(first posted 1/22/2014) Sitting in a San Pedro Service Station parking lot, this little car looks somewhat unremarkable. Despite that, this 1957 Rambler Super V-8 marks the beginning of a very successful venture for American Motors.
As this car is over fifty years old, it represents a completely different time in the American car industry. Those of us born after 1960 may not remember the broad variety of cars available in the 1950s, but in addition to the big three, there were at least SIX viable independent nameplates (plus some not so viable nameplates such as Willys and Tucker).
This collage represents those six independent makes. In 1950, the nameplates were all roughly equal. Each manufacturer brought strengths and weaknesses to the table, but they all appeared to have a fighting chance in the market. However, this would change very quickly.
To balance these strengths and weaknesses, several manufacturers chose the merger path. In doing so they hoped to build on existing strengths, while minimizing weaknesses. One of the first mergers occurred in 1954, when Nash and Hudson combined to form American Motors.
Changes occurred immediately, and in 1955 all Hudson models were replaced with Nash-based designs. The new full sized Hudson included unique sheet metal to differentiate it from the Nash, but on the compact side, American Motors simply placed Hudson badges on their compact Rambler (they also did this with the subcompact Metropolitan, but that’s a different story).
Our featured car arrived the next year (1956) and included either a Nash or Hudson badge on the hood. In addition to our four door sedan and the four door hardtop pictured above, the ’56 Nash (or Hudson) Rambler also came as a wagon. This four door hardtop with the optional continental spare tire on the rear and maybe a few sandbags in the trunk helps to makes it look a bit longer and lower than the standard sedan.
These “All-New All-American” cars used the 108″ wheelbase from the prior Rambler four door (for 1956, AMC dropped the two door model with its 100″ wheelbase). Using the longer wheelbase brought AMC’s compacts somewhat closer to the dimensions of the typical US car, and the fresh styling eliminated the older cars’ rounded sheet metal, replacing it with the angular styling popular in the mid-fifties. Having identified a substantial niche in the market for a more compact sedan that could still seat six (in a pinch), these cars sold quite well. For the 1956 model year, they still wore Nash and Hudson badges, despite being otherwise identical. The loss of the two door model led to a small drop in overall Rambler sales, but four door sales held their own and pointed AMC in a new direction.
This new direction was hard to avoid: from 1954 to 1957, Hudson and Nash large car sales dropped precipitously, while the Rambler nameplate caught fire. Recognizing that the compact car segment provided them with their only viable business plan, American Motors made big changes in 1957. Among these was the plan to drop the Nash and Hudson badges and sell the cars under its own brand, Rambler. They also put plans in place to lengthen the Rambler’s wheelbase and add a new upscale model (the Ambassador).
Given there were full sized Nash and Hudson models still available in 1957, why did the company need a larger Rambler? Simple–as of 1958, there would be no more Nash or Hudson automobiles. This 1957 Rambler represents not only the first Rambler, but also the launching point for all AMC products moving forward.
This image shows all the elements critical to the success of this car. In addition to a Rambler nameplate that promised economy, Ramblers came with an upgraded trim level (the Rambler Super) and a new V-8 engine. These elements helped deliver a car buyers were looking for in the late 50s.
This V-8 had been available in the full sized Nash and Hudson models in 1956, but ’57 marked the first year it came in a Rambler. It displaced 250 cubic inches, was rated at 190 hp, and would go on to provide AMC with V-8 power right up through 1966, when the new AMC V8 engine family began to replace it. The oft-told story is that this engine was originally conceived at Kaiser, but when Kaiser began to flounder, its engineer moved to AMC, along with the blueprints. Undoubtedly, it was developed further at AMC.
A larger displacement version with 327 cubic inches powered the legendary 1957 Rambler Rebel, often considered to be the first “muscle car”, with its 255 hp (the 288 hp fuel injected version never went into production) and excellent power-to-weight ratio .
While the interior doesn’t look so “Super,” it met the requirements of the day. When it came to features, Ramblers did not short their owners compared to other manufacturers. They offered good ventilation systems, and a four speed “Flash-Away” automatic transmission option, actually a GM Hydramatic. In late 1957, the Three-speed Borg-Warner Flash-O-Matic replaced the Flash-Away. Not much to hang your hat on today, but critical technology at that time.
