(first posted 4/25/2011) Picture this: Mid 1976. A young man just out of high school. Landing a good job that requires a 50 mile round trip every day. And he does it in a 1974 Cougar XR-7 with the massive Ford 460 under the hood. Sound like a dream commute? Not to this 18 year old, especially since the girl in the ad didn’t come with my car. The Cougar was getting 8 – 10 MPG driving through the thick Los Angeles traffic. And with gas just passing the (gasp!) 70 cent per gallon mark, I felt I had to do something. Quickly.
Flashback. Two years prior, my father and I observed our yearly ritual, attending the Los Angeles Car Show. I can only remember one car we saw that year. It was at the AMC section of the Convention Center, and it was a beautiful red Pacer.
For a gangly 6 foot 4 inch kid, a small car that looked like it actually might fit his frame was an irresistible draw. I got the presenter’s attention on the stage, and asked him about the interior room. He spoke into the microphone and invited me up on the rotating platform. I towered over him.
“How tall are you, son?” he asked. “Six-four, sir.” “This car is designed for people like you, Here, sit.” He opened the door and I sat down.
Incredible! The amount of room inside! I thanked the man. Dad and I continued through the auto show. I was enthusiastic about the new Pacer, probably selling a few Pacers for the local dealers that day.
Back to 1976. Thinking back to that experience, I paid a visit to the local AMC dealer where I struck a deal on a beautiful new 1976 Pacer D/L. White over blue, two-tone. Bucket seats. Floor shift 3 speed automatic. And the 258 c.i. straight 6 engine. I sold the Cougar to a co-worker and had enough to make a great down payment on the Pacer. A 2 year loan was all that was required.
My friends looked at me like I’d lost my mind. A Pacer? What were you thinking? A pregnant Volkswagen? I heard them all. But I was very happy with my purchase. The interior room was marvelous. The drawbacks? It was slow, and gas mileage was only 14-15 MPG.
WHAT? I purchased a small car only to gain 4 MPG over my Cougar? Something’s not right. I went back to the dealer and had it checked out. Everything checked out right and I went on my way, puzzled. I think the best I ever saw was 16 MPG. And the highest I ever saw on the speedometer was 85 MPH. Downhill. Thinking about that now, most of it had to do with the weight of the car, over 3,300 lbs! The Pacer was 220 lbs heaver than a Mercedes 240D, which was considered a large car.
(the only picture of my Pacer)
I liked the uniqueness of the Pacer, so the next 3 years, my Pacer and I were inseparable. We went everywhere together. I had a mobile DJ business before they were in vogue, so I carried all my sound equipment and records in the back of the Pacer. With the rear seat folded down, it was more than up to the task.
One weekend I went to a church camp where I had been hired to DJ the Saturday night dance. After unloading my sound gear, I drove the Pacer over by the large tent I had been assigned to sleep in. When night came, 5 other young men and I had just settled in when we heard the first raindrops on the old ripped tent. I grabbed my sleeping bag and headed for my trusty Pacer. With the back seat folded and the front passenger seat folded flat, I slept soundly and dry while my tent mates were getting wet.
I’m still not sure how I was able to attract dates driving that car. The looks my Pacer and I got were devastating at times.. The closest comparison is a 1950s button-down businessman looking down on a beatnik. A disdainful look.
Fortunately, as stated earlier, I did not have to take out a long-term loan on the Pacer. Just under 3 years after I bought it, I was driving down I-5 when the engine started to roar. I made it home and immediately called the local dealer to make an appointment.
The verdict came back. The manifold had a hole blown in it. A death sentence for the 258. I looked at the estimate, and made a hasty decision to head in to the showroom and see what was available. This particular dealership had recently become a dealer for a new line of Japanese cars, and I drove out of the dealership in a 1978 Honda Civic CVCC, stripping my poor Pacer of belongings and leaving it behind.
