(first posted 10/13/2015) It recently occurred to me that my frequent picture taking of cars and pickups is answering the hunter-gatherer element within my DNA. All men have it to varying degrees and we all answer it in our own way.
For those who answer the hunter-gatherer call, there are times when you get pretty excited about a catch and realize that while your latest catch is pretty tempting, there may not be as much meat on its bones as you had anticipated. Such seems to be the case with this AMC Ambassador.
Don’t get me wrong; I rather like this Ambassador. For that matter, I must like all Ambassadors as this is the third one I’ve written about.
Growing up, AMC was an enigma comparable to an albino rhinoceros and I was always trying to figure them out. There was an AMC dealership nearby, but their generally having about three cars in stock facilitated neither a better understanding nor frequent sightings. It was pretty obvious AMC wasn’t exactly anywhere near the top of the automotive food chain in the United States.
About the only time I would see an AMC was when my father would occasionally drive home a pool vehicle from where he worked. If it was not a pickup, it was always an AMC in some form of plain vanilla sedan. No wonder a young, impressionable me thought that AMC existed primarily for fleet buyers. Like when jumping to most conclusions, my assessment was proven to be incorrect.
Back in the mid-1960s, Roy Abernathy had the grand vision of going hunting for big game, namely GM. This foolishness of trying to bag the infamous thirty point buck that was General Motors resulted in a misfire as AMC figuratively put Abernathy out of his misery in 1967. Abernathy’s wanting to score some big game is understandable, but this snipe hunting venture would have instead been more productive had he spent this time goosing butterflies.
It might appear AMC’s fortunes were on the upswing by 1970. For 1970, AMC would field more models than it would at any other time, with the Hornet, Rebel, AMX, Gremlin, Javelin, and Ambassador. Again, there wasn’t as much meat on those bones as would be expected as AMC would lose $58 million on sales of just over $1 billion.
As had always been the case, the Ambassador was the granddaddy and patriarch of the AMC family with the highest trim level being the SST.
Ads for the Ambassador poised it as a rich looking car that was highly affordable, a car that even appealed to actor Robert DeNiro’s certified public accountant character, a choice of profession that likely was not arbitrary. I can think of a number of other professions that might inadequately convey or simply fail to deliver the intended message of this commercial.
While base level Ambassador’s still had an available straight-six, the mid-range DPL and top-dog SST had a 304 cubic inch V8 engine and automatic transmission as standard equipment. For those wanting more pounce in their Ambassador, a choice of 360 or 390 cubic inch engines were also available.
Air conditioning had been made standard in 1968, making the Ambassador the first American car having that distinction. While the Ambassador sat on a 122″ wheelbase, the extra length was in front of the firewall with a cabin identical to that of the Rebel.
When one is low on money you don’t waste ammunition and you seek various financial efficiencies. If you look closely, AMC took one well-aimed shot with its brochures. None of the Big Three would have contemplated putting English, Spanish, German, and French verbiage within the same brochure in 1970. Yet AMC did. Was the word “quad-lingual” even used in 1970? Maybe this shot-gunning of languages tells us what the nanny and butler were teaching the children while they were crammed in the backseat headed to the grocery store. It’s doubtful the fluffy canine would be able to help in any hunting for food endeavor as it likely couldn’t sniff out much more than a few gophers.
The Ambassador nameplate had had a long and colorful history by 1970 but, like a gray bearded turkey, its days were numbered. Production of the Ambassador was over 76,000 for 1969; sales dropped to less than half that by 1971 and continued the downward trajectory through the end in 1974 when only about 25,000 trickled out the door at Kenosha. Production of the two-door SST as featured here was 8,255.
This drop in sales even accounts for the time period when AMC was sniffing the trail for new sales prospects, hawking Ambassadors to police departments to supplement the relatively more popular Matador. The State of Missouri purchased the Ambassador, along with Chryslers and Mercuries, for the highway patrol from 1971 to 1973.
Police departments weren’t the only receivers of AMC’s fleet output; a former neighbor of mine had been a maintenance superintendent with the Missouri Department of Transportation. At one point in time his assigned car was an olive green Ambassador, hardly the odd duck in a rather sizable fleet. Having sales decline while fleet sales increase aren’t the ingredients for a very tasty sales stew.
With sales of the Ambassador and highly related Matador dropping like a lame duck, it was evident AMC’s continued foray into larger cars was not going to be their most successful expedition. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, George Romney had targeted smaller cars for AMC’s efforts. By the early 1970s, the market was bluntly reminding AMC of its small car lineage, nudging it back towards it roots. Quite arguably, AMC was slowly evolving into a niche manufacturer.
It was during 1970 when AMC purchased the Kaiser-Jeep Corporation, making it the largest builder of four-wheel drive vehicles, itself a niche market in 1970. This move would serve AMC quite well in the long haul. The profitability of Jeep would keep them afloat and the four-wheel drive technology would later be applied to their car line.
The Ambassador in 1970 was a car appearing to send mixed messages. It’s 122″ wheelbase was one inch longer than that of a full-sized Ford while its interior size was in Torino territory. The base price of our two-door SST was $400 higher than that of a comparable Ford LTD two-door hardtop; however, once a person equipped that LTD with air conditioning, its price was right in line with the Ambassador.
