The Dick Teague era at AMC was colorful, to say the least. It covered a full spectrum, from handsome conventionality to highly questionable unconventionality, with lots of (seemingly random) points in between–some were brilliant, and others disasters. But what of his predecessor, Ed Anderson? The former Nash Design Chief ran the AMC Studios until Teague replaced him sometime around 1962. Unlike GM’s Harley Earl, who retired in the midst of a palace revolt, Anderson’s parting shot was undoubtedly his best ever, a veritable Classic.
For a decade, all mid-size Ramblers rode basically the same 108″ wheelbase platform. It started life in 1954 underpinning the first four-door Rambler. Although a new and decidedly larger offshoot of the original 1950 Rambler compact, its styling clearly reflected the influence of the earlier, Pininfarina-era Nashes that we’ll write about another time.
From 1956 until 1963, every Classic and Ambassador was based on an effective restyle of that platform. Quite contemporary at its introduction, the Classic actually was something of a design pioneer: It was one of the first mass-produced cars whose headlights eschewed the traditional fender-top position and were instead mounted down low inside the grille. And who inspired that? Pininfarina, who else?
The Italian master had been commissioned to provide designs for the new 1952 Nashes. Although his proposals for the big Nashes were reworked considerably by Ed Anderson, they clearly incorporated many Pininfarina styling trademarks. Naturally, Ed didn’t get a share of the credit; after all, “Anderson” just doesn’t have the same ring as “Pinin Farina”.
But Pininfarina’s redesign for the 1952 Nash-Healey, with the distinctive headlight-in-grille would also grace the ’56 Rambler, was left intact. They might have called it the Nash Healey Pinin. So for the record, Ed Anderson gets credit for the 1956 sedans, but the front end is obviously pure Pininfarina. Is everyone feeling properly recognized?
In 1958, when Rambler became a stand-alone brand, Ed was finally able to put his own face on the 108″ platform, followed by a few subsequent re-touches…
…all the way through the final 1962s. By then, it had become embarrassingly out-of date, a car only a spinster librarian would be caught semi-alive in.
Anderson’s penultimate project was the reskin of the 1961 American. Some folks have praised the design for cleverly disguising its 1950-Rambler underpinnings, but I call it an unmitigated disaster that could have just as well emerged from Tonka Toy Motors’ Un-Advanced Studio. Of course, by now it looks hip, and I’ve come to accept the goofy stance and proportions. Still, it’s a good thing Ed didn’t decide to retire at that point. It wouldn’t have done much for his legacy.
The cracker-box American was merely a temporary, cheap stopgap until something all-new came along. While Rambler desperately needed something new in all three of its lines, there was just one little problem: AMC lacked the means to create at a minumum the two new platforms/unibodies to replace the aged ones: A mid-sizer for the Classic and Ambassador and something smaller for the American. Their solution–like so many inspired by sheer necessity–was quite brilliant.
top image: oldparkedcars.com
AMC designed one new unibody shell to be used throughout all three series. While it would be stretched a bit for the larger cars, it allowed AMCs of all sizes to share such expensive stampings as doors and other parts. The 112″ wheelbase, wide-body version debuted on the 1963 Classic (bottom picture) and Ambassador; it was then shortened and narrowed a bit for the new 1964 American (on top): Same doors, same basic chassis. Although they covered a fairly broad spectrum of the market, AMC was, essentially, a one-platform company. Maybe they should have stayed one.
The 1963 Ambassador was nothing more than an upscale Classic; never had their differences been so minor, nor would they be again. The Amby could be had only with the big 327 cu in V8 in either 250 or 275 hp form. In 1974, the Big Three might well have wished for such a well-trimmed “downsized” sedan, but in 1963, when mega-sized cars ruled the land, it was a bit of a joke. Changing economic and other factors were now crippling AMC. The formula that had worked so brilliantly in 1956- 1961 was now very much out of sync.
The small-but-fine Ambassador essentially was DOA, and meanwhile the Classic arrived at the peak of the hot new midsize market. The Big Three had firmly stepped into what had been the Classic’s almost exclusive domain. That undoubtedly blunted sales for the new Classic, which might have been quite a substantial success otherwise. As such, it merely managed a moderate increase over its geriatric predecessor. The Big Three were tightening the noose on AMC.
