(first posted 1/23/2014) The Gremlin always danced to a different tune. Its design (in the loosest sense of that word) was penned on an air-sickness bag. It was front heavy, dull-handling, and rear-brake locking, with a nearly useless back seat (initially available only at extra cost). But it hung around, and we learned to just accept it as the weird kid on the block.
And then for 1977, the Gremlin heard a new rhythm and surprised us once again: it offered an optional four cylinder engine with less power than the standard six, but with a hefty premium. Makes perfect sense, if you’re dancing to Stockhausen. Or paying for an engine originally designed by Mercedes, built by Audi and used in Porsches.
Truth is, I don’t think this 1977 Gremlin actually has the optional four. For that matter, it may even be a 1978. But other than the shortened nose, which made the Gremlin less likely to tip forward if a few careless folks were leaning on its front end, there wasn’t a whole lot new to talk about. Our comprehensive 1971 Gremlin CC is here, so we’ll focus mainly on its brilliant new nose and the four cylinder that cost $253 extra (almost $1000, adjusted).
The 1973-1974 Energy Crisis caught the two smallest of the American car makers without a four cylinder engine, let alone a suitable car to put one in. GM already had their dark star Vega and Ford had their kick-in-the butt Pinto, but Chrysler and AMC were stuck with their cast iron sixes from the sixties, and similarly American-sized “compact” platforms. So they went shopping, in Wolfsburg, no less.
Chrysler modified their French subsidiary Simca 1100’s body for US consumption (Omni & Horizon), but needed an engine to power it. Since the Omnirizon already looked so much like the VW Golf/Rabbit, why not use its engine too? So they made a deal to import a 1.7 L version of the VW EA827 long block, and adapted it to their needs.
AMC/Audi 2 Liter four
AMC came a-knocking on the same door too. Since the EA827 was a bit too petite for AMC’s intended use in Gremlins and Concords, which weighed up to some 3,200 lbs or so, VW looked in its warehouse and offered up something a (wee) bit heftier: the 2.0 L EA831 four cylinder; actually an Audi engine, as used in the European-market C2 100 and also in the VW LT truck.
But the EA831 wasn’t a total stranger to Americans, as it was also to be found under the hood of the Porsche 924, which of course started out to be an Audi (now that’s a long-overdue CC story).
The EA831 was an evolution of the original Audi four-stroke four engine, which had been designed by Mercedes engineers when they owned Audi back in the late fifties-early sixties. It started out with a pushrod alloy cylinder head and was built in sizes ranging from 1.5 to 1.9 liters, but in its final incarnation, it was enlarged to 2.0 liters and graced with a SOHC head.
image: wikipedia
And in its ultimate evolution, in the turbocharged racing-oriented 924 GTR, it made some 375 hp. Wonder if anyone’s ever swapped one of those into a Gremlin?
Visions of tearing down a race track at 200 mph were not likely to enter Gremlin drivers’ minds, unless they were blessed with exceptional imaginations. As installed in the Gremlin and Hornet, the four made 80 (net) hp. The standard 232 six was rated at 90 hp, and a few bucketfuls more of torque. So why the premium price for the four?
AMC didn’t exactly get the Audi engine on the cheap (did they knock on any doors in Japan?). The original plan was to import them initially, then build them at a new dedicated plant AMC had already bought, and even sell engines back to VW/Audi(!). But gas prices had settled down, and sales of the four cylinder were sluggish, so AMC just kept importing the blocks, heads and other major components, and assembled them in the US. That drove up costs, hence the pricing, hence the low sales, hence their rarity today. Incidentally, AMC’s deal with VW/Audi forbid them to make any mention of this engine’s true provenance. Would VW/Audi also have kept it a secret if they had started buying these engine from AMC and using them in their European vehicles?
So much for intrigue and speculation. Nothing mysterious about the utter lack of legroom in the rear seat. It was standard equipment by now, but useable only to young children or double amputees, who were forever reminded of their misfortune when riding in back. And no, that’s not “lumbar support” on the bottom of the seat backs.
Before I sully the Gremlin any further, I should point out that the 1977 version also ushered in a redesigned back panel, with a larger lift gate (also now standard), and “distinctive new taillights,” in the rare case anyone might mistake the rear of a Gremlin for that of some other car.
Not that it helped Gremlin sales any; after selling in the 50-60k range for the first four years, by 1977 sales had plummeted down to 15k, thanks to the huge proliferation of competition from Japan, among other things, like the Gremlin’s terrible space utilization and driving dynamics.
But fear not; AMC had a brilliant plan to stay competitive in the small car field: put some bigger windows on the Gremlin’s rear quarters and call it Spirit; the Gremlin reincarnated. Or the Spirit of Gremlin. Same useless rear seat and pretty much everything else, but the buyers seemed to fall under the Spirit’s spell: sales jumped back to over 50k in 1979, and then soared to over 70k in 1980.
The Spirit line now had two body styles; the Gremlin-based hatch was now called “sedan”, of all things. But the sloped roof hatchback (with even less rear seat headroom) captured the majority of sales, since it was such an effective competitor to the Mustang. Ford must have been very worried.