There’s much to be said about the styling of the ’56 and ’57 Ramblers. We could go with kitschy, or highly stylized, or appropriate for the times. It’s hard to argue the cars were ugly, since they sold quite well. Still, that’s the direction I’m leaning. Perhaps the styling makes more sense if you lived through the fifties. If so, I simply lack perspective, and I’ll leave further discussion on the subject for the comments section.
So to conclude, how did this Rambler fare? For a time, very well. As of 1957, five of our six independent nameplates were gone- Frazer, Kaiser, Packard, Nash and Hudson. Studebaker remained standing, but only by offering stripped versions of their big car, sold at fire sale prices. Our image from the early fifties now contains two badges, with the Rambler badge eclipsing poor Studebaker.
In 1958, Studebaker attempted to leapfrog AMC with their “new” Lark. While this new compact increased Studebaker sales, it was a case of too little, too late. Too broaden the Rambler line, AMC had brought back their 100″ wheelbase platform as the Rambler American. This reskinned compact helped overall sales and also staved off Studebaker’s charge.
If we look at the numbers, we can see how well this little Rambler performed. From 1950 to 1957, no independent nameplate averaged more than 150,000 cars per year. In contrast, the Rambler brand averaged over 195,000 cars per year in the final three years of the decade. A solid showing, which created the financial foundation needed to keep AMC going into the 1980s.
Very good catch. This Rambler sitting next to a Camaro is quite the contrast.
Is it ugly? No. Is it unique? Yes. There are certainly a lot of different themes going on, but it does come across as cohesive. There are several formal elements to it, such as the upright tail lights. Unlike the Matador coupe from the other day, this style aged well.
That is certainly one well worn drivers seat.
Great historical background Dave. While this car isn’t really my taste in styling among other 1950s cars, it’s nonetheless unique. Maybe I’d have warmed up to it better if I were alive when these were common sights on the road. That 4-speed automatic is news to me. Interesting option and advanced technology for the 50s.
Yes, the original Hydra-Matic had four forward speeds. Aaron Severson has an excellent history, at http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/hydramatic-history-part-1/. Amazing that, at that time, GM was large and profitable enough to support TWO distinct automatic transmission programs (three, if you count PowerGlide and Dynaflow separately).
I’m no engineer – far from it – but I’ve always assumed that the Turbo-Hydramatic employed three forward speeds not only for cost, but because it included a torque converter, plus engines had far more torque by 1964, which I’m told can mask a lack of gears.
I’m rather curious how anyone could NOT count the PG and the DynaSlow separately. Buick’s automatic made it to market a little before Chevy’s Powerglide, and was actually a semi-automatic four-speed tranny. Most Buick drivers were content to let their straight-eight simply power their slushbox in the two higher gears, obviating the need (or the desire) for the two lower gears and the shifting from Lo to High involved therewith.
I had a Powerglide in my 1965 Corvair (my first car, after having learned on the family’s Ambassador with the B-W Flash-O-Matic) and initially missed the third gear…but, to be honest, the PG was flexible enough with the proper final-drive ratio to allow a top speed of around 100 mph. (At that point, had the car had wings it would have been airborne. It really needed a chin spoiler.) Back before the 1973 gasoline shortages,l when regular was 28¢/gallon and driving a car that got 24mpg…who cared? Certainly not this 17-year-old. I could drive for a week for $3. Working at A&P, that was 1½ hours’ worth of take-home pay. Not too rotten.
My eventual college roommate had a 1966 Chevy Biscayne with the 250 CID six and PG. What a slug. So was the car. However, the way Larry drove, it was the perfect combination. One thing to be said about that car – he drove it for eight years, well past graduation and only sold it when he was married and with a newborn daughter, and decided (I think Lydia decided it, really) that they needed a four-door vehicle newer than 20 years old. That Chevy was that bulletproof.
Your mixing up different transmissions. The four speed automatic was GM’s Hydramatic, as used by Cadillac, Old and Pontiac and some Ramblers. The Buick Dynaflow was essentially the same as the Powerglide: a wide-range torque converter originally using just one gear in normal driving. Low had to be selected manually. Later versions did start in Low, amking them a two-speed.
The “4-speed automatic” you reference was GM’s Hydramatic, first introduced in 1940 — hardly advanced technology for the 50s. Not only was Hydramatic used in Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs, as well as four of the six independent makes mentioned at the beginning of this piece. And let us not forget Rolls-Royce licensed it too.
