Vintage Ad: 1971 AMC Hornet SC/360 – “Introducing A Sensible Alternative…”
– Posted on February 9, 2023
-
-
-
American Brands: GM 
American Brands: Ford 
American Brands: Chrysler 
American Brands: AMC, Jeep and All Others 
Automotive Histories and Misc. 
Asian Brands 
UK Brands 
Australian Brands 
European Brands 
Cars Of A Lifetime & Auto-Biography 
Buses 
Trucks, Pickups and Vans 
Design 
Trains, Planes & Ships 
Motorcycles, Trikes, Bicycles 
Engines, Transmissions and other Tech 
Tractors, Lawn Mowers, Off-Road Equipment 
RVs, Motorhomes, Trailers, Campers
‘Twas a fine attempt by AMC to compete with the “Big 3”; but was no match for a Plymouth Duster 340.
Came here to say the same. Your comment sums it all up.
I beg to disagree. 14 second quarter mile, 390 ft/lb torque with the 4-barrel engine and ram-air. Under 7 seconds 0-60. Slightly better than a ’71 (premium fuel) 340. The BW automatic transmission wasn’t as good as a TorqueFlight and the handling maybe a tad shy. But a pretty good match for the 340 Duster.
All fair. I think for most people, the Duster was a better all around package. The Hornet was a pretty crude dude, lacking so much as a glove compartment door and decent sound insulation.
I’ve driven Hornets and Dusters. The Chrysler A Body was leaps and bounds more civilized. I also preferred the Duster over the Nova and the Maverick.
Not true. Hornet’s always had glove box doors (you must be thinking Maverick!), and had an optional insulation package-except for the SC 360. Cheap plastic dashes, yes! Build quality-at least on par with Chrysler products of that era. I love the 340, and have nothing against Dusters. I’m just saying this rare car was a pretty fair competitor.
The base version of the early Gremlins lacked a glovebox door. They also had a sealed rear window (thus, no outside access to the cargo area).
I do agree with all that Dave B has said here.
A quiet champion 🏆.
Particularly for 1971. It’s generatlly regarded as the high-point for the Mopar 340-4v engine as the first year for the Thermoquad carburetor, and the last for high-compression and (mostly) unfettered emission controls. The only one that might be slightly more desirable would be the 1970 6v version which offered a special, beefed-up engine block.
Not to mention the last year for the standard, full-instrumentation rallye dash that could be had with an optional, center-mounted tachometer, lifted directly from the 1967-69 A-body Barracuda.
Very true, my brother had a ’71 340 Demon and it was one of the best running 340’s I ever experienced. And that was saying something.
I think these were about on par from a technical standpoint, these AMC V8s were real powerhouses. From an image standpoint they weren’t even close, first being they’re AMCs, second being the style, as the Duster and Nova had sporty fashionable for the segment fastback bodies, where the early hornet used this upright sedan greenhouse with cheap painted window frames. These looked more like the pre-Duster Valiant 2 doors of 66-69 or the 66-70 Ford Falcon of which there were never high performance versions of, even in the early hot compact era of the mid 60s Falcon Futuras and ChevyII/Nova SSs they got nice hardtop roofline to set them apart.
Good grief, I had forgotten about PolyGlas tires. And don’t forget that it handles like a dream on the Trans Am road course at Michigan International Speedway. In 1971 I was negotiating the heavy traffic of I-95 in Fairfield County, CT. No need for dream-like handling there. All one needs, and still needs, is to have nerves of steel. Fun ad. Nice memories.
Would have looked sooo much better, and been more marketable and competitive, with the ’73 hatchback bodywork. Sleeker, and more modern, than the Duster.
Absolutely loved AMC’s very frank, “What would you do?”, marketing angle. Very wisely, they handled their underdog status, quite aggressively sometimes. They had some great marketing ideas, with standard air conditioning (on some models), the Buyer’s Protection Plan, fashion and clothing designer packages, advanced use of galvanized steel, four-wheel drive, luxury compacts, etc. Kudos, for doing so much, with so little.