In 1979, the Spirit’s enthusiasm was still being dampened by the expensive little 80 hp German four, so for 1980, AMC ditched it in favor of buying the 151 CID (2.5 L) “Iron Duke” four from GM, packing 90 Mustang-eating horses. Eventually in 1984, AMC’s own 2.5 L four came to the rescue.
But Spirits were not kept up for long, sales-wise. Starting in 1981, they followed the same downward trajectory that the Gremlin–and pretty much most new AMC products–experienced after the first couple of years. Then in 1983, AMC finally got its first true modern small car, the Renault Alliance, which of course followed the same trajectory. AMC’s efforts at building a small car just kept going bust, starting with the Gremlin. Maybe they jinxed it with that bad-luck name?
I saw this one a few years ago at a car show. Had a “2 Liter” sticker on the side.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen one. Only a few thousand were graced with it.
I’ve seen one once before several years ago, I remember being puzzled by the “2.0 Litre” sticker on the back, which made me think…what AMC motor is 2.0 litres? Then I did a little research and found out about the VW/Audi engine.
The 831 was actually a quite decent engine. Porsche 924’s injected variation felt indeed somewhat disappointing, maybe due to the fact that i drove only heavily worn examples, but the carbureted version in said Volkswagen Transporter (named LT28 or Lasten Tranporter – numbers describing the tonnage) felt at least adequate and propelled the 1979 high roof camper I used to co-own to some nice 85 mph and was able to keep it there all day long. 16 mpg was the go-fast-premium to pay but if we took it easy 24 mpg was feasible, too.
I still miss its eight-ball shift knob of the 4-on-the-floor and the autobus-sized steering wheel with a palm of play.
Here it is, showing our colors in Burgenland, Austria.
Well Herr Goldth, how’s this for happy VW Bus camping ? 🙂
This awkwardly reminds of a racing car bed. It’s awesome until you turn 10.
I also hate sleeping in tents, most cars are perfectly suitable for same purpose. I actually know a 6’5 guy who manages to spend a restful night in his miata.
Bayerische!
We ALMOST bought an AMC Spirit – the Gremlin successor – in 1981, but made the right choice by buying our 1981 Reliant instead.
We did enjoy our 1976 Gremlin, though. Bought used in 1977.
I see you were making full use of its luggage capacity. And you strapped the wife up on top? 🙂
A see extended shackles back there too. Was that to improve its load carrying capacity, or give it a bit of sporty rake?
Ha ha! Actually, I had the car stuffed – boxes in the front seat, too. We were moving into our first house, and I no longer recall who took the photo or why, but I managed to stuff lots of things in that car, although in the goofiest ways possible.
The car had several cheap mods when I bought it – 10″ wide tires on the back! That explains the rake. A nice set of radials fixed that. Plus, all the pollution stuff was missing, which made the car run awful when cold. A new Carter carb from my buddy who worked there and $35.00 worth of emissions stuff fixed all that and the car ran wonderfully – except when it rained heavily. I kept a can of LPS to spray the wires and distributor, for I think some of the internal weather flaps were also missing.
Our 258 stick shift Gremlin was an adventure, to be sure!
Aha, that explains it. I bet is scooted right along with the big six and stick shift. How was it in the snow, dare I ask?
Interesting you asked that!
We had a major snowstorm in December, 1977, shortly after we bought the car.
Needless to say, those 10″ tires on the back made driving in the snow very difficult. So, that very evening, we drove to a nearby tire store and bought a set of radials!
After that, the car ran through the snow with ease! Like I said before, Wifey and I both enjoyed that car, stripped as it was.
Buddy of mine owned two. Said they were a sure-footed as mountain goats. He regularly off-roaded his. An average mid-Missouri winter was never a problem.
I always thought these were very strange looking,maybe it was to prepare the public for the Pacer!
Strange, weird looking, etc… I’ve heard/read many comments in this vain about this design. My word is “tragic”.
How related were the Gremlin and the Pacer? Looks like they were a similar size.
Not very. The Gremlin was just a shortened Hornet, with a 96″ wheelbase. The Pacer had a 100″ wheelbase, but was much wider, since it was at least as wide as AMC’s full-size cars. Their length was roughly similar, depending on the year Gremlin (different bumper lengths). The Pacer has better interior space utilization, with a shorter hood and more usable rear seat. But they both used the same AMC drive trains, and probably other components.
So the Gremlin was essentially on the Hornets platform, while the Pacer was based the Matador platform? Was the Matador sedan and coupe related? They don’t look it.
The Gremlin was nothing more than a shortened Hornet (see pic below). The Pacer undoubtedly shared some of the underpinnings of the Matador, but with a totally different body. The Matador coupe and sedan were related under the skin to some extent, inasmuch as AMC used as many suspension and other components throughout their line as possible. But they did have different bodies.
Whoops; forgot the pic.