Th mid-sized segment’s appeal and growth was quite logical. With the relentless growth of full-sized cars, midsizers made perfect sense to folks who wanted basic transportation roomier than a compact, but not an excessively long, full-size Detroit barge. It was at the heart of a sensible sweet spot, on that Rambler essentially created in 1954 and popularized starting in 1956.
What’s more, the price was right. A 1964 Classic 550 four-door cost all of sixty bucks more than the cheapest American four-door. Of course, except for the Classic’s wider interior and maybe slightly better ride from a longer wheelbase, they were pretty similar.
This rear end is signature late-period Ed Anderson–a wee bit goofy, perhaps, but he didn’t want the boxy Classic to be too dull and dreary. The un-Classic?
Those extra few inches in width allowed three-across seating in the Classic , not that many ever did so. In their day, these Ramblers had an utterly bipolar effect on kids. On one hand, they were reviled as dumb, dull and stupid, the complete opposite of the 1963 Grand Prix ultimate date-mobile–at least when it came to getting a first date.
However, once the date had been secured (and was willing), young people simply revered the Rambler’s front seats that famously folded down to create a big, flat bed. In contrast, the contemporary GP’s bucket seats-and-console formed a very effective cock-blocker (in my younger son’s parlance). The ultimate irony.
Part of the Rambler’s image problem came from the wheezy old 195.6 cu in OHV six, whose flathead roots date to a distant era, that powered virtually every Classic. By 1963, AMC’s experimentation with an aluminum-block version was at an end. Like the Vega engine of a decade later, its standard cast-iron head had been slapped on a lightweight aluminum block, a combination whose issues included overheating problems related to unhappy chemical interactions between the aluminum, iron and copper radiator, as well as other problems. Once standard in all 1962 Classics (unless the cast-iron version was specified), by 1963 it was now standard only in the top-line Classic 770. And by 1964, it was another historical footnote, one preferably forgotten.
A 287 cu in, 198-hp V8 was optional, but not really common in Classics. Ramblers were all about thrift and fold down seats. While rugged and reliable, it also was heavy, having been designed in the pre-thinwall era. The V8s in these cars only exacerbated a weakness shared by all Ramblers of this vintage: Handling that was mediocre, or worse.
Most contemporary tests made note of the malady, which had plagued Ramblers from the beginning. Chassis engineering was not AMCs strong suit, which only helped reinforce its dull-car image. The new chassis that arrived in 1967 went some distance to ameliorate that, but AMC could never hope to keep up with GM’s rapid progress in that area, especially in the seventies. There was a reason it was called Rambler rather than Rusher.
While hardly flamboyant, the very clean lines of the ’63 were both commendable and contemporary–something like the Volvo 240 of its time. Or the 740, since this is the wide-body version.
Dick Teague joined AMC around 1962, and his influence is first seen on the 1964 Ramblers. The new American that debuted in 1964 was a very fine effort. He not only managed to make it distinctive despite its shared body parts, but also gets credit for the new hardtop roof, as there just weren’t any for 1963.
Teague obviously wasn’t too keen on Ed’s concave front end, since the ’64 Classic and Ambassador each sported a more conventional nose. Again, it’s quite apparent that these two hardtops share quite a bit of skin.; in fact, this body went on to enjoy a very long life in Argentina, where it was badged Torino. I did that story here, except I mistakenly credited Teague for the ’63. It’s never too late to learn; my apologies, Ed, even though Dick actually did the hardtop roof that appeared in ’64. Shared honors!
At least this clean and boxy body didn’t have to last nearly as long as the previous one. Or the next.
By 1967, Roy Abernethy’s push to go mano-a-mano with the Big Three resulted in the bigger 1967 Rebel. It was quite a handsome car before subsequent restyles thoroughly mucked it up…what else is new?
But in 1963 AMC could bask in the glow of Motor Trend’s COTY award for their new Classic. In retrospect it seems a dubious choice, given the other cars that debuted that year–the Buick Riviera, Corvette Sting Ray, Pontiac GP–august competition indeed. Even so, any car named Classic deserves some serious Curbside love here, don’t you think?