Lincoln also used the Hydro-Matic in the early fifties. These various automatic transmissions all had different characteristics. I believe Studebaker was out of the gate (for an independent) first with an automatic in 1950. I believe it was from BW. Ford began in 1951 with their Ford-O-Matic. Also from BW. They claimed it was a three speed, but generally started in second and shifted to high, unless Lo (low) was selected manually. In 1955 Ford claimed a first gear start by flooring the accelerator on take off. My dad had a ’55 Sunliner with power pack and Ford-O-Matic and I don’t recall him ever flooring it for first gear engagement; he always shifted into Lo then upshifted to Dr (drive). Cbhrysler’s PowerFlite was a 2 speed. TorqueFlite was a true 3 speed.
Not an ugly car,I’ll agree it’s unique.There were a lot of good lookers for 56 so it’s going to be overshadowed by the opposition,especially the Mopars. An important car as it saved Rambler.It’s not about the size of the dog in the fight,it’s about the size of fight in the dog .
AMC definitely had the most off-the-wall styling for 56 and 57 (ok, they were tied with Mercury for ’57). Then again, they had to. They needed to be noticed over the Big 3. Actually, it was probably a very smart move: On one hand you’d appeal to the ‘economical’ (er, nickle-squeezing cheap bastard?) crowd who were oblivious to styling in their daily spreadsheeting of automotive costs. On the other hand, you had something for the trendy set, so they wouldn’t notice they’d bought an economy car.
Side view on the 55-56’s was actually quite attractive for the time. Only in the front did you start to get seriously overdone. That red/black/white four door hardtop is probably the only really attractive three-tone paint job done during the period.
Imagine if all SIX had merged in 1950, with the result being like that GM lifelong customer philosophy (what was that called anyways – my Google-fu is weak). All under the aegis of American Motors. Would Nash have been like Chevrolet with Packard being the equivalent of Cadillac?
I had always figured that Studebaker would be on the lowest rung. Stude always seemed to sell a lot more strippers than Nash/Rambler did, and I think that Nash/Rambler had developed a better quality reputation by 1955-56.
Interesting question, though. All of them had tried to cultivate a mid-priced image, and there would have been an inevitable shakeout of a company made up of DeSotos and Mercurys.
My vote would be (low to high) Studebaker, Hudson, Kaiser, Nash and Packard. Frazier would have disappeared.
When we talk about the independents through the fifties, the key issue was the Ford and Chevy sales war in ’53 and ’54. Discount pricing stole away market share, and reduced margins. Once the Big Two gobbled up market share, all six small companies were over capacity. Unfortunately, when dsicussing merger, every independent came with at least one factory.
Merging two companies with two factories meant one factory would have to close (which occurred with both Nash-Hudson and Studebaker-Packard). If all six companies merged, at least four factories would have to close- A painful prospect that probably would not happen.
Profitability in the automotive industry is pretty simple- If you use at least 85 % of a factory’s production capacity, you make money. Crappy car, good car, it doesn’t really matter. If you sell enough units to keep the conveyer belts rolling, you’re good to go (For an example of this, check out Ford’s 1947 profits). In 1956, an American Motors with six factories could not meet this 85 % threshold.
The other merger (Kaiser and Willys) also resulted in closure of the Kaiser Willow Run plant (or actually a transfer of it to General Motors).
Another factor was the rapid turnover of new models and new engines from the big companies. The independents offered an impressive array of new models right after the war, but could not afford to keep up with the changes in styles and trends afterwards.
American Motors was originally conceived as a Studebaker-Hudson-Nash-Packard merger, which was one reason why S-P merged. But George Mason died, Romney took over, and he wisely wanted nothing to do with S-P, leaving Jim Nance out in the cold.
Personally, I think Chrysler should have bought Packard at the end of the war, and built a new plant on the Packard proving ground site in Utica, Packard did build a jet and later car engine plant there. Would have put Chrysler firmly in the luxury market, something Imperial never did. And if WPC was still running things then, he might have done it.
Was also musing that if Joe Frazier had gained control of Willys, as his mentor Walter P. Chrysler dis with Maxwell-Chalmers, you might have had Kaiser-Willys from the start, the Ace with the need for the Henry J, and maybe enough money to tool up a V-8, a hardtop, and a convertible for the ’51.
