William Rubano found something a bit out of the ordinary here: a ’69 Rebel SST. This is the last year for this body style that first arrived in 1967, and was generally considered to be one of AMC’s best efforts.
Here’s a ’67 for a better look at it in profile. Except for the C-Pillar, it rather reminds me of the ’68-70 Mopar B-Body coupes, in terms of proportions and massing. Of course its inspiration was presumably GM’s A-Body coupes from 1966, although the timeline would have made that a bit compressed. But that general look was in the air since GM’s B-Body coupes from 1965.
The SST trim was of course the top level. But it didn’t denote genuine performance.
The standard engine was the 232 six. Somewhat curiously, the top engine available on the Rebel was the 280 hp 343 V8, as the 390 was apparently only available on the AMX, Javelin SST, and Ambassador SST. AMC was obviously not trying to compete with the other many mid-sized muscle cars, at least not yet.
While it looked pretty fresh in 1967, the styling world for coupes was changing so fast in this period, and by 1969, it was already looking a bit outdated.
A new semi-fastback roof in 1970 sort of helped, but the renamed Matador increasingly looked dated. Here’s CC Contributor DougD’s Rebel Matador coupe, which he wrote up here.
But AMC was determined not to get left in the dust, and jumped the shark with its 1974 Matador coupe. But that’s old history, well trodden on these pages.
Those are great looking cars and I wish they sold more of them. A Rebel Machine is on my short list of must-haves. I’d hate to have to find parts for one though
Nice find. I always had a soft spot for these Rebels. I rememeber the first time I saw one as young kid while visiting my relatives up in Berwyn IL,. Right off of 26th & Clarence Ave and on the street directly across the from my grand parents house. A Curbside Classic even then. That scoop cut out in front of the rear wheels stood out to me for some reason, as did the bulges if the front and rear quarters that matched the profile of the bumpers. Maybe because in my 6-7 year old eyes, no other car had them like that.
The Rebel may have been a bit generic looking, but had very clean lines. I like them.
Did somebody say BERRRRWYYYYN?
CJC,
“You may be right…”
LOL
I’m really glad you got that one.
I got it too!
The reverse CC effect strikes in strange ways: I just recently learned about this character, within a few days before you posted. I was listening to a radio show I had recorded a couple of years ago, off an out-of-town station, but hadn’t previously gotten around to listening to. The show contained some ads for “official chicken throwers” merchandise associated with this show. I had no idea what the ads were talking about, but I got curious, and an internet search led me to the Wikipedia page about the show (which among other things, discusses the bit about Berwyn). And a few days later, here it is being referenced on CC….
That these predated the 68 Chrysler B bodies impressed me since I first learned of them, the 69s kind of diluted the styling a bit, especially at the rear but the rear 3/4 view of a 67 compared to a 69 Satellite is almost indistinguishable.
I think these would have been very well received cars if it weren’t for the Rambler/AMC stigma. Holding out on the 390 was a big mistake too, the Machine was way too late to the party.
There is a photo of a prototype 1969 Rebel Machine. With it’s matte-black paint, it was quite hardcore and menacing. Hard to figure why it didn’t make production, especially since 1969 was the best year ever for sales of the similar Road Runner.
I don’t get it either, the intermediate supercar market was very healthy in 1968-1969, but all they fielded with the 390 engine was Javelins/AMXs and the novel 69 S/CRambler. AMC clearly was doing their homework on the supercar market at this point, with solid designs and excellent engines, but that they completely missed out on the intermediates until 1970 when the market for them declined(ironically with many buyers flocking to compacts like the Duster 340) is a huge blunder. Not helped by the seeming bulk of the production Machines for 1970 using the same loud patriotic color scheme as the Scrambler to rid it of any seriousness or stealthiness to prospective buyers.
