TTI Exhaust on Imperial

[bajajoaquin]

While lying in bed, unable to sleep, I started talking myself into more and more mods. More cam! Aluminum heads! Headers! Then I remembered the "search" function, and started reading up.

So I'm off the headers thing. Consensus seems to be that the TTI full exhaust is a high-quality piece, and would be a good bet, about the same price as having a local shop fab and install a less-nice piece. Their C-Body kit seems to be a bolt-on affair. The problem is that an Imperial is only kinda' a C-Body. My understanding is that:

1. The chassis dimensions differ between the Imperial and the C-Body forward of the cowl.
2. From looking at the diagrams on the TTI website, there appears to be a slip-joint between the down pipes and the H pipe, which might be amenable to extending. (I called them, and they're closed until next Monday.)

Has anyone here put a TTI exhaust on a '67 or '68 Imperial, or have other experience that would help understand if it would fit?

Also, (oh, no, the dreaded muffler question) the package comes with Dynomax mufflers. I'm interested in quiet, not muscle. Anyone have first-hand experience with these?

Thanks,

Jonathan

 

[bluefury361]

Also, (oh, no, the dreaded muffler question) the package comes with Dynomax mufflers. I'm interested in quiet, not muscle. Anyone have first-hand experience with these?

The folks at TTI will best know about their system on an Imperial I think.

I plan on using one of their systems on my 69 300, but not with the Dynomax mufflers. Their system can be bought with or without the mufflers.
Dynomax mufflers are more of a supercar muffler, and an Imperial is not and should not sound like a supercar. Nor should a 69 300 convertible. Dynomax is also a "chevy guy" muffler with a cheap, tinny sound.
I have already bought my mufflers and they are close to the OEM spec mufflers. 25" reverse flow with 2.5 in and 2.25 out. And they were much less money then the Dynomax from TTI.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Yeah, I'm sure they will have some answers for me. The feedback about the company online has been really positive. I just was hoping to get some other feedback because it was more fun than waiting.

Can you share the source and part number of your mufflers? I just purchased a Walker muffler to replace the one that's currently under my car, but I doubt it's original. It was 2.25 inlet and exhaust, with the same inlet/outlet pattern. If I like the (lack of) sound, I may just go with two of them when I do a dual exhaust.

 

[Wollfen]

1. The chassis dimensions differ between the Imperial and the C-Body forward of the cowl.

Jonathan

What sort of Imperial do you have? i havent ever heard of an Imperial being different from the cowl forward with regards to chassis dimensions, thats certainly a new one on me.

 

[bajajoaquin]

I have a '67 Crown Sedan. It's the first year Chrysler put Imperial on the Chrysler unibody. According to my trusty Encyclopedia of American Cars, the '67 Chryslers had 124" WB (wagons were 122"), and Imperials had 127" wb. Although I don't recall where I read it, I think that Chrysler added the wheelbase by extending the front subframe assembly. This is supported by the reaction a local mechanic had when he crawled under and exclaimed that the K member was very different from his C-Body.

I just joined the San Diego Mopar club, so presumably I'll be meeting some local folks with C-Bodies. One of the things I want to do is put my car next to a '67 Chrysler to see if we can see where they differ in structure.

 

[Wollfen]

I justl ooked up a couple of pics regarding that and found this, you will see that what you are saying does appear to be correct, the bottom edge of the front fender is longer on the Imperial, cool. i have learned something!

 

[bajajoaquin]

Good looking Sedans.

It would have been nice if they had extended the rear of the chassis, but I suppose that would have required different tooling for the unibody, whereas extending the front requires a K-member and fenders, which are probably going to be a little different anyway.

Interesting also how much higher the front bumper sits on the Imperial. I wouldn't have guessed that.

 

[Catfish]

The imperial stub looks absolutely nothing like a slab C stub frame. The imperial is more like a massive stub with a K member bolted into it. And it will not bolt into a C body. The four body mounts will not line up. If you line up the two at the firewall, the ones near the trans crossmember won't go....and vice versa, because the imperial stub is longer.

Here is a shot showing the frame rail. I used to have a ton of stub photos and even one comparing a 65-73 c body to a stub imperial (67-73). I will see if I can find it. Just saying, even if the engine is in the right place, not sure if the TTI headers are bent to clear everything on an imperial stub.

 

[Mr C]

The 67-73 Unibody Imperials are indeed different than the Chrysler line. Imperial wheel base for the years mentioned is 127 inches versus 124 inches for the Chrysler. All of the added wheel base come from the unique Imperial stub frame that Catfish described so well.

I imagine the TTI kit can be stretched by welding in more pipe, but TTI will know for sure.

 

[Catfish]

Here is the picture I was looking for. You can see where the firewall mounts verses transmission mount area is longer on the imperial (the right side stub in the photo). Hard to tell if the engine is set back farther into the stub than the c body, but it does look like it is.

 

[polara71]

That is a valuable photo...

 

[commando1]

Invaluable picture. Should be mounted and framed and hung on the wall for reference.

 

[polara71]

Interesting someone would have two stubs side by side

 

[Catfish]

Interesting someone would have two stubs side by side

I don't know where the photo originated, especially since it has a logo on the bottom. But I do know that jerking a C body stub and replacing it with an Imperial stub is common place in the derby world. Perhaps that it was someone doing a swap for that reason? Not sure, but I do know that the first time I seen it was on a derby forum, but it was not the posters own photo either.

 

[commando1]

We MUST find that person....

 

[polara71]

Yeah, i saw where it is from, i find it intriguing

 

[Catfish]

Where is it from? And what's intriguing? Spill the beans, you have me curious.

 

[polara71]

Cardomain.com... the photographer may be had there.

Because who has two stubs like that? A guy who knows and is sharing knowledge.... i'd like to meet the guy with a C frame and an imperial frame in his garage

 

[Catfish]

Ah....I just assumed a derby guy took the picture. You are right, after seeing what car domain was, it could be interesting that someone had both in their shop.

 

[bajajoaquin]

So I just talked to TTI. Off the top of the guy's head, he didn't know if the C Body would fit the Imperial. He did say that all of the slip joints had 3" of adjustment in them, so there should be plenty of adjustment available. (There are two slip joints forward of the muffler assembly). He said they never got anybody returning systems or complaining that they didn't fit right.

If anyone wants to see the diagram it's here:
http://ttiexhaust.com/PDF/C_MNM6573.pdf

I pointed out that it may be more complicated than just 3 extra inches, so he's going to go back and check his records to see if anyone has purchased a system for an Imperial.

They are in Corona, which isn't exactly close, but it is drivable if I took an afternoon off. If necessary we discussed my driving up there to look and measure. If it fits, I'm sure the market is huge: tens of people will be interested!