The Honda didn’t have as much room, it certainly was not as comfortable. But with a 4 speed manual transmission, small 4 cylinder engine, and 42 MPG it was quicker than hell and incredibly fun to drive. (Ed: and Honda didn’t use sexy girls in their ads; maybe that tells you something there)
As improbable as it may seem, I still miss my Pacer in some ways. Underpowered, not exactly cool, but certainly original. A quality I admire in a car.
Great story. These personal histories bring their cars to life. Lovin’ it.
Ever notice how the Pacer’s face resembles that ’65 American’s? Or was that your plan all along….
Great story! I was just learning to drive in ’76 and also liked the Pacer at the time. It was fun to see something different from the rest of the pack.
Here are my recent street finds from Olympia…
We almost got my mom one of these after dad died and their 1970 Duster was about done for. After a closer look, we decided (correctly) to buy a brand new 1979 AMC Concord, which she drove until she quit driving in 1990. The car had started to rust, unfortunately, but still looked quite nice at only 56,000 miles. A neighbor down the street bought it immediately!
I felt the Pacer was a bit too “delicate” in some areas and feared it wouldn’t hold up. I was right. Still, they were cool cars and we loved the Gremlin we owned at the time.
I always thought it odd that AMC didn’t hang on to the tooling for the Buick V6 for this car. I know the whole plan for a rotary and all probably had designers and engineers all starry eyed but for practicality sake the 3.8 V6 would have been the better choice..
Agreed. But corporate ego’s would certainly not let an engine designed by a rival company, that makes perfect sense, given the times, survive.
My understanding was that AMC viewed the Buick V6 as a rough-firing piece of crap. Which, at the time, it was.
A split-pin crankshaft solved that problem and GM milked that motor for another 30 years – and it was a truly competitive powertrain for all but the last ~5 years of production. Oddly enough, the AMC straight six was just as long-lived and legendary in Jeeps.
What the Pacer really needed was a four cylinder and a front wheel drive transaxle. Gremlins got an Audi-sourced 2.0L for ’77 and the Spirit could be had with the Iron Duke before an AMC-designed 2.5 finally arrived in 1984 – but by then AMC-branded cars were basically extinct.
The difference was, the Buick V6 was a powerhouse in the form that existed when AMC got it as part of the Kaiser purchase. Whereas, the Rambler six was a lumpen weight…competent but barely. In Ramblers, Hornets, Gremlins…it exited nobody; and when the EPA came to be and started measuring fuel usage, nobody was impressed with its thriftiness, either.
The Buick-Kaiser V6 ran a bit rough. That said, it was already engineered into Jeep products; and it didn’t get in those because it was a cheap deal. No…Warn, of the famed hubs, started buying crated V6s and installing them in CJs in the early 1960s. Word got out and officials from Toledo came and inspected; and found it good. The V6 started going in as a factory option.
When Buick announced the V6 was history, Kaiser…liked it so much they bought the whole manufacturing line! That’s scarcely a rejection of the V6 as a rough-running POS.
No, AMC didn’t have the R&D money or the engineering talent to split crank pins. But they could have lived with its uneven running, as Buick did…and had an engine for the Pacer. It was RIGHT THERE! Lighter…more powerful, than the boat-anchor six.
The transition to the powerhouse Jeep Six only came with Renault money and electronic fuel injection…technology that wasn’t developed and refined in the 1970s. In the meantime, all that that six cost them…everything from the Pacer being an overweight slug, to having to stretch the Jeep CJ three inches in the engine room…to the pervasive image of a stagnant auto company, nothing developing, no vision.
AMC had sold the tooling to the V6 back to Buick in 1974, by that time they knew the GM Rotary was DOA no?
It was about the same time; but the sale could have preceded the obit.
The whole thing started when The General started flailing for a reduced-bulk engine…on the cheap. Someone there remembered the sale of the Buick line to Kaiser; made phone calls to AMC…and were told the line was still intact, just shut down and covered with cosmoline. GM at first asked to buy ENGINES off the line…thinking, as they were, that this smaller-engine thingy was a fad that would be gone in a few years.
