(first posted 4/30/2014) Automakers have always been happy to borrow ideas from their competitors and proudly claim them as their own. It’s a trick even the proudest of parents have pulled when conceiving a new model, and one which has given birth to a Deadly Sin on more than one occasion. AMC, whose struggle has been well documented on Curbside Classic, found itself an unenviable position after the departure of its inimitable chairman, George Romney, who made hay by poking fun at the “dinosaurs in the driveway” produced by the Big Three, and exhorting the industry to make smaller cars.
As is often said, “be careful what you wish for.” By the mid-1960s, GM, Ford and Chrysler were offering an array of compacts and intermediates aimed right at the Rambler American, Classic and Ambassador. Romney’s successor, Roy Abernethy, was determined to meet this challenge directly and move AMC away from what he called the “Romney” image.
The 1968 Ambassador SST sedan (AMC having dropped the Rambler moniker for the Ambassador after 1965) bears Abernethy’s fingerprints. This body style debuted for 1967 as part of what AMC called the “Now Cars.” The “Now” Ambassador and Rebel sported longer and wider bodies, along with a new four-link, trailing-arm rear suspension system that finally eliminated the antique torque-tube drive. Unfortunately, showing either AMC’s split personality or lack of cash, the “Now” cars still sported old-fashioned vacuum-powered windshield wipers as standard equipment, along with some other rustic touches.
The “Now” Ambassador featured something else from the past–styling elements borrowed from earlier Pontiacs. The stacked headlights, imitation driving lights and mild Coke-bottle profile were lifted from the famous Wide Tracks.
The sensible, handsome 1963-64 Ambassador underwent constant growth for the rest of the decade. This Ambassador, along with its Rebel companion, marked the second complete restyling of AMC’s senior offerings since 1965. Each restyling made the cars bigger, with the Ambassador’s wheelbase increasing by six inches between 1963 and 1967 (from 112 inches to 118 inches) and overall length, by fourteen inches. The extra length and weight made the cars less economical, negating many of their maker’s core strengths.
AMC wasn’t the only domestic automaker suffering from Pontiac Envy in the 1960s. This syndrome afflicted corporate leadership at Dearborn and Highland Park in varying degrees throughout the decade, but AMC had made its reputation in its refusal to copy Big Three offerings in either size or style. Nobody mistook a 1959 or 1960 Rambler Ambassador for a contemporary Pontiac, nor did George Romney want them to.
AMC wasn’t just cribbing styling themes from the Big Three; quality problems with the new Ambassador and Rebel–driven by rushed development and cost concerns–weren’t helpful, and neither were noticeably cheaper interior materials. The “Not Acceptable” rating given to an Ambassador by Consumer Reports after it spilled gasoline from its tank during braking tests was a serious blow and by early 1967, AMC was in danger of running out of cash.
New leadership and the sale of the company’s Kelvinator appliance division kept AMC afloat. For 1968, air conditioning was made standard on the Ambassador, garnering much publicity and foreshadowing the days when it would become an expected feature on even the most basic economy cars. Horizontally divided taillights and recessed door handles were the main exterior styling changes.
The Ambassador still sported AMC’s extruded aluminum upper door frames, which look neater and better-finished than their counterparts on the Pontiac. This example is a new-for-1968 SST, which replaced the DPL trim level at the top of the Ambassador totem pole. It sports AMC’s 343 V-8, which was fully competitive with the Big Three engine offerings, although it was hobbled by a clunky Borg-Warner automatic transmission. AMC’s switch to Chrysler’s excellent TorqueFlite automatic transmission was still four years in the future.
Imitating the styling and size of Big Three offerings wasn’t the answer for what ailed AMC. Ambassador sales hit 71,000 in 1966, and then declined to less than 63,000 for 1967, despite the new styling and chassis bits. The new SST trim level and standard air conditioning didn’t stop the slide, with about 54,000 sold for 1968. Total AMC sales did increase in 1968, however, thanks largely to the new Javelin.
Parked next to a 1966 Pontiac Tempest sedan at a Harrisburg-area used car lot, this Ambassador clearly displays the risk of relying on borrowed ideas. Pontiac was the industry’s style leader throughout most of the 1960s, and AMC was not unique in adopting many of their styling cues. This approach, unfortunately, guaranteed that the Ambassador would look dated from the moment it was introduced. It doesn’t help that, when parked next to the Tempest, the Ambassador’s noticeably more conservative interpretation of the same theme makes it look like a Pontiac altered to suit your grandfather’s taste.
Plenty of people wanted a Pontiac in the 1960s, but they could buy the real thing at their Wide Track dealer. AMC found out the hard way that they didn’t necessarily want ersatz Pontiacs with an AMC badge.
For 1969, AMC ditched the stacked headlights and increased the wheelbase of the Ambassador yet again to 122 inches. Sales increased to 75,000, but the bump wasn’t permanent, and, even worse, a fair number appear to have come from the Rebel’s hide, as it declined from 74,000 units in 1968 to 60,000 units in 1969. For the 1970s, AMC bet its future on the 1970 Hornet, which replaced the old American (which had dropped the American name for 1969 and was known only as “Rambler” for its final year). The Ambassador, meanwhile, would be gone by 1975.