Great points. By the time of the hatchback’s ’73 introduction, that round of muscle car fever was dead, but whoa – would a Hornet hatch SC360 have been a great machine! Aesthetically, much better looking than the Duster, and I like the Duster (Dad had one).
If only, AMC had introduced the hatch earlier, in ’71. While there was still a compact musclecar market.
I mentioned to Daniel Stern the other day, I was a big fan of the ’75 Nova coupe. Not as swoopy as what AMC was doing with the Javelin, Matador, or Hornet. Or the Mustang II and Monza. But I thought the 1975 Chevy Nova’s very clean and tight bodywork, was quite representative of the increasingly conservative times. And one of the best looking domestic compact fastback hatchbacks of the 1970s.
A modern design, cleaner IMO, than the Mustang II, Monza and AMC hatchbacks at the time.
Best looking American car of the time in my opinion, cleaner detailing than the Monza and the later slant-nose Vega. The Nova, that is – but the Hornet was pretty good too, a better design I think than the Duster/Demon.
The too shallow cargo area, was one significant drawback of the 1975 era X-body coupes. Besides, the lack of an ideal six cylinder power plant for the Nova. The 231 V6 in the Skylark, a preferable choice to the 250 I6 of the Chev. I felt the 350 V8 was the default choice, but it somewhat defeated the economy advantages, expected of a compact.
If musclecars had staying in vogue, I wonder if ‘SC’ (i.e., the 1969 SC/Rambler) was going to be similar to Dodge’s use of ‘R/T’ and Chevrolet’s ‘SS’ for AMC’s muscle variants.
Regardless, ‘Sensible musclecar’ seems like a contradiction in terms, but things were really winding down by 1971. The SC/360 ad text doesn’t mention it, but insurance surcharges were playing a big part of that. Here’s the Road Runner ad that addresses it directly:
I assumed that the “SC/360” name was a takeoff on/continuation of the SC/Rambler from 1969. With the earlier car, it was a play on “scrambler”, but I don’t imagine that SC/Hornet would have made much sense. They would have needed a variation on the Matador ad campaign with “What’s a Schornet?”
“Schornet” sounds like a Yiddish insult the Marx Brothers would have popularized.
Hooray for Captain Spaulding, the African explorer
(Did someone call me “schnorrer”?)
Hooray, hooray, hooray!
Maybe the text doesn’t mention it, but I see “insurance-strangling” right in the headline?
The used car market also contributed to decline in sales of new ‘performance’ models. Lots were available and huge aftermarket, why spend more?
AMC had some great wheel designs. These wheels, sans trim rings and painted ‘argent’, are damn near perfect. For a no-frills back-to-basics performance appearance. They also aged well. The body however, could have used with a lower stance.
When you think about it, I suspect the 1st generation Hornet 2-door is what upper-level Chrysler execs envisioned would be the 1970 Duster, essentially a mild update of the truly appliance-like, upright 1967-69 Valiant 2-door.
Little did they know how svelt and sporty the 1970 A-body coupe turned out to be (and how it would eat into the sales of other, more-profitable Mopar sport coupes). The story is the success of the Duster turned out to do more damage to Chrysler’s bottom line than they would have liked.
The very attractive and competitive style of the Duster, should have been apparent at the rendering, and clay mockup stage IMO. No excuse there, really. The Challenger and Barracuda presented greater profit potential, but were they worth it to buyers? I don’t think a strong enough case presented itself, to warrant their production.
You’d have thought that Chrysler execs would have seen it coming, but like most of their product planning ever since 1962, they simply followed whatever GM had done.
And that meant having a compact, ponycar, and intermediate class coupe version of the same musclecar (SS396) was A-okay. The problem is GM could get away with it since they had such a huge slice of the auto market (and the stodgy 3rd generation Nova wasn’t exactly being cross-shopped). Big-block mania was still going strong 1968-69, too.
So, the much cleaner Duster, and the fact that it was limited to the 340, figured large in Chrysler’s marketing. They hadn’t counted on the big-block V8 market virtually evaporating overnight in 1970, and that’s what really did them in. By 1972, all of the E-body’s big-blocks were gone, down to just the 318 and 340/360. Having an identical V8 engine line-up to the Duster, well, the big, wide, harder to drive E-body simply never had a chance.