But AMC couldn’t come to agree on a per-unit price. Next tac, was to offer to buy the whole line back. There they found more agreeable numbers, and soon the trucks were backing up to Toledo Jeep.
The sale of the line was announced, IIRC, in 1974. It was in 1974 that the intro date of the GMRE was pushed back a year, and also funny things were happening at the line where they were supposed to start being made. Tooling was being taken out.
Did AMC know? Probably not; or they’d have squeezed the tit harder. From all appearances, they treated their own inherited V6 engine line like junk that some eccentric was eager to buy…hurry up and do the deal, before they change their minds! Had they known their Pacer would be left engineless by the shifting vagueries at the General, they might have thought twice…or gotten a quid-pro-quo in promises of V6 engines.
In the first photo of the Pacer, it looks like the guy is trying to push it !
The Buick V6 was a poor engine. (I know that it morphed into the very reliable 3800, but back then, it was a lousy engine-eating timing chains; rough running by design.) The AMC six was well-designed, and well-made, and capable.
That 3.8 v6 would have been ‘ a godsend’ for the ‘fishbowl’……
Love that interior pic. There’s been times when I’ve been meandering through eBay and entertained the thought of a Pacer just because of that interior. Reminds me of the one that was offered optionally in Olds Cutlass Slantbacks at about the same time. I believe it was called “Navajo.” Every time I show my sweetie one (she’s part Navajo) she says simply: “No.”
Dan I believe they were called “Tahoe” and Mojave” I never saw a “Navajo”, but then again you never know. Anyway, I happen to have a beautiful framed pic of the “Mojave” option package that even features a large fabric sample, you would flip if you saw it! One of these days I’ll have to take a pic of it and email it to you 🙂
It might have been. I’ve seen eBay ads that have called it everything under the sun. Typical misinformation because very few sellers have a good of a brochure collection as some of the commentators here. 😛
One of the Native American ladies I work with claims that Pontiac would have sold more cars here in “Indian Country” if they had kept the lighted “Chief Pontiac” head as a hood ornament.
Like you, I think a Southwest-inspired interior design would be awesome! The Santa Fe Railway use designs like that in their passenger trains and that contributed to their fame. I believe it would work in a car if done right and not too garish so it would sell in other parts of the country, if not the world.
Good grief, that’s bad mileage. Hell, you might have done better to swap the 460 for a 351 rather than dump the Cougar for the Pacer.
Great article. It’s always nice to read about people’s personal experiences with various cars when they were new.
You highlighted a big reason as to why the Pacer quickly fizzled. If I recall correctly, when the Pacer was in development, it was envisioned as a more economical alternative to the intermediate offerings then on the market. But it gained weight during the development process. Then, in the wake of the first fuel crunch, AMC pitched it as the “first wide, small car.” Its gas mileage, however was closer to that of the intermediate class, as was its price.
The Pacer actually sold pretty well at first. First-year sales were over 100,000 units, which was quite good for an AMC car at that time. But once the initial demand was sated, sales quickly tailed off by early 1976.
Given the choice of a Cutlass Supreme – or even a Cougar – and a Pacer, most people would have gone with the Cutlass or Cougar, especially since the “small” Pacer guzzled gas as eagerly as the latter two, while offering far less prestige and worse build quality. And the V-8s in the Cougar and Cutlass offered better acceleration and the feeling of more power, even if they were shadows of their late 1960s selves…
100,000 units the first year ???? that was EXCELLENT FOR ANY AMC PRODUCT BACK THEN !!! Growing up in the 60’s-70s my Dad bought a 67 White Rambler Rebel Cross Country wagon complete with 232 c.i. inline 6 with 3 on the tree & chrome roof rack and a 1970 White AMC Rebel Wagon 770 complete with a sm.block 304 V8 and select-shift automatic 3 spd that, if shifted to D2 @ standstill the tranny would start off in 2nd gear-helping with issues like getting stuck IN SNOW or mid-on roof rack & TINY dog-dish hubcaps…..however, with their simple design & exterior styling, the hubcaps actually looked great with the black wall 70 series tires. Plus with its comparable light weight & 2bbl V8, this bitch could ROCK WHEN “stomped upon “……plus it avg’d almost 25mpg on hwy…..then, with the introduction of the Matador, everything kinda went downhill with AMC from there.