These Ramblers was inspired from the design of Mercedes-Benz and from what I read on Patrick Foster’s book “AMC: the last independant” and various issues of Collectible Automobile. They wanted to keep and update the basic bodyshell to 1969 but thanks to Roy Abernathy’s mismenagement. They was forced to update the Classic (who became the Rebel) and the Ambassador earlier.
However, in Argentina, the Classic/Ambassador 1963 bodyshell was made until 1974 or 1975 (the Rambler American rechristined IKA Torino(and later known as Renault Torino when Renault acquired IKA), there some vintage Argentinian pictures of these Classic/Ambassador/Torino from the Pampa at http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Argentina/Argentinajamc.html
I really want to like this car. I love the fact that it and the American share so many pieces (I did not realize to what extent before now). I love the “modern” early 1960s proportions and shape. With Ramblers looking like this, it is clear that Studebaker no longer had a prayer by 1963. I know that its unit structure was tight and well built.
But once again, this AMC product leaves me flat. The shape of the wheel wells on this car have always bothered me. Then there was the prototypical AMC minimalistic instrumentation with its odd early 1950s-style stretched numbers and its nondescript interior styling. Also the chassis dynamics straight from a 1962 Biscayne. By 1963, it took more than just being there to be a success in this segment. Tempest and Fairlane were much more attractive cars, for several reasons.
Actually, the concave front end is my favorite part of the car. I have to say that Ed Anderson’s styling reminds me in some ways of Henry King who was with Chrysler so long – he replaced Ray Dietrich in the late 1930s and stayed on after Exner was hired on over him. All of King’s designs (even the 55-56 Plymouth and Dodge) were just a little off somehow, and it was not always easy to put a finger precisely on the problem. I see the same thing with Anderson’s work. It is certainly not bad styling, but it is not good styling either. If AMC could have given this project and this budget to Brooks Stevens (who worked magic on the final Studes), imagine what this car could have looked like.
Well said. There’s no doubt Ed wasn’t exactly in the same league as some of the better designers at the time. That’s what kept Ramblers Ramblers…even when they were fairly clean.
Too bad we can’t get a greenhouse like that in these times.
Like the Studebaker Lark, these are one of the cars that tickles my notoriously bad taste in classics, and I find myself checking them out at the side of the road or online classifieds.
There always seem to be several of these for sale in my (salt infested) area, which makes me wonder if these cars were particularly well built, or if the demographic who bought them were particularly good custodians.
Probably the latter…
Hey Doug – the demographic that bought these cars when new certainly helped their survival rate – but part of the reason these cars were MTs Car of The Year, was that they were the first American cars to have most of their major body stampings done as a complete, pressed assembly (meaning not made of lots of little pieces spot-welded together with lots of corrosion inducing seams). They were also the first cars built here to have the “bodies in white” completely dipped in a huge tank of zinc-rich primer, coating all the hidden box sections against internal corrosion, prior to final painting and very effective factory rustproofing. Even today, my experience has been that every ’63 -on AMC you see, still has door bottoms!
Lots of people seem to forget now how those beloved, flashy ’50s GM cars – not to mention “classic” mid-60′s Mustangs – looked like lace doilys after only 4 or 5 years of being exposed to road salt and Midwestern winters. AMC actually took it upon themselves to proactively do something about the longevity of car bodies – long before the big three cared at all. They were still following the Nash philosophy of “giving the customer more than what they paid for” – at least in the early to mid ’60s.
Gimme an Ambassador V8, I could put those fold flat seats to good use.
Anderson deserves credit for designing a body that lasted a remarkably long 15 years (with a few reskinnings). That said, aside from curved side glass his only innovation was something that buyers couldn’t care less about — the sharing of some body parts between the junior and senior Ramblers.
I wouldn’t consider this to be a truly modular platform. The American’s body may have been only four inches narrower, but that still required many expensive changes, e.g., a distinct windshield, cowl, etc. Given the heightened competition AMC knew it would face as the 1960s progressed, I’m surprised that George Romney didn’t try to improve the company’s economies of scale by concentrating on one compact platform. Indeed, that may have been Romney’s single biggest mistake in an otherwise exceptionally successful tenure at AMC.