Imagine being the guy who had greenlit the E-body. I guess they didn’t have much choice since Dodge dealers had been clamoring for a ponycar for a long time but, man, all that Chrysler R&D money just down the tubes with little to show for it.
Taking all that into consideration, it’s kind of interesting how the SC/360 became just another one-year-wonder. As others have speculated, dropping the 360 into the much sportier Hornet hatchback could have given the Duster 340 some real competition.
The worst part is the Challenger itself did OK in 1970, 76,000 units probably didn’t meet expectations but it’s nowhere near flop territory like it’s twin the Barracuda in Plymouth showrooms. Then Dodge goes ahead and plasters the Dart nose onto the Duster for 71 and Challenger sales fall off a cliff!
Further, the Challenger probably would have easily cracked 100k in 1970 if not for competing with the Charger, which was basically Dodge’s ponycar and a modest success with its 68 redesign. The Charger still existing into 1970 didn’t do the Challenger’s sales any favors either, and vice versa.
And yet it’s the ridiculous, good-at-nothing E-body they’ve rehashed, quite successfully, for those who think they miss the ’70s.
The E-bodies may have been sales duds, but their styling was more iconic than the Duster. Better integrated than the Duster’s swoopy rear, merged with a Valiant’s conservative and sedan-based front half. And better looking than the current Mustang. Next to the ’70 Camaro and Firebird, one of the best styled pony cars. Being one of the last, and most modern designs, helped.
Plus, the Duster had so much baggage as a low-budget beater. So many equipped with slant sixes, bench seats, and finished in cashmere paint.
If the Duster concept were rehashed today instead what would make it stand out? A sedan with a swoopier fastback? Doesn’t that describe literally every sedan built for the last 15 years? They brought back the Dart and nobody bought it.
I think the 68-70 Charger was the more iconic design of Chryslers ponycars though, I for one am happy to see the Challenger’s shape on a daily basis for the last several years and hopefully years to come among the sea of lookalike sedans and SUVs, but sorry it’s a copy of a copy. If you’re not a car nut telling a E-body apart from a 67-69 Camaro/Firebird is like trying to figure out the difference between a colon and a semicolon for a grade schooler, they were the classic Chrysler patented “copy GM’s last model cycle” formula, to perhaps a most shameless degree than ever
The ’68-’70 Charger is perhaps a more iconic design. But is it considered a pony car? The long hood, short deck of the E-bodies, being more consistent with the original Mustang and Camaro. And probably easier to style as a modern version.
And GM during this time followed what Ford did.
The ’68-’70 Charger is perhaps a more iconic design. But is it considered a pony car?
No, I meant to say sporty cars but had a brain fart and wrote pony cars and couldn’t edit it as it was one of those comments that went to trash for a while.
The Charger was technically a response to the success of the Mustang though, but at the time Dodge couldn’t use the A body for a specialty bodyshell for fear of cannibalizing the Barracuda and had to make due with the B body. Ironically the Charger in effect kind of was the forerunner to the intermediate sized PLC that blew up in the 70s
I agree with the theory that the 1966 Dodge Charger may have been the first, intermediate-sized, quasi-PLC, although I seriously doubt anyone cross-shopped a Charger with a Thunderbird or Riviera. As much as Chrysler tried to disguise it, the Charger’s plebian Coronet roots were all too evident. No one was going to confuse a Thunderbird or Riviera with anything else in Ford or GM’s model range.
But the Charger still wasn’t a typical musclecar in that those were all just beefed-up intermediate coupes with zero actual change in appearance. At least the Charger had a unique grille, taillights, roof , and, most importantly, a definitely upgraded interior, completely distinct from a Coronet hardtop.
And the PLC influence on the Charger wasn’t lost on Chrysler, either. It was no Grand Prix, but the 1969 Charger ‘Special Edition’ had some PLC-like luxury touches which seemed to culminate with the 1973 Charger ‘SE’ with its special, louvered, glass quarter glass treatment. But, then, when the Charger ‘did’ go full PLC with the Cordoba-based 1975 car, it flopped, badly.