Thank you, everyone. This was fun to write.
In the mid 80s when I got married my (now ex) wife came into the marriage with a ’75 Cougar. Looked exactly like my ’74, color and all, but it had the 351C. It actually got better mileage than the Pacer did.
But I would have never been able to carry all my sound gear in the Cougar. No way.
Hah, so I was right about the 351 vs Pacer
I drove one of these once. Navajo interior and all. The strangest feature about the car was the fact that the window glass was so tall that, when fully rolled down, it stuck up about 3 inches out of the door. AMC’s way to deal with this was a big plastic lip at the top of the interior door panel that followed the shape of the exposed window. It prevented my favorite driving position: window down, left elbow out the window.
Thanks for explaining that , I thought the doors looked odd in the interior shots.
One of the great scenes in the movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzUU7SRRsGo
I think it was New York Magazine that rated the Pacer as the best car for New York City apartment dwellers because no one would bother to steal it.
Somebody mentioned oddball interiors. Many years ago I remember going to look at a pristine AMX with a friend and the owner also had what I remember as a Pacer with seats that were made out of denim just like Levi”s 501’s. He said it was actually called a Levi package by AMC. Am I confusing that with a Gremlin? Anyway, it was a really unusual interior package and I thought it was extremely cool.
Yes, beach cruiser, you were remembering correctly. AMC made the Levi’s package in Pacers, Hornets and Gremlins.
From Wikipedia:
“The “Levi’s” Package: Attempting to capitalize on the popularity of the Levi’s Gremlin and Hornet, AMC introduced a Levi’s Pacer for 1977. This option added blue denim-like upholstery and door panel trim, with small “Levi’s” tags on both front seats. Missing were the traditional copper buttons found on the other AMC Levi’s seating. The package also included a “Levi’s” logo sticker for each front fender. It could be combined with the Pacer “X” package. Not well promoted, the Levi’s Pacer did not sell in large numbers and was gone for the 1978 model year.”
Jeep also offered a Levi’s trim package.
Yup.
Became part of the Renegade package for the CJs starting 1975.
The Levis seats began with the Gremlin in 1971 – it was a marginally-successful attempt to draw younger purchasers. It only really gained traction with the Jeeps, where it continued as long as the Renegade package did.
My first new car was a 1976 Pacer DL, powder blue, bench seat, $3,500. With the wind behind me and driving downhill I managed to squeeze out 17 mpg. Unfortunately it also ate up a set of tires very 25,000 miles. It didn’t have a radio so I put in an AM/FM/8 Track. I swear that every time the player changed tracks the car would shudder. I installed a CB radio antenna square in the middle of the top just forward of the rear window. When I was finished it looked like a giant remore control car ! I also installed a set of black plastic window louvers on the hatch. They were so heavy that the hatch back wouldn’t stay open unless you held it up and visibility was cut by about 50%, but they looked too cool to get rid of !
Weekends found me in my powder blue leisure suit driving my powder blue Pacer blaring disco from the player. Great times !
The Pacer was originally going to have a rotary engine that GM was developing at the time. The engine got cancelled and AMC has to stuff in their straight six engine. The rotary was also supposed to go into the Chevy Monza which also came out in 1975. That had the Buick V-6 that GM bought back from AMC a few years before. The Buick V-6 was used in mid 60s Buicks and was sold to Jeep. AMC got it when they bought Jeep from Kaiser. GM’s rotary got cancelled due to poor fuel economy. With the 1973-74 gas crisis fresh in everybody’s minds. Mazda also had rotarys around that time.
