I have noticed on some of my more challenging days, independent of anything else, how others will seem to pile on, so to speak. Sure, sure. I also believe that when it comes to trouble, we never have to look too far to find it if that’s what we’re looking for, but I’m talking about something else. I have mentioned in previous essays that despite my love for Las Vegas and playing card games, I’m a lackluster poker player because my involuntary facial expressions give me away and I’m just simply not that good of an actor.
Rather, the phenomenon I’m describing is the idea that others, reading our facial expressions, will often mirror back to us what they’re sensing that we’re giving off. Stated another way, if I’ve had some sort of a day at the office and I’m walking back to my evening train, the naturally funky expression on my face is going to alert others, even if only subconsciously, that I’m not in a friendly mood, and they will act accordingly. For example, a door may not be held open for me. An approaching pedestrian may not co-shift with me on the sidewalk to allow for easy passage for both of us. There are other examples, but I hope you get my basic idea.
This poor Rambler American was, um, blessed with a face that simply looks unpleasant and disagreeable. I’m not sure, based on its facial expression, whether I want to serve it back some attitude, or whether to say, “There, there.” Many of us empaths have a (sometimes) unhealthy tendency to be fixers, like we need to do something. We’re more highly attuned to the emotions of others, either individually or collectively, and we tend to want to make better whatever seems to be wrong, or to get out of Dodge. I can’t decide if this Rambler looks more sad or angry, but the psychology major in me really wants to know what’s wrong.
Was it the arrival of the Corvair, Falcon, and Valiant for the 1960 model year that had stolen some of the Rambler make’s compact thunder and market share? It’s no secret that American Motors’s successful pioneering of a range of thrifty, quality small cars had led, directly or indirectly, to mainstream competition among the Big Three. The year of our featured car, 1961, was also when Rambler’s highest U.S. car sales ranking of No. 3 was achieved with about 378,000 units – behind Chevrolet with over 1.7 million units and Ford with 1.3 million, but ahead of Plymouth’s 349,800 cars. Rambler would increase its volume for the next couple of years, but with the other compact offerings from the Big Three gaining almost immediate acceptance, Rambler’s market share would continue to slide.
Of those 378,000 or so Ramblers sold for ’61, about 136,000 were Americans. Of this number, only about 4,900 like this yellow beauty were two-doors in the Custom trim level. The most popular American was the DeLuxe two-door, which accounted for about 28,500 sales; The configuration which sold the fewest copies was the DeLuxe business sedan, of which just over 350 were sold.
I’d like to point out that of the three sizes of “compact” that Rambler offered for ’61, including the Classic and Ambassador, it was the mid-range, 108-inch wheelbase Classic, and not the American (100″ wheelbase), that had aligned more closely in size with the Corvair (also with a 108″ wheelbase), Valiant (106.5″), and Falcon (109.5″). I’ve chosen the comparison with the American only because all of these models were the smallest, entry-level offerings from each respective make. In terms of sales for ’61, Chevrolet moved 282,000 Corvairs (though almost 110,000 of those were bucket-seat Monza coupes), Ford sold 474,200 Falcons, and Plymouth sold only 143,000 Valiants. Suddenly, 136,000 Americans looks impressive, given that Rambler was a much smaller, independent make.
With about 18,800 top-line, 117″-wheelbase Ambassadors purchased that year, the remaining 223,200 Ramblers sold for ’61 were Classics, most of which were equipped with a six-cylinder. Our 2,600-pound American Custom two-door was powered by a 125-horsepower version of the 195.6 cubic inch six with its newly-developed overhead valves, which was an upgrade from the 90-horse mill used in lesser Americans. An American was an efficient machine, having been proven to be capable of just under 24 miles per gallon during a certified fuel economy run.
This is all admirable. For me, though, it all comes back to the styling. I am an AMC defender and even have a 1:24-scale, die cast model of a 1974 Levi’s Gremlin X in my living room as part of the decor. That said and even though I was not around when this Rambler American was new and thus have no true sense as to the context of how this car was perceived or received in its day, it looks sad or angry, which does not help its case (or face) as an underdog seeking acceptance. It lacks the trendsetting, continental flair of the Corvair, the wild visual gymnastics of the Valiant, or the bread-and-butter wholesomeness of the Falcon. Even the Studebaker Lark, with its Mercedes-style radiator grille, has a genuine style about it. This American, by contrast, looks like it’s about to erupt in a tantrum.