I’ve never been a fan of the extreme teardrop shape that Anderson adopted for the 1963 Classic. It throws off the proportions, particularly in the rear. But most importantly, this approach walks away from one of the old Rambler’s biggest advantages — an unusual amount of back-seat and trunk space for a compact.
The tight packaging could have been at least partially compensated for with a switch to IRS. Alas, despite GM’s blizzard of early-60s engineering advancements, the 1963 Rambler was remarkably old hat.
Perhaps the 1963 Rambler’s biggest failing wasn’t Anderson’s fault — a severe decline in manufacturing quality. This used to be one of Rambler’s greatest advantages. Meanwhile, the competition had either caught up or surpassed AMC in other realms. Most notably, Chrysler’s compacts increasingly stood out for their reliability.
This is why I’d consider the 1963 Rambler the beginning of the end for AMC.
Actually, if my family’s experience is any guide…manufacturing quality took a nosedive at least a year earlier and probably sooner. Our 1962 Classic was a lemon…not one problem, not one area, but MYRIAD areas. Everything from susceptibility to rusting (fenders perforated in four years) to aluminum engine failure, a flawed and broken casting; to the Borg-Warner automatic transmission refusing to take off in D when cold (it would back onto the street; and there it SAT…for minutes at least). Electrics, hydraulics, vacuum wipers…everything was trouble.
The problem was probably Rambler’s sudden increase in production. Rambler was the third-best seller in 1961 and fifth in 1962; probably most of their production, out of their antiquated Kenosha plant, was rushed through.
If I can judge at this distance, from a friend’s family which had a 1964 Classic…Rambler, with stabilizing demand, did acquit itself better by that time. Which gave it the image that stuck with it till death: Slow, stodgy, reliable…a perceived value for frugal old folk (whether it was a true value is open to debate). But anyway…this was the first, halting correct step the maturing American Motors was to make. And one of few such.
FWIW…that concave grille strikes me as a million-percent better than the dimestore-aluminum stamping that replaced it in 1964. That will not sit as one of Teague’s better moves.
Last note: That two-door 1962 Rambler is the rarest of the rare. Without looking up the price, I’d wager he’s got a true collectible there. Those were very-low volume.
My family’s first wagon was a ’64 Rambler Classic 550. Ran great for a few year, but when 2 more siblings were born, we needed a true full size 3 seat wagon. By 1969, my folks were “sick of Ramblers” and got a used ’68 Fury wagon.
The 3rd row was like being chauffered and we loved it. Until we got to be bigger kids,
A really interesting analysis of this dull-as-dishwater car. As a teenager in the early to mid-sixties, nobody, but nobody, that we knew would be caught dead in a Rambler of any ilk, unless, as you so colorfully note, you were a half-alive spinster librarian, or in the case of our next door neighbors, a dowdy middle-aged couple, the husband a salesman at the local Sears hardware department, and the wife a stay-at-home spouse. But they loved their little Rambler crackerbox, they would frequently get all gussied up and head out to dinner in it, as though they were squiring each other out in the finest Cadillac. By the way, you mention that “Dick Teague…his influence first seen on the 1964 Rambler…gets credit for the new hardtop roof, as there just weren’t any for 1963.” Ah, but there were, the one-off 1963 440H hardtop, and the neighbors had that very car, a gold-colored body with a white faux-convertible top. Boxy, uninspired, it had the look of a cutesy child’s roller skate. They kept that car going until the wife died in 1983, whereupon it sat in their garage, absolutely untouched and undriven, until the husband’s death in 1999, frozen in place in another era. It was unceremoniously hauled off to a junkyard by his estate.
Paul, I got such a kick over your remark “In contrast, the contemporary GP’s bucket seats-and-console formed a very effective cock-blocker (in my younger son’s parlance). The ultimate irony.” Ha! So true, except that I so preferred those sporty bucket seats, and they graced my first car, a ’64 LeMans, as close to a GP as I could get. Brought back a great memory, in high school English class, I had to write an essay titled, “The Disadvantages of Bucket Seats.” Of course, the theme was the inability to snuggle up to the girlfriend, wish I had been able to use your son’s contemporary description!
