(Updated 9/26/2026) I found this 1960 Rambler Six sitting curbside in Arvada, Colorado. Those odd looking 7″ sealed beam headlights caught my eye, so I grabbed my cell phone and took some shots.
By my recollection, these ’58-’60 Ramblers all used four sealed beam headlights, but after a bit of research it turns out the base-trim Deluxe models left the factory with two 7″ lamps, unless the owner ponied up $23.50 for a four light setup using 5 3/4″ lamps.
There it is in the brochure, the blue sedan. Single headlights for those really thrifty Rambler buyers.
If my memory is still to be trusted, the vast majority of owners chose the four beam option. Beyond the headlights, this is an utterly unremarkable, unmolested, survivor Rambler.
Paul took a close look at this generation Rambler here: 1959 Rambler Custom Six: “The Prophet”.
In contrast, Jason Shafer spun a yarn around a sister car to this one. Outside of a black paint job and quad headlights, it’s pretty much the same car: 1960 Rambler: “When It’s Time for Leaving”.
The existence of these had slipped from the old memory banks.
Other than advertising one’s self as a tightwad, was there any advantage to these? From the Rambler perspective, having to stock on extra, low volume filler piece, specific wiring, and a second size of headlights seems like a real pill with, again, no obvious advantage.
That said, might Rambler have had enough export business to locations that may have still required single headlights so it was offered in the US as a base feature to help amortize the cost?
Dave, this baby blue example certainly looks much perkier than the drab black example I found years back!
I’d always wondered about this. The same question applies to manual chokes when they were the default and automatic was the option. The “simpler” item required the same (or more) material and the same (or more) assembly labor and a separate unamortized design, yet it was priced lower. Your guess about exports is the only hypothesis that makes some sense.
No. An automatic choke was more complex and expensive than a manual choke.
And no, this had nothing to do with exports.
We should do a QOTD of “What’s the most illogical example of ‘standard’ equipment you’ve seen?”
The original 3-speed manual for the Vega comes to mind. GM’s bean counters insisted that a 3-speed should be standard, and the Opel-built 4-speed should be optional, so Opel was forced to create a 3-speed out of its existing 4-speed. Given that there we few takers, it’s quite possible that the 3-speed cost GM more to build than the 4-speed. And then there was Torque-Drive, a Powerglide with a few missing parts.
You also see it in more recent examples, such as vehicles that have everything installed for cruise control except for the switches on the steering wheel to operate it, and vehicles with everything for navigation except for a single character being different in the software to activate it, and perhaps an SD card for the maps. And doesn’t Tesla have a model where the motors have their power limited by software, and you can pay extra to have it unlocked?
I’m sure there are other, even better examples out there.
Your right about cruise control with certain Toyota’s from about two decades ago regarding cruise control, as well as the “cold weather package” or whatever term they used. Heavy duty heater (whatever that means), larger washer tank, rear heat ducts…
You also see it in more recent examples, such as vehicles that have everything installed for cruise control except for the switches on the steering wheel to operate it, and vehicles with everything for navigation except for a single character being different in the software to activate it, and perhaps an SD card for the maps. And doesn’t Tesla have a model where the motors have their power limited by software, and you can pay extra to have it unlocked?
Nothing illogical about these. Car companies are in the business of extracting as much incremental revenue as they can.
Did a 327 Chevy V8 cost more to make than a 283? This is the oldest game in the business. Highly logical.
“Nothing illogical about these. Car companies are in the business of extracting as much incremental revenue as they can.“
I guess I didn’t explain myself very clearly. What I’m not seeing the logic of is failing to make cruise control standard across all models (at additional cost) versus tooling up to build the rare unit without. For navigation, I can see the logic; there’s enough people out there who don’t want it.
Most illogical standard equipment? To me, it’s always been the manual crank windows in only the back on standard 67 Cadillac Eldorados. I mean, I get that cranks are cheaper than power motors, but the Eldorado was Cadillac’s most premium product AND they already had power windows in the front standard. Bonkers!
The single headlamp version was standard on the low end Classic since 1958, when the dual lamp version was first legal. So they had all the parts for both, and the parts never changed. So it was actually quite logical and cheaper to offer a single headlamp version. Less wiring, fewer headlamps, and a way to keep the base advertised price lower.
Here’s the 1958 brochure; the bottom Classic has the single headlights.
