are
> >>called suicide doors for a good reason.
> >
> >
> > Matt,
> > Then why are so many four door trucks and other vehicles returning to
> > the center opening doors. There are ways to make them not like the
> > suicide doors of old, although on my 48 Plymouth and 40 Chrysler
> > Royal, the doors never came open during driving.
>
> Because the extended cab trucks don't have room for a full-size door and
> thus eliminating the center post is an advantage. Also, most that I
> have seen aren't really suicide doors as the back doors can't be opened
> independently of the front. Maybe the newer trucks are this way, but my
> brother-in-laws Chevy requires the front doors to be opened first.
>
> Most of the club cab trucks I have seen that have the full size doors
> open the doors with a hinge at the front.
>
> A car the size of the Imperial has no need to remove the center post and
> doing so not only gives you a door that opens the wrong way, it reduces
> the ability of the car to resist a side impact.
>
>
> Matt
I was not under the impression that the center post was removed from
the car, having not seen the specs. However, if the post were there
and the rear doors were hinged at the rear, then they could latch onto
the center post, just like they used to in my older Chryslers.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"