It would have been very interesting to see how the black prototype would have done. Ever notice though that the prototype car is actually a 1968? 69s have wraparound taillights without separate side markers
The 1968 Road Runner was a full-year model, meaning it would have been hitting showrroms in the fall of 1967. I have no idea when it became apparent that it was a hit, but it should have been known by the beginning of 1968. That probably explains why the black Rebel Machine in the photo is a 1968 from June of that year. Still, a full six months would have elapsed. I can’t imagine it taking that long to put together a prototype Machine when all that they needed was a paint job and some decals.
Ford and GM had budget musclecars (Cobra and 300 series, respectively) by 1969. Given how easy it would have been for even shoe-string budget AMC to develop a Machine for 1969, it doesn’t make any sense why they didn’t do it. While not worthy of being in the same class as the pricier GM division musclecars (Gran Sport, 442, or GTO), they definitely could have gotten something together to go up against the Road Runner.
Maybe it was some sort of component issue, either drivetrain or interior packaging. I don’t think AMC had much in the way of high-performance equipment for the Rebel, nor did they have a lot of the sporty interior pieces like bucket seats, console, etc. I’m not sure a 4-speed was even available for the Rebel.
I guess it’s possible that AMC just couldn’t get a whole packaging effort together for the Machine until way late in the game. AMC’s big effort for 1968 was with the Javelin and AMX. For such a small player like AMC, maybe even the meager effort it would have taken to get a Machine into production for 1969 (when the SC/Rambler showed up) was too much for their miniscule development team to handle.
Could it be that the blackout theme was too much for management? Given what emerged the next model year was a 180 degree turnaround with regards exterior treatment, maybe that first prototype was just a bit too nasty.
The “too nasty” argument has merit. Street racing is quite illegal and a blackout Rebel seems all-too-obvious as to the intent. Not to mention what would undoubtedly be a very low profit margin. It would be a lot easier to make more money on a brightly painted and striped 1970 Rebel Machine. It’s worth noting that it didn’t take long for Chrysler to begin tarting-up the Road Runner with a mid-year 1968 hardtop and 1969 convertible versions, and interiors that could be optioned up not too far from a GTX.
Of course, the real irony is that, in 1969, Chrysler released what is widely regarded as the most purpose-built street racer ever to make production: the 440-6v engine package for the Road Runner and Super Bee. The Dodge Six-Pack and Plymouth 6BBL were unabashedly designed for (wink)(wink) dragstrip use with bare, black steelies using chrome lugnuts and a huge, matte black hoodscoop on a fiberglass, lift-off hood held on with four hood-pins, all for a price about 40% less than the expensive Street Hemi.
In that context, a 1969 blackout Rebel Machine doesn’t sound like it would be nearly as menacing.
According to this page;
http://www.rebelmachinestripekit.com/about-1.html
‘As the photo on the left shows clearly, work on the Rebel Machine concept was well underway when this shot was taken on June 27th, 1967 using the 1969 version of the Series 10 body style. It was strictly intended as a performance centred design with no attempt to marry it to the 1969 SC/Rambler with it’s eye catching Hurst inspired Red, White and Blue paint and graphics scheme. That success was still in the future.
‘There was talk of using the Marlin as the performance car body style for 1970. But by then it was clear that the fast back had run it’s course for all makes with the exception of the Mustang. But the concept was popular and artwork was created that eventually migrated all the way to the colourful envelope used for the Press Kit that announced the new Rebel Machines.
‘There was thought given to making the new Hornet body style the next AMC performance car – low weight and a 390 cu.in. motor would have made the car a winner at the drag strips. But that concept lost out to the new Rebel body style because the objective was to entice new customers into AMC showrooms with the flamboyant paint schemes then switch them over to the non-performance, regular line Rebels. That’s where the money was, not in a high performance vehicle that would be costly to their warranty program.
‘AMC did not want to sell a lot of Rebel Machines. As a product, the car was not well liked at any level in the corporation. It was a marketing tool to them and that’s all it was. It received almost no marketing dollars. A single page ad and a double page spread, a salesman’s training video, some brochures followed by a press kit was about the extent of it. There was no money for a racing program beyond the product launch at the Dallas International Motor Speedway on October 25, 1969 and some performance magazine drag strip testing by CARS Magazine and others. Many years later a video of the car at an airport turned up that was never used for marketing.’