Correct. Looking it all up in my Standard Catalog just now, for both 1958 and 1960 the single headlights were standard on the Deluxe line but quads were optional whereas quads were standard equipment on the Custom and Super Custom trims. No mention of 1959 but it stands to reason it would remain the same.
It continued that quads were made standard across the line for 1961.
Here’s the 1959 brochure: red car at bottom: single headlights.
Thank you for this. I guess I always thought of this a 1960 only feature. That’s the beauty of this. Always learning something new.
Perkier? I’ll buy that, it’s a solid Midwestern phrase for a solid Midwestern car.
I almost used “cheerful” but that’s a subset of perky!
A Google Image Search for “1958, 1959 1960 Rambler Classic Six deluxe” shows that the great majority of the results that are actual Deluxes (base trim) have the single headlights. So it was the default, and not many buyers of these went for the dual light option.
The one-lamp-per-side setup would have saved enough to be worth deleting from the base-model car. Okeh, sure, plus one inexpensive filler panel, but 7″ lamps and their mounts were already in the house, and the additional wiring for the high-beam-only inboard lamps could simply be deleted; there was no need for two different wiring assemblies. And the one-lamp-per-side setup, per car, had:
• Two fewer mount cups
• Two fewer mount fixtures
• Roughly six fewer fixture mount bolts and nuts
• Two fewer retainer rings
• Six fewer retainer ring screws
• Four fewer tension springs
• Four fewer aim jackscrew and nut assemblies
• Two fewer sealed beams
• Two fewer sockets
• Several feet less wire
• Headlamp switch rated for 100w rather than 150w
• Beam selector kickswitch rated for 100w rather than 150w
(whether they actually used lower-rated switches, I don’t know)
So the cost reduction is plain to see. $23.50 in 1960 dollars is about $210 in 2020 dollars, and that just about jibes with this list of components.
The export guess isn’t right. In 1960 there were no locations that required single headlights; the only such location had been the United States until 1957-’58.
I’ll have to dig for the answer, but I “believe” the ’58 and ’59 only had the 4 light set up. It is my understanding that the 2 light offering was for 1960 only and only on the base trim line (Deluxe). I have seen the 2 light arrangement on sedans only, so if they were on the wagon, that would be extremely rare. I think Studebaker also played the “headlight game” on their base models for a few years in the ’63, ’64, ’65 seasons.
If what you are saying is true then the single lights on the base model Rambler were probably born of the 1958 recession. The 1960 models would have been being developed and hedging their bets that the recession might last awhile, offering a cheap bare bones model would have seemed like a good idea.
No, the single headlight version was standard from 1958 – 1960. See comment and image above.
They weren’t all that uncommon either. I remember seeing them back in the day.
Thank you for correcting me. I made my comments while babysitting my grand kids, so couldn’t verify my facts. Memory failure! I pulled out my ’58, ’59 and ’60 Rambler sales literature last night (as well as Standard Catalog of American Cars) and found out I was wrong. Please don’t tell my wife.
Reminds me of the single-headlight, US-spec Peugeot 505.
That “wide-eyed” look–with the single lamps where there should be doubles–looks really bad! Might be a deal-breaker if I was interested in purchasing this car.
Studebaker did something similar in ’58, with equally comic results:
However, on the ’57 De Sotos, it doesn’t bother me at all:
The probable reason for the DeSoto working that well is that it was designed that way from the beginning. When the ’57 cars were coming out, not all states had ruled on the legality of four headlight systems so the ’57 Chrysler products hedged (Plymouth faking a four headlight setup, DeSoto designing their headlight mounts to handle either without it looking obvious, Imperial . . . . . . well). ’57 Lincoln was the same, making a single headlight setup look like a double.
57 Plymouths and Dodges did not have dual headlights — they were one headlight and a large parking light.
That Studebaker is as defeating as getting laser eye surgery and still needing glasses
Called “cyclops” headlights by some Studebaker enthusiasts! Just imagine a ’58 Packard with those bizarre single headlights!
“Cyclops” was how Studebaker described it’s speedometer, not its head lights.
$23.50 doesn’t look like much now, but the car sold for less than $2000 – a big percentage of the purchase price.
$23.50 is roughly equivalent to $206 today. Still not all the money in the world, but a sum that many people would think about whether they needed to spend it. I suspect the great majority of cars that AMC shipped to dealers had four lights; if you wanted the really stripped car you had to order it and wait. I remember when Consumer Reports advised people to order base models like Chevy Biscaynes to save a few bucks.