Wow – so many thoughts here jogged by your excellent article on this fascinating find.
1. The Rambler era was so confusing in a period of clear brands and model names. Was Rambler a brand or a model? It took a long time, but by the 70s, AMC became the brand. I guess the Rambler was just the Rambler. This bothered me as a kid.
2. I don’t much care for the styling. The angular greenhouse looks so much better with the later (59-60) cars that traded the soft curves in the lower body for more angles and creases. Also, that Pininfarina front end (that went back to the Nash-Healey) was just never attractive.
3. Everyone wants to give Rambler credit for creating this “new” size of car, but they forget that the Studebaker Champion had been making cars like this since 1939. The problem was that by 1956-57, the Rambler was a much better car. Even then, the 57 Rambler outsold Studebaker by fewer than 30,000 units. Mechanically, both of them were quite similar (meaning outdated). The only difference was that one had a fresh new body (that was not a known shivering rustbucket) and the other was plainly a lipstick job on a car with quality issues.
The Rambler really hit its stride in 1959-60 when it started selling in a range of 375-450K units annually, figures that no independent had ever hit before. Even at Studebaker’s peak around 1950 or so, it was still not selling 300K cars a year. Even with the Lark in 1959-60 (its two best years by far), Stude was only selling around 120K cars a year.
4. Is this the only V8 powered car ever offered with 4 lug wheels?
Ford’s Fox body V-8s used four lug wheels, so no.
The ’57 Rambler was “outdated”? Even though it rode on 108″ wb like its predecessor, the ’56 Rambler was pretty much a clean sheet car. The suspension was all new, ditching the king pins in the front and the leaf springs in the back. And the whole unibody structure was of course new.
FWIW, the press raved about the Rambler’s handling at the time, as well as its space-efficient body. Now some of that may have been their intrinsic enthusiasm for something new, but for the times, the Rambler was relatively lithe.
Unfortunately, by 1962 or so, standards had changed….
Yes, the unibody was all new, but how much else was? Didn’t this use the trunnion suspension and the torque tube drive from the older Nash? The same old prewar Nash six (albeit converted to OHV)? Good serviceable components that replaced even older designs, but hardly cutting edge stuff by 1956.
The trunnion front suspension and coils spring/torque tube rear suspension were new to the ’52 Nash, but that’s only a couple of years back. And they were both more modern than the typical king-pin front suspension and leaf spring rear. There’s nothing wrong with a torque tube rear suspension, since it allows coil springs. Peugeot used that same set up until the late eighties, with great success. And ball joint front ends weren’t exactly common yet, or?
Admittedly, Rambler stuck to the trunnion front suspension too long.
The engine wasn’t exactly cutting edge, but that was probably a good thing.
Everything you say is true. I guess my point was that most everything about the 56 Rambler outside of the body was carried over from the 52 Nash, and even that car had been an extremely conservative design that was not exactly a leading edge car in 1952. By 1956 the mechanical layout was becoming dated. Ball joints may not have been understood as the wave of the future in 1952, but they certainly were by 1956. Even stalwart Buick ditched the torque tube after 1960. This car was certainly more modern than the current Studebaker, though, and even if dated was a good, serviceable conservative design.
Didnt Plymouth still use a pre-war flathead six until 1960? I guess with torsion bars and sexy sheetmetal, it didnt matter too much.
Mopar last offered a flathead in 1959 in cars (the Power Wagon used it thru 1968). Studebaker used a flathead 6 thru 1960.
“Is this the only V8 powered car ever offered with 4 lug wheels?” I was wondering that myself, I cannot recall another.
And, quite a few of the AMC/Rambler 327 engines were sold for marine use, I have worked on several over the years. Although personally I always thought they would have worked better at the end of the anchor chain….
Let’s be honest, it’s ugly. Kind of cool in it’s own 1950s campy, Twilight Zone sort of way, but still ugly.
Please consider the entire market.
The Big Three had quality problems when they leapfrogged over one another during the late 1950s. They chased one another into a corner and then the Great 1958 Recession wiped out 40% of the auto sales. Chrysler, GM and Ford invested millions at the same time the market tanked.
