(first posted 3/14/2018) Over the years here at CC, you just might have gotten the impression from me that Ramblers had something of an image problem back in the day. I haven’t been exaggerating; they really did. And who better to know about image than a ten year-old kid? Yes, kids intuitively know what’s cool and what’s not, and they were just as good at it in the pre-TikTok age.
Today we are going to delve into this image problem full-bore, although with a Rambler six, full-bore means none too quickly. So this may be a leisurely journey, but hopefully you will understand why this 1962 stripper two-door sedan, the dorkiest car of its era, was so reviled, shunned and mercilessly taunted. Kids were crueler back then, but this Rambler mostly deserved the taunts, and worse.
The 1962 Rambler was the last to use the body of the 1956 Rambler. Seven years may not seem like much now to share a body, but back then it was an eternity. The world was changing so quickly back then. In 1956, the new Rambler really was something of a revelation on the American car scene: the first successful “compact”; built on a 108″ wheelbase and with unibody construction, it was in a league of its own. It looked pretty fresh and decent, for the times, although its tall and boxy dimensions and some over-wrought aspects made it quite clear that it did not spring from GM’s design center. But Ramblers in the fifties actually had a good image, and were popular with better-educated and more affluent folks.
But how would I know? In 1956, I was three years old and living in Austria. By the time I arrived in the US in 1960, it was already outdated, and by 1962, this body was a living fossil. And AMC’s desperate minor annual changes were hardly effective.
That applies particularly to the 1962, which got a long-overdue finectomy at the rear, but it was a rather crude one. AMC’s Ed Anderson was clearly struggling to make this old box look contemporary. But the biggest change for 1962, and the most unlikely and perplexing one, was the addition of a two-door sedan! For what was obviously only going to be one year! Explain that!
All Ramblers, except the smaller American, had been only four door sedans and wagons since this body came out. And why add a two-door sedan and not a two-door hardtop? Now that might have helped Rambler’s image a bit more, although with this body, it would have been trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
So just what was the pecking order in 1962? Did you have to ask? Of course GM towered over the others, even though a much more exciting year was just ahead of it with the new Corvette, Riviera and Grand Prix. But from the most expensive Cadillac to the lowliest Corvair, there wasn’t a bad one in the whole family. Well, the new Chevy II was a bit less than exciting, but still heads and shoulders above the Rambler.
The thing about GM, and to some extent Ford and Chrysler, is that their image flowed from the top down, and very successfully. If you could only afford a Tempest, its stylistic similarity to the Grand Prix was enough to keep it from possibly being a dork-mobile.
Obviously, Ford’s Thunderbird was an effective halo car for the whole brand, as was the elegant Lincoln Continental. But I hate to break it to you Ford fans; in 1962, Ford styling and its image was not just in GM’s league. And it showed in its sales; Ford was struggling to maintain market share despite a proliferation of new cars, while GM had its all-time record market share in 1962. We won’t even mention Mercury.
Obviously, Chrysler was really hurting in 1962. The Imperial was so obviously a 1957 car that had made a few too many trips to the dermatologist. It was a hot mess, but still managed to exude some exotic or perplexing mystique.
And although the new downsized ’62 Plymouth and Dart were a bit challenging, when our neighbor bought a red Dart four door hardtop just like this one, I soon came to appreciate its advanced and unique qualities, mostly in a good way. It was a lot more interesting visually than a ’62 Galaxie.
Which brings us to Studebaker. Yes, we kids used to call them Stupidbakers, and we knew then that the company was battling a terminal illness. But in 1962, they threw two very compelling pitches in an effort to prove that they weren’t yet quite on the deathbed. The Avanti was pretty mind-blowing, although seeing one in the fiberglass flesh was another story. And the GT Hawk was a clever disguise of the ancient ’53 coupe. They might have done something about the ancient bumpers and the original air intakes next to the grille, but it was sort of cool, in an exotic way.
At least Studebaker had some halo cars. And they had genuine hardtops too, unlike Rambler. The new Daytona hardtop had a pretty warm 289 V8 and an optional four speed stick. Rambler could only dream about such things.
Here’s Rambler’s halo car in 1962: an Ambassador four door sedan, which now looked exactly like a Classic with some tinsel tossed randomly its way. Never mind that nobody ever really bought an Ambassador anyway; not in Iowa City at least.
These Classic wagons were everywhere though. Among our European immigrant-university milieu, there was an extremely disproportionate number of Rambler wagons and Studebaker Lark sedans of the 1959-1962 vintage. All of them sixes, of course. And no, their/our dads didn’t give their kids gas-powered go-karts like this. The kind of dads that did do this drove a Pontiac Bonneville station wagon. Or at least a Catalina. And they weren’t university geeks.
So yes, maybe I’ve been too deeply influenced by an excessive early exposure to the distinct nasal and fruity wheezing exhaust sound of feeble Rambler sixes attempting to overcome inertia and the sluggish torque converter of their Flash-O-Matic transmissions.
Speaking of, I had a moment that was deeply etched in memory, and as fresh today as it was in 1962 when I rode my bike for the first time to the Rambler dealer, and looked under the hood of an American, and saw…a flathead six! In 1962! I couldn’t believe it. Any company that called its engines “Flying Scot” was not going to cut it with the younger set in 1962.
Well, that American was the only car dorkier than the Classic. Truly abysmal. it looked like something from an Iron Curtain country. Or worse. I was embarrassed to be an American. If I’d known about the Rambler American, I might not have come to the US. Or at least so enthusiastically.
I suppose things could have been worse, like my dad buying a Classic in 1962 instead of the new Fairlane he bought. He didn’t cotton to Ramblers, and had a thing about Ford V8s.
Although the Fairlane’s 145 hp 221 cu.in. V8 teamed with the two speed Fordomatic was probably no faster than than a Rambler with the optional two-barrel 138 hp version of their six. But at least its exhaust sounded a lot better, and it had a V8 badge on the fender. Well, that and the fact that it looked a whole lot more contemporary than the Rambler, despite its silly finlets.
It might have said “DeLuxe” on the back end, but never has that word been more misused and abused. This was the stripper version of the Classic, and a look inside makes that painfully obvious.