That explains why I had a difficult time finding interior parts for my ’76 Pacer. The interior door panels were incredibly weak and made of cheap plastic that disintegrates with age. The interior door door handles would also break easily, so you had to roll down the window to get out of the car.
I had a buddy in high school who owner one, and the Pacer shared very little with any other AMC (outside of the driveline).
For example, while it was roughly the same width as the Matador, the Pacer used a rack and pinon steering system, while the Matador used a recirculating ball gearbox aith an idler arm.
I had a buddy in high school who owner one, and the Pacer shared very little with any other AMC (outside of the driveline).
That’s the analysis I have seen. Pacer had a unique platform, which made it more expensive to develop and more expensive to produce.
The tragedy, iirc, is Pacer sales seem to have come entirely at the expense of Hornet and Gremlin, as total sales for the three lines in 75 were less than sales of Hornet and Gremlin alone in 74, so the several years of development and millions spent, all came to naught.
More than you really need to know about the Pacer. All the ugly details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Pacer
Wiki reports that the 2.0 would return 21/33 mpg. Not sure what the I6 would offer in this model, but a ’75 model with the electric overdrive and the manual tranny averaged 21 compared to the ’75 Rabbit’s 24. Not that much of a return for the penalties incurred, but back then in ’79, people would have sold their mothers into white slavery for another 10 mpg.
Are those the old, unadjusted EPA numbers? They ran 20-35% higher than real world mileage.
I think those are the old numbers as I was quoting Wikipedia.
So small sorta, handy in town sorta size but sucks gas like mid sizer, Ive hardly even seen a live one I guess they didnt bother with RHD, Hornets and Matadors I remember seeing new Gremlins and these not at all.
I remember seeing one on an Aussie TV police show (forget which one) once – just a five-second shot, protesters were getting their placards out of the hatch. I thought “What is THAT doing here?”.
Thanks, Paul. It would not be AMC week without a Gremlin. After a week of disdainful comments about AMC cars, I am ready to surprise you all: I like Gremlins. I have never liked them enough to own one, mind you, but I like them nonetheless.
The Gremlin reminds me a lot of the original Studebaker Lark – take a car, hack some of it off, and make it play down a class. Somehow, the Hornet Hack-job works, and the Gremlin had a jaunty character that pulled off the odd look. Plus, a guy with a 304 Gremlin taught me to respect it in a series of stoplight drags in downtown Fort Wayne one afternoon as I tried to get my 390 Galaxie ahead of him to change lanes.
Admittedly, my Gremlin enthusiasm was mostly gone by the 74-75 models. Also, I had forgotten all about these four cylinder jobs. I can only imagine the VW boardroom – “You can never tell anyone where you got these engines.” Was this because VW/Audi did not need another barrage of “your engines suck” publicity, or because they were embarassed to aid and abet AMC and its strippo penalty box.
My favorite feature about this car is – the all-vinyl bench seat. With sideways pleats to encourage side to side sliding under the hard cornering that this car undoubtedly encouraged. Not sure I have ever seen a bench seat Gremlin before.
I’m not surprised; especially the part about your 390 Galaxie not being able to keep up with a 304 Gremlin. Are you sure it wasn’t just a six? 🙂
Har dee har har. 🙂
It was a thrilling 6 or 7 blocks with timed stoplights. He had a stick, and I an auto (mated to the 2 bbl, reg gas, 2:70 rear axle version of the 390, thank you very much) Each light, two testosterone-charged youths nailed the gas, and neither car could outdrag the other. Over and over, same result, until my parking lot loomed and I let off the gas and pulled in behind him.
If you are reading friend, you did not beat me – I let you win.
304 Gremlins also ran very well in A-Sedan autocross (SCCA). For the few that bothered, it was one hell of a cheap muscle car.
This is what you get when you take an old Rambler American, cut off the rear end and try to keep it relevant in the US market during the 1970s and 1980s.
You get that incredible Rambler American handling and braking, its famous suspension – but without its roomy interior. /snark
Holy crap! Oregon is a living breathing vintage car museum! Sorry to be off-topic, but I spied that blue Nissan Stanza wagon on the photo of the back of the old Gremlin. I have not seen one of those in years, even in car crazy Los Angeles!
And a relative of the Gremlin I took pix of here,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9874196@N03/12053805363/
There’s still quite a few of those Stanza wagons going here; folks love them: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-asian/curbside-classic-1986-nissan-stanza-wagon-prairie-the-first-modern-mini-van/
I’m still going to try to squeeze in your excellent Pacer shots!
I wonder why they never considered sticking the 2.0 litre in the Pacer, too heavy? It was at least the newer car, heck, they probably should have spread the 2.0 litre across all the small AMC’s, probably would have happened if sales of the 4 banger would have been stronger.
when I was a kid, a friend had a 304 Gremlin. I remember spinning around out of control in a snowy mall parking lot riding in it…not on purpose. 🙂
When I was a new driver in my teens, I had a friend who picked up a series of fairly beat-up early-70s Detroit iron by looking in the daily paper’s classifieds under “Autos Below $1000”. The best was probably his 318 Duster; everything else was worse. Like his choco-brown first-gen Gremlin with a six and a three-speed manual on the floor. (There may have been a fourth gear, but for the purposes of this story only three are needed.) Tom and I had the newly-purchased Gremlin on a wet suburban residential street on rainy autumn. We were both fairly new to stick-shifts, and were not yet completely conversant with some of its ramifications. I remember much discussion of the in’s and out’s of power-shifting, double-clutching, and other manual mysteries.