To its everlasting credit, the AMC Ambassador was a reasonably successful hunter to have captured the sales it did for as long as it did. It was simply unorthodox in its targets and in its lures to buyers. And it also appears there is more meat on the bones of the Ambassador than what I initially realized.
Related Ambassador reading:
Very well-written metaphor piece about a rare car. I think this one’s a looker, especially from a rear three-quarter view. I was shocked to read the sales figures cited – that these sold even in those numbers. Even as a kid, I saw these as “fancy Matadors”, with both monikers even ending in “-dor”, with “Ambassador’s” extra syllables corresponding with its extra length. Great job, Jason. Hunt on.
Finding this one was a treat; almost exactly how I would have ordered one were I looking at one back in the day.
I agree; the rear three-quarter view reveals a handsome car. Like Jason, as a car-crazy kid in the 60’s I mostly ignored AMC; although I did like these and the original AMX, which I thought was gorgeous.
I had the same reaction that the rear 3/4 was the best view. Unfortunately I think the front is somewhat awkward, so I’ll take a Rebel and some change instead. (That’s in 1970. I suspect that in today’s market, an Abassador has less value.)
Great find. My dad had owned two Ramblers but switched to Buick in ’66 when he decided it was the time in his life for a big car, and our Wildcat was definitely big. I thought the new-generation Ambassadors in ’69 were handsome cars, but he never returned to the fold when the time came for him to trade in his Buick.
These are nice cars. As all of the other domestics midsized got so bloated, it might have been just possible for these to have found a small niche if they had stayed sensible, with what development budget there is going to engineering updates. Pricing at a level with a LTD would seem to scare off the cheapskate. I suspect once you were at the dealer you may find them more flexible. The hardtop roofline is great though and I find the front quite attractive.
I saw DeNiro driving a Q7 Audi CUV in The Intern movie. Anne Hathaway might just have been preferred to be picked up in the Ambassador, DeNiro was kind of playing an ambassador from a different era.
It’s easy to see why the Ambassador couldn’t compete with what were still considered not “big” cars in their day but rather “standard size” or “full size” – the size a normal American car was if it wasn’t one of the relatively new smaller renditions. The Ambassador all too clearly wasn’t what it was pretending to be. An Impala is a distinctly larger and different car than a Chevelle, and the same was true of their Ford and Chrysler counterparts. An Ambassador though looked like what it was – a slightly stretched (where it didn’t matter much) mid-sized Matador/Rebel posing as a big, er, full-sized car. As noted, this resulted in a Torino-sized interior in a LTD-size car. Add to that the less-than-attractive styling (of the mainstream 4-door anyway – the 2-door here looks a bit better) and their goose was cooked, and probably would have been even had the 1974 fuel shortages not caused the entire big-car segment to falter.
Great one Jason. The coupe is such a good-looking car, the only bummer is that there were better-looking cars as competition. I really love the three-quarter rear view. Nice @ss.
just wondering about the beltline – is it a ’57 dressed up as a ’69 in styling terms?
The choice of “SST” as a luxury trim level proved to be pretty unfortunate. I suppose AMC was trying to catch some reflected glamour from America’s version of the Concorde, the Boeing SST. Any glamour faded away pretty quickly in mid-1971, when the government canceled the funding for the project. This was particularly true here in Washington, where Boeing laid off thousands of workers, prompting that famous billboard, “Will The Last Person Leaving Seattle Please Turn Out The Lights?” It came as no surprise to anyone when AMC gave up on their own SST after the 1972 model year.
By the way, that’s a good-looking car. AMC obviously cribbed the roofline of the 2-door from the earlier Plymouth VIP, but they did a good job of it. Maybe if the Marlin had a similar roofline it would have sold a bit better?
Yes, AMC’S SST and DPL model names always left me scratching my head.
I’ve heard that DPL was shorthand for “DiPLomat” but “SST”? Super Sport Tourisimo? 😉
“Super Sonic Transport”, new plane of the era, the Concorde I think.
You are correct, SST meant super sonic transport, as per my vice president of labor relations brother-in-law at the time.
I’ve heard that DPL was shorthand for “DiPLomat”
That has been my assumption. “Leadership” names were popular at one time. in the 50s, the Nash model below the Ambassador was the Statesman. Studebaker used President, Commander and Champion.
….and Dictator which they should have dropped several years before they did in the late ’30s
Speaking of the Statesman, wasn’t the early fifties Ambassador just a long-nosed Statesman with a bigger engine? There’s your precedent for them making a faux full-size out of the Matador.
Old Pete
Posted October 13, 2015 at 3:46 PM
Speaking of the Statesman, wasn’t the early fifties Ambassador just a long-nosed Statesman with a bigger engine? There’s your precedent for them making a faux full-size out of the Matador.
Yes. The difference between the Statesman and Ambassador was in front of the firewall, which lead to Nash’s big problem under the hood. The Ambassador had enough room for the ancient 252 six, which had a bit of low end torque. The only thing they could squeeze into the Statesman was the 196, which, until 56, was a flattie that they could barely pull 100hp out of, with a 2bbl carb. They converted the 196 to OHV in 56, so it could breath, and they wound it up to 130hp. In 56, Consumer Reports described the Statesman’s performance as “very modest”
AMC did it again with the Rambler. The 56 Rambler had a 108″ wheelbase. When the senior platform was dropped in 57, they introduced a new Ambassador: the 56 Rambler platform stretched to a 117″ wheelbase, all in front of the firewall.