It is interesting to contrast the AMC attitude towards performance (which you have ably documented here) and that of Studebaker, which went on an all-out performance binge in its last two or three years of US production.
Perhaps the real answer is that it just didn’t matter which way a small company like one of those went. Studebaker tried getting in right on the cusp of the big performance market in the US (and made a pretty decent splash) and AMC got in a little late (and with no real enthusiasm). I guess the little guys were never going to make it no matter what. And even if AMC would have jumped in with both feet by 1970, the volume high performance market was basically dead by late 1971. I guess AMC’s final great accomplishment was the mainstreaming of Jeep and the 4wd Eagle series. Which had, I suppose, the same sort of market relevance in the 70s that Studebaker’s performance program had in the early 60s.
It was most likely a question of limited resources, coupled with the an all-consuming struggle to stay in business.
AMC almost went bankrupt in early 1967, as the new Ambassadors, Rebels and Marlins failed to gain much traction in the market (or at least enough traction to pay for the new tooling).
Couple that fact with the costs of preparing the new Javelin and AMX for release in 1968, followed by the new bread-and-butter Hornet for 1970, and a high-performance version of the Rebel for 1969 fell to the back of the line.
Resources were most certainly a factor, this obviously comes with the full benefit of hindsight but perhaps the resources used in making the S/C Rambler should have been put into the Rebel Machine for a 1969 release while the intermediate market was still strong, gaining a following with a young crowd and finally find a way to eke out a profit from the Rebel line. Then by 71 the stage would have been better set for the S/C 360 Hornet, which happened to be a more conventionally executed supercar in appearance.
The S/C Rambler had very impressive performance given its lighter weight, but it was a wholly unnecessary sendoff for the Rambler American line that was surely amortized by then. It might have captured the attention of some gearheads, but to what end? It’s graphics were only going to lure the most extroverted of buyers, it was guaranteed no follow up with the American line coming to a close, and at the end of the day it was still a design straight out of 1964 in a style conscious market. The Rebel on the other hand had the looks (even if behind GM it was still well on par with Mopar and Ford intermediates), all it needed was the performance to match.
I think Don’s link and write-up says it all. AMC management was more interested in the marketing value of a flashy musclecar than actual sales of a covert street racer, sort of an early version of what’s known today as a ‘halo car’. The way they played it, every year they’d have some new, shiny object to try and draw customers into AMC showrooms to buy something else. In 1969, it was the SC/Rambler; 1970 – The Rebel Machine; 1971 – SC/360 Hornet.
The only odd aspect was the claim that the fastback was dead when, in 1974, here comes the Matador coupe, seemingly a fastback styling throwback to the sixties. Everyone knows how that ended up.
There are a few oddities to that strategy, if their goal was to use these cars to lure gearheads into showrooms and move them to regular Rebels, with the specific intent to avoid unnecessary warranty costs, what customer who was enticed by The Machine is going to NOT beat the snot out of a regular 290 or 343 Rebel that they’d be pushed into instead? Did they have a scheme to lure in young gearheads and convert them into middle aged duds on their way out? What other factor would make a 390 Rebel more of a warranty hassle than a 343 one, or a 390 Amby, or a 390 Javelin? The latter very much being a very typically marketed sporty/supercar.
The 401 ultimately ended up as optional in all 1974+ Matadors. Granted performance was sapped by then, but if it was so taboo to executives, why not limit to novelty halo status like the aeformentioned previous efforts? The halo strategy was clearly dumb, which is the crux of the argument. The 67 Rebels had underwhelming sales from the beginning, and simply offering the 390 in some capacity – with or without “the Machine” package – could have injected some much needed sales from muscle car buyers. The car was named Rebel for god’s sake!
A limited ‘halo car’ strategy instead of a conventional musclecar program for the AMC model line-up (exempting the Javelin) might not have been a particularly good one, but it would have been cost-effective and, more importantly, safe. They would not have had to ramp up for what would have been an unknown production run (consider that a significant downturn in musclecar sales was just around the corner).