One of those manual mysteries was downshifting, or braking with your tranny and not your brakes. I honestly can’t remember whether it was Tom or myself who was at the helm (I think it was him), but in either case what happened was a joint project as we had both decided to floor it from a standing start, get up to third gear, then downshift back to second. (I don’t recall any plan to further downshift to first, as I’m not sure those early Gremlin manuals were synchro’d to do that.)
So: First, Second, Third, then, as the stop sign begins to loom larger, back to Second… to which the nose-heavy Half-a-Hornet [TM] responded with a whoooooshing sound from the rear wheels on the slick asphalt; and a head-to-tail spin of almost 180 degrees. Next thing we knew we’d come to a stop up on somebody’s lawn, pointing the opposite direction we were just driving in. We were very fortunate our medium-speed spin-out didn’t whack any parked cars, dogs, cats, or lawn ornaments along the way. Tom and I were unhurt, but totally shocked by how bizarrely this little AMC had reacted to something we’d been doing successfully in other cars. We both agreed on the spot: no more downshifting in the Gremlin!
Oh, and another thing about the Gremlin? The logo. Like a troll doll without the hair. Seemingly designed to humiliate its owner; and to proclaim the vehicle’s unseriousness to the world.
In 1981-1982 AMC used the Gremlin/Spirit body on the Eagle 4X4 Platform. Total production for both years, 6123.
Here is a photo of my 1981 Kammback. It has the 2.5 liter Iron Duke and full time four wheel drive.
I do think the 4WD Spirit is kinda neat, in an American Lada Niva sort of way.
The twin to the hatchback SX/4 I found and wrote up here. But don’t take it too seriously 🙂 https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-eagle-sx4-the-trickster/
Very cool Kammback. You a member on amceaglesden.com? If you ever need help with anything, there is an amazing community for these cars, and you have the 3rd rarest and ultimately the rarest FACTORY body….the “convertible” and “Turbo-Diesel” were factory approved modded cars. Kammies are awesome!
Thanks drock87! I consider myself fortunate to have my Kammback. I bought it sight unseen from the ad on Craigslist.
I am glad to see the Eagles Den (Nest) is back up! I don’t post often there….but it is a great resource.
Here’s another picture of the car the day I picked it up. I drove over Snoqualmie Pass in 3rd gear doing 40 mph. I’m not sure they were honking because I was driving so slow…or they liked my car.
Shouldn’t this be headlined as a D/S?
But AMC never really died, eh? 🙂 It was sold to Chrysler, for good money too.
Without trying to come off snarky (I know hard for me :))With that way of thinking Saab never really died then, GM was “sold” to the Government, Studebaker still exists in some form, Pontiac still exists as intellectual property and copyright/TM names etc…
with that way of thinking Pardon my (feeble) attempts to think logically. But in my way of thinking, there is quite a difference between a company selling its stock to another company for a considerable sum versus the government having to spend billions to shepherd a bankrupt company into its next incarnation as a totally new company (which the “new” GM is). Bankruptcy ≠ conventional sale of stock.
GM “died”; AMC was sold. Not the same thing by a long shot.
I guess there is no hope of having a discussion without sarcasm. I’m surprised you had precious time to deal with insignificant me 🙂
Who’s being sarcastic? Not me.
AMC did sort of die though, Lido put a pillow over its head and harvested the tasty Jeep organs so they could be consumed. They did it laid out on a Pentastar while Lido wore a Dodge Ram headpiece. The soulless corpse was re-incarnated as Eagle for a while, which was also exterminated by Chrysler, which itself also died when it went bankrupt and was purchased by the Vatican Bank….err…..Fiat.
Wasn’t AMC always short of cash ? As in: permanently, since day one.
Other than maybe 1960-63 when they were selling 400K Ramblers a year, I think you are right. But they had enough cash to do things like the 74 Matador coupe and the 75 Pacer one after the other, to bad effect.
@ CARMINE: True – murdered is more accurate. Died sounds too unintentional. I heard somewhere, maybe on a history show about AMC, that Chrysler was dismantled the AMC car production in a borderline offensive manner, such as throwing NOS parts in the trash, etc. There was a lot of resentment, especially with the AMC people who stayed on and injected Chrysler with much needed fresh talent and new ideas. To me, the Neon, and LHS sedans are the AMCs of the 1990’s. Heck even one was named the Concord (e)
This seems more like grasping at straws than a Deadly Sin. Trying to take on the Big 3 in the mid-60’s is an AMC Deadly Sin. The 1974 Matador Coupe is a Deadly Sin; the 1975 Pacer is a Deadly Sin. This seems more like picking up the pieces after the Deadly Sins have drained all the available research and development cash and throwing a Hail Mary pass hoping for the money to keep the company afloat in the short term.
