A month ago I showed you this Rambler American with a sign on it saying “Feel Free To Tag”. And the invitation was acted upon. So here it is, sporting its latest paint job. Cheaper than taking it to Earl Scheib, anyway.
And the taggers have been remarkably compliant about the request to no paint on the trim and windows.
Leaves only the question as to what’s in this Rambler’s future?
Ugh. Mail it to me Paul, I’ll give it a good home.
Does it run? I’d have a good home for it. First order of business would be a paint stripping and finding out what the original color was, then a trip to MAACO.
I wonder if a 258 would fit.
Unfortunately the 258 won’t fit. These early Americans are really 1950 Nash Ramblers under the skin and space under the hood is extremely limited. (The old 195.6 engine was much shorter than the newer AMC/Rambler/Jeep six.)
A modern 4-banger should fit in there but it obviously would require a lot of custom work. You might even be able to fit a V6 but it would probably entail some surgery since the inner fender structure intrudes deeply into the engine compartment.
There’s basically nothing other than the original type engine that will easily drop into these cars.
The 195.6 also came in an OHV version. I had one and it was a sweet runner. It would likely fit right in (if you could find one) and be plenty for this car.
Yes, in fact the OHV 195.6 was a factory option in the American starting I think in 1961. It was an adaptation of the old flathead engine and fits right in its place. The “hot” setup for these cars was the OHV engine with a 2-barrel carb. These engines had only 4 main bearings which is probably one of the reasons why they’re so much shorter than the newer, 7-main-bearing AMC sixes.
Here’s a video of a ’63 American “440H” with the OHV engine. You can see inside the engine compartment at about the two minute mark and it becomes immediately obvious that there’s not much room in there for an alternative engine:
I believe that the flathead 195.6 has the distinction of being the last such engine to be used in an American car. (It was the Rambler American base engine through the 1965 model year. Yes, in 1965 you could buy a car from American Motors that came equipped with a flathead engine, trunnion front suspension, and vacuum windshield wipers!)
Yes, there is a reason why the greenhouse seems kind of narrow and upright with a very vertical windshield over the squarish body. It’s because the basic structure is the roundish early fifties Rambler. After being out of production for a few years it was brought back (1960?) with the tail lights turned upside down and the wheel openings enlarged. It was obviously an old design at that point. Then the do over squarish model, but based on the old structure.
Here’s the resurrected and face lifted 50’s one from 1960.
Yep, that’s pretty much the story. The original 100-inch wheelbase Nash Rambler first debuted in 1950 and was discontinued in 1955. Then it was brought back with minor tweaking as the Rambler American in 1958. The underlying 1950 Nash was used as the basis of the American through the 1963 model year.
Perhaps an Iron Duke or AMC’s own 2.5 out of a Jeep.
Get that car to Earl Scheib now!
Messed up what was a somewhat interesting paint job. Sad to see this clean old cream puff being abused. Hopefully the mechanical end is being maintained, paint can always be removed and resprayed.
Sadly, Uncle Earl went out of business around 2010.
It looked much, much better in the earlier post. More and brighter colors with a better defined pattern.
+1.
It’s just paint. The trim seems unscathed (so far) and it’s really nothing that can’t be reversed, so I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t love the look, but that’s 100% the owner’s prerogative and 0% mine.
Its always been my impression that the thought patterns of the taggers match their work.
I prefer the previous incarnation, but, you know what? I can’t be mad. The owner shelled out the money (or whatever) to buy it. It’s his to do with as he pleases.
I wasn’t happy to read about tubbed C2 Corvettes when I was younger, but it was their money.
If it’s so offensive, put a dollar figure on your offense, and call the owner. I’m curious to see if his love of his bizarre performance art project is greater than the offense people take to it.
Well I for one think it’s pretty cool. Wouldn’t be my first choice for my vehicle, but I’m glad someone did it.
I like it. It’s not like they’re smashing up the thing. It’s just paint.
It’s a fun looking little car enjoying a second youth. Like life, the car hobby doesn’t have to be serious all the time.
Sadly me decades of experience with ” Art Cars ” has taught me that the JUNKYARD is in this cars future….
What a waste even though I find the idea to be cool .
-Nate
This car is worthless anyway, except as a collectible or art object. Time marches on.
Believe it or not ;
There is a foll,owing of these little cars as they’re cute, simple and amazingly cheap to run, fun and easy to drive too if not overly fast .
A Buddy of mine runs one as his rally car….
-Nate
I’m kinda curious about what they’re doing other than replacing almost every part in the car or driving very slowly around the block.
Driving the hell out of them like was done from new well into the late 1970’s….
These are not delicate Automobiles, just small and slow by to – day’s standards .
-Nate
PBR sticker on the backlight, that garners points –
I fully support the owner’s right to do whatever he or she wants with the car, but I must say I liked the tiki décor better.