To the best of my memory, this drab industrial gray interior might well have been the only one available on the DeLuxe. Check out the exposed screw heads that kept that vinyl-covered hardboard door car in place. There’s actually an armrest, so easy on the snickering. Believe me, this was the most embarrassing and depressing car to have to ride in 1962, except of course that wretched American.
By this time, we loathed two-door sedans, because of course they looked dorky and of course because getting in and out meant that the front seat person had to let you in and out. How demeaning! The one redeeming quality of Ramblers, that they had four doors and the kids could get in and out themselves, was now gone with this ridiculous two-door sedan. Truth is, I didn’t know anybody who had one, and I’ve never had to demean myself to climb into one’s back seat. No wonder my self-esteem is intact.
Now of course it was infinitely cool to climb in the back seat of a bucket-seat Impala SS or Grand Prix, or even a Corvair Monza, but that was totally different.
Oh how we hated those letters. “Dumbler!” That’s how we read them.
I shudder to think how readily this could have been our car in 1962. It taught me an important lesson, that everything is relative. Compared to this, our stripper V8 Fairlane was a veritable four-door Thunderbird with a bit of imagination. But this would always just be…a Rambler. No amount of wishful thinking or imagination could ever change that.
My mum’s last car when she stopped drinking in 1970 was a 64 Rambler Classic. At the time my Dad drove a 52 Cadillac.
Although the Rambler was over a decade newer than the Caddy and psychically much better shape I remember it was always the”second” car in the family and looked down upon by my friends and I.
When my mom stopped driving there was no hesitation. The Rambler was sold and the old Caddy was kept for another couple years until it was upgraded too a newer model.
As Rodney Dangerfield would have said even in those days
” No respect!”
LOL..miss that edit feature when it doesn’t work.
Stopped driving in 1970 not stopped drinking!
Sorry mum!?
You had me wondering. And very nearly cleaning beer from the keyboard!
Cleaning coffee from desk as we speak…
It sounds like you guys are the ones who need to stop drinking. 🙂
Maybe Paul should leave the site with the ‘503’ errors occurring. Unfiltered comments might just be the most entertaining. 😉 (Just kidding Bill).
This car is in beautiful shape. I first saw these as a kid in the 70s. I somewhat realized on my own then that Ramblers looked (and sounded) ‘frumpy’. For me it was the reverse canted ‘C’ pillars. That styling feature didn’t age well. My logic at the time was, why take an outdated styling element like the wraparound windshield and apply it to the rear window.
The one undeniably cool thing about Ramblers was the seats that folded down to become a bed. Or was that left off the poverty-spec models?
To my eyes, I think the ’62 Rambler Classic did a decent job of making a 1956-vintage car look almost like it belonged in the ’60s, although Studebaker did an even better job of disguising their even older 1953 designs. The GT Hawk will always be gorgeous (and the one shown here is photographed from its best angle).
“So yes, maybe I’ve been too deeply influenced by an excessive early exposure to the distinct nasal and fruity wheezing exhausts of feeble Rambler sixes attempting to overcome inertia and the sluggish torque converter of their Flash-O-Matic transmissions.”
That’s vintage PN. This one popped the cork off the bottle. Just a day early to make the coffee Irish.
Rambler had “Flying Scot” engines and Studebaker had the Scotsman.
What was the preoccupation with these two companies in regard to Scotland? Are these both references to the Flying Scotsman train in the UK or something different? If it was, it certainly appears to be woefully outdated given the introduction had been a century earlier. It seems similar to Ford or Chrysler introducing the “Over There” edition (yes, that’s a WWI reference!).
My guess would be a reference to the old stereotype of the Scot as – – let’s go with thrifty.
Let’s not forget GMCs in-house V6 in the 60s that had tartan plaid valve covers. The V6 being the choice of a thrifty hard working individual.
All these references have me thinking of Scrooge McDuck and his lucky dime.
Here’s the perfect companion to the Scotsman version of the Rambler Classic.
http://tinyhouseblog.com/travel-trailers/1966-scotsman-vintage-trailer/
Friends of mine parents had an old Rambler, I think 60
or 61, with fins. It was a dull, faded metallic-ish green. With the wide gaping mouth, reminded me of a fish.
Driving around the neighborhood in LA South Bay in 1973 with my buddies and that trademark exhaust sound, we affectionely named it the Blammer
I love reading this perspective of an American Motors product from this era. The “loser” image of this car comes through so clearly through this write-up – which is not to say I dislike it.
I discovered my love of AMC cars around middle school (late-80s), but much like you described Ramblers being the objects of derision by you and your peers, Paul, AMC cars were the same thing to my generation in the 80s. So help you if your mom rolled up in a Gremlin (or even a five year old Concord) to pick you up from elementary school. This was not my experience, but I remember cracking on AMC cars as a kid and what I perceived as the unfortunate folks inside of them.
And BTW – I disagree about kids being more cruel back then. Even though I wasn’t there, I think later generations just got more creative with their put-downs. If only I had written all of them down for reference. 😉
Studebaker Guy feels so vindicated today! 🙂 I will admit though that the 62 Classic sedan was a better modernization than the 62 Lark sedan. But yes, Studebaker had at least a little performance cred back then, even if it was seldom seen in the typical neighborhood.
The other strange thing about these is that it was a car with no name. Yes it was a Rambler, but that was just a model name like Falcon or Dart. We were left on our own here. American? That was a model name too (American American?) American Motors? That was a corporate name. AM? That was on the logo. AMC didn’t come into common usage until the 70s. What this really was was the 1962 Nash. Though that hardly would have helped its cool factor.
That interior shot is great. You missed the fact that the Flying Scot’s Flash O Matic was controlled by pushbuttons! I’m not sure this added much coolness in 1962 but it sure gives the car some points now. And on that door panel, I suspect this is a restoration of sorts. Many folks withoddball cars like these are in tough shape when it come so replacing deteriorated door panels. This looked even too crude for the AM of 1962. A quick search shows what these panels probably looked like.
Oops, forgot the picture.
It’s funny, I’ve often wondered about that name thing myself.