The big gamble in chasing the big dogs was met with mediocre sales and a brush with bankruptcy. The company then changed course and produced cars that no one would accuse of being imitations of anything else. That approached succeeded with the Hornet and Gremlin, but the even more distinctive 1974 Matador coupe and 1975 Pacer were additional Deadly Sins for the opposite reason the 1967 Ambassador was: they were too far out of the mainstream. Unfortunately for AMC, the reasons for Deadly Sin status are as varied as the cars which qualify for the label.
Related reading:
Very well done.
This is an interesting combination of cars to see parked together and it also emphasizes your point about the styling influence of the AMC. It even looks like the AMC is cribbing the chrome wheels of the Pontiac.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of yearly AMC production was for fleet sales. The percentage of Ambassador’s manufactured in ’67 for the US Post Office alone is startlingly high; it seems like the percentage only increased into and throughout the 1970s, especially the way AMC pursued the police market from ’71 to ’74.
Of these two, I would choose the AMC due to the unique factor.
Thank you! If I recall correctly, the sale of several 1967 Ambassadors to the U.S. Postal Service was a “backdoor bailout” engineered by the federal government to help the company stay afloat. From what I’ve read, AMC came perilously close to filing for bankruptcy by early 1967.
I am sure that the Government watched the fallout from Studebaker’s failure about 3 1/2 years earlier (including the high local unemployment, the pension shortages, and the rest) and was, by 1967, probably in a more receptive mood towards helping out. Give things another 13 years and the help would be even more dramatic with Chrysler (though it was still not an easy road for the company).
The Studebakers bought by the government wound up serving in some capacities that might seem counter-intuitive. Our neighbor, had a government-issue Lark sedan. It was nowhere near as cool as the black Studillac convertible piloted by Felix Leiter in the Bond novel “Diamonds Are Forever”
Um, both the cars in the photos are wearing aftermarket wheels.
The US Postal Service Ambassadors were factory RHD. The dash and cluster AMC made for those RHD Ambassadors became the “standard” dash for all RHD Rebels, Ambassadors, and Matadors thereafter: 10 years, the same interior!
Both cars have AFTERMARKET wheels on them in these pictures . . .
Give me the AMC. Except for here at Curbside Classic the Ambassador is as forgotten by the general public as if it never existed. To AMCs credit, their cars still never looked as bloated as the large cars of the big 3.
I agree. That Ambassador has a very clean, sporty look to it.
Nice,not quite my cup of tea a bit big and probably thirsty.The Pontiac wins on looks though especially with the front end but I’m a strong supporter of underdogs I always look out for AMC cars at shows .Quite a few Ambassadors with RHD made it to the UK though nowhere near as many as the oppositions cars.
Not sure, but I think the “vacuum” wipers might only have been on the American, by that point… They were the ones that sometimes required tying your boot strings to the wiper arms, to complete the arc……!!?!
According to the 1967 brochures, the Ambassador still came standard with “variable speed wipers with vacuum power-booster fuel pump.” Electric windshield wipers are listed as an option. They are again listed as an option in the 1968 Accessories catalog for all lines.
I believe AMC finally made electric windshield wipers standard in 1972.
Geeber – on the money again. I have a Consumer’s Guide booklet (still to this day) on the 1972 cars, where in reading up on the Ambassador and Matador, they’d mentioned that electric wipers were now (finally) standard. Ironically, that years’ guide listed the Ambassador as their recommended car for it’s class. Could be because their test car had the 401 4-bbl mated to a Torqueflite . . . . with power front disc brakes . . .
You’d think AMC would have made this change years ago, given that it was already offering electric wipers as optional equipment.
AMC desperately needed conquest sales by the late 1960s. Having a former Big Three owner discover that his or her shiny new Ambassador or Rebel still featured vacuum-powered windshield wipers wasn’t the way to generate good “buzz” about AMC cars.
… I think the “vacuum” wipers might only have been on the American, by that point…
My Aunt’s 70 Ambassador had vacuum wipers. The Chevy and Plymouth she had had over the preceding 10 years had electric wipers, so it never occurred to her to check the options. Interestingly, I make a point of looking at the wiper control on every Ambassador I see at shows and have never seen another one from the 1969 generation with vacuum wipers.
Standard A/C, but vacuum wipers. Go figure.
This is what I was thinking. Imagine the new buyer deciding to give AMC a go, after Chevys for years. “Why do my wipers slow down when I go uphill? You don’t think….”
Then, again, my 67 T-Bird had vacuum door locks.
“Why do my wipers slow down when I go uphill?
And “why do they speed up when I’m sitting at a traffic light?”
Then, again, my 67 T-Bird had vacuum door locks.
I had a 67 Bird too. Didn’t have power locks, but there was more vacuum operated than that. The headlight doors were vacuum. The latch for the breakaway steering column was vacuum operated. The car had 2 vacuum reservoirs the size of coffee cans under the hood.
Sticks in my mind that one of the four levers to the right of the instruments was to open the air vent below the rear window. Probably also vacuum. Didn’t work in my car.
Discovered the steering column latch was vacuum by accident. The Ford shop had been working on the engine. When I picked it up, the column wouldn’t unlatch and the headlight doors wouldn’t open. Took it back and barked at them. The guy went under the hood and started switching vacuum hoses around until the column released and the doors opened.
I don’t think I knew about the steering column latch. And I’m pretty sure I counted three! of those black 3 lb. coffee cans under the hood. Then there was the sequential taillight relay assembly out back.