This seems even more astounding given that the ’61 American represented a significant rebody from the previous year. It’s not the worst-looking car of its era, but how much development time did chief designer Edmund A. Anderson and his team have before they had to hand in their work? Would a simple inversion of its trapezoidal grille have been enough to make this car look less frowny? In my opinion, no, because there’s still the issue of its furrowed brows which slope downward over its sad, angry eyes. I’ve never driven a ’61 Rambler American Custom, and therefore have no firsthand, negative accounts to report. It’s a good thing that its unfortunate resting facial expression hides behind it some genuine inner goodness.
Whittemore, Michigan.
Tuesday, August 12, 2025.
Click here for related reading on the 1961 Rambler American.
Joe, this is hilarious. I took very similar pictures of this car a year ago; I don’t think they’re very serious about selling it. (It had a for sale sign on it – $5,000)
Haha – thanks, Aaron! I don’t recall seeing a “for sale” sign on it last month. Maybe it has gone to “inquire within” status? It appears to be in great shape for its age, what it is, and its rarity.
It just looks so forlorn. I’d like to think it’s a mascot for the nearby restaurant.
That’s what I thought it was (a mascot) until I realized how far it was sitting from the building. It’s like a mascot that the owners really weren’t entirely sure they wanted to be associated with. Poor Rambler.
This is a really awkward/dorky looking car. The way the rear wheel is not centered in the opening, and with the ‘C’ pillar extending almost to the back edge of that same opening doesn’t help. I’m reminded of the late 50’s Mopar two doors, that, because of their roofline/windows looked like a four door. The rear end isn’t bad, but as Joe has stated, that front end kills it.
Before you (and others) pointed it out, I hadn’t really paid attention to the apparent misalignment / centering of the rear wheel. Wow.
The other thing about the side profile with me is how the angle of the B-pillar / door frame has a “faster” slope than the backlight. That could have been easily fixable, it seems.
I find your title amusing, because a few years ago, my kids began calling the large Infiniti SUVs “Mr. Frowny Face” – and for a while it became sort of a game to find them on the roads. I do notice some similarities between those SUV’s and your featured Rambler. Both, for instance, share a prominent grille flanking headlights that seem undersized given the car’s frontal area. Or maybe that’s just a pure coincidence… either way, I’m surprised the design team let either of these loose on the streets with a resting frown face.
One thing that we joked about with those Infiniti SUVs is that the drivers’ expressions often matched the car’s frown. I wonder if that was true of Rambler American drivers back in the day as well? If so, I can just picture kids in the 1960s peering into one of these cars as it passed to see if the driver was frowning!
Lastly, while this doesn’t pertain to frowny-face cars – I’m familiar with the area where you found this car because my wife’s family is from that area originally. Her mom grew up just a few miles west of where you took these pictures. It’s amusing to see pictures here from that pretty out-of-the-way place.
The ’72-’74 Dodge Challenger was also disappointing with its ‘sadmouth’ grille treatment
The 1972 – ’74 Challenger definitely looks sad. I do like the look, though, as it’s detailing is otherwise well-executed. Chrysler was wise not to bring that look back, even for a refresh, when the RWD Challenger was reintroduced at the end of the 2000s.
The poor thing looks constipated.
Don’t be behind it when it backfires!
Okay, so Eric, I am now going to be playing that same game to see if the facial expressions between vehicle and driver / occupant match. This made me laugh as I was waiting on my morning train platform. Thank you.
And yeah, this area is pretty remote. I loved almost every mile of the rural and back roads that Google maps took me on during my Great Michigan Adventure 2025 last month.
I’m thinking also of the current/soon-to-be outgoing model of the Toyota RAV4 with its’ stacked ziggurat of frowny-face grilles. When that design came out I predicted that the “Adventure” model’s bigger but more integrated-looking grille would expand across the whole line at the midcycle facelift if not sooner, but instead it was discontinued.
Ouch. I feel for this poor Rambler. It’s somehow – unexpectedly – managed to survive about 50 years longer than its brethren, but look at where it’s wound up. Sitting alone, without hubcaps, on mostly flat tires, seemingly having lost even its engine in the past year. Perhaps worst is the fact that some miscreant is slowly picking away the badge on the right front fender. No wonder it’s so frowny.
Great find and article, Joe.
Thanks, Jeff! And aside from the things you pointed out, and with my limited knowledge of what a restoration would take, this one still seems savable and in decent shape, otherwise. The thing, even with a rare car, is who would find it desirable. Certainly there have to be some Rambler / AMC fans that would drool over this cute-esque economy car from the ’60s.