Here is an ad for the 58 Rambler
And this is the 58 Ambassador. All the extra length is between the front wheelwell and the front door.
And Boeing was heavy into developing a supersonic airplane during this same era (without success).
Which they gave up on at least in part to devote resources to the 747 program. In hindsight, a very wise decision………
Which they gave up on at least in part to devote resources to the 747 program. In hindsight, a very wise decision……
Boeing gave up on the SST because the government stopped paying the subsidy to develop it.
DPL was a prefix for “diplomatic” license plate. Considering Ford had already claimed LTD, and Plymouth wrapped up VIP (and Chevrolet ignored the convention entirely), DPL was probably about the best available three letter combination left.
SST? Even in their brochures, American Motors admitted they didn’t quite know what it stood for.
Indeed, as if the use of ‘SST’ moniker wasn’t bad enough, the close-up shot of the lettering shows an even worse faux pas, and that’s the rather ‘fanciful’ (to be polite) font they used. It looks almost dainty. Is that really the image AMC wanted to project?
I can see that, alone, putting off many potential customers. I realize that AMC operated on a shoestring budget, but it appears they did zero market research not only on ‘SST’, but on the way it was to be presented. I mean, compare it with the bold, proper block-style lettering for the engine call-out. I’ve always wondered exactly, who, within AMC management, approved that SST font and what their thought process was in doing so..
And if you were going to use SST implying supersonic transport as a model or trim level, it should have denoted the sporty/muscle version, not the plush one.
In the days before airline deregulation, air travel – particularly overseas air travel – was still largely the province of the well-to-do (unless a family member, usually the father, was career military).
No doubt AMC wanted to tap into this association with their use of the SST name for the top trim level of its “senior” cars.
Ya think Chrysler did any better with their Plymouth equivalent?
Excellent catch! I remember really liking these AMC 2 door hardtops in 1972 and 1973. It strikes me that this car is a smaller 67 Chrysler. It was said that Chrysler’s styling was 3 years behind the trend, so AMC being 3 years behind Chrysler made it almost countercyclical. No wonder they didn’t sell well.
The Ambassador’s concept was flawed for that era. It was an odd size that didn’t really fit any established category.
During high school, I had a job at a public library. My boss drove one of these, a green one. He was the only person I ever knew who owned one
+1 on the resemblance to the ‘fast top’ Mopars. But these and the contemporary Matador pull off the look much better. It just works with the lines of the AMCs where the fast top Mopars look like theyre wearing a badly fitting baseball cap on top of the body.
Nice find Jason, the nose on these still strikes me as too long and awkward for the rest of the car.
Of course for many years I looked upon Ambassadors only as potential parts donors for my 72 Matador.
But, with those rims and in black paint this one doesn’t look too bad, much better than the horrible metallic green and 78 series whitewalls these usually came with.
I thought of your Matador when putting this together. This car was definitely a driver as it had California plates.
I love everything about that car except that awful (to me) front end grille, which basically duplicates the dashboard design – good, but it does nothing for me.
I think it’s okay, but I’m guessing that most would agree the ’71-’73 grille that separated the headlamps from the center section is better. In fact, the 1970 almost looks like they had planned on using hidden headlamps, maybe for the highest trim versions. That would have been interesting.
Regardless, they’re all better than the ‘coffin nose’ front end they used with the 5 mph bumpers in 1974.
I kind of like the grille. It’s a little awkward in spots, but I also like the forward cant and the way it’s recessed in by the bladed fender tips.
What can I say… I like it. Although the styling makes me think “Monte Carlo Prototype”.
The Ambassador had a full size interior, not a Torino sized one:
Ambassador
Headroom, Front: 39.8
Leg Room, Front: 41.8
Rear Head Room : 37.5
Rear Leg Room: 38.6
Trunk: 18.2
Length: 210.8
Width:77
Torino
Headroom, Front: 37.8
Leg Room, Front: 41.1
Head Room, Rear: 36.8
Leg Room, Rear” 36
Trunk: 16.2
Length: 206.2
Width:76.4
LTD
Front Head Room: 38.8
Front Leg Room: 41.9
Rear Head Room: 37.9
Rear Leg Room: 38.7
Trunk: 19.1
Length: 219.5
Width: 80
Impala:
Front Head Room: 38.3
Front Leg Room: 42.3
Rear Headroom: 37.8
Rear Leg Room: 38.5
Length: 216
Width: 79.8
What you had with the Ambassador [or Matador] was full size room with the exterior dimensions of a 77 Chevrolet Impala. It would have given up a slight amount of shoulder room, perhaps, but it’s interior is in the same ballpark as the LTD and Impala. So the argument that you paid more for a Torino sized interior is an assumption not backed up by facts.
It’s been said that the Ambassador only existed because AMC execs wanted something large to drive.
My parents had a 72 four door, a genuine “Brougham”. It said so on the C Pillars.