Then there was the sequential taillight relay assembly out back.
Yes, but that was electric. I could hear the motor going rrrr.rr.rrrr.rr in the back and hear the static of the contacts sparking as they make and break on the radio.
My 70 Cougar had a transistorized sequencer.
IIRC Ford used vacuum headlight flaps on all their hidden-headlight cars until they stopped making them entirely. One feature of them is that the vacuum held the flaps *closed* against spring loading. Since the vacuum lines were more likely to give trouble than the springs, the failure mode would be covers open and headlights usable.
Isn’t it amazing what effects they could achieve mechanically back then, where today we’d use electronics?
That vacuum lock system was also an option on big Fords in ’67.
All early ’67 FoMoCo cars with this option had a “speed sensitive” feature that was dropped early on because of many issues. Our ’67 LTD had them, and when the car was a few months old they got stuck in the locked position. It was quite a struggle to pull the plunger up against the vacuum to open the door. And the doors would often lock themselves after that, stranding the old man at the gas station one time (keys in car).
Also, cars were locking themselves going thru car washes.
I remember the dealer couldn’t fix it, and since it was a company car anyway, it went unresolved.
I have a ’67 American. When it was driven regularly, it had a piece of clothesline tied to the driver’s side wiper and running through the vent window.
The vacuum motors are all the same, it’s just the mounting plate that differs, year by year and model by model. Just drill out the rivets and bolt another one on the original mounting plate. (keep the rope in the trunk, just in case).
They were on our “70 Rebel SST”. My lord they were awful.
Those handles were on every AMC car from the late 60’s to the end.
Nice post. Made me realize I miss my ’66 Tempest…
Sigh. There’s that radioactive metallic green again, mysterious preserver of AMC four door sedans.
Change the rims out for Diplomat copcar slotted steelies, paint it black or silver, and we are in business!
“There’s that radioactive metallic green again, mysterious preserver of AMC four door sedans.”
Ha! Chrysler must have used the same supplier. 🙂
And Ford. Dad’s ’67 Falcon was the same colour, inside as well as out.
Did these also still use the trunnion front suspensions? I forget. A very nicely done treatment on a very interesting and unique car.
When I was a kid, my next door neighbor’s Grandpa Bob owned a robins egg blue 67 Ambassador. Whenever I look at one of these I invariably remember a less-than-pleasant experience with his Red Man chewing tobacco when I was about 7.
The other thing I cannot avoid thinking about when I see these is how well they might have gone over in 1974-75 had AMC not so horribly botched the styling of the sedans. The Ambassador could have become AMC’s version of the Dart/Valiant, a good, honest car that was a perfect size.
I believe that AMC kept the old front suspension until 1970, when it switched to a new design.
The sad part is that AMC kept emphasizing the Ambassador, Hornet, Gremlin and Javelin, while pretty much ignoring the Rebel. Yet it was the Rebel’s direct predecessor that had essentially “made” AMC in the late 1950s and early 1960s. By the early 1970s AMC was hardly present in the market segment it had helped create.
The Hornet and Gremlin sold well enough, but they generated lower profits than a fully competitive intermediate offering would have been able to do. When AMC did turn its full attention to the intermediate segment, the result was the 1974 Matador coupe.
The sad part is that AMC kept emphasizing the Ambassador, Hornet, Gremlin and Javelin, while pretty much ignoring the Rebel.
The Rebel had some great TV ads. I remember one with a guy doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation driving a Rebel through the Baja, past the remains of cars that “weren’t tough enough” to survive the conditions.
Noone has uploaded that ad to youtube, but someone did upload the driver’s ed ad.
There were other plans that got shelved to make the Matador a priority; in retrospect it seems a pity…
Looks very similar to a 1970’s Australian Chrysler Valiant/Regal
That does a nice job of hiding the age of the centre cabin.
This would have been the hardtop companion:
These look like proposals for the 74, given the projecting center part of the grill and the deletion of the vent windows.
I like the two door, It would have looked fantastic in 70.
I must have missed this the first time around. This Amby proposal, could have been made into a better Matador instead of the one that was released. It could have easily been updated to PLC trends and possibly beyond the post-PLC era.
Too bad.
Excellent comparison write-up. I’d take the Pontiac. Nobody did the stacked headlight look better. Love the front end on those. The AMC has a more generic looking body in general.
On the AMC, the large grille opening with a heavy horizontal bar and round parking lights reminds me of a ’66 Belvedere more than a Pontiac. The taillights look a lot like ’67 Olds Cutlass units (later copied by the 1973 Chrysler Newport). More examples of AMC cribbing from their competitors, though they did a decent job of bringing it all together.
Personally I think the front end most resembles a ’66 Cadillac. Stacked lamps with no foward cant and a full-width horizontal divided grille with inset parking lamps (though round like the Belvedere rather than rectangular like the Caddy).
Regardless, whether it resembles a Pontiac, Cadillac, or even a Ford or a Belvedere, it does show that the idea was certainly not original by the time ’68 rolled around.