Actually, the great majority of these were sold with the single headlights. Why spend an extra $206 when you were buying a stripper?
The single headlamp setup appears to have been standard on the Deluxe in ’58-’59 as well.
I’ve never seen a ’58-’59 with the twin headlights. I’ve only ever seen them on ’60 models so this is a first for me, and I’ve always considered myself somewhat of a Rambler aficionado. Makes me wonder in the ’58-’59 versions are a lot more scarce than the ’60’s versions. This 59 is actually very attractive.
The single headlamp version was standard on the base Classic from 1958-1960. I remember seeing them back in the day. Here’s the 1958 brochure, the Classic in the bottom clearly has the single headlights.
^ Sorry, I meant ’58. It looks sharp. Here’s my Dad’s brand new ’59 with quads.
The single headlight variant may have been in the mix, so that when the buyer stepped up and bought the more expensive version, there was one more highly visible point of difference in the car. Upselling is easier when there are visible reasons to own the more expensive choice.
Outer space looks.
To me, this falls into the marketing gimmick category to squeeze a few more bucks out of the buyer. Al points out above that the quad headlights were standard on the ’58-’59 cars, so AMC spending the extra money to offer the dual option in ’60 would be offset by the extra cost the buyer would have to pay for the quad headlights. For that reason, alone, I’d have taken the cheaper (but more expensive for AMC) duals and saved the $23.50.
And, considering the frugality of someone looking at a Rambler, there might have been more than a few others, too, and could be the reason AMC thought better of it and only offered the option for that one year.
Don’t assume other commenters are correct. The single headlamp version was standard on the base Classic from 1958-1960. I remember seeing them back in the day. Here’s the 1958 brochure, the Classic in the bottom clearly has the single headlights.
Yeah, I saw the correction. Unfortunately, editing/deleting is no longer possible. Feel free to delete my comment.
Are those bias ply tires? Are they even available anymore?
I’m sure J.C. Whitney still has some if they’re not yet totally shut down 🙂 Order the bubble balancers, too!
Coker Tire has plenty of bias ply tires in original sizes for those doing a full restoration. They are not inexpensive.
Here’s one in front of Old South Meeting House, Boston MA (photo taken early ’60s):
The fact the same filler pieces are used in the ’58 shown in Stumack’s pic means at least they were more likely to be amortized. They also look to be interchangeable right-to-left which would mean even less tooling expense.
This immediately made me think of Chevrolet doing a similar thing with backup lights on some Corvair sand Chevy II models. My Dad had a 65 Chevy II 100 4 door sedan as a company car and it had the same trim for the backup light but instead of a lens, there was an aluminum trim piece which looked like a lens installed. The trunk was already cut out for the lamp units and my Dad installed them himself. How much his company saved by not ordering the backup lights, I don’t know. I do know my Dad bought the Lamp setup but don’t know if he then charged it to the company as car maintenance.
It’s still happening, but less noticeable on exterior lights and trim pieces. more so on interior blanks telling you that you didn’t buy what was supposed to go there.
The one that sticks out most to me is on the Kia Telluride. The daytime running lights are either yellow (on the highest price SX model) or white (on any lower spec). It was light counting the taillights on an old Chevy. You knew if it was a high end model with 6 lights, a cheaper one if 4, and a really cheap on with 2 and the blank.
I remember that on my uncle’s ’63 Pontiac Catalina. He bought the car without backup lamps and his son (6 years older than me, late teens by then) picked up a set and added them himself. Turned out there was no real savings – the cost of the lamps over the parts counter was the same as having taken them as the extra cost option. Plus he had to do the labor himself.
It wasn’t cheapness per se as much as it was the differing regs from state to state, some of which prohibited four headlights. I think it was all settled by 1960, which is why we started seeing the variety of headlights from duals to fours to stacked fours in that decade.
No. All the states had approved quad headlights by 1958.
I doubt that from the driver’s seat anyone could tell the difference if they were driving a 2 lamp or a 4 lamp system. I have driven both. Maybe with the high beams lit?
Of course not. Quad headlights were always a styling gimmick.
But one big advantage of quads once they became quite common in the US fleet (say by 1970 or so), it was easy to tell at a glance if oncoming cars had their high beams on at night (rather than misaimed single headlights). Then you could “remind” them with a friendly flash.
In fact the quad-5.75″ setup was significantly and very noticeably better than the dual-7″ setup on both low and high beam, for straightforward optical reasons.
