Windshield reads: “250 under cost, New ’65!”
With only about 10K Marlins selling in 1965, I guess dealers just had to find a way to move these out of the lot.
Now, from this angle -and this angle only- the Marlin looks kind of OK. A pretty neat visual trick from the photographer, and it almost works.
For those in need of reminding, compare that 3/4 view with the actual profile, taken from a previous post on the Marlin by Paul:
Wow, that’s quite a different view! Nice trick Mr. photographer, you almost fooled me!
Too bad that buyers had a nasty habit of walking around a car before purchasing. No sales solely by photos in those days. If only eBay had existed back then …
Further reading:
Yes, the ’65 and ’66 were rather ungainly looking from the side. However, the redesigned ’67 got the relationship between the body and swoopy greenhouse to click.
Yeah, AMC got the proportions right for the 1967 Marlin. I’d even go so far as to suggest it might have (finally) been in the same league as the fastback Impala and Galaxy.
Unfortunately, the new, stacked-headlight front-end wasn’t there yet. And with the new Javelin just around the corner, well, I don’t think anyone at AMC realistically thought the Marlin was anything but a dead-end.
I agree. the 69 Ambassador front clip would have worked well with the 67 Marlin body. Might have been a good PLC for AMC. However, fastbacks were a passing styling fad.
I wonder if a 1969 Ambassador doghouse will bolt-up to a 1967 Marlin. That would make for a very interesting custom.
And although fastbacks with an extreme rake were, indeed, on the way out by the early seventies, sloped rear windows still hung on pretty much until GM’s 1978 formal roof intermediates replaced the colonnades. The last hurrah for fastbacks was likely the poorly styled (and received) 1978 Buick and Olds ‘aeroback’ cars (although the ’77-’79 Caprice coupe with its ‘hot-wire’ rear window wasn’t bad).
The first photo emphasizes a constant Nash oddity, which continued long into the Rambler era: Separate vents under the grille. Other carmakers added extra openings under the bumper where they were less obvious, but Nash/AMC consistently put the vents between the grille and the bumper. Even the Metro had them.
Chrysler did that too, 68-69 Coronets and Satellites immediately come to mind
I thought they were awesome! Loved the “tutone ones”. Rode in a blue one with white inside ,back about “1973”.
Recall it being a bit “rumbly”.
You had to be a pretty dedicated AMC dweeb to buy one of these over one of the many much more desirable cars available for about the same money back in the middle1960s.
I know that many commenters over the past decade have considered the ’65 Fairlane to be the one ’65 model that was a definite styling swing and a miss, but I have to imagine that the Marlin has been mentioned. I don’t mind either car, but I understand the sentiment.
Were there any others?
From a front three-quarter view the Marlin doesn’t look too bad until you the see the letters “rambler” on the front of the hood. The side profile unfortunately shows how bad the proportuned the design worked. All in all, I thought the showcar version of the Tarpon was a much better design. Too bad AMC didn’t go with that instead.
The Dodge Charger had that same weird “fastback” (humpback). They’re both weird looking. How didn’t the designers see it? Here’s another weirdo styling thing 74,75,76, 77 & 78 Ford Mustang with the bulbous front fenders and the tiny little wheels under the wheel arch. WTF.
55 years later….still hideous. What the hell was AMC thinking?