Essentially the same car but with the old 70 Rebel dash cluster [AMC would swap back and forth, depending on how they wanted to “update” and more prominent grille. It was quite beautiful: Cordoba Brown, brown vinyl top, 304 V8. I saw a 2014 Chrysler 200 in Autumn Bronze recently that would have been a direct ringer for it.
It was not well built, even having been manufactured under the new “Buyer Protection Plan ” introduced in 1972. It was as bad as our 71 Gremlin. Unfortunate because on paper it was a perfect balance of room, size, weight and power.
Better yet, it avoided the “too short” top to bottom front fenders of the Matador that made it look so dumpy.
Motor Trend said of the Rebel in 1970: “The Rebel is AMC’s bread and butter car, but thinly sliced and lightly spread”. You could say the same of the Ambassador, but with Automatic, AC and better trim, it was a bargain for the extra money.
Your research on measurements confirms my long-held suspicions that had AMC hung on to the Ambassador after 1974, it might have come back into style. It was the perfect size for the late 70s, and with a properly luxurious interior, would have been a contender – if they could have done something with that sedan roofline and rear doors.
The nose on the 74 Ambassador was quite nice looking, probably the nicest front end treatment this body ever got. The Matador’s, however, was not. It was a parody of the Amby nose.
An old auto industry adage is that “Timing is everything” and it’s probably true that AMC’s introduction of the smaller full-size Ambassador would have been much better received if it had coincided with GM’s downsizing. Unfortunately, it was during the continued ‘bigger is better’ years, so it just didn’t sell like it might have. It’s eerily reminiscent of the 1962 Chrysler downsizing debacle, only on a much smaller scale. I’m sure it’s the sort of thing that gives auto execs ulcers, trying to figure out if the domestic market is going to want smaller or larger vehicles.
Part of the Ambassador’s problem was that it fell into a “no man’s land” between the Big Three’s intermediate and full-size offerings.
This generation of Ambassador did offer a good trade-off between interior room and exterior size, but people who wanted a more manageable car than the typical Chevrolet Impala/Caprice, Ford Galaxie/LTD and Plymouth Fury could always buy an intermediate from the Big Three.
The Cutlass Supreme and Buick Skylark (and later Century), in particular, offered far more prestige than the Ambassador, with even more manageable dimensions. They weren’t as roomy inside, but for the typical family of four or five (parents and children), any extra interior space mattered less than the prestige you earned by parking an Oldsmobile or Buick in the driveway.
Thanks for the dimensional comparisons, reveals where the disparity the public would perceive between the full-sized Ford and Chevy versus the Ambassador lay: outside body width. While the interior dimensions are nearly a wash, that approximately three inch width difference was very noticeable. The public easily recognized the body sharing between Matador and Ambassador and the former was considered an intermediate-size make.
AMC applying the extra length ahead of the cowl to create the upscale models was just continuing the old build trick begun during the Nash days. In this case, the four inch increase over the 1968 118″ wheelbase gave these last Ambassadors nice long hood/short deck proportions, which show very well on this ’70 hardtop. The lifted-tail of the 1970-74 Ambassadors didn’t contribute to the overall ‘luxury’ car look; should have continued 1967-69 rear quarters with simply restyled taillights etc.; let only the Matadors have the lifted-tail look.
The 1965-74 Ambassadors are analogous to the lwb Studebaker Land Cruisers, President Classics and Lark Cruisers, i.e. stretched versions of the basic lower volume lines for the loyal customer looking for a bit more upscale car. Studebaker, to their credit, actually added the four additional inches into the rear passenger area, not just to frontal length.
No doubt Ambassadors were kept in production too so that AMC executives would have a luxury model to drive……even they didn’t want to show up at the country club in just a Classic or Matador! Not unlike the reason that Chrysler kept the Imperial around for as long as it did. Interesting that both the Ambassador and Imperial expired at almost the same time.
Studebaker, to their credit, actually added the four additional inches into the rear passenger area, not just to frontal length.
It might be a function of the unibody construction. Packard, like Studebaker. put the extra length in the back seat in the 50s. Hudson, like Nash, put the extra length in, or took it out, of the front clip. The Wasp was a bit shorter than the Hornet, and it all came out of the front clip, to the point where they had to dish the firewall to clear the back end of the 232/262, which was as long as the 308.
That ’70 Ambassador commercial is a personal favorite, has two great lines the mother says which I use on friends when they buy a new car:
“Joey, You need such an expensive car?!”
and
“Joey, So fancy!”
….makes me laugh every time!
I’ve always liked this generation Ambassador. It may have been huge by certain standards, but so what? Sometimes you need a large car, if not for safety, but for comfort. I’d buy a 1970-74 AMC Ambassador if I could find one in decent condition.
Nice find! Can’t remember the last time ive seen one of these in the metal…or a Matador. The 2doors are uniquely attractive cars. The black paint and torque thrusts bring those good looks right to the surface. I hope the owner gets the interior done too, he’ll have a killer ride…and nobody else will have a clean ‘bass on cruise nite, THATS for sure.
Anyone else stupified by how AMC managed an eye pleasing design on the 2door but apparently purpose-built the 4-dr to look as awkward and dorky as possible? I mean…just look at how the beltline meets the C pillar! Looks like it was spliced together out of 2 horribly mismatched car halves.