Haven’t you guys seen the Charlie Brown Christmas Special? I never thought it was a bad little tree. Not bad at all, really…just needs a little love.
This Rambler American is definitely Charlie Brown vibes. All day long.
The 1962 Rambler American fit in perfectly with the four oblivious aliens in Third Rock from the Sun. Even better was it was a convertible that did away with that incredibly awkward roof.
In fact, I’ve read that the collectability status of that generation of American convertibles has went up considerably due to its appearance on the show. I certainly would kick one out of my garage. They’re really cool in that bizarre way some cars get with age. Of course, I love the 1961 Plymouth Fury, too, so maybe it’s just me.
Looking at the profile view I was surprised at the way the rear wheel isn’t centered in the wheel well. I thought perhaps this one was on a different vehicle’s chassis or that the drivetrain was in someway altered. With the help of Mr Google I realized that this is the way the car was meant to be. What a strange look.
I don’t think many realize the inner body of the 1958-60 was used with very little modification for the 1961-’63 models, and it dictated the shape of the wheel opening.
I wonder if maybe the plan had been to increase the wheelbase by a couple of inches but at the last minute due to cost concerns they just left the wheelbase unchanged.
See my comment below. It was a necessity due to the original body’s unitized construction.
Actually, it’s due to the inner body structure of the original 100″ wb Rambler from 1951-1955 which had the rear (and front) wheels covered with those very low wheel openings. Undoubtedly the unibody had a key structural element at the front of the rear wheel that could not be removed when they opened the wheel openings for 1958. That version already had that same dislocated-looking rear wheel. And it had to be carried over for the 1961 restyle.
That rear wheel look is absolutely bonkers, now that you (and some of the others) have mentioned it. It looks to me like a die cast model that was dropped and the person tried to stick the body back into the chassis without lining up the screws with the holes.
The tiny-ish greenhouse compared to the chunky body makes this look uneven, unbalanced, out of proportion. This from the same company that gave us the Gremlin. This might win the award for the most hideous car ever.
It’s definitely not pretty, but to me, it’s cute in a way. Like a lemon drop candy that’s a little too sour.
The roof line reminds me of a Renault 8 (though the whole car is much less well proportioned) and in a way seems straining to go full on Citroen Ami 6 (but holds well short of that).
And in that way, the “not pretty but cute in a way” assessment that Joe makes is perfect.
I don’t see sad or angry in its face, I see serious. Cue Joker…
A family I stayed with for two summers as a teen ran a country market in the hills of Vermont. They had one of these as a backup car; it wasn’t until a few years later they found out that the only reason they got it for very, very cheap was the previous owner had committed suicide in it. Yikes. It duly served its purpose though (as a car).
A suicide car… just, wow. To find that out after the fact would give their Rambler a whole, different context. Depressing added to depressing.
…probably shouldn’t look in that one to see the driver’s expression.
Overall I think it’s not too bad a reskin of decade-old hard points. My favorite detail, one criticized at the time for looking cheap, is the ’61-only expanded metal grille which looks almost architectural in a very midcentury-modern way.
I did actually take note of the cool, metal mesh pattern within the grille, and it was one of the small details I liked. That grille pattern was one of the clues that helped me research and identify the model year – assuming that the grille was original to the car.
It looks sad but that was the way it was designed, it looks very similar to a MK1 Ford Cortina including the grille shape but even the poverty model chrome free Cortinny looked happier, Ford managed to centre the rear axle in the opening which helped.
I had to look up the MK I Ford Cortina, and you’re right – that car is frowning, too. Its size and overall proportions appear similar to those of this Rambler American in photographs. I see what you’re saying.
A friend on mines family had the convertible version of this car. We had a lot of fun riding around in it. His father was an FBI agent and the prior car was a Rambler wagon. I never knew and was too timid to ask but I thought that Rambler must have offered some special discount to FBI agents.
This made me remember the film “Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes”, where a different ’61 Rambler (a Rambler Classic in that movie) was used by officials of some agency. That vehicle was even labeled “unmarked car” on the doors! Thank you for jogging my memory. Haha
I had a little fun with the American’s frowny face one day.
I went straight to the comments hoping somebody flipped that frown upside down!
See, now it just looks manic.
I had a friend when I was a kid whose mom would be smiling sweetly at you as she read you the riot act. That’s what this reminds me of.
Great photo shop work, by the way.
When Virgil Exner snuck into AMC’s styling department…
The ’59 Lark carries the same design elements a lot more gracefully – trapezoidal grille, chrome trim wrapping from above the headlights horizontally to form a character line to the rear, front fender “eyebrows.” It’s enough to make me wonder if AMC made some last minute design changes (certainly not improvements) to differentiate this from the Lark and the Corvair in the compact market.
