2006 NAIAS: Chrysler Imperial Concept

[Northstar]

From Autoweek:

Envisioned as a “noble” yet attainable flagship positioned a cut above the 300C (“It’s a six-figure image but at a much lower price,” says Tremont), the concept designed in Chrysler’s Auburn Hills studio doesn’t mimic Imperials of the past, but it does draw on some of the styling cues from those older cars. It also carries expressive attributes from Chrysler’s long line of concept cars, from the 1953 d’Elegance to the Fire-power that premiered at last year’s Detroit show. The wide-open, B-pillar-less doors allow a panoramic view of the show car’s opulent four-seat, two-tone interior, where no expense is spared when it comes to use of leather, suede, California burl wood accents and satin-finished aluminum. Designers also paid considerable attention to handcrafted components like the sculptured instrument panel with large dual gauges, coved ceiling, and the floating oval armrests in the doors, all bathed in warm light.

[RJB]

Holy Rolls Royce Phantom ripoff Batman!!!! They took that car and made it worse!

[Satty]

Thats...umm.....they even stole Rolls Royce wheels. I'd love to see an LX that isn't blocky, something smooth, that flows. Enough of this Kenworth BS already.

[VenSeattle]

The interior is nice, but exterior styling is as graceful as an armored truck. BRINKS should be placed somewhere on the exterior. I'll have to see it in person... but I fear it won't help.

[loki]

i'd agree ven, interior's nice, but the exterior ...well , doesn't seem to have much "distinctness" edit: the rear is hardly nice Edited January 4, 2006 by loki

[bobo]

This just looks goofy, like a big enclosed clown car.

[razoredge]

THey cant take that to a show......its already been involved in a head on....... I dont know what the Rolls your refering to looks like. I think they have some great styling ideas here like 50% that has been destroyed by the other 50% nonsence. Im wonderoing if the photos havent been pinched, the head on looks like its going to tip over just sitting there. I thought minivans were on their way out ? Edited January 4, 2006 by razoredge

[evok]

Say what you will about the styling, but there is a market for bold and I will bet the ranch that Chrysler would sell more Imperials than Cadillac STSs at the same price. And without 399/mnt leases.

[turbo200]

I'm not saying I am a fan of the look of this car, but THIS is the kind of car Buick should be building. The market, design statement, their are very many things right with this vehicle. Buick needs to be there.

[Croc]

Wow...can Chrysler design something that isn't as blocky as an 80s sedan?

[balthazar]

They did; where we you throughout the '90s?

[balthazar]

I'm not saying I am a fan of the look of this car, but THIS is the kind of car Buick should be building. The market, design statement, their are very many things right with this vehicle. Buick needs to be there.

You 'don't like the look' but the 'design statement is where Buick should be'??
This Imp, if brought to market, has the appearances of being at least in the 60K range (if it's so similar to a rolls, I guess that number could be much higher). That price level is well outside Buick's & deeply into Cadillac's (not to mention the Imp would be deeply into mercedes's range). It looks to have a nicely upscale interior, but I fail to see anything beyond that that should be applied to Buick.

And Dear God but LEDs look trashy & cheap. It's apparently so easy to run a string of them that cars in general are probably going precisely in this direction; festooned with rows of tiny bare bulbs like a chintzy X-mas display. Double Blech!

[Hudson]

And Dear God but LEDs look trashy & cheap. It's apparently so easy to run a string of them that cars in general are probably going precisely in this direction; festooned with rows of tiny bare bulbs like a chintzy X-mas display. Double Blech!

I completely disagree. While this particular setup looks odd close-up, LED taillights make the car look MORE expensive. Sitting behind a deVille when turnsignals or brakelights come on looks impressive, especially when you see it next to a car with conventional taillights and you can compare just how fast the LEDs light up. It makes every other taillight look ancient.

[balthazar]

Speed of illumination difference is only supposed to be a tenth or so of a second.