Agree on the sedan. That 1970 sedan restyle may have been the most awkward looking sedan of the 70s. As long as that body stayed around, a little work on that roofline/rear door area would have done wonders.
Essentially, that is what happened. AMC restyled the car forward of the windshield for 1969, eliminating the stacked, quad headlights. For 1970, it restyled the C-pillar, trunk and rear quarter panels. Unfortunately, it looks as though the two styling teams never talked to each other while working on their respective parts of the final car.
The upswept rear beltline on the four-door sedans copies the beltline used on the 1968-72 GM intermediate sedans. Chrysler and Ford would adopt this theme as well, for their 1971 and 1972 intermediate sedans, respectively.
It didn’t work any better for Chrysler – at least from a sales standpoint – than it did for AMC. The Ford intermediates sold well through the 1974, and then never recovered from the effects of the first gas shortage.
GM, meanwhile, completely abandoned this look with the 1973 Colonnade intermediates, and, once again, made everyone else look about three years out of date.
Agree also on how awful the 4 doors looked compared to the 2 doors. I remember the first time I saw a 2 door (looked just like this one) and I couldn’t believe it was related to the 4 doors I had seen previously.
That 1970 rear door, belt-line and roof C-pillar restyle has to be the most awkward, dorky-looking mistake made to that body. Unhappily, given their tight financial circumstances, it stuck around all way to the last 1978 Matador…..ugh!
Come to think of it, once Teague stuck that box nose on the ’74, it didn’t make so much difference….the whole car took on a fleet/motor-pool look that didn’t appeal much to the general retail buyers. Were they purposely restyling the large sedans and wagons to look dorky to chase away customers?
That 1970 rear door, belt-line and roof C-pillar restyle has to be the most awkward, dorky-looking mistake made to that body.
Gee, I think it looks OK, especially with a vinyl top. If you put more rake on the front edge of the C pillar, it will get in the way of people getting into the back seat.
The 67-69 senior roof
…looks to me a lot like a late 60s Galaxie roof
The stylistic mismatch of the vertical side window frame and the forward rake of the rear roof are just too jarring. If they had modified the roof shell to put a steeper angle on the rear window to be more consistent with the vertical window frame, think box-roofed ’79-’85 Riv/Toro/Eldo, the formal look would have worked.
Popular Science magazine tested full-size domestic station wagons in the April 1971 issue. This included the Ambassador which was was judged superior to the offerings from Chevrolet, Ford, and Plymouth; with better handling, braking, fuel economy, and acceleration than its competitors. (The Ambassador weighed in at 700-900 pounds lighter than the competition.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=kwAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA5&dq=popular+science+april+1971&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwA2oVChMIm-um3OC_yAIVh9k-Ch3AQArq#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%20april%201971&f=false
The previous month the nearly identical Matador wagon was tested against Dodge and Mercury Montego competitors with similar results.
As the years progressed though these cars did not fare as well against the competition. The problem AMC had was that they lacked the funds to update their 1967-vintage large-car platform beyond the company-wide move to full ball-joint front suspension in 1970. The company’s limited working capital was blown developing the Matador Coupe and the Pacer, both of which were flops, leaving almost nothing for updating their core products.
Biggest bugaboo in these wagons was something that was never changed from their 1967 through 1978 production run – the latches on the rear seat back are not linked, making it a PITA to drop down the seatback. On the plus side they were spared the ugly stick that AMC applied to the 4-door sedans, keeping the 1967 body shell until the end.
I guess I’m the only one here who likes the front end treatment and finds the rear 3/4 view “not quite right”. I know the money wasn’t there, and sales of “full-sized” 2 door cars were on the decline, but a more formal roofline, IMHO, was what this top-of-the-line car called for. As it is, I don’t think I noticed the STRONG resemblance to late 60s Chrysler products before today.
Pre CC effect, I saw the one that runs around my area yesterday. It is a full boat with the 390 badges on the fenders and a black vinyl roof over a pale yellow body. It’s 390 is getting tired as a trail of blue smoke follows it on its way but the body is in great shape.
How much is that Amby in the window?
Something that I haven’t posted on an AMC thread here before: the pricing scribbled in the brochure when my Aunt bought her 70 Amby wagon. Her’s did not have the fake wood the brochure shows. Extra charge for power steering and radio. No line item for optional power brakes. I drove this car quite a bit and the manual drums worked fine. Also no line item for the optional electric wipers. It had not occurred to her that AMC’s standard wipers were still vacuum. The $1,104.99 deduction is probably her trade, a 65 Fury III wagon.
As others noted, build quality was not an AMC, or anyone else’s for that matter, strong point. A couple plastic bits on the dash did not fit, and there were a few squeaks and rattles. The 70s still used the Borg-Warner auto. Being in the largest model AMC offered, which spent it’s summers loaded with camping gear and pulling a small trailer, probably didn’t help. The tranny expired around 48,000 miles, just withing the 50,000 power train warranty that was offered in 70, so she got a free rebuild.
That’s great that you still have this. So a radio was an option but A/C was standard? Or was it a fancy Fm radio? I wonder if the salesman mentioned that the wipers were still vacuum operated.