Funny how stacked lamps showed up in almost everyone’s lineup, but at different times. Pontiac of course used them for the majority of the 60’s, and they persisted for several years at Cadillac, Plymouth, and Ford. Mercury never put them on the big cars but the Comet had ’em for 3 years. Chrysler went in early and exited early (if you count canted lamps as stacked.) Buick had them as a one-year oddity on the ’65 Riviera, but hidden behind the clamshell doors. Lincoln had them first on the ’57 but had moved on by ’61. AMC was very late to the party, bringing them in on the ’68 model. The only ones to never use them on any model (that I can remember) would be Chevy, Olds, and Imperial.
(Not sure how to classify Dodge. They never did a stacked round layout but the ’77 Monaco had the oh-so-late-70’s stacked rectangle design, shared only with the Chrysler Cordoba/300 and Ford LTD II.)
And that’s not even touching foreign makes!
Actually, AMC went retro, as the Nash Ambassador had stacked lights in 57
It’d been so long since I’d seen one of those, i’d forgotten all about it! And I’ve never seen one in person, only in photos.
VVV
As to those, no excuse for forgetting them, except that I haven’t seen one on the street in 2 or 3 years.
Ironic how that resembles a 57 Humber Hawk with only the stacked lights as the difference at a glance I prefer the Humber but you knew that.
Thank you for posting this, you saved me time. I get so angry when AMC internet myths get created, like the idea that AMC stole the idea from Pontiac. AMC used Stacked Lamps on the Ambassador in 1957 and from 1964 thru 1969. Pontiac didn’t use these style lamps until 1965.
Once more: Pontiac started with the stacked headlights in ’63; AMC in ’65. Let’s not keep facts from getting in the way of our emotions. Take a deep breath; nothing to be angry about.
So AMC was way ahead of it’s time, and Pontiac started imitating them 6 years later!
The Malibu Classic, Monte Carlo and 4-door Buick Century/Regal also had stacked rectangular quads in 1976-77.
AMC introduced Stacked Headlamps in 1964, not 1968 as you say in your comment. Once Again, the Author here is creating an internet myth. The 1964 Rambler Ambassador had 4 headlamps, vertically stacked, the same year Pontiac introduced them. AMC was also the first manufacturer to use Vertically Stacked Headlamps, on the 1957 Nash Ambassador. They didn’t steal this from anyone, they had it first.
The 1964 Rambler Ambassador had 4 headlamps, vertically stacked, the same year Pontiac introduced them.
Slow down there frank, and take a deep breath. You’re off, by a year on both counts. The 1964 Ambassador did NOT have stacked headlights. And it was the 1963 Pontiac that popularized stacked headlights, one year before. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-pontiac-catalina-the-sexiest-big-sedan-of-its-time/
And the ’57 doesn’t count, inasmuch as there were other cars with stacked headlights back then too. The point is Rambler dropped them. And didn’t use them again until 1965, when a whole lot of other big American cars also went to stacked headlights : Ford, Cadillac and Plymouth, to name three.
The ’63 Pontiac was madly successful, and started a stacked headlights fad that lasted several years. The ’65 Ambassador’s were also the worst looking of the bunch, but that’s being subjective.
Keystone’s make everything look better.
I’ve always thought the front end of the AMC “stacked headlight” cars more closely resembled Ford’s offerings than Pontiac’s. Either way, they always seemed to be a day late and a dollar short.
CC effect strikes again just been listening to A Day Late and a Dollar Short by Hanoi Rocks
Thank you, Paul, for running this story, and thanks to everyone for the kind words.
This Ambassador was a daily driver until about a year ago. It was regularly parked across from the place where we take our daughters to gymnastics. It then disappeared and popped up on this used car lot in the Middletown-Highspire area. The Ambassador was for sale, but the Tempest had a sign in the window saying it was NOT FOR SALE.
That AMC is a stunner! But I love odd cars so my tastes usually run very different form the norm.
If you’re going to steal, steal form the best!
Anyone remember the Matador? I believe it was the replacement for the Rebel. My grandfather had a 1973 Matador, which I loved, because it was the same car they used on my then favorite TV show, Adam-12.
What’s a matador?
Not much, what’s amata with you?
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/amc-matador/
I see the AMC as being more than a dowdy interpretation of Pontiac styling cues. The mid-late ’60s was a great time for mainstream American sedan styling in general, the AMC sedans designed under Teague have a very clean look that makes them stand out and look more modern today. The same sensibility in the Cherokee XJ is evident in this Ambassador despite the influence of more popular sedans, and my favorite has got to be the ’68 Rebel. Not having driven the cars, I have no way of refuting the claim that they didn’t handle as well as the best competition, but based on the styling alone, you’d think the opposite were true.
Not having driven the cars, I have no way of refuting the claim that they didn’t handle as well as the best competition,
The foundry I worked at in 75 had two company cars, a 74 Ambassador wagon and a 74 Ford LTD. They each had about 40,000 miles on them. I drove those cars all over southern Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The Ambi was great, smooth and stable on the road. The Ford was nearly hopeless, too heavy, too softly sprung, too weak shocks, slow and numb steering, wandered and wobbled all over the road.
These new bigger AMC cars never cut it, even when they were on “Adam-12”. The boxy Matador 2 door flopped badly in NASCAR for 72-73. So, AMC poured precious [aka ‘bet the farm’] R&D cash into the ’74 swoopy coupe, hoping for NASCAR Trophies. Meanwhile, formal roof Personal Lux coupes took the nation by storm, leaving AMC in the dust. But also, the Matador was just too trendy, got uglier each passing year.