I’m not sure if AMC was killed or that it just died of old age…but they committed some Deadly Sins on their way to the grave.
This Gremlin is a ’77. The ’78 had the redesigned instrument panel from the Concord.
Kudos! I was about to comment on this as well, but you beat me to the draw. Yes, you can sit in a 1978 Gremlin, Concord, 1983 Spirit or 1988 Eagle (yes, there were a few ’88’s) and look at the same dashboard. There were slight differences, but largely the same.
These are my favorite years of the Gremlins. For some reason, I like the larger hatch and sloped hood. Maybe it makes it look more, uh, normal? Or the fact even though it sort of looks a little more normal, its still an odd little ogre. Just a slightly conformed ogre.
AMC never should have built the full-size Ambassador, The fastback Matador Coupe, the Pacer (at least in its production guise) and one could argue Javelin/AMX (although, it is questionable if the AMC community would be as strong without these 45 years later, so I’m cool).
Their bread and butter were smallish cars. The Rambler Classic. Hornet. American. Truth be told, the Concord was the right car at the right time. And Jeep filled a niche no one else had at one time. Plus, there is only one! What if GM hadn’t pulled the plug on the Wankel or the Pacer was never developed and AMC engineered an in-house four cylinder? The world may never know. What if the Matador was downsized and became what we know as Concord and a small compact FWD was developed? What if the Renaults were branded as AMCs? There are a lot of questions there are no answers to.
However, I do not believe AMC deserves some of its reputation. There are not a lot of cars that fit a descripion such as DougD’s story on his amazing Matador or mine…I drive an ’85 Eagle as a daily driver and continue, like most AMC Eagle owners, to slightly reengineer my car to make it work better in todays world. I’d had a leased 2011 Camry SE…and turned it in because the Eagle was getting driven more anyways.
At the end of the day though, if I’d seen this Gremlin curbside, it would have had a note on the windshield either with an offer, or just an invitation for coffee to discuss our unique and usually unloved cars.
The Matador, Ambassador and Rebel yes, I don’t resent their existence but they were never going to have what it took to be competitive in the intermediate and especially full sized segments. My grandpa and great grandpa were AMC true believers and shareholders, and my mom has stories about her young life with her mom’s Americans and Hornet and even a 74 Matador my grandpa would buy for her, but his personal car of choice in his successful career? Oldsmobile 98, Pontiac Grand Ville, Chrysler New Yorker etc. he admired the practical ideals of Rambler/AMC, but his vanity steered him clear of choosing an Ambassador over them.
The Javelin/AMX however were perfect fits for Rambler/AMC. George Romney had the dogmatic view of what cars should be, but the original conception of Rambler with George Mason was a small AND upscale car, and that’s exactly what ponycars were, and what made them such hits in the 60s. The stodgy anti-car image of Rambler was Romney’s vision, and the mistake his successor made in (rightfully) deviating from that path was becoming a full line automaker to compete directly with the big 3, rather than making appealing compacts like a sportier American or Mustang fighter earlier on.
The Ambassador was a legacy model kept to retained loyal old Nash/Hudson buyers in the fold. They were used to accepting a lengthened front clip, higher trim level and larger engine as enough to constitute a ‘full-sized’ car. But, the concept was getting a bit threadbare by the 1960’s.
The ’62-’64 Ambassadors were a glimpse of what might have been: a luxury compact as George Mason envisioned that could have been developed over the next decade adhering strictly to the concept. Abernathy didn’t understand that concept or have the courage to try any other route than a direct assault on each Big Three segment leaders to ultimate disaster.
In defense of the Abernathy Ambassadors, they became the line of choice when the Rebel and Matador failed to achieve the levels of acceptance enjoyed by the erstwhile Classic.
Every time I hear about the AMC Spirit I remember the time when a friend’s mother picked us up from band practice in her brand new Spirit. It was baby blue with a blue velour interior. I was put in the back seat and I had to sit with my head crunched down due to the lack of headroom.
We stopped at a McDonalds on the way back home and ate our meal while parked. I had ordered an extra large coke with my meal.
Then a hornet flew into the backseat.
It was like a scene from Starship Troopers. Too bad the lid didn’t stay on the drink during my battle to rid the back seat of said hornet.
It was a good thing she had the upholstery scotch-guarded right after delivery from the dealer.
Interesting tale about the source of the engine Paul I have feeling Chrysler got that 2L engine too. It was installed in the 1800 body for the Australian Centura along with hemi 6s as there was a 2L option and it was rumored to be a Porsche design.
Not the same engine. This was designed solely by Audi, as the 924 was intended originally to be an Audi. Porsche did lots of consulting work for other car companies.
I think you might have had the Chrysler 2 litre from the British car of the same name.It was a poor seller here compared to the equivalent Fords & Vauxhalls and I think it was only available as an automatic which limited sales even more
I remember that one, it was very rare. One can better say it was unique….