Of course, they weren’t going to make any money that way, either. My guess would be that AMC management realized that they’d made a strategic error by misjudging the musclecar heyday and hoped that the Matador coupe could salvage some of those lost sales from the missed opportunity with the Rebel. Unfortunately, by 1974, it was way too late.
Rebels were common in NZ thanks to local assembly, two door models werent unfortunately. I liked em despite the entire front shaking like jello at speed over rail crossings.
Hey! You’ve made my day. My first car looked just like this. Bought it in May of 1978 shortly after getting my drivers license.
I never get tired of seeing young DougD’s exuberance in that photo and wonder how many sugar donuts he just ate at Tim Horton’s. We need to run more AMC stuff and use that pic in every one of them.
Just wanna go on the record that it’s my cousin, not me. And it’s a Matador, not a Rebel.
That is a nice rebel, good to see one that’s not metallic green like most survivors. I almost bought a fairly good black one with a 290 V8 back in college for $150. By the time I’d rounded up a place to put it the car was sold. But seriously, I had no use for it and was supposed to be studying 🙂
Sure it’s your cousin, sure it is… 🙂
One of my very favorite AMC cars. But proof that AMC could offer a conventionally attractive car and most buyers still would not consider it. I will say that these did not convey the subjective feel of solid quality of the Rambler of 1956-62.
Did they actually change the roof in ’70 or just the shape of the rear passenger windows?
Good question. Probably the only way to tell would be if the rear window was interchangeable between the earlier ’67-’69 car and the 1970.
I think you’re right. Wish there were two profiles or rear 3/4s to confirm.
I’m pretty sure Plymouth did the same, but less dramatically, with their “formal” coupes in ’69-’71.
The upper ridge of the quarter panel is higher and more prominent on the 1970 model, as compared to the 1967-69 models. The back window is shorter, and looks as though it has a faster slope on the 1970 model.
Given that the windshield and cowl are among the most expensive parts of a vehicle to retool, changing the rear pillars and back window was a less expensive way to give the car a “new look” without spending too much money. The windshield, front pillars, cowl and top roof panel could remain unchanged, saving AMC a lot of money.
The main problem was that AMC duplicated the mistake that Chrysler made with its 1971 intermediate hardtop coupes. It made the cars look racier when buyers were moving on to the “formal look,” as exemplified by the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.
Buyers in this segment increasingly didn’t want muscle cars or NASCAR stockers. They wanted cheaper Cadillac Eldorados and Lincoln Continental Mark IIIs.
The only issue I have with the Rebel’s appearance is. as it shares it’s body from the firewall back with the Amby and Matador, the Rebel comes off looking a tiny big pug-nosed.
Some thoughtful person uploaded my second favorite Rebel TV ad to youtube.
The proportions are definitely a bit too cab forward, but i still find the front and rear end treatments of the Rebel/Matador preferable to the more proportionally balanced Ambassador.
The Amby coupe looks like it’s suffering from priapism. I can’t find a proper profile of one, so this is the best I could find. One of the more ridiculously proportioned vehicles ever built.
Of course the 1970 Monte Carlo was no better, but that had a formal roof, which helped some.
That was too much, but the 67-68 length Amby nose was just right
In the Ad on YouTube above:
Guy on left looks more like a typical AMC Rebel owner of 1969. Trading in a ’62 Classic.
Actress on right is Louisa Moritz.
OMG, not to hijack the thread, but in looking up info on Louisa Moritz from You Tube ad above, I learned she died last month, she was funny in her characters.
When this Rebel was built, the SST badging seemed more exciting. Supersonic Transport was verymuch in vogue then.
There was a time, oh probably the late 70s, when you’d see too many cars equipped with aftermarket cheap chrome (?) and white vinyl mudguards. These might be original.