Then the ‘dynamic’ Pacer was just another fad car, out of style within 8 months. So, they had to be bailed out by Renault. Should have just changed name to “RMC” at that point.
The Pacer’s biggest problem was that it was designed around someone else’s engine program, the GM Wankel. When that was cancelled, Plan B was to shoehorn in the straight-six and make it work by any means necessary, resulting in a car with a very short hood packaged for a very compact engine being saddled with a very long one and robbing the car of much of its’ big-car front seat room that was meant to be its’ USP.
If AMC’d given themselves an out using the Buick V6, either by keeping it or including it as a backup in the contract with GM for the rotary, they may have had an enduring hit since “the first wide small car” would’ve been wide inside all the way down.
The Buick V6 would have been a decent substitute for the Wankel. Back then it would have been the odd-fire setup, but should have fit just fine. To me, this brings up the question, that after GM cancelled their rotary, why didn’t AMC punt and ask GM for some V6s?
I haven’t seen one in close to 30 years, but how well did the V8s fit in the Pacer? Was it stuffed full of engine like the early 70s Ambassadors? Were the Audi 4 cylinder engines (later used in the Spirits and Gremlins too small to move the Pacer? Too bad turbo 4 cylinder engines weren’t quite ready to go back then. But, they probably would have been carbureted and awful to drive…
The Matador was chosen after extensive testing by LAPD, as per customary each year with them. It was not because of lowest bid.
In that sense, I’d say that the Matador did indeed “cut -it”.
Not sure how the 343 4v performed in this bigger sedan, but it certainly was a blast in my 68 Javelin, even though it had ‘survived’ NYC for 12 years by the time I picked it up for $175. We swapped out front-end parts and a rear bumper from a ’72 Javelin (thank goodness AMC couldn’t afford to retool, otherwise the pick-a-parts would have had less to choose from) and it regularly hauled the gang back and forth to friends in Philly. It could regularly dust strangled late 70’s/early 80’s wanna-bes.
Until the carb developed a slight leak, and it took two six-packs of suds to put out the fire.
When a beater costs more than the beer, it’s time for a new ride.
“it had ‘survived’ NYC for 12 years by the time I picked it up”
Did you buy it from Vic Tayback?
Even though an AMC Rambler was the car my parents had during the first 5 years of my life, I never had an affinity for any AMC car. They just always looked off and dowdy to me, or just plain bad, especially compared to comparable GM cars of the 60s and early 70s. Great door handles, though!
A friend of mine has a 67 SST two door hardtop quite a rare car in NZ its likely the only one here and its been here since new I remember it as a new car rego plate is 67SST exactly the same as the promotional material. It was RHD converted new to comply with our regs back then and is still in original condition with a reupholstery job just completed when I saw it, you can still get the original gold brocade cloth for the seats. I must gto back one day and shoot it for the cohort though the club website in the US has shots of it if anyone cares to look.
The Ambassador looks to me like an Americanized, 2nd or 3rd gen Quattroporte. Tasteful, conservative.
These always reminded me more of the 1966-67 Fairlane than the Tempest.
The GTO/Tempest and 67 Galaxie were the two cars on which the stacked headlamps looked ‘right’. On many cars they just seemed to be tacked on. And the stacked rectangular lamps never looked right on any car.
what about the full size Cadillacs, Pontiacs and Plymouth’s of the 1960’s?
Not bad, but the Cadillac bumper extension under them makes them ‘stick up’ kind of high. I don’t care for the ‘eyebrow’ on the Plymouth. I think it’s the slant vs.upright that make the difference, at least to me.
The stacked lamps didn’t look ‘right’ to you on the ’65-’66 Caddy? I thought that was one of the better applications, personally.
It always seemed to me as though Cadillac was copying Pontiac with those cars. The “Standard of the World” shouldn’t have been copying anyone else.
The 1969-70 Cadillacs were not only better-looking than their 19665-68 predecessors, they also looked more “majestic,” in my opinion. Others may not share that view.
One of my neighbors has a nice ’68 Ambassador SST 2 door hardtop in the same color. I really like this model.
Here’s a picture of it.
The owner told me when he first saw it, he thought it was an old Pontiac but he had a closer look and bought it anyway. I personally like this car even more than an old GTO! This model was also the very first car with air conditioning as standard equipment.
Nice car! Do you know if they have any plans to sell anytime in the near future?
I happen to like that radioactive green! The keystone mags make this car look kinda cool, even if its a 4-door. Now if it were a 2-door h/t, had a 390 and a 4 in the floor this would make AMC haters think twice. Taste is subjective, but Im partial to the ‘shotgun’ style stacked round headlites. I don’t think AMC’s version is generic at all, it looks pretty clean and stylish….imposing, even. I think blacking out the upper and lower inserts would really make it pop even more. The look doesn’t so much crip the Poncho as contemporary Fords and Furys.
Been looking for one of those for years, i do not think any exist…….have only ever see two ’68 390 cars (both auto) and two 4 spd cars (both 343-4, 1 sst and a base ambo). very few ’68 390 cars made.
Trying to find a ’68 Rebel 4 spd htp that was for sale 2 yrs ago, it may still be with the same seller as he was really high on the price.
Okay, I’m a little late to this party, but I wanted to chime in and say, “Good Going Geeber.” AMC built some good cars over the years, but by 1968 they were trying to please everybody, and not everybody wanted a Rambler.