What Studebaker and AMC did was be there to pick up the pieces until the Market believed that they could drive one of their Big Three cars without it leaking, rusting, losing transmissions, blowing gasket heads, or any of the other myriad problem Detroit’s jet-styled offerings suffered from. Once the Big Three was able to calm the quality jitters the Market had with their products, by say, 1962 – Studebaker and Rambler’s days were numbered.
What we see during this time was a spotlight on Studebaker and Rambler and these companies providing the Market with sensible economical higher quality dependable cars. Studebaker was already running on vapors by the time the Lark was released so the Market expected it to be gone when it finally closed it’s doors in 1965. AMC had a bigger head of steam, but failed to offer the Market more than a competent compact car and a couple “me-too” products.
AMC needed to stay focused on its compact car and offer the Market a compact car with a/c standard and the AMC Buyer’s Protection Plan a decade before it did. When AMC shot their wad in 1965 with a broader line of automobiles, they spread themselves out too thin and blew assets that would have better served them with a better American/Hornet when 1974 made driving smaller a must-do. AMC needed a real subcompact Gremlin, not a sawed off Hornet and they needed to do FWD instead of a Matador Coupe or Pacer. AMC needed to have gone with 4WD a decade sooner than it did.
AMC didn’t do enough to put anything substantial under their me-too car designs. AMC did not give the Market a reason to buy their compact over the competition. Window dressings only go so far.
Roy Abernethy gambled AMC’s future and lost the corporation when he took over from Romney. He failed to give the Market a vehicle unavailable from the Big Three. He wasted Rambler’s profits on a 1965 line up that wasn’t special to anyone except himself. AMC was wiped out by the time the Board forced him out.
We mustn’t give Romney a pass here. He had the extreme good fortune to inherit a well-run company, and then to have a product that was unlike almost anything else being made. After a banner 1955, the economy began to cool, and hit bottom in 1958. Things never really recovered until about 1963-64, but during those years, AMC was there with a quality mid-sized car when nobody but Studebaker was there, and Studebaker was by then not very competitive for several reasons. By 1960, the big 3 were diving headlong into the markets that AMC had enjoyed almost to themselves, so I don’t think that the Romney strategy would have worked out long term. AMC’s strength was at the lower end of the market where profit margins are thinner, with no expensive cars that they could make a lot of money on. Forget all of the other stuff, but in a world full of Valiants, Novas, Fairlanes and Chevelles, the basic Ramblers were becoming less and less competitive as the 60s wore on. AMC never had the style of GM, the engineering prowess or mechanical durability of Chrysler or the market savvy of Ford. Without Jeep, they would probably have only lasted 10 years longer than Studebaker.
Maybe the only real niche would have been luxury in a smaller size (like the Ambassador in the 60s) but by the 70s, the big 3 would be there too.
Romney wasn’t liked by his peers because he wasn’t a car guy. He was from an entirely different branch of autodom – an auto association. He becomes George Mason’s pet at Nash who recognizes what no one else did and gives Romney a position at Nash that turns every other up and comer in the Industry green with envy. Add to that Romney’s sincere wholesome lifestyle and loving family image and you have a guy who was not like anyone else in the Industry. Romney had to prove himself and had a lot of guys rooting for his failure.
When Mason died only Romney believed in the old man’s vision of a small European styled American car. When the rest of the Industry was trying to ape the GM 5-Brand marketing strategy, Romney was trying to fulfill Mason’s dream of an American Motors that brought on board US Independent auto makers into one fold. Problem was, Romney wasn’t the right guy to make that happen with his unpopularity and insularity. No country clubbing or cocktail party man, Romney was too goody-goody for the guys at Studebaker Packard, Willys or Kaiser.
So Romney decided to see the sales figures on the wall and do what no one else was doing in 1956 – voluntarily killing off brands and consolidating Kenosha’s production under the Rambler brand. While the other Independants were on their knees praying for some kind of miracle, Romney cut his losses and gambled AMC’s future on Rambler. No one else was doing that in the Industry and most were hoping for Romney’s failure.
Then Romney began attacking AMC’s competition as chrome-encrusted bloated dinosaurs at the same time that Americans were turning from lower, wider bigger finned cars and towards Beetles and compacts. The whole thing worked and Romney does deserve credit for Rambler’s success.