The Rebel SST was ultimately doomed. It was squeezed on all sides, not just from outside competition, but also within the deteriorating post-Romney AMC. If people wanted luxury, they bought an Ambassador. If people wanted performance, they bought a Javelin, if people wanted economy, they bought a Rambler. The Rebel, in contrast, tried to be a blend of all three and failed. A pity, because too often good cars are snubbed in the U.S. for completely trivial reasons. If this didn’t happen, then perhaps Independents such as AMC would be able to keep going for a while yet.
The Rebel SST was ultimately doomed. It was squeezed on all sides,
That was pretty much the case all over AMC. Once the big three offered compacts and intermediates, there was no place left for AMC to hide. They tried some really out-of-the box and counter-trend thinking, gave birth to the Pacer and Matador coupe, and discovered those niches were too small to sustain the company.
Interesting to mention then VAM who built AMC and Jeep models in Mexico, keep the Classic nameplate instead of using Rebel and Matador.
https://www.hobbydb.com/catalog_items/1970-vam-line/gallery
http://www.clubramblermexico.org/historia-vam.php
AMC still had the stodgy “Rambler” image in late 60’s. Middle aged adults, the core car buyers, wanted Big 3. Younger buyers wanted Big 3 muscle/sporty mid size, Pony Cars, or imports.
Javelin was a good effort, and Hornet helped. But, instead of redesigning Hornet and Gremlin for 1975, they poured $$ into Pacer. And trying to use NASCAR to sell Matador, when formal roofed PLC’s sold like ice in summer, they had to sell out to Renault.
Matador coupe lost $$$, while Pacers went out of style as fast as Mood Rings, and became jokes. AMC cars got a “dated” image by ’78-’79 and were ‘no sale’ outside of Kenosha.
Let’s not forget then the Rambler image was also messed up by Roy Abernathy’s tenure with moves like how the Tarpon show car had become the Marlin.
The Marlin was a tough call. The problem with the Tarpon was AMC didn’t have a V8 that would fit. Not to mention that the Tarpon had an even goofier roof than the Marlin.
But, yeah, AMC didn’t really have the money to throw away on a loser like the Marlin.
These were handsome cars, and in some ways the styling has worn better than their Ford and Chrysler contemporaries.
Unfortunately, they were plagued by AMC’s inability to completely purge vestiges of the past. Buyers got handsome, up-to-date styling, unit-body construction, a choice of fully competitive engines and an up-to-date rear suspension.
But these cars were also saddled with standard vacuum-powered windshield wipers (electric windshield wipers were not standard until 1972!), trunnion front suspension (through 1970) and a clunky Borg-Warner automatic (through 1971, after which AMC switched to the far superior Chrysler TorqueFlite).
Plus, the fit and quality of the interior parts (particularly the dashboard) was markedly worse than the 1965-66 generation.
The trunnion front suspension was replaced by a double-ball joint front suspension in ’70. ’69 was the last year for the old style.
Fabulous looking cars! Just as sweet as Mopar B Bodies of the same era! Makes some bodystyles of Ford Torinos and Fairlanes look positively dowdy!
I always thought the Rebel SST was one of the very best looking cars of the 1960’s. I almost bought one in ’69 but ended up with a Ford Galxie convertible. I still don’t know if that was the right choice, but I really wanted a convertible (I have owned at least one convertible continuously since 1967 — the current one is a 2012 Mustang Shelby GT 500) and the Ford dealership had one on the showroom floor. That made the choice easy and the deal was done.
We had a “Rebel SST”, (“70” sedan). Was a nice car, my dad sort a made it not such a nice car.
Was too young to drive in those days.
Everyone else said it was a nice driving time.
AMC had a very cost effective way to style cars. Often the front and back bumpers were the same part. Trouble was though, that just like a loaf of bread the effect isn’t very exciting.
Reminds me of the 1965 AMC Cavalier concept car with doors that interchanged from side-to-side.
My first car was a red 67 Rebel. Not so powerful 290 V8. Headlights and taillights looked like a Road Runner. Bless the engineer that designed the seats. High school boy’s dream car. If you had one you know what I mean. Wink, wink.