In the early eighties my French teacher had one. If I recall correctly it said “Chrysler” and “2 litres” on the trunk lid. Dark red metallic with a tan interior.
I never knew anyone else who had such a car. As a matter a fact, I can’t even remember just seeing another one.
They weren’t often seen in the UK,the only ones I remember are a gold one and a metallic blue one.They were very American looking and were replaced by the Talbot Tagora which sold even fewer
Yes, back then I really thought the man drove an American car. A rather compact one, but still.
I had a 245hemi with 4speed but a mates wife had a 2L 4banger very rare in OZ but it drove better in town than my Hemi, at least you could accelerate without tyre smoke.
Gremlins enjoyed many successes on racetracks, from IMSA RS competition on road courses against Mazdas, BMWs, and Pintos to domination as Modifieds on bullrings.
I once had a well used ’78 Concord coupe with that 2.0L, and my dad bought a first-year Spirit with it. His Spirit had a stick and actually got great mileage, over 30 highway. My Concord was saddled with a slushbox, and not only did it get crappy mileage but it was incapable of getting out of its own way. BTW, in ’79 one could buy a Spirit with a 304 and a stick. Granted, it was a smogged-out 304 of maybe 140 HP but it did make for a rather fun to drive car. One of my younger brothers managed to score 2 Spirit V8/stick cars and made one into a little screamer.
I grabbed our Ward’s Automotive to look up production records, and came up with the following numbers for Gremlin four cylinder production:
1977- 4,345
1978- 5,307
1979- 16,234
Note- The data I used is calendar year, not model year. In addition, the data only breaks out 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder production, not engine displacement. Because of this, the 1979 year data includes 1980 model year cars with the 2.5 Iron Duke motor.
1977- 4,345
1978- 5,307
1979- 16,234
The bump in sales in 79 is no mystery: revolution in Iran. Gas priced doubled. I remember a coworker coming into work one day saying “what’s up with gas stations? lines everywhere”
There was no “1979-80 Gremlin”, so the 10K figure has to be for 1979-80 Spirits, including the Kammbacks.
AMC had a sales bump due to gas prices again, but not enough to keep Renault from buying them out.
Correct- The data does read “Spirit.” If all Spirits were Iron Duke powered, the data does not apply.
This. This is the Gremlin I’d have. Not the 4-cyl engine, this iteration of the body. The stubbier nose works better and the redesigned hatch and tail lights do too.
Honestly, even though I knew instantly that the first-gen Spirit kammback was a Gremlin with bigger rear-passenger side windows, I thought those windows made the car a lot better looking and were what AMC should have done from the get-go with the Gremlin.
The UK has an official term for the disease that is represented here….Allegro.
But I think the Gremlin trumps even the Allegro
I’m not sure Roger,I think you could drive a Gremlin without taking your bus fare or a pair of comfortable shoes!Wouldn’t want to risk it in an Allegro!
Yeah nar one of these with a V8 and manual could be a lot of fun, Fun is not a word thats describes an Allegro at all.
I used to see a custard yellow one with a primered door in Run what ya Brung at Santa Pod dragstrip in the 80s.it went quite well
Why did Chrysler have to buy an engine for the Horizon? Didn’t Simca put motors in back in France?
I don’t think the French engine would pass the strict American anti pollution laws
Why did Chrysler have to buy an engine for the Horizon? Didn’t Simca put motors in back in France?
Actually, Chrysler did use the Simca (1,6 L) pushrod four in the Horizon and Omni, but not until 1983. Why exactly did they start out with the VW engine? Quite likely for two reasons: Simca may not have had enough capacity, and the Simca engine was known to be somewhat fragile.
Initially, this was to be the only engine powering the Omnirizon twins, as Chrysler’s new 2.2 SOHC four was delayed, due to Chrysler’s limited cash resources. As such, it needed to be an engine suitable for American conditions: lugging a heavier car, often equipped with automatic, air conditioning, power steering, and in American driving conditions (higher annual miles driven). And Americans were known not to pamper their cars.
Chrysler already was familiar with the Simca engine in the 1100, as they imported the Simca 1100 for some years. It was a very advanced car and got great reviews, but the engine developed a rep for weaknesses.
They made a smart decision, as the VW engine was tough; using the Simca engine would have ruined the Omnirizon’s generally good rep.
In 1983, due to increased sales, Chrysler was concerned about VW being able to deliver enough engines, so they certified the Simca 1.6 L engine, and began to import them. But they were only used on “stripper” cars, with only manual transmissions. That would support the assumption that Chrysler thought this engine to not be up to US conditions.
The Simca 1.6 (falsely referred to as a “Peugeot engine”), was used through 1986, when it was dropped. By that time the vW engine was gone too, and the 2.2 had become standard. And sure enough, the Simca engines in these cars quickly developed a bad rep.
Power comparisons of the engines are mostly irrelevant, as Chrysler tuned the VW engine for American conditions, and had to meet tough emission regs too. The VW engine was certainly capable of more power.