In kind of the same way that BMC re-used this “Princess” moniker all over the map from the ’50s to the ’70s, so did the Rambler just exist as a Rambler. Nothing else. Or Rambler American (for the American)… A weird, one-name car. Though, unlike Princess, people knew what Ramblers actually stood for.
“AMC Rambler” sounds off. Didn’t most folks keep calling them “Nash Ramblers” for a while?
There was a “Nash Rambler” in the 50s. Rambler tried to be a standalone brand name, but I don’t think it was any more successful than when Imperial was broken off from Chrysler or when Ram was broken off from Dodge. I knew that that was what they were going for (Rambler American, Rambler Classic, Rambler Ambassador) but it just never sounded right. Just like “Imperial Crown” never sounded right. It was a Nash Rambler, a Chrysler Imperial and a Dodge Ram. The companies just didn’t understand.
it’s not quite that simple, inasmuch as back before the brands diversified into multiple sizes, the “brand” was virtually indistinguishable from the specific car it related to. Hence “The Ford”. And “Chevrolet” stood for the one product, and kept that right up through the 80s or so.
These weren’t brands in the modern sense of one brand with many various cars/models. That was a new thing that mostly evolved in the 50s and early 60s with the proliferation of smaller/medium/ sporty cars. It forced the car name to become a brand; or not, in the case of Rambler. AMC chose to do what had been more common in the pre-war era: identify the Rambler as a specific new car. Like it had been done so often in the pre-war era.
And let’s not forget that it was useful in that Hudson was able to sell Ramblers, without rebadging them. The biggest benefit AMC got from its merger with Hudson was a bigger dealer network. How was Hudson supposed to sell a Nash Rambler?
And in 1960, the Comet was not badged or sold as a Mercury; it was just the Comet. Of course that didn’t last long.
Same thing for Valiant not being a Plymouth in 1960 (and much longer in Canada).
The Comet, from what I’ve read, wound up as a separate marque for the first two years because it was originally going to be the Edsel Comet, but Edsel was discontinued just before the Comet launch. There was enough time to revise the grille to remove the center vertical element, but not enough to change the taillamps that looked like the ones on the full-size ’60 Edsel. So why didn’t it become the Mercury Comet right away? I read a dealer account of how it allowed the original Edsel dealers that had standard Edsel signs to reuse the signs without much modification. Dealers were sent a C, O, M, and T to put in place of the E, D, S, and L. The “E” in the fourth position was left intact to save money. Comet keys also looked like Edsel keys with the middle stroke of the E removed.
What about the aluminum six ? Was it durable ? Were any speed parts available for it ?
The aluminum six was just like the regular six but with an aluminum block. It had the same iron head as the others. Speed parts? For a Rambler six? What have you been smoking? 🙂
Seriously, I’m not aware of anyone offering speed parts for this generation six, since it was based on an old long-stroke Nash flathead six and thus the valves and ports were small, and it had little potential. Why bother?
But its replacement, the 232/258 six was a whole different animal, and there were/are speed parts for it. And of course those are in the same family as the Jeep 4.0 L six.
Emmylou Harris made good use of the name for her backup band. The Nash Ramblers, Nash being short for Nashville.
There is also Rick and the Ramblers (formerly Rick Norcross and the Nashfull Ramblers – I have one of their old cassettes that includes songs like “This Old Nash Loves To Roll”.)
http://www.rickandtheramblers.com/
The aluminum six was the same displacement and did have an iron head, but it was a very different head from the cast iron OHV 196, and the two do not interchange.
Rambler as a brand name worked in Australia. We didn’t get the early fifties ‘baby’ Ramblers here to cloud the issue, and through the mid-fifties Nashes and Hudsons weren’t seen here in any great numbers (unlike the mighty Step-down years and the occasional Airflyte), so when Rambler became the sole product for ’58 it had a clear slate, so to speak. Dad always spoke of Rambler as a stand-alone make; it was only in later years that I learned of its historical connection with Nash (and Hudson).
Guess that was why we got Rambler Hornets – Rambler meant something reasonably positive in sixties and early-seventies Australia. It meant an affordable, sensibly-sized American car.
Dorky and aged as it might have been by then, the ’56 Rambler made a big comeback and was the US’ third most popular car in 1960 and 1961 (at least according to Wikipedia). One of the greatest auto industry debates is how differently AMC’s fortunes might have been if George Romney hadn’t went into politics in 1962 and left the company to Roy Abernethy, who expanded the line-up in an ultimately failed effort to go model-to-model with the Big 3.
An uncle had one in white that he used in his job in outside sales, always a treat when he stopped by in the Rambler.
I was quite young when these were around in the 60’s and their nerdiness was undeniable. It’s profile reminded me of a baby carriage of the same era and its face was a bit maniacal with the spread out, bulgy headlights.
And what’s up with the speedometer sans zeros? 1 2 3 4 etc. Not cool.
The way the numbers were splayed out parallel to the indicator needle was even worse.
Like this:
I had an elderly neighbor who had a 4 door Rambler that was grey & white w/wide white walls & had curb feelers on it. It was still in pristine condition in the early ’70s & he taught my brother how to drive a manual on it.
Let’s hear it for nerd cars.
Keeps you from being taken in by the corporate elite.
“Few cars were ever as boring and stodgy as the 1962 Rambler Classic and Ambassador. What few styling excesses found on the previous years’ cars were trimmed away, leaving behind a dull-looking box.”
I said this on March 6 in the discussion of the 1963 Classic wagon. I still stand by every word, and I’m glad that Paul agrees. Look how clumsy that rear side window treatment is on the two-door 1962. At least the fixed pane flips out, so it’s not completely useless. By the way, the Ambassador that year did receive one styling fillip over the Classic – square taillights. How luxurious!
Although I don’t disagree with Paul, I just love these Ramblers. The dorky styling now looks cool to my eyes.
In fact a few years ago I had my eye on a blue Rambler just like this, not too rusty garage find with some work needed for very little money. But eventually I passed, too many projects, too little time 🙁
Also, my uncle Peter had one of these in that pinkish color which can be seen here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coup-cars-of-uncle-peter/
Later he sold it to his friend Don, who put a 283 Chevy motor in it which improved the driveablility quite a bit and it served as his wife’s daily driver for several years.