I’m not always sure that stacked headlights in the ’60s has to = Pontiac copy. But it does lead to obvious similarity.
This was one of the best of the ’67 – ’77 sedan body shell cars.
Ouch on the spilled gas report by Consumer Reports. AMC did struggle. AMC products were almost non existent in my world when these were new.
It’s not just AMC who borrowed styling ideas and details – the rear end of the red Dodge (?) in the second photo looks similar to the rear end of a Rover 3 litre Coupe (except for the fins) and the those door handles resemble those used the Austin Allegro and Morris Marina, and even the first Land Rover Discovery
The upscale Mercedes of the 60s had stacked headlights too. I never liked that look. That look went away for a while during the early 70s until the rectangular headlights came out. Then I think they put them on the Monte Carlo and a couple Ford cars. I remember Consumer Reports commented that those headlights were designed for a smaller more aerodynamic front. So what do they do ? Stack em up !! My grandpa from England had a Hornet, and didn’t like the vacume powered wipers. My dad commented that the car didn’t look like him. He was used to seeing him in smaller cars like the
Austin America. He later traded that Hornet in for a Toyota Corona.
Some cars look better with vertical headlamps than others. The 1968 AMC Ambassador looks better with vertical headlamps than that of the 1967 Pontiac Tempest and GTO.
I always felt the 68 messed up the best details of the 67 design: Grille and tail lights. The 67 Ambassador 2 door was one of AMC’s best designs, even though it borrowed from everyone.
My folks had a 72, a genuine Brougham and it was easily as poorly built as the 71 Gremlin they had. Embarrassing for AMC’s top of the line car.
My Dad said if that was AMC’s “best” he’d never buy another one. AMC’s reputation for “workmanship” was on the decline starting with the 67 models.
So how did AMC exactly appropriate the Double Stacked Headlamps for the 1967 Ambassador when they were already a feature on the 1965 and 1966 Ambassador? AMC introduced the double stacked headlamps the same year Pontiac started it too? I Hardly call that stealing styling cues from Pontiac.
See my comment above: Pontiac started the new fad for stacked headlights in ’63; AMC followed, along with Ford, Cadillac and Plymouth, in 1965.
Having stacked headlights for one year (1957 Nash) doesn’t count; it was a total sales dud, and nobody rushed to copy it right?
But when Pontiac brought back stacked headlights in 1963, it was a huge hit, and everyone rushed to copy it.
this is mine here in the UK 1968 amc sst 343 four door sports machine. i want to own and drive a true american classic car,and not to be the same as so many others if I needed to be in the gang, my safe choice would be a mustang a dodge or a caddy and the writer of the above should also mention whilst he,s poking fun at AMC that all the big three faced money worries Chrysler was one ….
One could easily point the finger at Abernathy and just “blame” him for all of this, knowing very well that AMC “asked” him to leave in 1967 after 5 years at the helm. BUT remember, and this is what this article leaves out, that under Abernathy Ambassador sales went from a mere 18000 units in 1964 to 64000 units in 1965 (that’s TRIPLE the sales, people!) and 71000 units in 1966. If we are going to blame Abernathy we also have to point a finger at Abernathy’s successor Roy Chapin Jnr. He kept things going, unchanged, giving Dick Teague and his team the “problem” and no money to realize the work. Teague & Co. had to work miracles, while Chapin stood back taking all the credit for the Javelin, AMX, Matador coupe, Gremlin, and for finally wearing Kaiser Jeep down enough to sell to AMC. Abernathy’s 1967 redesigns essentially remained unchanged for a further 10 years. That’s on Chapin.
A lot of readers have said they should have stayed with the Ambassador and dropped the Matador after ’74. Some have said the timing was off and they could have introduced it again a few years later when big cars came back in fashion. That could only have happened if you actually had someone paying attention properly. Chapin was not that person. Chapin was also the one that brought Renault into the mix. Renault? Seriously? That was the end. And Chrysler bought AMC only really for Jeep. Lots of “what ifs” that we can only fantasize on…
Sales of the Classic/Rebel declined during the 1960s, which suggests that, with the more-differentiated Ambassador, AMC was largely swapping sales among existing models, as opposed to stealing customers from the Big Three.
Any increase in Ambassador sales was therefore a Pyrrhic victory, at best.
When Chapin came in he was stuck with the existing product line, though fortunately the Javelin and AMX were in the pipeline. Not being able to make fundamental changes in the products for a while he did things like make air conditioning standard in the Ambassador to add value and differentiate AMC from the competition. (Though a delete option was available for fleet sales or cheapskates wanting to save a few bucks.)
Ambassador and Matador were really the same car aside from several inches of useless added wheelbase added to the former. Hard to say which one, if either, would have been preferable from a marketing standpoint.
Wasn’t it Gerald Meyers who was behind the strategy of bringing in Renault? (I forget and am too lazy to look it up.) In any event I don’t think there were any other takers at the time. It was not a happy union to say the least, but it did produce at least one iconic vehicle – the Jeep “XJ” Cherokee.
For an interesting look at the last days of AMC from the inside, see the book “The Last American CEO” by Jason Vines and Joe Cappy.
Yes, Gerald Meyers was the one who engineered the link-up with Renault.
AMC was negotiating with both Peugeot and Renault for some sort of joint venture. Renault supposedly came through with a more attractive deal at the last moment.