I also had issues with the Borg Warner slushboxes, changing over to Torqueflites was a great move.
So a radio was an option but A/C was standard? Or was it a fancy Fm radio?
As I recall, it was a plain AM radio. The brochure shows any sort of radio being optional, along with power steering and power brakes.
I wonder if the salesman mentioned that the wipers were still vacuum operated.
Probably not. My Aunt surely would have paid for electrics if she had known as she said so after she discovered the vacuum wipers. Notice the name on the quote “Fred Post”. This was at Art Post AMC in Kalamazoo, MI. As the OP said, a lot of AMC dealers were really poor, but were the only game in town if you wanted to buy from AMC. From new, that Amby had carb trouble, partucularly the choke not opening and the engine flooding. Happened so often my Aunt had a wedge made of wood to prop the choke open so she could restart. The dealer refused to do anything about it. My Aunt even told them to forget the warranty and she would pay for a carb rebuid. They still refused. The day the warranty was up, she took the Amby to an independant shop and had the carb rebuilt. The car ran perfectly from then on.
I also had issues with the Borg Warner slushboxes,
What specifically was your issue? The pump? Leaks? Clutchpacks? My Aunt didn’t say other than, when she pulled the dipstick, the fluid had turned green. The AMC dealer did rebuild the tranny, but true to form, when they put the tranny back in, they didn’t clip the speedo cable into it’s retaining clip. The cable fell down on the exhause pipe and the heat siezed up the cable, so there was another dealer caused trip to the shop. I was talking with a guy at a show last summer who had had a Rebel with a 343 that he had built up a bit. He had that B-W tranny rebuilt twice.
Oh AMC, you sure did some funny things. I knew Gremlins came with vacuum wipers (and non-syncro first gears) but logic dictates that their top of the line car wouldn’t have these primitive accessories in 1970. If they were going to market the Ambo as the only car with auto and A/C standard it would have been so easy to include electric wipers, radio, power steering and brakes as well. Or at least make them “delete” options.
That’s pretty awful treatment from the dealer too. Makes you wonder why they might expect your aunt to come back to trade in the Ambo.
My issues with Borg Warner autos were that I bought a car with broken one in the trunk and had to get it rebuilt. I don’t know specifically what was wrong with it but it wasn’t cheap to get rebuilt. My other car with the B-W tranny had it swapped out in favour of a 727 out of a ’73 Ambo. I wasn’t going to take any chances with it. That B-W tranny had dark brown fluid, I’ve never heard of green fluid.
That B-W tranny had dark brown fluid, I’ve never heard of green fluid.
I never heard of brown ATF until this moment. Apparently the brown fluid turning green is the “you just bought a new tranny” indicator. I have seen Type F turn orange and Mercon/Dextron turn grey from their original red, Guess B-W marched to their own drummer.
The Borg Warner AMC ‘Flash-O-Matic’ was very similar to the B-W designed Ford automatic transmissions, as I remember there was even some parts interchangeability. Going to the Chrysler Torque-Flite was a good move.
Sounds like AMC s problems lay with the dealers. A car is only as good as its dealer customer service.
AMC had its sights on the export market hence the multi language brochure. As the company produced RHD models for US Mail man they were popular in the UK.
It wasn’t just sloppy build quality that plagued AMC cars during the late 1960s and early 1970s. A fair number of the components and materials were downright cheap, and it became readily apparent early in the life of the car.
My parents owned a 1973 AMC Gremlin. I remember the poor fit of the various plastic parts of the dashboard. It was painfully obvious to me even as a pre-teen how cheap that dashboard looked.
Then there was the carpeting that showed signs of serious wear within two years (and was already tearing away from the cover of the floor-mounted, automatic transmission shifter). The driver’s side door window regularly fell out of its tracks, and the outside rear view mirror moved down every time the door was slammed shut. We ordered a new one from the local AMC dealer…and it did the same thing within a year.
The manual tuner in the AM radio stopped working after a few years, and the alternator light began permanently glowing at about the same time. After a few years, the passenger side seat back often came completely lose when someone tried to enter or exit the rear seat!
The entire car reeked of cheap materials and slapdash construction. A far cry from the late 1950s and early 1960s, when George Romney made superior quality control a priority for the corporation.
Granted, quality wasn’t “Job 1” anywhere in Detroit during this time period, but AMC cars were definitely a cut below their GM and Ford competition, particularly when the Matador and Ambassador were compared to their Buick and Oldsmobile intermediate and full-size counterparts. They were even below their Chrysler Corporation counterparts in many ways.
Poor-grade materials and slap-dash assembly were obvious in a ’74 Matador coupe I had occasion to drive after mechanical repairs at a friend’s garage. My impression was “what a junky car”, something that struck him too.
During his tenure, Romney pressed for better materials and build quality which he knew would affect the long-term satisfaction customer perceived from their Ramblers.
Question – are you sure that Rambler was the first carmaker to offer air conditioning standard? As I am pretty sure that Cadillac did so at least a year earlier; the newly-designed 472 engine was designed specifically for the air conditioning compressor to always be present – to point: one of the rear compressor mounting bracket bolts used a through-hole to one of the intake runners!
I believe that air conditioning was an option on Cadillacs until the early 1970s.