However, I'm not talking about how fast they seemingly light, I am talking about the X-mas light string look of them. The previous gen Deville had them masked behind a crystalline lense: you still got the snappier illumination without it looking like a hand-held electronic game. They just look very 'cut & paste' because they're so obvious and always in either a straight or circular pattern.

[sciguy_0504]

Does nothing for me.

[CSpec]

This is one of the most grotesque things I've ever seen on 4 wheels.

[NOS2006]

It looks very well engineered though, doesn't it? Seems of a very good quality. And the engine compartment is neat! This thing just shows that "Chrysler can." Edited January 5, 2006 by NOS2006

[Northstar]

It looks very well engineered though, doesn't it? Seems of a very good quality. And the engine compartment is neat!

This thing just shows that "Chrysler can."

[post="67704"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well it should be of high quality considering it's a concept car. The engine compartment is okay, but something like on the Sixteen would have been more interesting.

[VenSeattle]

I'm not saying I am a fan of the look of this car, but THIS is the kind of car Buick should be building. The market, design statement, their are very many things right with this vehicle. Buick needs to be there.

[post="67478"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm just thankful this wasn't Buick's Zeta concept! :lol:

I agree that Buick needs a flagship vehicle above Lucerne with several "features" that this vehicle has. A lot of people want luxurious cars that don't translate into sport sedans like CTS or STS.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Everytime I see that, it looks twice as bad as the first time I looked at it. Seriously, the nose of the car is too tall and better suited to an SUV (speaking of which, I wouldn't doubt if some elements will make their way to the Aspen). The car looks too short and the rear is way too chunky. Terrible. The 1990 Imperial looked better than that.

[titan]

I'm just thankful this wasn't Buick's Zeta concept!  :lol:

I agree that Buick needs a flagship vehicle above Lucerne with several "features" that this vehicle has. A lot of people want luxurious cars that don't translate into sport sedans like CTS or STS.

[post="67709"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Now THAT, I agree with. The interior is very nice. This concept's exterior design doesn't do anything for me. But it makes a statement for Chrysler. In my eyes, Buick's image and brand postitioning is way higher than Chrysler's. You don't see any Buick PT Crusiers putting around... and Buick continues to inch it's image firmly into the lux realm. Buick needs a flagship that is imposing, crisp (as opposed to the current jellybean designs), with alot of Buick styling ques and a powerful V8. Something to compete with the LS... and an Invicta would probably cost more than an Imperial. As far as price overlap with Caddy, so what? In time, Caddy will have a V8 only flagship of it's own to compete with the S and 7, and it'll be priced way higher than the Invicta (which would should be priced around a STS V8, IMO).

[wildcat]

I can't draw or photoshop, so please try to imagine what I am trying to describe: make a big, bold, beautiful Buick with heritage cues lots of chrome in particular, portholes and the sweepspear as on the 1953 Skylark paint below the sweepspear white leave above it whatever color for a two-tone effect maybe even whitewalls for the concept show car

[Bimmer325]

I kinda like it. :ph34r: I just don't see how it'd slot above the similarly-sized 300 unless the production version were larger.

[pow]

I have to say, though, that this concept is the first Chrysler product I've seen with a decent interior.

[Flybrian]

Is this Chrysler answer to Bugatti's safe?

[gmhashope]

That thing is sooo fugly. It looks like a bad rip off of a Bentley.

[ToniCipriani]

That thing is sooo fugly.  It looks like a bad rip off of a Bentley.

[post="68332"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ditto. I was about to say that instead of a rip-off of a RR. They ripped off RR using the 300 already.

[Satty]

The 300 looks more Bentley(see: Arnage) than RR, the Imperial looks totally RR, especially up front and in the c-pillar.

[Buick61]

The pictures from the Auto Show make this car look A LOT better. The studio shots mess up the proportions.

[Dsuupr]

Holy Rolls Royce Phantom ripoff Batman!!!! They took that car and made it worse!

[post="67365"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I couldn't have said it better myself.