I probably saw some of these back in the day, but don’t remember them. I would have bet a dollar that all 58+ Ramblers were quads – and I would have lost.
I am trying to think of other cars that offered both duals and quads, and can think of the 64-66 bottom-end Studebaker (Challenger in 64, at least) and Dodge pickups and vans in the late 70s when the quads were rectangles. I am sure there were others.
I don’t remember the single headlights either from back in the day, but our working class area probably had Ramblers so equipped.
Before my dad passed away at too early an age, he had told my mother to always buy the middle trim level. Thus our Chevys back then were Bel Airs when Biscayne was the bottom trim. She also always ordered the optional backup lights — we had a long driveway with the detached garage in the back of the lot.
A Google Image search shows that the great majority of these Deluxes (base trim) came with the single headlights. Why would a buyer of one of these spend $200+ (in today’s money) when they were buying the stripper version to start with?
Paul, you made me recall a dim memory from back then. In my naivety, I’m thinking I mistook the single-headlight 58 Ramblers as 1957 models. (That is, I thought only the 1956 Ramblers had the odd inboard grille-mounted single headlights, rather than both the 56-57 models.)
I too am of the belief that in their sunset some seldom-chosen “standard” items end up costing more to manufacture/install then their higher level replacements.
If I remember correctly, this was Honda’s logic several years back when power windows were made standard on all US models including the Fit.
Production line simplicity also drives parts commonality . If you only have one part choice at a workstation, the right part always goes on the car
I wonder if they ever built one of these with three headlights? 🙂
You could create a home built 3 headlight version using about 30 bucks worth of junkyard parts…
Like this?
That applies to parts whose price drops due to increasing volume production. You can see that with all sorts of once expensive options like power steering, brakes, a/c, etc.
But it’s always going to be relatively more expensive to buy four sealed beam headlights than two, right?
Now that we’re on this subject, I always wondered why the Big 3 went with quad headlights on their pickup trucks in 1958 (when pickups were much more utilitarian and not the preferred choice for most buyers) and then reverted to single headlights by 1962 (except GMC, which kept quads through 1972 and used them as a selling point).
I’m also mildly amazed that pickups got wraparound windshields — did pickup buyers really care about the latest in style trends, especially considering the resulting dog leg A-pillars interfered with ease of entry and exit?
GMC offered a single headlamp “fleet” front end in ’58-’59 which also included a cheap stamped grille.
GMC offered a single headlamp “fleet” front end in ’58-’59 which also included a cheap stamped grille and flat bumper.
Thanks, I don’t remember those fleet GMCs at all. That really looks like a very cheap grille, but at least it wasn’t plastic!
There’s an old GMC pickup parked near me that has those single headlights and that grill. I’ve always wondered about it and assumed it had been modified. Didn’t know it came that way stock.
Running Boards optional on Fleet model. Came with Chevrolet 235ci engine.
Once GMC stopped having an exclusive V-6 engine and had to use Chevy powertrains, something, anything had to be done to differentiate other than emblems. Quad headlights were an easy choice to make a more “premium” truck sold in Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and even Cadillac dealers. By ’73 even that was gone.
There’s some debate as to whether the single or double headlights were more common from new, with most people (including myself, though I’m no expert on these) seemingly only remembering dual-headlight models even though the singles were standard and significantly cheaper. I wonder if the single-headlight cars were scrapped in higher numbers, as these were generally lower-trim and less desirable models, while the higher-trim models survived as collectors’ items or prized possessions?
I think you’re missing a key point: The single headlights ONLY came on the lowest trim (Deluxe) model. The Custom and Super and Ambassadors all came with the quad headlights. The Deluxe represented a fairly modest overall share of the total sales. If you find pictures of that specific model (Deluxe) you’ll find most of them have the single headlights. Why would a buyer of a stripper pay extra for an option that provide zero extra functionality, and was only a frivolity?
Ah, I misinterpreted your other comments as the single headlights being standard on all models, included the Custom/Super/Ambassador. My mistake, and I agree that it’d be moronic to pay an extra charge for a feature that was purely aesthetic on a car that, as a whole, wasn’t a particularly aesthetic/stylish product.
I disagree completely.
This is one of my favorite 1950’s era designs. The 1960 Rambler was a cleaned-up version of a classic Rambler design. It was the last year of the high mounted headlights common on 1950’s cars. The simple egg-crate grille, the split front bumper and the lettering mounted in the negative space above that simple grille is fantastic and something not seen often since.