In hindsight it’s incredible that AMC designed a car around an engine that didn’t exist. And even if GM did have it (& would license it reasonably!), the rotary probably would’ve delivered even worse mileage than the six. What a wasted opportunity! Given their limited budget, they might’ve developed a new compact with modern chassis & more spacious body, even with nothing better than the 258.
At least the Monza had room for conventional engines.
I really have to wonder if AMC had received a viable Wankel engine from GM, would that turned the Pacer into more successful vehicle? Richard says in his article that the Pacer weighed more than 3300 pounds. Even if we assumed an optimistic weight savings of 400 pounds from using a Wankel instead of the 253 six cylinder, the Pacer would still have been a fairly heavy 2900 pounds. Then there are the traditional Wankel characteristics of poor gas mileage, and low torque; neither is well suited to the Pacer’s intended role. Finally, we know Wankel engines to need comparatively frequent rebuilds. I do not think that the average AMC Service Department would have welcomed servicing Wankel engines very much.
So, I suspect that actually having gotten the engine the car was designed for would have been a disaster.
Mazda fitted their rotary into Holden Premiers shipped from OZ that weighed similar to that Pacer fuel mileage was abysmal and performance leisurely at best, THe resulting Roadpacer was JDM only and top of the range from Mazda at the time several have emigrated to NZ where they have mostly become museum or car show curiosities.
Great stuff to read! I had a ’78, maroon/red, with the 304 V8. It was one of the best cars I’ve ever owned (never mind the mileage, around 16 in town but a nice 21 on the highway!)
The V8 got rid of the anemic power, and quality was improving each year. The kids loved it because they could look out, and we had a ‘gimmick’ where we would pull up to a red light, all turn our heads together to the neighboring car, and open and close our mouths as though we were fish! Gotta have some fun!
Some interesting design comments, though, are that the car was designed inside out. Four real adults were placed in a cage, and the car was designed around them. I traded in my ’79 T-Bird, and got a ‘small’ car with more rear seat leg room! The car was also designed in anticipation of roll-over standards that Uncle Sam was threatening Detroit with, so the car was heavily reinforced in anticipation of the new regulations. They never happened, so the later models had some of the structure in the roll cage lightened. That may partially explain my improved fuel economy.
The last point I wanted to mention is that I was driving late one night up a very windy canyon road, and latched on to a set of taillights ahead of me, figuring I’ll rely on his night vision – mine’s not great. I started to hear a high-pitched whine that I had never heard before, and realized looking down at the speedometer, it was pegged at the maximum indicated speed of 85! And I never felt panicked at all – I was just following the guy in front. Imagine his surprise when we got out of the canyon, and into a small town noted for their radar traps, and I pulled next to my ‘guide’ – he was driving a Camaro SS 396, and HE WASN’T HAPPY!!! I had a huge smile and waved at him as I passed him!
Take care, everyone, and enjoy the memories of a unique and daring car that the big guys would never have dared create, but look at the trends it set in production cars – doors rolling into the roof, ‘cab forward’, and later Ford copied the unequal door lengths on their Windstar van until they released the sliding door on the driver’s side. It’s generally the little guy that takes the risks, and then the big guys copy! The car did win several engineering design awards.
I wish more cars were designed that way, around their passengers. But now the wind tunnel rules all, and we just have to try to fit somehow.
Gaining 4 mpg doesn’t sound like much progress, but when you start at 8-10 mpg, that’s a 50% improvement. Your gas savings were were greater than you’d get by trading today’s 30-mpg economy car for a 45mpg hybrid!
These horrible cars never made it here and for one really good reason. the stupidity of using unequal length doors was never going to translate to RHD and nobody wanted to drive a fishtank.
When looking at some of AMC’s more bizarre seventies products, which, at first glance, seem to be the strangest cars ever produced, it’s far too easy to say, “What were they thinking?”, and wonder how they sold any of them and how much things have changed.
