I have long felt that the only car that should wear a Continental kit is a first-generation Lincoln Continental, but that’s an exaggeration – I’ll give a pass to any car that had one from the factory, and that would include 1956 Thunderbirds, 1955 Hudson Hornets, and 1957 Rambler Rebels, among others. Given the somewhat limited number of advertising materials promoting the limited-production 1957 Rebel, however, you could be excused for thinking that the Continental kit (ahem, optional tire mount) was standard on the Rebel, a car that was a metaphorical midlife crisis for the little independent from Kenosha. Since only 1,500 ’57 Rebels were built in the first place, it’s uncommon enough to see one at any car event, but Hyperpack spotted this one and posted several pictures on the CC Cohort. Refreshingly, it lacks that contentious wheel on the rear bumper.
Here it is, looking unorthodox in its orthodoxy. Although most people seem to think that Ramblers of the ’50s were weirdly styled, I think the ’57 Rebel has only a few questionable cues that park it a little left-of-center, such as the grille and reverse-canted C-pillar; without the bumper-mounted spare tire, the tail is not one of them. For those considering a Rambler Rebel of their own for whom space is a consideration, the Rebel’s length was 191.14″ without the spare tire and 198.89″ with it.
My mental image of the Rebel is this one: factory foldouts and magazine road tests of the time showed the limited-production Rebel (1,500 units produced) with the optional kit on the back. For a car that was marketed as a performance sedan (a subject that Paul discussed in detail here), the spare tire presented an incongruous image. Also note that the foldout shown above mentions a Bendix fuel-injected version of the AMC 327 that ostensibly produced 288 horsepower. No such thing materialized, and all Rebels got the 255-horsepower version found in the Ambassador. My copy Standard Catalog of Independents claims that the Rebel had solid lifters and the Ambassador hydraulics, which is verified by the Automotive History Preservation Society. Considering the Rebel’s mechanical camshaft and 9.5:1 compression ratio (the Ambassador’s specification was 9:1), it might be a case of AMC’s not wanting the Rebel to outpower its flagship car, on paper at least. If the statistics are correct, the Rebel’s 327 should have had a higher rating.
All Rebels were trimmed in the same exterior and interior colors (and fabrics). The brochure says the following:
Special baked enamel finish in light metallic silver-gray, with bronze-gold anodized aluminum side panel. The exterior color harmonizes with the special silver vinyl and silver threaded black nylon fabric interior seat upholstery. Full floor carpets and a special perforated vinyl headlining is standard.
Although the Hydra-Matic was available, it seems plausible that many Rebels had a manual transmission with overdrive, as does this one. The standard rear axle ratio for this drivetrain was 4.10:1, with a 4.44:1 gearset optional, and this was possibly the one used in the magazine tests that claimed that the Rebel could accelerate to sixty in 7.5 seconds (Mr. Niedermeyer’s article linked above discusses the inconsistencies in reporting, something that seemed to be not-too-uncommon in ’50s and ’60s car magazines). Speaking of inconsistencies, the period-correct tachometer looks both just right and completely out of place; after all, a steering-column-mounted tachometer is not often found in a Rambler of any vintage, but this is the “factory hot rod,” so we can’t treat it like a garden-variety Rambler.
If we ignore its rarity and one-year-only status, the ’57 Rebel might be a car that shines in the details; it looks better up close than it does from afar. These parking lights are beautifully designed, and the “bronze-gold” anodized trim along the side is not only textured in a way that augments the car’s appearance, the color is also a choice that seems so obvious when paired with the silver-gray paint that it’s a wonder more OEMs didn’t try it. Also, and this might be heretical, but do the peaked front fenders remind you of a car that is much more highly esteemed among stylists and collectors than a ’57 Rambler? As a guy who regularly stares over the hood of a ’63 Riviera, I can say with authority that there is a bit of resemblance. It has to be a coincidence, right? Right?
When you back away, however, it is clear that this is no 1963 Riviera, but aside from those “close-set” headlamps that always look a little bit crosseyed, the Rambler is a handsome car in a practical size. The existence of the car itself is a bit of a mystery, as AMC failed to capitalize on this bit of hyperbole offered by the Standard Catalog of Independents: “The Rebel…was the first time a large engine had been placed in a true intermediate-size chassis by any automaker.” While the 1936 Buick Century may have a word to say about that assertion, it’s something to chew on while you debate whether this first “muscle car” from Kenosha looked better with or without the Continental kit. You know which side I’m on.