Why did Chrysler have to buy an engine for the Horizon? Didn’t Simca put motors in back in France?
The Simca engines were too small. To sell in the US, you really need to be able to run an automatic and air. The largest engine Simca had was iirc, a 1.4, and it was an old pushrod noted for it’s rough and noisy nature. Even the VW engine as used in the Dasher and Rabbit was too small for Chrysler.
Euro-Chryslers also came with 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 liter engines.
Euro-Chryslers also came with 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 liter engines.
iirc, the British Roots Group cars were all rear drive. The only front drive powertrain was the crude and underpowered Simca line.
I see, the biggest Simca FWD I remember had a 1.6 liter. That was in the 1307/1308/1309 series. A midsized (in Europe that is) family car in the second half of the seventies. This model:
the biggest Simca FWD I remember had a 1.6 liter. That was in the 1307/1308/1309 series
Quite so, according to some pages from the 1980 edition of World Cars.
According to World Cars, the Simca 1.6 was rated for 87hp (DIN), 54kW at 5400rpm while the US Dodge Omni’s 1.7 was rated at 70hp (SAE net), 52kW at 5600.
No doubt, Chrysler had some reason for doing what it did. I recall seeing articles about 1307s being brought to the US and thrashed around Chrysler’s proving grounds. It could be that Chrysler already wanted to dump it’s loss making European operations, which made future reliability of Simca as a source questionable. iirc Chrysler sold Roots and Simca to Peugeot for $1. The Wiki article says Simca “collapsed” in 77, not as reliable a source as VW when the US Horizon came out in early 78? If Peugoet had not ponied up that $1, Chrysler might have been looking at moving all the tooling and machines to the US at the last moment.
This awkwardly reminds me of a race car bed for small kids. Also, almost any car is better suited for sleeping than a tent – I even know a 6’4-guy who manages to rest in his miata just fine.
Great piece on the struggles and ironies of the ’70s. Interesting that the one developmental area where they finally got it right was the Cherokee. If the could have pulled together one modern car with some sort of Civic / Accord / GM FWD A body attributes (instead of all the Renault stuff and rehashes of the Hornet), they might have had more future as an independent.
My mother’s first new car was a 77 Gremlin. It was dark blue with a Levi jean interior. Very 70’s. It was traded in when I was 2 years old on an 87 Plymouth Voyager with a 2.6. We had that van in the family for 17 years. I don’t remember the Gremlin but my mother still speaks of it fondly. I know it was an I6 Gremlin, which is probably why she doesn’t hate it.
I have it on authority that Karlheinz Stockhausen drove a ’77 Pacer and was smitten by a French AMC advertising campaign.
RE: “AMC was killed by Lee I.”
By the time Lido bought the store, the only true AMC car was the Eagle, no Pacers, Matadors, or Javelins in production. Renault was not even using AMC name in it’s ads, saying ‘see your Jeep/Renault dealers”. The best thing Mopar did was kill the effin Alliance!
Agreed. Chrysler filled in AMC’s open grave and even bought them a nice tombstone for it. The Alliance wasn’t a savior, it was the 80s equivelant of a modern Opel Buick.
Great article on a car that brings back many memories for me. My father had a 1973 AMC Gremlin in fire-engine red. I was very interested in AMCs as a boy.
The owner of the AMC-Pontiac dealer in our small town was also a member of our church, and the dealership was only about three miles from our house. I would ride my bike past the dealer on a regular basis. In the days before Brenda Priddy spy shots were plastered over the internet months before a car hit the lots, I didn’t see next year’s cars until they suddenly appeared at a dealership in late August or early September.
I remember pedaling by the dealership one August afternoon in 1976, and seeing a red Gremlin with a wide black stripe that had the familiar shape, but a different set of taillights. Closer examination showed a restyled front. Inside, however, it was the same old car as my father’s 1973 model. Even then, I knew that AMC was in desperate shape, and this 1977 Gremlin confirmed it.
There is a man in Ephrata, Pa., who restores old AMC cars. He has brought an immaculate, completely restored 1977 Gremlin X to the big Hershey AACA show several times, along with a few early 1970s Gremlins, and a low-mileage, all-original 1977 Gremlin. I believe that his 1977 Gremlin X has the four-cylinder engine.
Interestingly, Car and Driver reviewed the 1977 Gremlin with the four-cylinder engine in the spring of that year, and actually had some nice things to say about it. Maybe they felt bad about trashing the 1964 Rambler American, or just didn’t want to kick a company too hard when it was obviously down…
In the 1980’s one of my good friend’s Moms had a beige Gremlin with the V-8 engine – I think it was a 1975 or 1976 model. She loved that car and always bragged about how fast the V-8 was in that car. She loved her little “runabout” as she called it and I always thought that car was weird but cool! I remember it having a very small back seat, but she drove with the seat almost into the dashboard so it didn’t matter too much! I also remember the dashboard having a tray/sill underneath to store things. It was a great idea. I recently read an article on the new 2014 Toyota Highlander and it too has one of those storage trays on the dash. Motor Trend said it was one of the best features of the whole car – and to think AMC had this idea years ago!
