Identification and general ****.
- Thread starter Dr. Benway
- Start date
78Brougham
"Chump"
I'm sorry Mr. C but I have to respectfully disagree with your Uncle Joe. He may have been able to option up a Newport with some of the amenities, but there is no way a Newport could ever replicate the ride or suspension of a '73 Imperial. Imho.
I feel the ride of an Imperial is second to none. Even my '78 NYB isn't as nice as my '73 Imperial. Close but no cigar.
live4theking
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 12,732
- Reaction score
- 8,930
Greatly appreciate your pointing this out John. My young ones are always looking over my shoulder and I want to continue to feed their interest in the old car hobby.
livininharrow
Senior Member
the same as the Canadian translation. that would be ****.
Dr. Benway
Member
Again thanks. **** is "paska" in finnish, and turd would be "pökäle". And if the translation for turd dont show you correctly thats because there is a with dots on it and o with dots in it.
BTW 1973 would be Fuselage not a Formal 
Kernel Sanders
Member
hope this helps
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
*That overfill/vapor separator is mounted in the axle kick up, not the trunk. Only in '70, they mounted in the trunk.
Kernel Sanders
Member
true this is for a 73 BBody set up but I figure the diagram would explain a little about the number of vent hoses from the tank itself.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
It's great info, I just wanted to clarify the location because the drawing doesn't.
"Replicating" would not be that difficult, being the platform is pretty much the same. Starting with a New Yorker would generate nicer door panels, which can help with the quietness element. The Imperial has the 3" longer wheel base, more weight for road disturbances to "disturb", and generally has more soft surfaces to absorb sound in the interior. Due to the additional weight, torsion bars and rear leaf springs would be a little stiffer in "checking weight", but not "ride rate". Adding the vinyl roof to a Newport will make a significant difference, too.
In the pre-Torsion Quiet Ride days, Chryslers were generally downgraded due to their alleged ride harshness (compared to similar Ford and GM vehicles). I observed that if you took our '66 Newport (with HD shocks and bias-belted tires, at the time), put your hands over your ears, then watched the ride motions, it was as smooth as any other similar car, just the "road noise" of the Unibody transmitted more auditory input than the non-Unibody GM and Ford cars did. Take out the road noise (leaving the wind noise?) and the smoothness was there. BUT the GM cars were much more noisy on gravel/dirt roads as their version of "undercoat" was only in the wheel well area, NOT on the underbody of the car.
One article commented that Chryslers rode as smooth as they did was due to the "pendulum effect". Their body overhung the wheelbase, generally, a little more than other GM and Ford cars did. Those few extra inches, front and back, put more weight outside the wheelbase to keep things more level and steady-as-she-goes, they claimed. Everything was still in proportion, though. Not like more recent designed vehicles which put the front grille mere inches ahead of the front wheels and the tail lights closer to the rear wheels. Shock absorber tuning is a more advanced science now, I suspect. But it's still not quite the same.
Regards,
CBODY67
Dr. Benway
Member
Ok, thank you guys, all this settled things right. But, theres always a but, I have more questions. And photos too. For example is it normal that the rear leaf set of 73 Newport has some rubber **** in them as in the pictures coz 62 b body belvedere didnt have them? Coz in Belvedere the shock plate was against the leaf set and there were no rubber thaaangs above it and also there is extra piece of metal that goes around the leaf set under the rear axle. Sorry for my shitty english but try to get the point, and actually the only question is that are all the things right in the photos?
rapidtrans
Senior Member
That’s exactly what dad did. His favorite engine was a 383 2bbl as it ran on any grade gas. He would order loaded Newport Customs. Interiors were nearly as nice as a N.Y. and just enough exterior trim to keep from a plain Jane look. We had a 67, three in 69 and 72. The off years he went with VIPs.
Mr C
Senior Member
Yes it's normal. Chrysler went to the Iso-clamp arrangement in 73 to reduce noise and improve the ride.
Dr. Benway
Member
Ok. Are they dead necessary?
Fratzog
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 28,240
- Reaction score
- 27,592
That depends on wether you want the car to perform the way Chrysler engineered it to or not. Are you thinking your springs need to be replaced?
Dr. Benway
Member
Well I'm just drinking beer and pondering but apparently the leafs are very heavy and there is somekind of air shocks in the back. I was thinking to put 5cm lowering pads there and if I do that the ones I have wont fit with the iso-clamps so I was thinking just to get rid of them. Was there air shocks originally installed or are they after market thing? I ordered a pair of new air shocks and the american man said that they'll fit, and apparently they will after I take few leaves away and hammer the rest. The car is an old 70' show car and the rear was so high that even I have'nt been that high so I figure that the leaves are not original or something.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 28,240
- Reaction score
- 27,592
No air shocks
the rear frame assembly was not designed for air shocks to carry the weight of the car that is the job of the leaf springs themselves. Air shocks without modification of the upper shock crossmember would be a mistake.
Similar threads