When the 472 cid V-8 was being developed, the majority of Cadillacs were probably ordered with air conditioning, and the percentage of cars equipped with the option had been climbing throughout the 1960s. It thus made sense to design the engine with the thought that all Cadillacs would be equipped with air conditioning.
Most likely air conditioning by the late 1960s was a “mandatory” option – dealers automatically ordered cars equipped with air conditioning, and if you wanted a brand-new Cadillac without it, you had to specifically order that it be built that way. The dealer would be reluctant to do that, because if you backed out of the order or refused delivery of the car, he would be stuck with a vehicle that was hard to sell.
AMC’s 1968 Ambassador ads bragged: “the only car with factory air conditioning standard for under $10,000.” In the ad, they put a Rolls Royce and an Ambo.
It looks like they styled it starting at the back moving forward and ran out of ideas for the grille, A friend has a 66 SST and its quite a nicely finished car though some things are a PITA being sold here new it was converted to RHD but things like the window switches missed the cut and now reside on the passenger door, it drives like a 70s Holden not really a great thing but useable enough.
Some nice photography Jason; and a couple nice selfies.☺ I can remember when photographers taking pictures of cars, went out of their way to not have the camera or the person taking it in the reflections in the paint and chrome; now days it seems like people try to take a selfie at the same time. Not complaining about yours, these are some nice pictures; it’s just as an amateur photographer, I have noticed this in the last few years.
The selfies are never intentional. For whatever reason, the preview screen on my camera (a Canon, for what it’s worth) doesn’t give a lot of detail. It will be later (in some cases weeks later) before I dump the pictures into iPhoto and discover myself.
In this case I will blame it on the car having a good finish. If it was some old heap with dull paint, you wouldn’t have to worry about seeing my fingers grasping things or seeing the grimace on my face from my arthritic knees protesting my actions.
I’ve used a Canon; but it was a EOS Rebel, nice details in the view finder. On taking trim pictures, taking them at an angle to the surface of the car helps in the selfie elimination.
It would be fitting to take pictures of an Ambassador with a Rebel. Just sayin.
Despite the multitude of pictures I have taken, I’m still playing with what I like in regards to shooting car pictures. And, taking pictures of cars is like interacting with people – no two people or situations are alike, so there is always that element to contend with.
As far as photography, I have trouble considering myself as lofty as an amateur. 🙂 My hat is off to those who are able to develop skills with photography.
One thing I learned years ago; it’s hard to take a good picture with a cheap camera; but it’s easy to take great pictures with a good camera. Anyone who takes a lot of car pictures and post them on the web would be ahead of the game by buying an inexpensive digital SLR camera; most of them on auto take great pictures; no need to learn all the technical stuff; and one can learn that as you go. I think a lot of these old cars deserve better pictures then a lot of web sites post, not picking on you Jason or CC. It may be the only record some of them have before they hit the crusher.
While it’s great to have a DSLR in your possession, the problem with them is the size. Unless you’re super dedicated, it’s not something that you’ll just happen to take with you every time you leave the house. I know I’ve seen CCs and intended to come back with my DSLR, only for them to have vanished when I return. I also have a good quality compact (Powershot S110) but even that isn’t a “carry at all times” deal as I can’t take it into work and don’t want to leave it in my potentially hot or cold car for 9 hours. So many times it’s the phone camera or nothing, and I know which of those two I’ll choose. I’m sure it’s the same for many here.
BTW–Is that a Powershot 170?
Power Shot A4000 IS
Ambassadors had the ‘cheap imitation of a Buick/Olds’ image and just couldn’t compete. AMC die hards bought them in the Midwest, until gas prices spiked and went to Hornets and Concords.
The 1970 re-skin was merely change for the sake of change and offered little if any improvements in ergonomics or quality or performance. And the four-doors were butt ugly in profile. And what gives with the tiny windshield wipers?
And what gives with the tiny windshield wipers?
Cars were not designed entirely to suit a wind tunnel then. Windshields were more upright. My 70 Cougar and 78 Zephyr both used 16″ wipers. My little Renault used 13″ wipers.
I use 16 inch wipers on all of my cars. Living in Maine in the winter, I don’t need an extra 3 or 4 inches of wiper icing up on either end that prevents the middle of the wiper from making contact with the windshield.
Going against the grain here, I much prefer the 1970 refresh of the Ambassador and Rebel/Ur-Matador.
While the previous few years were clean and attractive cars, I also find them rather plain and none-too-distinct.
The upswept rear doors and several other design details to me make for much more interesting and distinctive cars, if less pretty.
They just have that gritty working man/fleet vehicle ‘French Connection’ or Kojak vibe; for darker more challenging and complex times than the more fashionable 1960s.
Great article btw.
(disclaimer: I actually liked these cars enough that upon my ‘discovery’ of them, I bought a 70 Rebel sedan and a 74 Matador sedan – having never owned a domestic before. So far no regrets. Ask me again though in six months…)
As a Kenosha kid in the era, rode in many AMCs including one much like this one. I thought the styling of this car in particular was good, the 4 doors not bad. Understated elegance, form following function. Unibody light weight and space efficency. My parents had a 1973 Impala wagon & I drove it; nice-driving car though very big & heavy. Friend’s father was an engineer at AMC, and their 1974 Ambassador wagon seemed more agile (I never drove it) while being about as big inside. The Ambassador’s engine sounded happier too.