The original plan did not call for Renault to gain complete control of the company. When sales of the critical Jeep line tanked in the wake of the 1979 gas crunch and resulting recession, Renault had to step in with a cash infusion to keep the company solvent.
In the 1960’s, Renault assembled some AMCs as CKDs in France, so the relationship was not new. Even though Renault’s partnership/ownership of AMC/Jeep was not a success for Renault, there were some very good results for the product line and the company. Someone further up mentioned the XJ Cherokee as an example
However, Chrysler benefited the most from the results, as they were able to use the streamlined systems developed by AMC and Renault after Chrysler’s buyout. The system to accelerate and develop cars quickly was adapted from AMC Renault’s efforts, which spawned the Chrysler LH cars, the Cloud cars and the Neon.
I really don’t see a whole lot of resemblance between the Tempest and the Ambassador. To me, AMC’s 1967-68 biggies were pretty handsome cars even if they were somewhat flawed. Now if you want to talk about copying, look what Chrysler’s Brazilian division did with its 1968 facelift of the ancient Simca Esplanada.
Or, for that matter, the late ’60s Nissan Gloria.
Not to throw too much fuel on the fire on the stacked headlight issue, but I believe the ’57 Ambassador was the first U.S. car to feature 4 headlights. It was not yet permitted in all 48 states (that would not happen until 1958), so ’57 Ambassadors sent to some jurisdictions must have had different headlights. I’ve never seen a picture of one though.
It was enough of a novelty at the time that Popular Mechanics magazine teased a look at the Ambassador’s headlight setup on the cover of their 11/1956 “First of the 1957 Cars” edition.
The ’57 Lincoln had the look of stacked quad headlights, but the 2nd pair were actually slightly smaller driving lights. Neither the Nash nor the Lincoln started a trend. 🙂
Oops, forgot to include the Popular Mechanics cover, here it is…
There were several cars that had quad headlamps on ’57 models sold in states that allowed it. The ’57 Ambassador was one. Another was the ’57 Imperial, as well as the ’57 Chrysler and DeSoto lineups. Also the ’57 Mercury range (bit of an embarrassment to Lincoln, eh?), and at least some Cadillacs.
Right, I forgot about the Chrysler and Mercury products. I think though only the Nash and the Lincoln (with its quasi-quad look) had the stacked lights. As Paul observed though the U.S. industry as a whole failed to take note of the idea until the 1963 Pontiacs. Then it seemed within a couple of years stacked headlights became popular in a number of models.
Yeah. And yet International-Harvester (of all companies) put stacked headlamps on their B-trucks for ’59!
Is it AMC and Rambler week on Curbside Classic?
I don’t aim to rehash or (re)ignite a debate on the subject; I’d just like to point out two things:
1. The headlamp options in the United States at that time were one large round or two small rounds per side. There aren’t a whole lot of different ways a pair of 5-3/4″ round headlamps can be arranged. They can be side-by-side, they can be horizontally aligned but with some space between them, they can be stacked, or they can be canted. Who first stacked ’em? Well, probably the ’57 Ambassador. Who first stacked ’em with a bright metal bezel around the pair? I guess that’s the ’63 Pontiac. But does that really matter much? Given the very limited configuration options, just about the only setup not inevitably widespread would have to be some of Virgil Exner’s monkeyshines.
2. Those “imitation driving lights” are the park/turn signal lamps, and the ’64 Barracuda had ’em before the ’66 Pontiac did.
If the 1957 Nash headlight arrangement had any outside influence, it is most likely that someone at Pontiac saw one (the 1957 Nash was a rare bird) and thought, “Maybe we can try something similar.”
Given how that Nash was viewed by the general public – the last gasp of a loser brand – and most likely by Bill Mitchell himself, I seriously that any GM stylist would ever admit that in public, let alone to Bill Mitchell.
By the mid-1960s, the stacked headlight arrangement was viewed as a Pontiac styling touch.
Within two years of the 1963 Pontiac appearing, we see the same arrangement popping up on full-size Plymouths, Fords and the AMC Ambassador, followed by the intermediate Fords and Mercurys in 1966. I’d say that the Pontiac was catalyst for this trend spreading to other brands.
Pontiac abandoned them for 1967 on the full-size cars, and 1968 on the intermediates. Ford did the same for 1968 (on both full-size cars and intermediates), followed by Plymouth and the Ambassador for 1969.
The 1957 Nash was viewed as a loser – even by Nash/Rambler dealers, who didn’t shed a tear when Romney announced that there was not going to be a 1958 Nash. Early 1960s Pontiacs were viewed as anything but losers, judging by the sales figures, as well as by how many other styling features spread to other makes.
The first turn signals styled to look like driving lights appeared on the 1963 Pontiac Grand Prix. They were round that year, and changed to a square shape on the 1964 Grand Prix. Again, Pontiac was the leader of that brief trend.
Oh, lookit there, I missed ’em on the ’63 GP!
I always liked grille and headlight ensemble on the original Barracuda. But to me that car has always been overshadowed by the 1967-69 Barracuda, which, in my opinion, is one of the most under-rated designs of the 1960s.
The lookalike driving/fog turn signals on the Barracuda was one of those nearly constants on that car. For some reason, Chrysler decided to just use the Valiant’s grille on the 1966, which pretty much eliminated the turn signals from the previous years. Of all the A-body Barracudas, the 1966 version was the worst looking one because it looked the most like a Valiant.