I think the uniqueness of the AMC models is totally refreshing today as all the cars of today are looking more and more alike. I think AMC had guts and courage to come out with some of the designs they did back then. Four decades later I have to say they really do have some pretty awesome designs!
I found a really super condition 1978 Gremlin with the Audi 2.0 at an auction here in Washington State in May 2013.it is well tuned with the 3 speed auto box.The gas fuel sender was deteriorated,needed a new cat and muffler,gas tank sealed and air pump.It gets about 22 to 26 mpg.The Audi motor has so little torque that I often think of a new drive train that employs another small 4cyl that pumps out double the power.But…it is what it came with and i doubt the value would increase on it unless i dropped an AMC v8 into it.I regard it as a historical piece.There is not a lot of info on the engine.No tuners obviously sought after the engine save the Porsche crowd.If some brave soul ever transplanted the 924 turbo engine into a Gremmy i am unaware.
I like the Gremmy so much that I bought a Hornet.I enjoy the simplicity of these cars.parts are dirt cheap and still easy to find.AMC really shot themselves in the foot with the 70s styling.Their product line should have no included the matador or pacer.The gremlin was too weird looking,The Hornet to Concord was okay.They could have done much better by focusing on more mass appeal styling and innovative fuel saving engineering.
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 !
As with all American cars of this time period; one had to “work the option list” to receive an enjoyable Gremlin: 304 V8 engine, Mopar sourced 3 speed Torqueflite automatic transmission, power steering, factory A/C, power front disc brakes, whatever optional/upscale interior package available.
A sliver Gremlin “X”, optioned as above, was known as “The Nickel Rocket” by my automotive friends.
I drove a Gremlin from Toronto to Windsor and back. What a piece of trash. It was loud, any hint of a gust of wind would blow the thing hither and yon, the windows would not go all the way up so we had the pleasure of 4 hours of wind noise each way, and despite its compact dimensions, felt like a big car. You had to thrash the six banger to get it to move anywhere. It drank gas as if it thought itself a Ford LTD.
If anyone is a fan of these cars, I mean no disrespect. Obviously the one I had that weekend was not the best example of the model. However I was very glad to see the back of it.
I was curious about the weight difference, 924 4 speed curb weight is 2623 lbs. Gremlin 4 cylinder 4 speed is 2653. So weight was not an issue. Fuel injected 2.0 made 95 HP in the 924. 0-60 11.8 in 924. 0-60 16.0 in the Gremlin with the carbureted 80 HP 2.0.
Old EPA figures for 232 6 cyl 3 speed 21 city 25 hwy. 2.0 4 speed 22 city 35 hwy. If it had the fuel injection engine it would have been in the 12 second 0-60 range, the same as the 232 6 cyl. Gremlin. But then the FI 4 cylinder engine would have been even higher priced. Taking about 200 lbs off the front end is a good thing, would have improved weight distribution quite a bit.
I still cannot see a Gremlin without being instantly reminded of Mike Damone’s in “Fast Times”…
…only please don’t kick it very hard in the butt, because, erm…
My sister and BIL bought a red ’74 Gremlin with 2 options (IIRC), a roof rack and an automatic to go with the 232. Rubber floor mats and vinyl seats. The back seat was worse than the jump seat of my Karmann Ghia. Once rode in it on a 3 hour round trip (at age 16) and even then knew it was torture and had trouble getting my feet out wedged in the floor pan. Here’s my favorite gremlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_-rxY-4zHU.
My brother’s first brand new car was a ’79 Spirit he ordered with the 2.0 and a 5 speed. It didn’t have a lot of guts, but remember the speed limit was 55! It was a sweet running motor and could do 30 mpg on the highway….with a 21 gallon gas tank, you had a car that could go 600 miles! That was a decent car for the time!
The car in the article must be a 1977. The 1978 had a new dashboard shared with the Concord. Should have emblems identifying it as a four but they could be missing. Most likely a six.
“Popular Mechanics” magazine had a drive test of the 4-cylinder Gremlin in their February, 1977 issue that was very favorable. Relieving the front end of 200 pounds improved handling and and permitted a quicker manual steering ratio. With the 4-speed stick shift, 0-60 and quarter mile times were only one second slower than with the six. Gas mileage of over 28 mpg was reported in mixed local and highway driving.
The Gremlin is probably best thought of as a 2-seater with a rear jump seat for small children. (I guess you could get a couple of adults or teens back there if the front seat passengers squeezed their seats forward.) Early on a stripped version was even offered with no rear seat. Room in the front was generous for a subcompact since it was the same as the larger Hornet.
The Audi 4-banger seems to have been a decent fit, at least with a stick shift and no power-sapping accessories. If AMC had something like that to offer early on in the Gremlin’s product cycle it might have made more of a splash but by 1977 the car had been on the market for nearly 8 years and there was little interest in it. (I could not imagine this engine in a Concord with automatic transmission and AC though. It must have been dangerously slow as a VW Microbus.)