As far as early, smaller PLCs go, I might add the Avanti and Mercury Cougar to that list, too.
The Challenger having good 1st year sales as opposed to the Barracuda (which had to contend with the popular Duster) is interesting because there ‘was’ a hot A-body in the Dodge line-up for 1970: the Swinger 340. The way Dodge had been compensated for not having a version of the A-body ponycar was the Dart got a hardtop and the same muscle engines as the new 1967 Barracuda. There was even a 383 available for that first year, all the way up to a 440 for 1969 (after Chicago dealer Grand Spalding Dodge had been doing the swap in 1968).
But Dodge A-body muscle had issues for 1970. For starters, the Swinger 340 was a more expensive, true hardtop with roll-down quarter windows. At least it was better equipped than the Duster 340 with standard front disc brakes and a 4-speed versus the Duster’s front drums and 3-speed. Finally, with the advent of the Challenger convertible, the Dart convertible was gone, as were any A-body big-block options. None of those worked that well, anyway, as jamming a big-block into the compact A-body engine bay didn’t allow for stuff like A/C or power steering. And the necessary smaller, restrictive exhaust manifolds meant lower horsepower so they weren’t any faster than their bigger, intermediate cousins.
But the biggest thing that probably kept musclecar buyers away from the Swinger 340 was simply that the design originated in 1967. The Challenger was new and fresh for 1970, and without the bigger price disparity between the Barracuda and Duster, it’s not much of a surprise that the 1970 Challenger actually sold pretty well.
And it also kind of takes away the theory that Chrysler screwed-up with the Duster since Dodge got the Duster-clone Demon for 1971. Surely, Chrysler execs would have known that exactly the same thing would happen to Challenger sales when Dodge buyers were offered the chance to get a much cheaper (and just as good a performer) with a Demon.
It kind of reminds me of what Dodge did during the planning stages of the 1968 Road Runner. Dodge execs were offered a copy of the Road Runner’s computer card deck that was used to spec equipment for every new car. Evidently, it’s something of a time-consuming process and it would make getting a Dodge version of the Road Runner quicker to production. But the Dodge boys declined, figuring (like many at Chrysler) that the Road Runner was going to be a dud.
When it turned out to be a hit, Dodge had to scramble to get their version (the Super Bee) into a mid-year introduction. It never sold anywhere near the numbers of the Road Runner, either. That might have been different if it had been available at the start of the model year, too.
The Charger wasn’t in the same league as a Tbird or Riv, but the intermediate PLCs to come like the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were of the same formula, both being reskinned intermediates(albeit with the wheelbase stretch) but Montes were still pretty obviously Chevelle based as well. I believe the only exterior sheetmetal shared between the 68-70 Charger and Coronet is the roof skin, everything else is unique stampings over the shared coupe structure.
I’m having trouble finding the production breakdowns but I presume high performance Darts weren’t the hottest sellers? When it comes right down to it the GTS was the ritzy quasi R/T package with the big engines and all the bells and whistles and the Swinger was essentially Dodge’s mini Roadrunner/proto-Duster 340. Like you said that 67 vintage body probably did it no favors, from today’s vantage it’s attractive but trying to think in the contest of the times its style was competitive with the Falcon Futura and Chevy II/Nova hardtops of the mid 60s, by the time Dodge was trying to match performance wits with the Nova the Nova had morphed into a semi fastback shape(similar to what the Duster would be) and the Falcon had lost its hardtop roof and any performance pretense, leaving the Dart kind of an outlier. If you were a gearhead in 1970 and walked into the Dodge dealer with the Challenger, Charger, Superbee and Coronet R/T in the showroom would you really pick the Dart? Even if you saw the light with the 340 and nimbler A body combination, you’d probably sleep on it and wander over to the Plymouth dealer to get the same car with a fresh new body in the end.