These cars were not meant to be cool, it was just not in their job description. The focus was economical, practical transportation for non-car people who just wanted to get from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss and financial outlay. People who did not care about style or performance. That would be the same kind of folks who years later would buy Chevettes in droves, and probably still would if they could. (Is there even a modern equivalent of a ’62 Classic or Chevette Scooter?) From that standpoint the ’62 Classic did its job well!
I remember an anecdote from George Romney about the dowdy image of Ramblers from this vintage.
One of his children – Mitt, perhaps? – commented that he always saw Ramblers being driven in the slow lane. His comeback:
“I don’t care, as long as there are a lot of them.”
When Roy Abernethy took over for Romney, one of his first comments to AMC Public Relations Chief John Conde was, “We’ve got to get rid of this Romney image.”
To some extent, he succeeded, but not in the way he intended. Under Romney, AMC built “uncool” cars, but it consistently made money and held a reasonable (for an independent) share of the market.
Under Abernethy, the company never shed its “uncool” image, despite offering restyled (and attractive) Rebels and Ambassadors for 1967. But AMC came close to filing for bankruptcy in early 1967.
It occurs to me that George Romney and Robert McNamara at Ford could have been related. It always seemed that with the exception of Lincoln and the Thunderbird, Fords of 1960-61 were well on the way to Rambler levels of uncool. I watched an old TV show the other night that featured some characters with a 61 Ford sedan. It was not one of the attractive Galaxies but one of the lower level models with that awkward roof and almost no exterior trim. It is interesting to consider the trajectories of both AMC and Ford had both of those guys stayed on for another decade.
McNamara was more complicated. He shepherded the austere 1960 Falcon to production – although I find it to be much more attractive than a contemporary Rambler or American – but he also approved the stylish four-seat Thunderbird and stunning 1961 Lincoln Continental.
(I also find that 1961 Galaxies to be attractive, particularly the Starliner and Sunliner.)
If McNamara had stayed at Ford, the front-wheel-drive Cardinal, which was cancelled at the last minute by Iacocca, would have made it to the North American market. The styling was plain, but it boasted an advanced (for the U.S.) front-wheel-drive layout. How that car would have sold, and its impact on the public’s perception of Ford, are interesting questions.
AMC couldn’t afford anything that ambitious, even at the height of its success under Romney.
McNamara came close to killing off Lincoln entirely in 1958 because it wasn’t a moneymaker.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1961-lincoln-continental.htm
He would have had to get a sign-off from Henry Ford II for that move.
It was one thing to smother the Edsel in its crib, as it was a new brand that was going nowhere in the market.
Killing off an established brand such as Lincoln – which had been the pet project of Edsel Ford, who was the father of Henry Ford II and husband of Eleanor Clay Ford – would have been much more difficult, even for McNamara.
+1, Had McNamara seriously pushed the demise of Lincoln to a showdown, he would have found himself free-falling out of the Ford glass-box headquarters pushed by the Ford brothers personally!
For all its losses, Lincoln was their father Edsel’s baby and the family sentimental favorite in his memory. As much as that, no Big Three company was going to be taken as a serious contender without a top-line luxury brand in their stable.
The 1960 Falcon was actually a very nicely styled car. And the deluxe version (whatever it was called) had a nice interior for an economy car of its time. GM spent more on pointless original engineering of the Corvair and delivered less room and plainer interiors.
The dashboard could have optional padding (!) which made the upper ledge bigger and much better looking.
But meanwhile, a very well written and illustrated post. Thanks!
Indeed, for those of us around when these were sold new, AMC was usually the car of the modest income folks who just wanted a car. Those people just never listened to the taunts of punk kids who hurled invectives against their coolness. It really didn’t matter what others thought, it was right for them and they understood that value proposition. Many of them were older folks, who wanted the reliability of a new car without all the fuss. My grandfather was one of those types. The grandkids were gifted with the old ones, including a 1965 Classic (my sister) and a 1971 Hornet (my brother). It’s like they were built the folks who can afford something more expensive and flashy, but don’t. It is funny how these are not hipster-mobiles, a combination of irony and romance all rolled into an old platform preferred by depression era survivors.
I started to say that many buyers had been from the kinds of folks who had always bought Nashes, but Rambler was still the number 4 brand in 1962. Rambler had offered something that seemed modern in the late 50s and had picked up many new buyers. I have often wondered how many Studebaker buyers migrated to AMC after 1964 or 66. I know that my Studebaker-loving neighbors next new car after the 64 Avanti was a 72 Javelin AMX. Americans have always loved an underdog, especially when it is a competent and well built underdog.
I think every brand makes a statement, and people are subconsciously drawn in, thereby reinforcing the brand values. In AMC’s case, I think it was almost a defiance of popular brands–not with the “Hippie Chic” vibe of a VW, but rather the iron-willed independence of the true skinflint: “LET people make fun of me, I AM right and I AM thrifty and I CANNOT be embarrassed.” Nerd power. Or crotchety old cheapskate power. And there were enough people like that to keep AMC (barely) afloat for a long time.
After all, Ford, GM and Mopar all offered frugal cars as well, and for the most part these “cheapies” were decidedly uncool. The difference, however, was that the Chevette was still a Chevrolet–a crappy cheap one, but still a Chevy, so therefore a more mainstream choice by default. The vast majority of thrifty buyers seeking the least expensive new cars possible found plenty of super-cheap choices from the Big 3 and the emerging Japanese brands. To buy an AMC was truly an act of loyalty or a deliberate act of noncompliance. The closest modern analogy I can think of is someone who still swears by Kmart.