The size of the car, the proportions of the green house, the small fins over a modern interpretation of the cathedral tail light, is perfect.
This is one of my favorite designs and as an artist, I can assure you that it is a very aesthetically appealing and stylist product – whether it is with dual headlights or single.
I think it looks better with duals, paint the bezels black for a real blank stare
Models sporting the Fleetwood badge were sometimes referred to as the “Cadillac of Cadillacs.” Ramblers were supposed to appeal to thrifty folks concerned primarily about low purchase price and fuel economy, so this must have been the “Rambler of Ramblers.”
The 1960 model was an effective restyle of the basic 1956-59 body shell. It looked lower and slimmer than its predecessors, while still looking like a Rambler. I wouldn’t mind owning a 1960 Ambassador Custom Cross Country hardtop wagon equipped with the V-8.
Good luck finding one of the 435 ’60 Ambassador Custom Cross Country hardtop station wagons, the most expensive car AMC sold at $3,151 fob.
That level of rarity makes it even more desirable! Although the 1961 Ambassador, with its “unique” front clip is, in some ways, even better.
Our local Rambler dealers in this Western New York area, we had four within 25 miles, peddled a lot of these single headlight Deluxes. The buyers always fit a profile, almost a stereotype: older, extremely frugal, churchgoers. Sunday mornings, some church parking lots looked like Rambler owners meets, In town, one fellow had a solid white one, black-walls and dog-dish hubcaps, gray interior, he was just as exciting as his Rambler. He definitely wouldn’t have sprung for the dual headlights.
One Rambler we never saw: a Classic Six or Rebel V8 Country Club hardtop. Only one ’60 Ambassador Country Club, a pink and white one with continental kit was driven by a local farmer and his elementary school teacher.
For many years, a former Nash-Rambler-AMC dealer in rural Orbisonia, Pennsylvania, held a big car show at his homestead. One of the cars he showed was a red 1959 Rebel V-8 Country Club hardtop.
The car was then offered for sale at one of the Carlisle shows in the early 2000s. He was selling his collection due to health issues. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the money to buy it.
Got Mennonites? Bumpers painted black?
What I believe we are seeing is an auto maker hedging its bets on the new quad headlight set up that was becoming fashionable in 1957 with Chrysler and then an acceptable standard in 1958.
Rambler and others had the single headlight set up in case the quad headlights didn’t catch on as intended. And they made the single available in their lower models. Since the 1957-1960 used a standard front fender design – the single was available during those years.
Nothing nefarious. It was just a nice option for those wanting that look.
I’m a longtime AMC fan, but what makes no sense from a production standpoint is why have two different stacks of headlights, trim rings, mounts, and wire harnesses on an assembly line when you could have used one set? I calculated once what it took for AMC to still offer standard vacuum wipers through the 1971 model year. That would have meant instead of having engine assemblies for a) automatic/manual, b) AC/no ac, c) PS/no power steering, d)PB, and all the combinations those required, just to keep vacuum wipers in the mix meant that AMC essentially had to have twice as many different assembled engines ready to go, on the line. That’s not good production planning or inventory control!
Why would they need an engine specified for vacuum wipers? Most engines have multiple vacuum taps for power brakes, emission controls, etc. In the 60’s and 70’s vacuum was used for power door locks, hideaway headlights and other stuff. Just plug your vacuum wipers into an available port on the assembly line and you are good to go.
If it made no sense, it wouldn’t have happened for three years. Once the single headlight style was available as it always had been available, in 1957 – the front fender design hadn’t changed, permitting them to offer this until 1960.
The issue I found more upsetting on Ramblers of this vintage was the body-color paint on either side of the radiator behind the too-wide grille mesh. How many rocks got through?
A previous comment mentioned the good old Studebaker tacked-on, JC Whitney-style headlight pods for 1958. It makes me wonder about the bargain-basement 1957-58 Scotsman and if that car might have had an impact on Rambler offering the dual headlights as standard equipment.
What seems odd is the Scotsman had dual headlights but no pods. I don’t understand what was going with Studebaker offering dual headlight pod headlights on upper tier models. In that regard, the simpler Scotsman actually looked better.
It seems like the usual, bizarre Studebaker thinking, like those dual headlight pods made the other cars special and upmarket when, in reality, they were more tasteless and cheap.