Related CC reading:
Vintage Review: 1957 Rambler Rebel – “America’s Fastest Sedan” – Not Quite
Without! And I think that is a Sun tach.
I’ve tried to imagine a better front end for this car. The sides and back are harmonious. The front sidelights are appropriate but the rounded grille with headlights oddly placed doesn’t fit. Maybe a narrow vertical grille with vertical headlight and parking light pods on the sides, like the Facel Vega?
The `57 Nash Ambassador Custom had vertical headlamps that would have worked!
Very 1920s mounting the spare exposed on the back of the car, it looks ridiculous on anything, Loewy C post is ok but that grille is it channeling a Landrover.
Great article on this rare auto! Thanks. Rambler led the field, as best as I know, on reverse “C” pillar design, a design that has been seen in subsequent years on autos. So, I think that Kenosha is a style leader in this area. No Continental Kit? Fine with me! What a pain in the *** when you want to load something into the trunk. Beautiful color scheme, too.
Au contraire! 😁
1952 Nash has entered the chat.
Anyone have a ’51…going once, going twice???
Try as I might, I cannot warm to the styling of the 56-57 Rambler, which I consider much improved in 1958-59 and even more by 60-61. The first one just looks pudgy to me, like baby fat.
And I feel vindicated knowing that the line sold poorly the first 2 years, not really picking up until 1958-59. Eisenhower’s America agrees with me!
The Rebel, though, holds some fascination as inhabiting the lonely little island that was AMC performance after the Hudson Hornet and before the AMX or Rebel Machine.
I’m of the same mind on this car. It seems a case where the goal was “look different” more than “look good.” At least I can say it’s not remotely the ugliest car of the era, but that’s hardly praise. It’s not a the worst thing either: for the off-beat sort of person, it may have been the perfect off-beat sort of car.
I’ll be the contrarian and say that I like the ’56-’57 best of this generation 108″ Ramblers. Maybe because it looks somewhat European? It does so to my eyes, and I can see why Americans were challenged by it. But the big pickup in sales in 1958 was much more due to the recession and massive backlash against overly-big cars. But presumably the more conventional styling of the ’58 made that easier to do so for buyers.
If it had looked more like Pininfarina’s 1955 Florida sedan, I’d have like it even more.
I’ll always associated continental kits with Broughamed-out sedans of the ‘late ’50s to ’70s, so it odd to think they got their start on more sporting machines like the early T-Bird, this Rebel, the OG Continental of course, and any sportster with a De Dion rear suspension which impeded luggage room in the trunk. By the ’70s onward though these were Brougham kitsch more than anything, and most often found behind Cadillacs and (post-Mk2) Lincoln Continentals.
I had my ’62 Valiant wagon at that show and this Rambler was possibly the best example of any car there that was not a 2018-2023 Challenger.
It was super detailed and looked great.
I love the funky lines just like those on my lowly ’62 wagon.
I’m not sure why I like these, but I do.
They are speaking a different language from the rest of the domestic industry of the time, and that’s always interesting. Full disclosure: I love films with subtitles too – even the most ordinary dialogue can sound fascinating when people are speaking French or Swedish. So you can see where I’m going here. And I kind of like the language too (unlike whatever language early ’60s Chrysler products were speaking).
Add to that their more sensible size, combined with those big wheels and in this case surprising performance, and the package starts to come into focus. It’s an alternate reality that I’ve always found interesting and seductive.
I’m with you on subtitles: I love old French, Italian, and Swedish films. There’s nothing wrong with imagining a more quirky reality; maybe it would be a better one!
Cant warm up to the styling, even without the hideous external spare that only looked barely acceptable on a T-bird. The engineer in me loves the mechanical package, unit body and frame, all coil suspension and bigger engine in smaller car.
Looks okay but not great to me .
Nash had a bunch of cars with odd grilles and inset head lights .
I’d love to test drive one of these just to see how it drives .
-Nate