But, then, there’s the late Aztek and Caliber, and stuff still in showrooms like the Soul, Juke, Cube, FJ Cruiser, Scion iQ, Honda Crosstour, smart fortwo, and all the smiley-faced Mazdas.
Maybe things haven’t really changed that much, after all.
Longtime Porsche design director Tony Lapine has openly acknowledged the similarities between the Pacer, and the 928, which debuted two years later.
Funny how one car is a timeless classic and the other is one of the ugliest ever.
Oh, I don’t know that the 928 is one of the ugliest car ever- There’s always the Panamera…
Fascinating. I finished high school that year, too – and it’s amazing how little thought went into such big purchases.
I was lucky…sort of. I had guidance; and where I was being guided I didn’t resist or dislike. My old man, being German, wanted me in a VW Beetle.
But…mistakes were made later; while I was still young. Glad to see I wasn’t the only one.
No one is going to mention the “Broughamization” of Pacer with the 1979 Pacer Limited? Available with leather seats, power door locks, and power windows.
But fortunately no opera windows!
That Honda ad is amazing…
“Hondas are different. All our new cars … operate without a catalytic convertor. So you can take your pick of Regular or Unleaded gasoline. As for Premium, there is no benefit and it is a waste of money.”
I’ve always appreciated the Pacer because it’s completely absurd.
While it’s true the 232 and 258 6 cylinders were not the thriftiest engines around, they were fairly smooth running and had great torque – and they were very durable. They did get better in “Magnum” guise later after AMC’s takeover by Chrysler – but they were still very good engines during the 70s.
The Civic add brings back memories – bought a small 79 Civic Wagon while living in Hawaii in the mid-80s – great little car, very thrifty, extremely well put together and lots of space behind the seats. But I remember one day I turned in front of a young woman on a bicycle and she ran into my passenger side door – and essentially caved it in. From then on, I could only think what would have occurred if I turned in front of an F-150…… I sold it a couple weeks later.
Agreed on the AMC six, although I agree with the author of the article too. Great engine, just not very well suited to most of the small(er) cars AMC was building at the time… especially since it had become so strangled by emissions junk in the 70s. It was much more at home in Jeeps and Jeep trucks where all that torque (despite relatively little horsepower) could be put to good use. Ultimately, I’m glad they kept it around so long, because the later EFI versions were outstanding. That engine, with one of the overdrive transmissions to match, would make a great swap into a Pacer. In fairness, none of the sixes from Detroit (including the Buick V6 discussed up above) were all that much better at the time.
I’m with you on Honda’s flimsy sheetmetal, too. I’ve owned a number of Hondas from that era and literally the only thing I disliked about any of them was how chintzy and prone to rust the metal was. The extremely light weight was part of what made them fun to drive, but I would’ve gladly traded a few pounds for a car that didn’t crumble to pieces around me. Otherwise, they were some of the greatest cars ever, IMO.
The uniquely-styled Pacer appealed to me back in the day. Had I been earning enough money at that time, I’d have purchased a yellow Pacer X with a tan interior. I actually wrote to AMC about my enthusiasm for the car and received back a large poster of a Pacer along with a letter written from and signed by AMC stylist Richard Teague. Still have it somewhere.
I have a ’77 sunshine yellow X with tan interior, and would love to have that letter. Or, you could buy my car!
That would have been an excellent combo for the Pacer back then…..and I didn’t care what the critics said about it; the Pacer was a step toward future designs.
When I was in my early 20’s, a friend and I were exploring the inner echelons of a junkyard on Cape Cod. Imagine our surprise when we found a complete (yes, complete) 76 Pacer much like this one in a small grove of trees. It looked like the car could just be driven away with nothing more than a battery, some creative tinkering and some Queen on the aftermarket 8 track player. I distinctly remember the amount of room inside such a little car. Had the two of us had more than the $4.67 between us, it would probably be sitting in one of our garages today. Sadly, the junkyard, full of relics from the muscle car era and earlier, is now long gone and the property sold to some development company.