Then, the first couple years of the E-body offered actual driving lights that mounted underneath the bumper.
For the Barracuda’s final three years, they went back to the lookalike turn signals, but were mounted in the opening underneath the front bumper.
I like the face of the ’64-’65 Baccaruda, too. But I think I like the variant used on the Australian AP6 Valiant a little better. Best of all might have been the larger Baccaruda turn signals in the AP6 location, closer to the headlamps than to the centre chunk of the grille.
’67-’69 Baccarudas, I like just fine. But I think I’m partial to the earlier ones.
(and then there’s this…)
Actually I’ve seen photos of some wild 4-headlamp layouts that never got beyond the idea stage. Like having two inboard in the center of the grille and two outboard in the fenders. Probably just as well none of those made it into production.
Those were the aforementioned Virgil Exner monkeyshines.
There were others as well. Here’s a proposal for the 1959 Pontiac. (Fortunately cooler heads prevailed.)
For some reason attaching the photo didn’t work, here’s a link to the source:
https://i2.wp.com/macsmotorcitygarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1959-Pontiac-clay-model-July-1957.jpg
And here’s one for the 1960 Edsel:
https://i1.wp.com/macsmotorcitygarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1960EdselStyling006.jpg
’59 Chevy early clay, from Dean’s Garage. Warning, you can’t un-see this.
You know, my ten-year-old self far preferred the Pontiac’s styling, well, because GTO vs Rambler. But fifty years later, I honestly think the AMC is a better design. And while I truly love some of the 1968 A Bodies (Chevelle, Cutlass) the LeMans was not one of the better efforts. So AMC for the win, in my book.
There’s a red 68 Ambassador coupe a couple of miles from me sinking into someone’s front yard near a Mustang II.
I love classics and do have my collection. I was Never an AMC fan but recently I purchased 81 AMC Concord coupe DL blue exterior with blue cloth interior got 49K original miles has 2.5 Iron Duke auto Factory AC , Factory Am/Fm , Rear defrost , crank windows just beautiful AMC from past I paid $6,500 for it Not for sale just sharing passion for classics !
And now, Rambler & Pontiac have both bought the farm.
……. same farm, as with their headlights?
I’d have to compare the 63 Pontiac’s stacked headlights to a Farrah Fawcett hairdo. She may not have been the first to wear one, but she looked damn good wearing one and everyone remembers her for it.
If styling continuity is the sole rationale for ruling out the ’57 Ambassador as having an influence, and the “not invented here” syndrome does not rule it out (US designers have borrowed Euro designs since the early days of Harley Earl, and before), then I submit that it may have been the “Heckflosse” Benz that was being imitated by Pontiac in ’63 an attempt (quite successful) to move their image upscale vs Ford, Plymouth et al. Stacked headlights were used by MB in their “S Classe” starting in ’60, probably designed around ’57, as the vestigial fins may attest, and continued on that top model for 12 years. I had a black 220 SE in the mid ’70s while going through an automotive Deutschland Uber Alles phase (which was blessedly short, thanks to a highly flawed BMW 2800… the tale of which may be told perhaps another day). Even at 15 yrs old the ancient but pristine MB got remarks for it’s timeless dignity and presence. Pontiac may have had similar thoughts, who knows, but that design lasted until the days of Bruno Sacco and still looks great even today.
That said, I’d hardly call the ’67 Ambo a “Deadly Sin”. Having gotten my license in ’67 I was aware of their introduction, and considered them inoffensive, if not cutting edge, and certainly a major improvement over the boring ruler-designed ’65/66s, which in themselves were a big letdown over the sensible and pleasant ’63/64s. If derivative designs were a mortal sin, there’d be no one left standing in the auto industry worldwide. Sure, AMC in the late 60s had their issues, but in comparison to the unfortunately unforgettable dreck in the decade that followed, all of which suffered from abysmal styling, performance, and quality flaws which imo had more to do with their demise than any other factor, and were far more deadly sinful, I can’t get too worked up over the mediocre ’67s, that’s for certain.
Not sure if anyone has yet mentioned the French Facel Vega, another early adopter of the over and under quad headlight look.
AMC was counting on its new, completely restyled 1967 “senior” cars – the Ambassador and newly named Rebel – to reverse a slide in sales and market share. It spent a ton of money (by AMC standards) to bring these cars to market. These cars were completely restyled, and featured a redesigned rear suspension that eliminated the old torque-tube drive.
The cars failed to meet expectations, and by early 1967 AMC was facing disaster. Only emergency loans by large banks kept the company afloat.
So, yes, I’d call this Ambassador a Deadly Sin. It and the companion Rebel did not sell well enough to pay for the expensive tooling needed to produce them. This failure brought the company to the brink of insolvency. People shopping at AMC/Rambler dealers obviously did not want ersatz Pontiacs.
Maybe its me but, I always found the 2 door Matador’s of the early 70’s a step in the right direction styling wise. They were actually quite popular even during the gas crisis recessionary year of 1974. Compared to the stodgy 4 doors the Matador coupes were a breath of much needed fresh air. Anything beats the ugly bizarre Marlin and then the Gremlins and Pacers. The Hornets were OK looking but handled like turds. All IMO.