Actually, AMC deserves a lot of credit. I can’t think of another brand that so consistently dominated the “King of the Losers” imagery for so long, all the while managing to stay in business. My friends and I shared the same scorn for AMC products in the late 1970s/early 1980s that Paul describes from a previous decade—we thought they were just dreadful. I can’t actually say I had much legitimate exposure to AMC cars—I can only think of 3 that I knew of in person: my 4th Grade teacher Mrs. Hahn had a Hornet Sportabout, one of my cousins in Memphis had a Pacer (briefly, huge mistake) and a kid I knew in college had an Eagle wagon. And that was it—pretty paltry sample size. But my buds and I sure did like to poke fun at the cars, whether it was the Matadors being trashed in ‘70s shows like “CHiPs” or the ridiculous overabundance of AMC products in the 1974 James Bond film “The Man With The Golden Gun.” Actually, Bond was a good barometer to demonstrate how bad AMC’s image was—while we knew that Chevrolet had implemented obscenely obvious product placement in 1973’s “Live and Let Die,” that didn’t ring as false to us, since Chevrolets really were everywhere back then, driven by everyone from moms and dads to cops and criminals. But AMC? No way—NOBODY drove those!
Today, there are automotive brands seen as “boring” or “uncool” but I can’t think of any that have the same stench of “pure loser” that AMC dominated for decades. Hyundai/Kia suffered with it for a good while, but slowly and surely shed that image with significantly improved products and strong warranties. At the end of its illustrious life, poor Oldsmobile was certainly a “Losermobile” but then the plug was pulled. But circa 2018, are there any automotive brands left with an entire line-up of “duds” that are only bought by the least cool people imaginable?
Perhaps the proliferation of models makes it harder for a marque to be tarred with a “loser” image?
For example, even when Chevrolet’s passenger car offerings were pretty dire in the early 2000s, people still wanted Corvettes, Silverados and Suburban/Tahoes.
I was thinking the same thing. Buick, for example, has arguably been “saved” by the Enclave, which does seem to sell decently well to upscale families, even if the rest of line-up veers into “loser” territory.
The Encore seems to sell well to young women, based on what I’ve seen.
The rest of the Buick lineup other than the LaCrosse are Opels, and not at all losers.
“but I can’t think of any that have the same stench of “pure loser” that AMC dominated for decades”
Mitsubishi Galant?
By God, I think you’ve got it! Not just the model, but the whole brand! Mitsubishi is definitely today’s oddball “loser” brand that somehow clings to life, and it cuts across all their low-ranked, low-appeal offerings: iMiev, Mirage, Lancer, Galant, Outlander…. Not a first- or second-tier player in the bunch, but somehow Mitsubishi is still here.
Works even here. Back in the 80s and early 90s Mitsubishi was so cool. But now they are really weak. From hero to zero you could say.
In another comment someone asked “Is there a modern equivalent to a ’62 Rambler or a Chevette Scooter?” My first thought was Kia or Hyundai, but as you said their reputations have improved. And then I realized, the answer is: Mitsubishi Mirage.
“Is there modern equivalent to a 62 Rambler or a Chevette Scooter? Actually, no there isn’t. A Mirage comes with a ton of standard features that were either optional or not available on the above mentioned. It offers 40 mpg on a bad day, and has a killer warranty. It is better in almost every way. If you read the reviews of actual owners, that is, the people who spend their own money to own one, the reviews are very positive.
The owners like them because they do not realize that they are far below the minimum standards for modern automobiles in every possible way, but they do get you to where you are going.
If they tried out an only slightly more expensive Nissan Versa Note they would think they were driving a Rolls Royce.
Before Mitsubishi took over that role completely, Suzuki and Isuzu shared bottom of the rung status… the Evo still had credibility for Mitsu at the time
Mitsubishi. They sell a combination of dorky looking cars and uninspired CUV’s that reek uncool like a 1960’s Rambler or 1970’s Hornet.
It’s interesting that AMC spent so much money they didn’t have on annual styling changes that had no effect on their image. That may have been more necessary in the 1956-62 period but I wonder, with 20/20 hindsight of course, if they had “frozen” the styling with the 1963 senior line and ’65 American would they have still sold similar numbers, with greater profitability, into the early ’80s like the Concord/Spirit had?
Certainly the tone of Paul’s contempt for Ramblers of the ’60s is that of a generation. I agree wholeheartedly; he said it better.
On my trips to the car dealers in the ’60s, the Rambler dealer was always the last (and optional) stop. Without looking at the cars, the building sent the message that the brand was at the bottom of the pecking order. Even the brochures there were cheap, crummy – really not worth going the two blocks out of the way to stop there.
In 1968 a friend’s dad, a longtime Rambler owner, got a new Javelin. While it looked pretty good, we knew it was a delayed answer to the much cooler Mustang and at heart, it was still a Rambler.
I had a 1960s teenage terminal disgust for all things Rambler and have not made any progress on recovery.
…the distinct nasal and fruity wheezing exhausts of feeble Rambler sixes
Having had considerable time in both a 64 Classic and a 60 Lark, as I remember, the Classic, which had the OHV conversion of the 196, sounded quite like the Lark’s 170 flattie. They both had an interesting whir to them, from the inside of the car, as mom or dad rowed the three on the tree. It could be the one barrel carbs, or the pre-WWII long stroke designs, but they sounded similar.
The 64 Classic found it’s way into our garage because of the contortions required to get in or out of most compacts at the time. “I’m not sitting on the floor!” mom insisted, and walked away from the Olds F85, and down the block to the Rambler store.
Today, people insist they drive SUVs because “it’s easier to get in and out”. Well, Rambler doubters, get an eyeful of this!
But that Rambler door card…..!
It’s odd that the new 1956 Rambler unit body did not have footwells but instead a flat floor. No frame in the way. Maybe a management directive requiring flat floors like earlier Chrysler products having to have room for a fedora atop each head?
Rooflines were higher in the mid 50s, so Rambler did not need to go to a “step down” design. Rooflines plunged around 59-60. Cars that could adopt a step down design, like Rambler, did. Cars that could not, ended up with the seats on the floor, the arrangement my mom objected to so strenuously. Look at pix of the interior of a 64 Studebaker, built on a modified 53 frame, for instance. Flat floor, and “seat on the floor” in front, but the back seat was quite a bit higher, at the expense of headroom. My dad’s 64 Galaxie, built, iirc, on the 57 frame, had a flat floor in front, but footwells in back.