The Challenger and the Barracuda were big, fat turkeys. Chrysler knew they were doomed as soon as they hit the market. Muscle cars were dead, pony cars were dying. Compact-based coupes were where the market was going, and subcompacts were just as hot. The few thousand stripped Barracudas that Chrysler might have sold wëre dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of Dusters that were sold, year after year.
I am not normally an AMC guy, but I like this a lot. I always liked the looks of the early Hornet, and a 4 bbl 360 with a 4 speed would be a hoot in a small car like this. I had totally forgotten about these, and am not sure I have ever actually seen one in the real world.
I am a bit surprised that AMC used the term “muscle cars”. I wasn’t around yet at the time, but my understanding was that muscle car was a phrase that mostly was popularized after the actual era and at the time they were more commonly called “Super Cars”. Was that not the case? When did people start calling the big engine/light body cars muscle cars?
I believe manufacturers mostly touted them as super cars and the press mostly obliged, but I think Muscle car was informal slang for them from enthusiasts that eventually caught hold. I seem to recall an ad for either the SC/Rambler or Rebel Machine that used the term Muscle car as well.
I’m just speculating though, I was born two decades from the era, it would be funny if it turned out AMC of all car companies invented that endearing term
Always liked those! There was an orange one in my neighborhood back in the day.
From what I recall of “tinny, rattling, “Hornets”, that big , bodacious, motor would “vibrate” the cat to early oblivion.
I don’t recall the ad but I do recall a V8 Hornet was not on the minds of very many young men or women. Dusters, Darts and Demons were far more popular in the same size segment. Although by 1971 the muscle car market up here was certainly cooling down.
Yet, the 1/4 mile stats on a V8 Hornet was certainly good with the right engine and options.
It appears to me AMC with the Hornet SC 360 was aimed at the Road Runner market (or what was left of it), a performance car with trim kept to a minimum. A year earlier they had rolled out the Machine-AMC’s belated entry into the supercar market that imploded just as it was introduced.
I remember back in 1971 I saw scores of Plymouth Dusters, I can’t really say I ever saw a single SC 360. All the Hornets I saw were the econo versions with six cylinder engines.
Since only 784 SC 360 Hornets were ever made out of the 75,000 Hornets produced in 1971 hardly anyone has ever seen one including the workers on the Kenosha assembly line at the time.
This is a handsome little car, although it would have been better based on the 73 lift back, at least with this 1st gen Hornet, you get the most attractive front styling of all Hornets.
Compared to the Duster, this is much more attractive to my eyes, with it’s neat tight styling.
Usually my preference is for Mopars, but I find the rear styling of the Duster a bit awkward, to me it was no improvement over the Dart Hardtops and 2nd gen Barracudas.
Agree with the comment by Daniel M. about the attractive wheel designs from AMC, they had nice alloy spoke steering wheels as well.
Would choose this over a Duster any day, just install a Torqueflite if it was an auto. for the best of both worlds.
Did those cars really have decent, let alone impressive power? I recall driving a few AMC V8s of that era and they weren’t much. I had a Jeep pickup with a Rambler/AMC 327 rated at 250HP which in reality wasn’t more than half that, and both are gross ratings. Yes, pickup, heavy, but light in the rear. Not trying to do burnouts but even with a hard launch, the back tires never broke loose. Top speed was under 90. Perhaps the 360 did have some giddyup, but even if it did, it had reputation to overcome.
The AMC 327 was a basically unrelated engine to the 360, the latter was their second gen V8 design with better breathing, more displacement potential and lighter weight(it was sort of a medium block like the Pontiac and Ford FE engines), they were much more potent performers than the first gen AMC V8s and competitive with other manufacturers in their brief heyday until like most engines lowered compression and got choked with smog equipment.
Let A H open up the 291c heads on the little 360 , then let’s talk.
The only thing I wanna say is it’s not a bad look car, as far as performance I couldn’t tell ya never been in one and I personally would never own one just because I’m big into Mopars but I look at it this way when we go to a cruise night car show their good to have around because we need diversity otherwise we would get sick of looking at the same old Dusters, Novas, Camaros, and so on, good for the guys who love AMC’s I love to see them out and about on the road and show’s!!