Nice one. I see you are still getting into the detail shots like you were at the show in Hannibal. 🙂
I ordered a 1970SST bittersweet orange with tan sport bucket seats. AMX 390 Auto with 373 rear end, posi traction completed the car. The price was hefty for that time $5000 but I wanted something different to drive. I then put on white letter E60 tires on on front and L60’s on rear with Crager wheels. Then took off all emblems and put on factory 390 AMX on front and rear. Installed fog lamps in front grill and Black mated the rear apron very rate in their days. Hood mounted Rebel Machine tach and auto shift kit, and high manifold but no headers ( big mistake on my part) was installed. The car ran mid to low 14’s at 103 mph. It was a car that got a lot of blvd attention, I can assure nobody had one in town.
I sure wish I kept it, after 10 years with 33000 miles I sold it. I have Been owner of a ton of cars but this was a special machine to me, I think about it a lot.
I have a 1970 sst 2 door ambassador right hand drive here in new zealand, reconditioned engine but body very rusty, where would i find a body?
Factory RHD Ambassadors were exported from Kenosha to Australia, New Zealand, and the UK after AMC made 3700 of them in RHD for the US Postal Service in 1967. More RHD Ambassadors made it to UK than to AU (only 20) or NZ (only 12.)
I’m always on the look out for a RHD 70 Rebel hardtop. We didn’t get them in Australia, only NZ and UK got them – also fully imported from USA in RHD. This picture in someone’s hardtop in New Zealand.
The ambassador ended up being the reverse gremlin from the Matador. Initially there seems to be some wheelbase added to the Matador to make the Ambassador – forward of the firewall – so essentially you have an awkward long wheelbase Matador.
Things got worse later in the 1970’s where the short wheelbase matador had a huge nose added to the platform to make the Ambassador. That produced one hideous and weird car.
I was browsing the internet then I realized “hey that’s my car in that picture!” I’ve had that car sinse I was 17 still have her she was my first car. I’m the 5th owner of the car she’s got 60,000 miles on her she’s a California car never been on a salt road. Gives me a warm and fuzzy to see this article.
Browsing the internet, I found this piece on the 1970 Ambassador and couldn’t believe the memories I still had of this car! I owned a used 1970 Ambassador SST, 360ci, Moroccan Brown w/white vinyl roof back in 1974. I put chrome slots on it with 15″x4″s on the front and L60’s on the back and those L60’s actually fit inside the wheel wells. I added headers, turbo mufflers, line-lock, an Edelbrock hi-rise manifold and a Holley 650 carb. I thought I died and went to heaven. That car was an abolute sleeper and it blew the doors off of many unsuspecting knuckleheads. Unfortunately, I was an 18 year old knucklehead myself and ended up selling it a few years later. What a mistake!
Another former owner weighs in. I’ve owned two 69’s, a 70, and a 72. I drove the stuffing out of all of them. With the possible exception of the torsion bar mopars, the Ambassador rode and handled better than any other full size ( and many midsized ) American cars of that vintage. As for the Torino sized interior y’all be smoking! I’m 6’2″. When I put the drivers seat all the way back in the Ambo I could barely reach the pedals. A circumstance not achievable in the two early 70’s Torinos of my acquaintance. The Ambos were excellent cars. One of the 69’s went over 200k miles by the late 70’s on nothing more than scheduled maintenance and a couple of carb rebuilds. If it would fit in my smallish garage I’d own another right now.
Teague was known to be a Packard fan. He owned a number of them and was a friend of a man in my town who also owned several. I think he did the “cathedral” tail light design on the late series Packard’s. The front of the Ambassador in this article looks to be a tribute to Packard in general, not only those he had done design work on. The distinctive look goes back to the days of flat radiator grilles where the center portion is raised above the ends.
I found it interesting that AMC made air conditioning standard so early. Living in Ontario air conditioning in cars was rare in the 60s. The first time I was aware of it was when a woman my mother worked with dropped by our place. She was with a friend of hers who worked for AMC and he was driving a very nice Ambassador with power windows. He lower the window as they drove up and I could feel the cold air pouring out the window. This was probably in the early 60s. It obviously made quite an impression on me for me to remember it.
What always catches my eye on old AMC’s is the door handle. This has the same style as my dad’s 1982 AMC Eagle growing up. Now that’s cost saving. Anyone have an idea just how long AMC used this same handle? I think it’s got to be a record for longevity.
That door handle design was used by AMC from 1968 through their end in 1988, and actually continued being used on the Jeep Wrangler YJ and TJ as a tailgate release through 2006. The later Jeep application may have seen a reduction in materials quality, as they were prone to breakage where the AMC was not.
These weren’t great cars. They were cheap. They were obsolete by 1969, but manufactured until 1974. Few wanted them. There was little reason to buy one.
Sorry, but I remember.
I had a 1969 4 door with a 290, headers, Edlebrock intake and a big Holley 4 bbl. Air shock, Cragar Super Trick aluminum wheels and 60 series tires. Got it for $700 at the Manheim auction in Bordentown NJ in 1990. Fun car, Green of course.