Being so close to Kenosha, Ramblers were all over Chicago in early 60′s. But, I can see in the rest of the US being out of style and stodgy.
Seems like after ’65 they dropped off the charts like a faded Top 40 act. Then did the AMC re-image, then lots of Gremlins, Hornets and Eagles all over Chicago, until the next downturn.
I always liked the 63 Rambler in particular. I spent quite a few hours behind the wheel of my brother-in-law’s 63 6 cyl, three on the tree, and found it to be a pleasant driving experience. One thing about these early sixties AMC products was that they had some really fine rust proofing from the factory. Living in the northeast we noticed things like that. It was not unusual to see many of these cars on the road ten to fifteen years later with no rust showing anywhere. This was certainly not true of my 1973 Matador wagon that began rusting within five years. It was also a car I truly enjoyed driving. I did think the 63 was the cleanest design of the early sixties Ramblers. I did not care for the boxy look of the 64.
The big advance with these cars was the “uniside” construction, which consisted of a single stamping for the body sides, resulting in improved fit, durability and protection from dust and water intrustion. Original-condition cars – which is pretty much all that shows up at car shows, as these aren’t worth restoring – have very good panel and door fit.
I agree with jpcavanaugh that these were a little “off,” and largely because of the wheel openings on the exterior and the dashboard. The more conservative wheel openings on the 1964 Americans look much better. The basic shape, though, is quite good. Simply eliminating the B-pillar on the two door sedan would have made a very nice hardtop coupe (and better than what AMC did offer for 1964 in the senior lines).
AMC should have turned it over to GM to finalize the details and design the interior. Then let one of the European companies work on the chassis and steering.
“Chassis engineering was not AMCs strong suit”
Remember that these cars still had the old trunnion front suspension (not kingpins, as a poster some time back stated), and torque tube drive with coil springs. The new American, introduced in 1964, and based on this platform, had a conventional open driveshaft with leaf springs. The torque tube lasted through the 1966 MY, and trunnions finally went away at the end of 1969.
My father started working at “The Motors” in late 1962, and bought one of these. Ambassador 990 2-door sedan, maroon with white top, 327, three-speed manual with the Twin Stick overdrive, buckets and console. Sharp car, and quite fast.
My brother ended up with it and kinda butchered up the mechanicals. He sold it to a friend, who eventually did a complete restoration on the car. It has changed hands a few times since, but is still kicking around. Last I knew it was in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago; saw it at an AMC show a few years ago. Looks better than it did when it was new.
It is very strange to see a car you knew so well as a kid turn up at a car show 20+ years after you last saw it, and 40 years after it was the family car.
Guy who owned it had NO interest in hearing about the car’s history.
Guy who owned it had NO interest in hearing about the car’s history.
That’s too bad.
I actually think these were one of the prettiest cars of the 60s, and the design was akin to a Niemeyer tower block in Brasilia- minimalist, yet with just enough curve to keep it interesting. The comparison to the Volvo 240 is not lost either, as I am an owner of one of those too, and the cars share a timeless look- certainly the style isn’t that far away from the Dart/Valiant/Swinger that lasted until ’76. In ’63, Mopars were still strange looking (although the Dart was becoming pretty), and the Falcon and Nova were incredibly dull.
This was a cohesive design- something that was rare in Detroit at the time. I do speak from experience, as I owned a ’64 550. For a ‘poverty spec’ car, it was very nice. Not only could the seats turn into a bed, but they actually could recline- and this was on the cheapest model. The turquoise nylon upholstery, turquoise vinyl and glassfibre headlining all combined to make a very nice interior.
Similarly, the car also had one of the best heaters ever put into an American car, and that dashboard was very intuitive to use- placing all controls in the driver’s reach. Aside from the rather retro single number speedo (which I rather liked), it was a very modern interior. That heater, the ‘weather eye’ was one of the best heater systems ever invented- and the Rambler had the controls nicely backlighted, with nice chunky chrome levers to operate.