Romney went into politics and his entire public career continued with the similar level of sincerity and wholesomeness he displayed at Nash and AMC. He was the self-made millionaire Boy Scout who went into the Auto Industry every day then home to his wife and family every night riding in a car anyone with a average income could afford. He was a true believer. As a Mormon missionary and elder, these characteristics aren’t actually unusual. He lived a faith that was not welcomed by most, so being the outsider wasn’t anything he was a novice at being. When America began expressing its acceptance of diversity and individuality, naturally Romney was right where the Country was.
I don’t know what he would have done if he stayed at AMC, but most likely as a true believer, he would have continued making a powerful compact car focused on affordability, frugality and family life. He would have found a subcompact replacement for the Metro and would have AMC right where it needed to be when the oil crisis occurred in 1974 – in my opinion.
Generally agreeing with VanillaDude’s what-if alternate history, I’ve long thought (with 20-20 hindsight) George Mason’s concept of a quality well-appointed compact Rambler would have continued to succeed if they had stuck to it through the 1960s and beyond.
As proof I offer Volvo. Rambler should have been America’s Volvo. Sensible, solidly built, well appointed. For a couple of decades Volvo wagons were the archetypal “soccer mom” wheels in our better-off suburbs. I’ve looked for Volvo’s US sales figures without finding them, but I’m pretty sure they picked up about where Rambler left off in the 1970s and grew. Volvo was the middle-class anti-brougham. They took a Rambler-like niche Detroit never quite touched and thrived for many years.
Put Kenosha grilles on these ’71 cars and they look like seventies Ramblers, don’t you think?
It sounds good in theory, and it might have worked to an extent. And in hindsight, that might have been the best strategy, because it also would have saved them money too, that they could ill afford for their mid-60s expansion.
But there was more to it than that. Volvo had already earned its reputation as both a sporty and well-built car in the 50s, during the great Import Boom.
In my mind, there is nothing any American car company could realistically (key word) have done to forestall the imports in the 60s and later, as it was as much a cultural thing as their intrinsic qualities.It was cool to drive an import, and that coolness soon spread like a wild fire, especially when the Japanese piled in.
But it’s possible, up to a point, that they could have carved out a survivable niche. But for how long? Volvo was a European company, and drivers increasingly wanted European levels of handling, interior design, etc.
Yes, the Swedes and all things Scandinavian became very cool in the late sixties. Maybe it was their movies…..
Peter Schickele parodied that with “I am Curiously Yellow,” by PDQ Bach of course.
Ah the sideshow that was Rambler…it was the underdog that wouldn’t hunt. Although in retrospect, I still kinda admire the things…and keeping with the domestic competition in the era, not a bad option. I personally had two Ramblers, a ’63 990 ambassador hardtop and a ’65 770 Classic hardtop, both with the 327…i really liked the Amby for its size and appointments, but both were pretty cool…compared to the big 3, the rustproofing and build quality were better, the exterior trim better, as it was mostly stainless, the interior decent but more austere with cardboard headliners, but the torque tube drive lines, BW trans and trunnion front ends were a real disappointment vs the Chrysler offerings in particular. The 327 was torquey, but heavy, although one neat aspect for restorers today is the whole driveline came out from the body by removing only a few locating bolts and lifting the body IIRC. But then AMC came along, and but for the Javelin, and the American, i kind lost interest, and things got real strange…I still remember looking at the then new Pacer with dad, and just didn’t get it. Even though mom had a Gremlin x with the v8, the rattles, the quality of the interior and trim we’re awful in looks and feel, and I never paid attention to the marque again…but there was that ’63….
First: “Is this the only V8 powered car ever offered with 4 lug wheels?” I was wondering that myself, I cannot recall another.”
MANY Fox body Fords had four lugs, including V8 models. I’m not exactly sure the rhyme or reason behind which ones did and didn’t. The (especially earlier) Mustang GT’s had them (notably with TRX sizing), but the Lincoln Mark VII did not.
Back to AMC: I love the old Ramblers. There is something just simplistic and honest about them without appearing as a “cheap” car. This continued to be an AMC trademark for many years until they lost their way on their less expensive cars in the early 70’s. The Hornet, Gremlin, and Pacer were not the bastion of build quality (fit and finish, interior details, etc). They made improvements with the Spirit, Concord and Eagle, but it was late to regain lost customers over ten years.