Sigh… 🙁
The Pacer was pretty different, and that’s drew buyers at first. It sold pretty well during the first year. But people were looking for better economy that the foreign cars could deliver, as well as small models from GM and Ford. It might have worked better on the smaller Gremlin platform, with a 4 cyl. engine. The Pacer wagon looked ok. But big curved windshields were out of style. The short front end is cute, but would look better with aero headlights .
I have owned many pacers over the years.The first being a 1976 DL 258 2 brl auto Navajo interior and mags. I changed the timing and balanced the carb. Re routed some vacation hoses and got 27 mpgs. Much more power. The exter large passage door made it much easier to get into. The pacer wheel base is the same as a 1980 Lincoln car. The pacer was about 10 years too early in design but did not stop the other car companies from picking up on the improved designs of AMC that they did not have. The pacer was one of the best handling cars l have owned….and l have had many.
So you went to BUY. LDS?
Wait, what? The latter doesn’t even come close to following from the former. This is almost “The taillight bulb failed, so I had to get a new car”-level stuff.
I know this was commented in 2016, but…
Parts = cheap
Labor = expensive
Cost to have dealer replace manifold = more than a downpayment on a new Honda.
Yeah, when the taillight burns out on a car you no longer wish to have, it’s time to buy a new car. It makes no sense financially, but damned if it doesn’t make sense to you anyway.
I remember this ad was widely used (no pun intended) for the Pacer`s introduction. I felt then and now, that the way they excessively portrayed the Pacer`s width in this image was a mistake. Being a double page spread, it looked even more abnormally wide, than the already too wide photo portrayal. It gave the car clownish proportions.
As a kid at the time, I imagined all four Banana Splits could fit comfortably, and look at home, in a Pacer.
Good story. I’m not quite sure about the ‘manifold with a hole blown in it’ though. IIRC, the Hornet 258 we owned had a cast iron exhaust manifold. A gasket can fail or manifold can crack but a hole? Even so, replacing it with a new (or good used) manifold doesn’t seem like it would be that expensive…
I’m wondering about the ‘manifold with a hole in it’ myself. Was the 258 like the Chevy 250 where the intake was integral with the head?
Sounds like a ‘cracked’ exhaust manifold, to me.
As to it being a relatively easy fix, well, it was a 3 year old Pacer, and AMC was dead-brand-walking by 1979. Whatever he got for it, he probably made the correct decision (long-term) in cutting his losses and going with the Civic. Provided, of course, he could squeeze his 6’4″ frame into it.
As shared on these pages previously…
Ok, this has to be the weirdest instance of the CC Effect that has ever happened to me.
We’re talking Twilight Zone worthy….
I was just reading the previous post about the ‘73 Riv with the cow catcher on the front, and ended my comment with, “Party on, Garth”… having not thought of the phrase, or where it came from, for YEARS.
Then I see this post, an old repeat, and there, several pictures down, is the guy who said that very line.
Enter Rod Serling and cue the music….
A Honda Civic is “quicker than hell”?
That’s hilarious.
Only if it was going off a cliff.
Apparently you’ve never driven a new one.
My 2016 Civic EX-T Coupe does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, has a top speed of 126mph (governor limited), and although I understand the author is talking about a CCVC from yesteryear, they weren’t too shabby either.
My best friend’s sister had one of those (a ‘76 IIRC) that would easily hit triple digits and was a lot of fun to drive. Ironically, his car was an AMC as well, albeit a Javelin, not a Pacer.
Never made any sense for AMC to make the Pacer so wide. That’s one of the primary reasons it was so heavy, (and the massive amount of glass). Dimensionally speaking, width doesn’t contribute to the amount of useable interior space as much as height and length, especially in a small car. Combine all that pork with the typically inefficient engines of the day and you end up with a small car that was both deadly slow and still delivered the same lousy gas mileage that all American cars got in the 70s. Still, you have to love the Pacer for its individuality. AMC HAD to be different from the big three. Otherwise there would have been no reason to buy their slightly altered variant of a Pinto, or a Chevelle, or Dart…
OMG, yes it did make sense to make it wide! That was the whole point!