Here’s where I get to admit that the earliest car I remember is my parent’s light blue Rambler American. My father bought it to replace the Hillman Huskie they brought back from a PhD trip through England, Europe and Turkey (on the Queen Mary!) that immediately cracked it’s block from being forced to travel from Philadelphia to New York and back twice a week. So, enter the Rambler. My mother loathed it, and for my father, it went thru two or three gas tanks in just a year — the gas cap didn’t properly vent and the thin-walled gas tank apparently would collapse on long h-iway trips (yes, he was still commuting to New York).
An early memory for me is the last ride in the American, to Reedman’s Automobiles in Lansdowne, PA to replace it with a new Plymouth Valiant. They tried to sell every car under the sun. Paul is right .. moving out of the world of “dumbler dorks” into one of high-minded economy automobile ownership was a world-view changing event for a wee lad! (A reverse trip also comes to mind: it was a bit odd when we went back to Reedman’s a few years later and went home with a Peugeot 404 wagon. How do you explain one of those as a teenager?)
All of this brings a question — has CC ever done a thing on the Hillman Huskie? Who, besides my English father, would ever have bought one here? I’ve never seen one in the flesh ever again, not here, not in England, not anywhere!
They were sold new in Canada, I remember seeing a few in junkyards in the 1970s. Unfortunately they didn’t do well in salty cold regions, so your fathers Hillman’s early demise was perhaps a blessing in disguise..
Ed: I remember the Hillman Husky clearly; another of my high school buddies had one as his first car.
We all liked “foreign” cars; no ’55 Chevies (or old Ramblers) for us. So we had TR-3; TR-2; Spitfire; Sprite; Volvo 444; VW beetle and the like. One guy bought a green Husky. It was cool – a two door wagon with the rear door opening sideways, I think.
Well, maybe the Husky was not really cool but believe me it had a lot more élan going for it as a ’60s teenager first car than any Rambler could manage.
The Husky sold reasonably well in the late 50s import boom in the US. There were a few around in Iowa City in the early 60s, one I saw every day on my walk to school.
We’ve covered that generation Minx, but not specifically the Husky. I think I shot one on the back of a flatbed trailer here once; need to get to it like so many others.
That Rambler is very good shape. Someone took the time effort and money to actually restore one of these? Well, I approve. It’s the contrarian in me. I’ve always loved Ramblers. They’re so delightfully dorky. They know they’re nerdy and they don’t care. That wheezy straight six sound is the automotive equivalent of a Bill Gates-style nervous nerd laugh. Laughing all the way to the bank with all the money they’re saving by daring to be dorky.
The family of a high school friend had a Rambler from the late fifties–I couldn’t say exactly what year, but it resembled the green/black one shown above. Pink and gray. They definitely fell into the category of people who “just wanted a car”–neither style nor performance mattered.
OK–who remembers a hit tune called “Beep-beep”–which is the tale of “a little Nash Rambler” scooting right on past a Caddy? You might NOT want to find it on Youtube, because it’ll get stuck in your head for days and drive you nuts.
Yes! I was thinking about that song (which I haven’t heard since the last millennium) but didn’t know what it was called. It was apparently issued in 1958; I wonder if whoever wrote it was aware that new Ramblers weren’t Nashes anymore (of course the car in the song is probably an old one anyway so it wouldn’t matter). Still, it must have complicated Romney’s plan to have “Rambler” be perceived as a marque rather than a model.
Awhile back we were discussing here how only some versions of Jan & Dean’s “Dead Man’s Curve” mentioned custom six-taillight Corvettes, and I noted that it was commonplace in that era for there to be two slightly different versions of the same song, sometimes with different 45 vs. LP, mono vs. stereo, or US vs. UK mixes. The last one applies here: the BBC wouldn’t play any song that had references to brand names in it. Usually that resulted in those words being replaced by a generic equivalent (i.e. the first line of the Kinks’ “Lola” refers to cherry cola rather than Coca-Cola in the British version), but in this song the Rambler and Cadillac references couldn’t easily be removed without altering the meaning, not to mention difficult editing. As a result, an entirely different recording was sent to British radio where a “limousine” was shut down by a “bubble car”!
When I was a kid in the 1960s it seemed to me that there were a lot of Ramblers (and older Nash Ramblers) around and they seemed a lot more popular than Studebakers. There were a few young families with children that had station wagons, but otherwise they were almost all sold to senior citizens.
These “grandma cars” didn’t get driven very much and when their original owners had to give up driving or passed away there were a lot of low-mileage used Ramblers for cheap in the 1970s and on up to the early 1990s. These used Ramblers then became the first car for a lot of teenagers.
Everything written here about Ramblers rings absolutely true! They were the epitome of uncool back in the day even as new cars. Rambler ‘nerds’ as we referred to them were always people of a certain personality type: never ones to standout or draw attention to themselves, frugal or at least very provident, prudent in their choices, always in quest of the best value for their money. Loyalty to their particular Rambler dealer was also part of their practice, repeat sales kept many of them going well into the Renault era when they were lost. Even ‘nerds’ recognized French cars weren’t good values.
For a company operating on a shoestring budget, AMC fielded a number of one-year-only body styles such as the ’62 Classic/Ambassador two door sedan. Given the all-new ’63 Classic/Ambassador were well along towards production, the introduction of the ’62 two door sedan is a mystery. Checking the production numbers, it made no great inroads in sales.
But now, for those who want to pursue the ultimate in a rare uncool, nerd-mobile: find a two door ’62 Ambassador, either a Custom: 659; or a 400: 459!
Well, here’s one. My understanding is that the 2-door Ambassador wasn’t even listed in the brochure.
I had an uncle who was a PhD in pharmacology and an internationally noted researcher in that scientific field. He viewed automobiles the same as the refrigerator in his kitchen. Of course he had a ’62 Rambler Classic. The base wagon, with automatic, power steering (a concession to my aunt, who wanted to learn to drive) and few other options. His brain could not remotely understand the concept of any frivolous extras that did not directly improve the performance of the car. As his economic situation improved he bought Volvos, always the base model with few options.
I had another uncle who was just plain cheap. When he finally traded his ’47 Studebaker for a ’63 Rambler Classic Wagon, it was the base 550 with manual transmission. No radio either.
Those two illustrations just about sums up the demographic of Rambler buyers.