This is such a cool old car. So different than the baroque looks coming out of Detroit. Compared to this, I actually prefer the more contemporary looking ’59’s, but even in ‘Super’ guise with a V-8, this represents an honest to goodness car with a formula not easily replicated.
To understand this Rambler’s front-end styling, you have to see it in context of the rapid movement of American headlights, from perched up on fenders in 1955, to fully integrated alongside the grille in 1965. This ’57 Rambler, like this gorgeous ’55 Nash, was one of the first mainstream sedans with its lights in the grille.
Try to forget the looks of all cars after 1957 if you can, and you might get a better idea of how this Rambler looked to people then.
Agreed, and it was undoubtedly the work of Pininfarina, who was the design consultant for the company then. That front end design is almost straight off the Nash-Healey, designed by Pinin.
Not surprisingly, I happen to like much about the design of this Rambler, like the Nashes of this period, It might have been a bit better if it had stayed a bit more understated; more like a Peugeot instead of trying to outdo Lincoln and such with all the flamboyant three-tone paint jobs.
You are correct about the Pininfarina origins of this front end. Here is his version of a Nash Prototype from 1951.
I’ve never seen that one before, but it looks incredible!! I’m a huge fan of the Pininfarina Nashes and ’56-’57 Rambler, but I don’t think they’re exactly attractive cars.
In doing some research last night, I read that the 1956 Rambler was originally intended for 1957, which makes sense given how short a life the previous Rambler had. Romney knew that the Big Three were going to build compacts by 1960, so he wanted to maximize the amount of time for Rambler to carve out a profitable niche in the market. It was a heroic rush job to move up the timetable almost a full year.
One of the plans was to give the hardtop a retractable rear window, a la Breezeway, but (unfortunately) that didn’t make it due to the rush.
First automatic car I ever rode in as a kid was 57 Rambler sort of pink colour with black it wasnt a new car but it was newer and more modern than my dads 54 Vauxhall that much I do recall and the driver didnt move the gear lever as we rode along that was really new.
Well, technically Packard was still selling cars in 57’/58′ (the ones usually referred to as Packardbakers), though the logo would only be a few pixels across.
The big Ramblers had ball joints in front starting in 1962. Ball joints came to the American series when it was almost totally new in 1964. The big cars lost the torque tube rear suspension when they were given new bodies in 1967. The AMC 290-401 V-8 was introduced in 1967, and the 199-232-258-242 six cylinder engine was introduced late in 1964, I believe. Chrysler used it for years after swallowing up AMC.
My family bought 12 AMC cars between 1960 and 1974. Some of these cars were driven in excess of 100K miles. All of them were reliable, economical cars that served us well.
I found one purveyor of obsolete AMC parts that lists upper trunions for at least the six cylinder Classic and Ambassador up through 1966. Could there have been a difference between six and V8 cars, or did they go to one trunnion and one ball joint per side for a time?
Another source lists upper trunnions for the 64-69 American and for 68-69 Javelins.
They had lower ball joints with the upper trunions until at least ’69 after they went to ball joints for the lower A arms. As long as the trunions are greased they very rarely wear out. My first ’63 had over 140.000 miles on it when I totaled it and the front end was still tight. Here is a picture.
I owned several AMC Concords in the early ’90s and of course they all used the Ford-based front suspension design with upper and lower ball joints. I am curious as to how the earlier trunnion system compared in terms of steering, ride and handling?
Rambler is dear to SE Wisconsin. My wife’s grandfather was an engineer in Kenosha and the body factory was in Milwaukee just down the road from my High School. Used to have family visit “up north” and sleep in the Rambler because it had fold flat seats you could bunk in. Good cars. Wish they would have survived.
Having the headlights in the grille was ahead of its time; others followed in the ’60’s. I find it odd that AMC abandoned this in ’58. Another thing ahead of its time was the parking lights that stayed on with the headlights, which was mandatory by ’68. I thought this front end was ugly as a kid, but was, at the same time, fascinated by it. By the time I was 55, I bought one.
Very nice looking Rambler! Are there more pictures anywhere? Thanks!
Cool looking wagon!
I miss Rambler as a brand. They provided a high-quality car that was simple and inexpensive to maintain while being affordable to any reasonably successful person. If I were to buy a Rambler, I would go for the 1958 Ambassador. It may still have the old-hat long hood philosophy derived from Nash, but compared to the other behemoths of the year, it’s downright trim.