US adoption of imports was limited in a large part due to how narrow a lot of imports were. We were the land of bench seats and wide transmission tunnels. Your passenger shoulders were nowhere near yours when driving a typical US car. Small cars felt cramped, not due to lack of room, but due to proximity of passengers inside of them. Tall and narrow has lots of space, but people will tell you it has no room, all because of perception of usable space. As a wide small car, the feeling inside was of much more room. That, along with the fishbowl glass providing excellent visibility and heft, was the gimmick of the car when new. I remember a lady at church buying a Bobcat versus a Pinto because she believed the salesman who told her the Mercury version was “heavier”, which it was not. People equated heft with safety and comfort. AMC used those tricks to try to sell what was a last ditch attempt to keep the company relevant and alive. Wide and fat was their Hail Mary pass, and it failed.
The Pacer is easy to mock as one of the 10 Worst Cars Ever, but the truth remains that it handled well, rode well, was comfortable, and was also one of the safest cars on the road at the time. (Insurance injury index back then was the measure….as we didn’t do the level of crash testing and ranking that is done today.) Yes, too heavy, but built like a cushioned tank!
I was born in ’76, so when I was a kid Pacers were about as thick on the ground as they would ever be. I LOVED the styling. In an era of bloated, overstyled cars with enormous overhangs front and back and but no interior space, the Pacer had a rational, huggable, distinctive look to it. I badly wanted one as a kid, but never had the chance, and now probably wouldn’t devote the limited space in my garage to one.
The Pacer was about as big a hit as AMC would ever have outside of the Jeep. As pointed out, it was HEAVY, largely due to the fact that AMC couldn’t develop a new platform and had to reuse a lot of components from the Matador and heavier cars, and as pointed out it was expensive, on par with a better equipped Cutlass which had much more prestige and better resale value and build quality and looked properly upwardly mobile. If AMC could have partnered with one of the lower tier Japanese companies to develop a lighter platform and/or make it front wheel drive, AMC could have survived. But they ended up in bed with Renault which had more modern cars, but even worse quality and AMC dealers had no idea how to fix the Renaults.
I recently posted in another thread (link below) about the 1976 buick LeSabre V6. The Buick 3.8 V6 was a rough running motor and the specs in 1976 guise were 105 HP and 185 lb/ft of torque vs 100HP and 185 lb/ft of torque of the 1975 258 AMC. I’m not sure of the weight difference, but the 258 inline 6 was likely smoother than the 3.8 V6 Buick.
While GM did improve the motor the following year- 1977 it was made into an “even firing” motor- when the pacer came out it would have had the still-rough version of the motor. Using the GM 3.8 may have saved AMC money if they could buy it for less than the cost of the 258, but it wouldn’t have made the car any better performance-wise.
I recently found this site last year, and my first post was to comment on this motor and the ’76 Lesabre 🙂 Man, the 70’s were some rough years- ha!
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd/qotd-did-the-1976-buick-lesabre-v6-have-the-worst-power-to-weight-ratio-of-any-malaise-era-american-car/
The interior of the car seems lit. It’s amazing. Thank you for sharing those lovely pics.
Im really late to this…..about 14 years but I wanted to say that my mother bought a 1976 Pacer in Annapolis MD. We were the only ones in the whole town to have one and she also traded in a Green Cougar for the vehicle. We lived on the mouth of the South River to the Chesapeake Bay and I was 12 in 1976 and that door was so so hard to close. My mom and I were also big into Tennis and she had a bumper sticker on the car that said “toot for tennis”, She eventually traded it for a convertible 1976 yes 1976 Ford Mustang (obviously custom). She passed away when I was 19 and I moved from Annapolis soon thereafter but today I have reconnected with many of my childhood friends and everyone remembers my mom and how she fed the swans 4 times a day and we drove around in the Coolest Jetson Car Ever.