When I was a member of the Red River Photography club back in the 90’s there was a fella who had a 62 that he had bought new. Flathead six, Automatic, and AM radio. Pretty much it, but being in Texas it did have Hang On AC from A.R.A. that was headquartered in Ft. Worth and better known for Ford accesories. Never rode in it, but it still looked good and did run. I would see him every now and then running around. Sure he’s been gone for years now, back then he was 70. I remember being surprised it had a Carter YF 1 bbl carb on it as at the time I thought those were first used by Ford in 69. Those carbs are staples of my 70’s six cylinder’s.
Back in 1970, my Dad decided he and my Mom both needed to “update” their autos (Mom’s 1964 Comet that was a lemon, and his own ’65 VW Beetle, yes, they were on a tight budget in the 60s). Dad splurged on my lovely Mom, getting her a brand-new ’71 Dodge Dart Swinger, with “Coppertone Metallic” paint, white vinyl roof, and white vinyl bucket style seats, albeit with a column shifter. Pretty nifty, my 10 year old mind thought. For himself, he pulled up in the driveway in a ’62 Rambler station wagon painted in light baby blue. Always unfailingly polite, I was like “Err, uh, yeah Dad, how interesting.” He kept it for 4 years, though, and it proved to be a pretty reliable but trooper.
I’m too young to have lived through that era, but the Rambler does seem to be the epitome of something that would be highly uncool. Even though by the mid 80’s when I was a kid, AMC was pretty much dead, and the people that drove them were either old people, or people that were driving the car after they had paid it off and couldn’t afford something else, or were driving it as basic transportation (usually rusted out and paint faded, etc). To me, AMC’s were always uncool, and I realized that the brand undoubtedly had died off because they just didn’t offer something either stylish or desirable enough to own to shed that uncool image. My impression of AMC then was that there was nobody that really voluntarily drove them as a conscious style statement or anything like that; they were just kind of basic transportation, other than some Javelins and AMX’s and stuff like that.
A fairly modern example is PT Cruisers (or PT Losers as I call them). There’s a group of maybe 5-8 people that take them to the Sunday car shows for the last several years, and I just don’t understand it…..they all park beside each other. And while I think that it’s cool that people are into their own thing and that there’s something that’s different and off the beaten path, what strikes me the most is that this group just doesn’t quite seem to realize that pretty much absolutely nobody else cares, and that it is wickedly uncool to be seen in one; especially in amidst all the legitimate collector cars, horsepower and bragging rights that the other cars hold at those shows.
PT Cruisers were VERY cool for about a year after their launch,and somewhat desirable for a few years after. Then, around 2005 or so it was like someone flipped a switch and the “PT Loser” image was born. I blame Bam Margera who ragged on his mom’s constantly in his show.
Also, PT Cruisers became a ubiquitous rental car, and one many people expecting normal cars found annoying for its unusual driving position. One of the big rental car companies had a big PR hullabaloo when they dumped their last PT Cruiser from their fleet.
I grew up in a GM family, and anything like a Rambler would be considered weird and odd in the extreme. Cars were a big investment, and why would one risk a minor brand such as Rambler? In my very large extended family, there wasn’t a single car that didn’t come from Ford, GM or Chrysler, until 1973. Then it all changed.
Ouch
I had a ’61 4 door for a while with the iron 196 ohv and Borg-Warner automatic. It was a great driver, plenty of power for the freeway and super smooth and quiet. I could easily keep up with traffic and even pass quite a few on the long uphill sections of hwy 15 nearby. That ohv 6 did a good job once up to speed. Decent brakes too. The only thing that literally sucked on that car were the vacuum wipers. Cool feature was that the N button on the shifter quadrant was also the starter button. It had a vacuum switch to prevent clashing the starter when you put it in N to park when the engine was already running. I would not hesitate to drive one daily today.
I don’t care about flathead sixes or Ramblers very much at all — well, the older ones here are cute as a bug — but I want THAT BLUE, right now, on my own car. Please, may I?
You mean the lighter blue on the door, or the darker blue everywhere else?
Had you been 17 years old in 1960, and interested in 17 year old women, you might have appreciated Ramblers a bit more. What other car, potentially available for a night out, offered reclining seats?
Fortunately, I was (and still am!) the proud owner and driver of a ’62 American convertible with reclining seats, in my high school years!
Have to agree a lot of AMC problems were essentially image related. I drove a 1964 330 with a 138 mph engine[wagon] and as I remember it in comparison with the other compacts of the time it was actually an easier vehicle to live with
What you’re not taking into consideration, Paul, is that people buying Ramblers (for the most part) DID NOT CARE about high style. Or impressing the neighbors. Or any of the other reasons people buy cars. They thought of cars as appliances to get them back and forth.
My grandparents certainly didn’t. Throughout the 60’s, they bought AMC station wagons.
And they were members of what Bob Seger wrote about in his tune UMC.
In 1962, our family car was a ’59 Rambler American. Same blue. Same 2 door. Options? A heater – period. This Rambler might be the very definition of uncool, but it would have been an upgrade over ours.
Luckily, growing up in a small Wisconsin farm town afforded some protection from the social stigma that may have accompanied owning a “Kenosha Cadillac” in other places.
Ramblers were made in the Deep South of Wisconsin. They were everywhere. Our town’s only taxi was a puke green ’57 Rambler. Our local trooper down the block kept his blue Ambassador State Patrol car on the street when off duty. On Friday nights, stores and the bank stayed open in the evening to accommodate local farmers. This being Wisconsin, all the taverns were crowded too.
Farmers tended to be a frugal lot. Chevy Biscaynes & Ford Customs and all manner of Ramblers – mostly strippos – crowed the parking spots up and down from THE town traffic light. An occasional Plymouth tried to out-ugly a Rambler. Sometimes the most attractive vehicle on the street was a Cornbinder (what we kids called any International Harvestor) Travelall.
Farmers had trucks of course. In the minds of most of us future drivers, any truck was better being seen in a Rambler. Alas, the lack of crew cabs in the era meant that bringing the family to town subjected a lot of my peers to the ignominy of showing up in a Rambler.