I think the Lark, even though somewhat stubby, was an attractive small car.
Sorry, Joe, I usually can see where you’re coming from in your essays, even if I don’t always agree, but this time, I think you’re off the mark. See, the American was, is and always will be the epitome of a dorky car.
My best friend in elementary school lived down the street from me and when we first met at age four, his father had a white 1961 American, while his mother drove (a much nicer) blue 1964 Classic Cross Country wagon. Beyond that downturned grille, the American was ill-proportioned, the rear wheel was off-center within the well, and the blocky profile stuck out like a five-foot tall pencil-neck geek among we kindergarteners. To make matters worse, though the owner was an engineer who maintained his cars meticulously, this American burned oil, was succumbing to visible rust, and the vinyl interior retained the odor of the owners’ last fishing trip. I may have ridden in it a few times, but mostly remember going places with my friend in the Classic wagon, which my friend and his siblings all viewed as vastly superior (and they were right!).
Harsh judgement, coming from a kid whose own father’s fecal brown 1963 Studebaker Lark perfumed the neighborhood with oily fumes. However, it colored my impressions of all other AMC products as being second-rate and undesirable and is just one of those things I have never been able to shake. So, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one!
Haha! William, based on your comment, I’m not sure that you and I actually disagree on this Rambler!
I mean, yes – I wasn’t born when these were new and like I had mentioned, I don’t have the context of having been alive when these were new and how they were perceived at the time. But still and like I mentioned, there are things about this little American that while endearing in 2025, aren’t necessarily the most attractive. The frowny face emoticon grille is one example of this.
Now you have me thinking of mean, frowny cars. The 1990s Buick Roadmaster and 1960 Chrysler come to mind.
This American is like a little kid trying to make a frowny face. But it’s no use because all the adults laugh and say “Awwww, you’re so cute!”.
1972 Dodge Challenger, frowny as all get out. It’s like it knew it had lost all the Hemi and big-block engine options and would have to live the rest of its life as a muscle-car poseur.
I never thought about the Roadmaster as having a sad expression, but now that you mention it… yes, it does.
The 1990 Roadmaster sedan is totally frowning. You’re right. (I tend to forget that the sedan and wagon has slightly different frontal styling.)
The 1960 Chrysler doesn’t look quite as frowny to me, but it does look aggressive, so this does does also fit, to me.
I was thinking of the ’59 Buick and the ’59 Dodge. Very angry! Compared to them, the American was cuddly, or maybe forlorn would be a better word.
The American in my life was a kindergarten carpooler driven by a hard-up divorced mom. One day she rear-ended another car and for awhile the American had its hood held shut by a hairy hempen rope. The details of how that worked are a little fuzzy but the rope was unforgettable, as was the American’s mashed in face, like a lightweight prizefighter who’d had some front teeth knocked out. Poor thing.
I don’t think it looks frowny but it is clearly a cheap car .
They didn’t drive very well either, the front end still used trunnions and the steering was slow and stiff .
-Nate
They actually drove quite well. The flathead outperformed the Falcons and Comets, the brakes were better too. The steering was slow and light. The trunnions work just fine as long as they are kept lubricated. The automatic was a 3-speed, unlike what Ford or GM had to offer.
Oh well, I’m sure it beat walking.
I can see lots of other cars in this, the front of the 63 Valiant, (a bit)) the Cortina, especially the rear window, the Volvo 140 / 240 windshield.
But, not surprisingly it comes off as very cheap looking compared to the others.
They liked playing with grille shapes back then, personally, I don’t think you can’t go wrong with a grille that goes all the way across, incorporating the headlamps.
“Beats walking” – thankfulness for the win!
I was around when these were new (turning 9 in 1961) but have no recollection of how they were received at the time. I was aware of course of the Big Three cars, and my aunt bought a new ’61 Olds Dynamic 88 followed by my mom buying a ’61 Chevy Bel Air.
I think it was much later when I learned that the American was reskinned in 1961 from the earlier (and better-looking IMO) 1958-60 models.
The earlier Rambler American had a graceful, almost organic look to it. I get why American Motors wanted to attempt to reskin it to pass as a new generation, but the results are slightly like forcing a square peg into a round hole with the existing hard points, etc.
I recall several of these still driving around my hometown up, into the mid “70’s”. My mom’ friend had a “63” I believe. ((hardtop model))