The handling was not as bad as others said either. As a day to day car without sporting intentions, it was fine. Mine didn’t wander on the highways, and always went where pointed. Granted, the reputation for wayward handling probably came from tired examples owned by cheapskate owners who didn’t keep everything greased. Similarly, the gearbox wasn’t bad for a 3 speed, it kept up with traffic, and the 6 cylinder was quite smooth.
My dad, on the other hand, absolutely hated Ramblers with a passion. He could barely hide his disgust when I purchased mine in 2000 off Ebay, having travelled by Greyhound from Detroit to Omaha to pick it up. Dad you see grew up with my grandfather’s ’62 Rambler burned into his memory. He learned to drive its 3 speed, hated its handling- as Grandpa wasn’t one to pay for grease, and despised the vacuum wipers. Yet, the more things change the more they stay the same. I suppose if a child of mine brought home a Corolla (rusty examples of which were Dad’s work cars) I’d probably react with similar disgust. Actually, I suppose the same demographic who purchased Ramblers later went on to buy Toyotas.
But I digress. My Rambler only leaves a positive memory for me, and even the worst problem of the wipers could be easily remedied with an electric motor from a later Hornet.
I also have to say that the interior and trunkspace was quite good too- plus, that trunklid opened all the way to the bumper facilitating loading. I also have to second the idea that it was very rust resistant. My ’64 had ZERO rust in 2000, and it was 100% usable in all conditions of Detroit traffic and commuting year round. I never got stuck in the snow, spun out, or held up traffic. It could cruise at 70 and dodge potholes on the Lodge with the best of them, and never once broke down in 10,000 miles.
My little Rambler was a great car- far better than it deserved to be.
Very well said and I agree 100%.
+1
“By then, it had become embarrassingly out-of date, a car only a spinster librarian would be caught semi-alive in.” My 3rd-grade teacher drove a ’62 Classic. I’m pretty sure she was a “Miss”, not a “Mrs.” Which could mean anything or nothing about her actual life, now that I think about it
If I remember correctly, the front and rear bumpers were interchangeable on the 1963 Classics.
My own theory is that Rambler drivers went to Volvos or Peugeots.
Hey- I drive a Volvo 245 so it must be true. However, I doubt that many Rambler owners in the ’60s or ’70s (at least cheap ones like my grandfather) would spend their own money on some fancy you-ro-pee-un thing.
I also remember it was the first American mainstream car with curved glass as well as those unique one piece alloy window frames.
I also remember those cheap little black and white ads for Rambler in the back of National Geographic with a picture of an elderly church pastor with a name like Elmer K. Hooperhaper who would talk about how his rambler is able to take him all over the parish in the snow of South Dakota or the like. I don’t think the ads even had a picture of the car. If advertising is supposed to sell not just the product but a ‘lifestyle’ I don’t think I want the one that has Reverend Elmer on it. Sad, though, because these could have been sold so much better.
Like Brian, I figure your theory must be correct. I owned a 73 Matador wagon and my current ride is a 2007 Volvo V70 wagon. Of course there were 20+ other cars in between. The Matador was only in my collection from 1976 to 1980. Ohio rust and a strained automatic transmission killed the Matador at somewhere around 90,000 miles and it only barely made it to a Mercury dealer where it was traded for a left over 1979 Mercury Zephyr wagon.
It’s a classic design, no pun intended. One of the requirements for a CCOTY would have to be the percentage still on the road in original condition, a category where these old Ramblers do pretty well. I’d really like to have a 1964 Typhoon– it was a special edition brought out to showcase the new 232 six. It wasn’t much more than a Classic painted yellow with a black top, but I’ve always liked the looks of them, and the 232 was an engine worth waiting a year for.
I love those Typhoons, years back there was one regularly parked by my work. I’d lust after that thing almost every day.
I have a ’63 Classic 660. It’s the same color as the car in the story, though my interior is green, not tan.
The concave grill wasn’t unusual in ’63, Ford was doing that as well. I think ford pulled it off a bit better. From what I’ve seen at Rambler meets, each and every ’63 Classic has a dent somewhere in the grill. There are no NOS ones available as far as I know.