Misery loves company. I took solace in the fact that our Rambler was not the worst looking one on the street. That honor was reserved for a farm kid named Leo whose father had a ’55 Nash Rambler 4 door with big rust holes and a dented door.
Besides, being a town kid instead of a farm kid, I could always ride my bicycle downtown instead of having to ride with my parents. My red paper route Schwinn outclassed our Rambler by a mile. And while the Rambler couldn’t lay rubber, I could show off doing some really long skids with the Schwinn
Ugly as it was, I wish I had a picture with that old thing though. Time does that.
Your riff on small-town Wisconsin reminds me of a recent best-seller I read called “The Lager Queen of Minnesota.” J. Ryan Stradal. Good stuff.
I’m sure the person who keeps it looking so nice doesn’t see this car the way the author does. Sneering “how it was in the old days” bullshit like this is why car culture is basically dead now.
Friend of mine bought a Pontiac LeMans, a late-70s downsidzed one. He loved that car, and with a decent dark green paintjob and a warmed up chevy 305 it was quite nice. All he ever got from so-called enthusiasts at shows was derision for having a “boat anchor” 305, and how these were secretaries cars back in the day.
It’s a good thing the 60s are long over…
My father bought a ’62 Rambler Classic, in Midnight Blue, 2 door, 6-cyl with overdrive, 3 speed with fold down seats. We took many family vacations in that car, twice to Canada, several times up and down the east coast and once, more than 6000 miles around the entire U.S. In ’68 it became my car and I drove it until ’82, when parts were getting hard to find. But that car endured the abuse of a teenage girl who was undeterred by the comments from all her muscle car boyfriends, who eventually referred to it (affectionately) as the “Midnight Rambler”.
That car never let me down, it handled great in the snow and mud, If I had the means I’d but a rebuilt one today, just to relive all the great times I had with that car
We had a ’62, was my Mom’s car. The other kids were brutal about this. Eventually any team I was on was the Ramblers. (Dodgeball, etc) The car was not slow by 1962 standards. It had the iron 6 with a single barrel carb, manual and overdrive. You could cruise all day at over 80 mph and I’ve gone over 90 in it. 0-60 somewhere around 14-15 seconds. The automatic would be pretty slow though. I drove this car until about 1978. Got a speeding ticket going 65 in a 50, the state trooper said I shouldn’t drive so fast in such an old car. I didn’t tell him that the speedometer cable had been broken for years. 😀
I think the long list of comments here shows how (secretly) beloved the old Ramblers are. Our family had a 1961 Rambler Classic 4-door and we all loved it. The stripper interior shots above brought back some memories.
When we finally sold it to a fireman, I remember seeing it at the firehouse for many years. Apparently the thing still ran great! Our Rambler was a beige color, not unlike a Band-Aid. And I used to joke that the tail lights were the inspiration for BMW’s roundies on the 2002.
I’d take this very car in a heartbeat!
Awesome, really really dig it.
I actually think the Rambler’s annual styling updates were a success – the 1962 model looks far more attractive and newer than the original ’56, or the later finned versions. Really the only thing that doesn’t look up-to-date for 1962 is the reverse-canted C pillar which was out of style by this time (except for sports cars and coupes). The pictured car doesn’t look any older or any worse than a ’62 Chevy II (which was new that year) or a Falcon, Valiant, Lark, or the GM BOP compacts.
I share Paul’s general attitude towards the ‘deeply uncool’ Ramblers of the early ’60s (the boxy American was a true crime against design), although at the time I also had the sense, rightly or wrongly, that the brand as a whole was a slight step up in quality from its competitors. Possibly wrongly.
My attitude changed when my mother acquired a new ’64 American, replacing our 1960 Falcon wagon. It was a stylistic improvement over the previous years, but still suspect image-wise. As half of the family garage when I got my drivers license at 16 however, it was my favourite to flog on some of the back-country dirt roads around our small town in Nova Scotia. It made more sense, and seemed to have more integrity than my father’s far more ‘desirable’ Galaxie hardtop. If I could have one of those cars back today, there’s no question it would be the Rambler.
I look at the whole era differently now. The ’62 sedan, if never stylish, has perhaps aged better than many of its contemporaries. With the fashions of that time now clearly dated, the basic sensibleness of the Rambler is more apparent, and attractive in its own way.
In retrospect most of AMC’s problems were image related, caused by George Romney. I have to believe his Mormon upbringing influenced his opinion about cars, in the 1950’s he frequently referred to the Big Three’s vehicles as dinosaurs, in many respects he was correct but most of AMC vehicles like the Rambler Classic were really dowdy looking vehicles, not to mention mechanically dated. And much of AMC advertising was the equivalent of Mormon sermonizing about the evils of speed, horsepower and racing. To a large extent people buy cars about the image they impart-for comparison just look at Pontiac’s advertising in the 60’s and the image it created.
On the other hand, Volkswagen had a spectacular advertising campaign in the ’60s that mocked Detroit’s obsession with size, speed, and annual styling changes, yet didn’t cause VWs to be viewed as stodgy. It also help sell tons of Volkswagens.
Offbeat family that lived across the street from my wife’s family home in suburban NJ had a 62 Classic for the wife and the Dad drove a VW Beetle. Both were writers and editors and didn’t drive very much. They got divorced, Mom got the Rambler. She drove it into the early 80s. Kinda like the university nerds Paul describes.
Drove it “into the 80’s”?? Must a had a garage and an “in family, mechanic”. Our neighbors had a “61” that was ‘major problematic” by “1965”.
I will always defend my 1962 Rambler Classic which my parents bought brand spanking new to transport us on our 30 day, cross country tour. When I got my driver license in 1968 I had driving rights to the Classic and I loved it. So did my friends. It was a 4-door beast and could hold 7-8 teenagers. Since no one else had a car, they were all thrilled to share in my freedom. At 21, recently divorced and starting over in life, Dad gave me the Rambler and I was glad to have it. I drove that car until parts were impssible to find, somewhere around 1980. I saw Mexico, Canada, California, the east coast and everywhere in between behind the wheel of 1962 Midnight Blue Rambler Classic and I was proud of it.
I love hearing stories like this; thanks for sharing.
And I love old Ramblers; us kids were snobby back then 🙂