That ’58 Ambassador is actually quite a nice looking car, and quite attractive in the black with white paint combo. It also had a much better build quality than most of the Big Three. Count me as a fan.
Since this first ran (and since I read it in writing another Rambler post) it occurs to me that I cannot recall ever seeing one of these 1956-57 Ramblers. I am sure they were around some before I was paying attention.
These actually did not sell all that well before 1958. If you look at the chart, these sold about 80K units in 1957 which was about what Nash and Hudson together had sold in 1954. The good news was that it was a single car built in a single plant, so 80k of one car is a lot more of a money maker than 40k of two very different cars.
This is the rare car that looks better after a facelift (1958) or two (1961). The pudgy lower body just doesn’t go with that crisp, angular greenhouse.
If I recall correctly, the 1956 Rambler debuted late in the model year. It wasn’t a mid-year model, but it wasn’t available during the “normal” fall introduction time. AMC had some trouble getting it into production, no doubt due to the rushed time frame.
Rambler sales began ramping up in May 1957. This happened concurrently with a cooling of demand for the Big Three’s 1957 models – particularly the 1957 Mopars.
A V8 in a 1956 Rambler? That’s news to me, but the emblem confirms it. I have never seen one of those either, although its unusual location doesn’t exactly attract attention.
Actually, according to American Cars, 1946–1959, Every Model, Year by Year, a V8 was not offered in the Rambler line – just the Six.
The feature car is a ’57.
Arguably these Ramblers with their 108″ wheelbase were the first mid-sized American automobiles, ahead of the 1962 Ford Fairlane.
I recall seeing lots of these as a child in the 1960s. They seemed especially popular with senior citizens. I remember one of my grandmother’s friends trying to persuade her (my grandmother) that she should take up driving again (my grandmother had quit driving in the 1940s) and get herself a Rambler automatic. “All you had to do is steer and push the brake and the accelerator,” she’d tell my grandmother. But my grandmother never drove again.
By the 1970s they had dropped the “Rambler” name and everything became “AMC,” but there were still old people around who called them “Nashes”.
“Arguably these Ramblers with their 108″ wheelbase were the first mid-sized American automobiles, ahead of the 1962 Ford Fairlane.”
I used to think this too until I realized that the 56 Rambler’s 108 inch wheelbase was 1) identical to that of the 4 door Rambler American of 1954 and 2) In the same ballpark with (or identical to) the Falcon, Valiant, Corvair & Lark. The 62 Fairlane was a 114 inch wb car. It is interesting how the styling on these Ramblers makes them look big while that of the 62 Fairlane makes them look small.
Problem. Marketing 101. In the early 50’s, Nash and Hudson were their own companies. In the mid 50’s, it was a Nash or a Hudson as part of the same company. In the late 50’s it was a Rambler. After 1969 it was an AMC, and after 1983 some were AMC’S but some were Renault. Jeep was in the soup too. Let’s just go to a Ford dealer where the Ford’s are just Ford’s.
I remember these as a kid, and the styling at the time seemed to be too derivative of the, by then, old fashioned Pininfarina bathtub stying of the early 50’s Nashes. But I rather like the look of them now. They may be a little odd, but they seem more solid and less frivolous than some of the big three products (the 15 inch wheels help). They certainly had ’50’s pizazz in their colour schemes and trim applications, and from a distance of 60 years they almost seem fresh. Perhaps their deadly sin was that they projected ‘short and tall’ in a market that was fascinated by long and low. But they come across as an inherently sensible package, with a measure of flash for fun. The hardtop wagons were especially attractive.
I think it’s very cool looking. A tad weird and very unique. The landscape is more interesting with this in it.
While I liked the large Nash styling (especially in ’57), the Rambler became attractive in 1958. I especially liked the 1959s and, to this day, think the ’59 through ’62 to be quite attractive. Styling is so personal. I think Studebaker really got ugly in ’56 and ’57. The Lark, new for the 1959 model year, was rather attractive. And, please quit picking on Mercury! While ’58 can be skipped (as it can for the ’58 Olds), I loved the ’57, ’59 and ’60 big Mercs.
IS THIS FOR SALE?
Yes