As far as handling, I agree with Brian, they were certainly not sporting cars, but handled every bit as well as other family sedans of the era, if not better. Ride was noticeably better than many cars of the era. My brother had a ’62 Stude and the difference was startling. The unibody really made a huge difference. I had a ’63 Galaxie and I can’t say that it handled any better than my Classic, didn’t ride as well either. (With the 390 it was quite a bit quicker than the Calssic -6) When I bought my Classic in the late ’80s it was still tight and felt like a lightly used car, though it had racked up a lot of miles.
I agree the dash was a little outdated, but not really that much, and the single digit speedo was sort of a Rambler trademark, and it’s important for repeat customers to see something familiar.
My car has vacuum wipers which really never should have been used after the invention of the electric motor. On the plus side, AMC used vacuum motors at least into the early ’70s so finding parts/replacements is easy.
I like the rear end styling, simple and clean.
IMO this car is just begging for the ’63 Mercury “Breezeway” roof treatment.
Any pictures, Dynamic88? I am a sucker for green (or aqua) cars–and green interiors!
Sorry, no pics. Maybe I’ll get it out come spring and put some pics on the cohort. I like Green/Green cars too. As far as I know you and I are the only ones who do.
From 1956-1966 my Father was partners in a Couer d’Alene Rambler dealership. In those days, cars damaged by the transport company became their instant property for later “auction” to various insiders at prices agreed to in advance. We went all over the country buying various Ramblers, Chryslers, and occasional GM products. We drove some questionable autos with taped-in windshields and roped close doors back to the northwest for repair and sale. If memory serves, it all came to a halt when the Highway Safety bill was enacted. I used to spend days pretending I was driving every new car in the marshaling yard. Some of my greatest memories are train trips to Milwaukee to meet Dad. I still own a 1967 Ambassador DPL coupe with less than 5000 miles. Like many things, I wish I knew then what I know now.
Sounds like you had a pretty neat childhood. Let Paul or I know if you’d care to try a bit of writing for CC. I’d love to hear more about your Ambassador.
I’ve enjoyed all of Paul’s work for many years now, and when walking in downtown Portland, I’ve wondered if I have encountered him casually. I believe you have my email. I was very lucky in this genetic lottery called life, as I was raised by a man who worked with Bunkie and Pete Estes in the late 30′s and during wartime before being drafted. He insisted that since he drove a farm truck at 10, his progeny was equally adept, and one day pulled over and said you drive, son. I was nine. After faking like he was going to leave me when I bolted, I proceeded to drive us to Susanville.
A handsome powder blue Classic 660 station wagon graced our driveway for a couple of years. Dad ordered the V-8, as it replaced the 283 V-8 bat-wing ’59 Brookwood.. The shark mouth grille was distinctive and overall shape very modern. Many innovations compared to the big-three, curved side glass and dual-circuit brakes to name two. Two selling points for dad were standard seat belts and headrests for safety. Mom liked the split bench seat that individually reclined.
One of the stock statements about Kaisers was “stick a Buick nameplate on them and they would have sold like hotcakes.” I think the Classic, equipped with a Mopar slant six and a decent suspension, would have made a really good Valiant. The problem was, the Valiant was already a really good Valiant, and there was no way for AMC to catch up. Stodgy wasn’t necessarily a deal killer in the 60′s. The ’62-67 Nova sedan, and the ’67-up Valiant/Dart, were if anything stodgier looking versions of the same three-box design as the Classic/American. And early Falcons appear next to the word stodgy in the dictionary. But they all had better engineering, plus available higher performance options, plus better dealer networks, plus the marketing benefit of association with popular big-brother brands.
So many AMC haters up in here! lol
On a serious note, as the owner of a ’63 Classic 660 just like the one pictured here, some of you folks made some good points. The straight 6 is sluggish and lacks torque, the dash layout is a bit dated, I personally feel that the rear end is the worst part of the car-it just doesn’t look ‘classy’ to me- but the neat concave grille is so early-60′s and really gets attention. Only issue with that is it sits too far forward. It’s almost flush with the front bumper and has dents and dings all over it.