(first posted 1/3/2017) I thought this would make an interesting counterpoint to yesterday’s Mark IV CC. I suspect that the usable interior space in the Mark isn’t all that much bigger than the Pacer’s. We’ve covered the Pacer a few times here at CC (links at bottom), but it’s always a popular topic. And this time, we’ll hear what R&T had to say on this controversial subject after a proper road test (R&T’s technical analysis is here).
R&T makes it clear right from the get-go that the Pacer does not fit their idea or definition of a small car. Well, it really was a new format, given its almost full-size width along with its almost Pinto-sized length. Its ratio of width to length was essentially unprecedented; the closest analogue would have to be the Studebaker Lark, which was a drastically cut down “full size” Studebaker. But at 71.4″ wide, it was a half-foot narrower than the 77″ wide Pacer. And the Lark was 3.5″ longer to boot. So the Pacer really was something different, but given that its footprint was comperable to large import sedans like the Volvo 164 and BMW Bavaria, and with a curb weight of 3425 lbs, it just didn’t fit the definition of a small car. And given that footprint, it was decidedly short on rear seat room, compared to those other sedans. One does wonder just what AMC was going for here, from a packaging point of view.
Of course there were upsides to its unique design too. Visibility was superb, something we can only fantasize about. But would folks today like sitting in a fish bowl?
Like so many other radically-styled new cars, the Pacer was a hot commodity in its early days, until people got used to the idea. R&T notes that looking like its standing still when doing 60 was perhaps a good thing in the days of the 55mph speed limit.
The pacer’s ride was all-American big car-like: smooth, as long as the road was smooth. As soon as the surface deteriorates, the Pacer’s unambitious and utterly conventional suspension with rear leaf springs quickly also deteriorates. AMC was not known for its suspension prowess, and the Pacer was no exception.
Power steering was a must, otherwise the very slow manual steering with six turns lock-to-lock was not in keeping with a modern car, despite it being rack and pinion, rather unusual in a larger American car. Feeling was absent in the power steering unit.
The beefy radials on this tester resulted in good cornering power, although with the front anti-roll bar, the rear end liked to pop out in hard cornering. The optional (and highly recommended) disc brakes were ok in normal use, but very disappointing in emergency use. The pacer had bad front end dive, something mostly gone in other cars by the mid 1960s, and rears locked up too easily, demanding an inordinate amount of effort to keep the car in control.
The test car had the larger 258 (4.2 L) six, which curiously was rated at the same 100 net hp as the smaller six, but with more torque. Combined with the Chrysler Torqueflite 3 speed automatic, it made for a relaxed drive train, but sluggish acceleration. 0-60 was a quite modest 15.8 seconds; no better than almost all of the really small and cheap economy cars of the time.
Surprisingly, the engine was found not to be as quiet at speed as might be expected, despite the low gearing. Fuel economy was mediocre, at 16.0 mpg.
There were some beefs with some ergonomic and ventilation issues too.
But despite the carping, R&T ended the review on an upbeat note, saying that the Pacer’s unique and fresh styling accounted for quite a bit, in terms of its impact on the driver and the public. And they (rightfully) assumed the majority of America drivers would most likely be quite satisfied with its dynamic qualities. Who can resist the charms of a fresh new face, even if it is hiding a few sins? Unfortunately, fresh new faces don’t always have much of a life span.
Jay Leno likes these cars for some reason. I think that even a few models could be ordered with a V8, which seemed odd for such a small car.
The back window I heard was a very expensive operation to make for the company, with the waterfall flowing rear window/glass. It created a great visual outlet.
Cheap and kind of awkward. This car has charm & character, enveloped into (then) very modern forward thinking design for a micro car. The “Levi” jeans edition was a neat touch as well.
this was later called the Gremlin I think, with a more flat slanted rear end.
The Pacer offered the option of a V-8 engine beginning with the 1978 model year. That is why 1978-80 Pacers feature a revised hood and grille with a raised center section. That “bump” was necessary to clear the V-8 engine.
The Gremlin was a separate model that debuted halfway into the 1970 model year, and continued through 1978. For 1979, AMC restyled the Gremlin and renamed it “Spirit.”
Geeber
Thanks for the clarification, I always got the Pacer and Gremlin mixed up. They were both by AMC Motors I think.
The name changes seem confusing. I think people will simply remember the Gremlin over the Pacer. Even though Gremlin came after the Pacer.
Gremlin came before the Pacer (1970 vs. 1975). It was their first attempt at a subcompact car, accomplished by shortening the compact Hornet 12″ in WB and 18″ OAL behind the rear doors, and shared most components from the doors forward:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/167953.jpg
The Pacer was built off the same full-width platform as the Matador, though it shared few exterior body parts besides the ubiquitous door handles
The Pacer did not use the same platform as the Matador. The Pacer had a completely different chassis structure and front suspension, different from every other AMC vehicle. It also had rack-and-pinion steering, which no other AMC car had. That’s why the Pacer was such a disaster for the company, it was built on a unique platform that cost a fortune (by AMC standards) to develop.
That does seem to be a big misconception with the Pacer. They may have used the Matador as a jumping off point for floorpan width, but these really are nothing like an AMC product of the times. I’m doubtful the Matador coupe is the number one cause of AMC’s demise, followed by the Pacer as stated below. The Matador is all a reskin basically, with all the greasy bits and hardpoints being 73 carryovers or shared with the sedan. It turned out to be a loser at an important time for the company, but the Pacer was a loser too and would have been the biggest engineering investment since the 63 Classic/64 American, yet never was spun off of or long lived like the old Classic/American chassis turned out to be(living well through most of the 80s).
AMC used the Matador base for some of their engineering mules. That was the Matador connection. Essentially to test the width and interior room of the wide small car concept.
The Matador was based on the 67 Rebel platform.
The Pacer was not Matador based as stated above.
The Hornet was an all new car in 1970, not based on the 63 Classic.
Drzhivago138
I researched what you said and your for the most part correct. The complex heavy business decisions/aspects of a company that has multiple model ranges that share components/parts is very fascinating to me. Almost as interesting as the cars themselves.
who would have thought the Ultra modern Pontiac Fiero of 1984 (truly revolutionary for it’s time). Used the dated looking econo box Chevette & Citation (same engine also)-sub frame and configuration underneath it’s slick aerodynamic shell!
“I think that even a few models could be ordered with a V8, which seemed odd for such a small car.”
Pacers got the 304 ci V8 option in ’78 and not just “a few models”.
There were quite a few “small” cars with v8 options back then. Chevy Monza, Mustang II, and even the Gremlins.
TomCatt630
You are correct, back then V8 were stuffed into anything. I think I may have been looking at it from today’s perspective. Which would be equal to say a small Ford Festiva with a V8 dropped in it.
Most if not all car company’s would deem it to expensive to place such a expensive configuration into a entry level micro car.
What an UGLY car. Front and back and in between.
MeeMeep
It has a like it or hate it design for sure. Some how I happen to fall in the middle.
I fall on the hate it side at a quick glance, but then when I review the car in more detail, while comparing it to what was available at the time (the 70’s). I began to like the Pacer / Gremlin more and more.
I guess it would be comparable to what folks thought of the Geo Metro of when it came out in 1989, The Dodge/Plymouth Horizon’s of the early & mid 80’s. The interior design, engine bay layout looks like AMC did put money into the project at least. I kind of hate and love the car at the same time if that makes any sense! it looks fun and unique (daring even).
But it also looks like a cheap car, that will break down on you. We are talking AMC as the maker after all. Now the AMC Eagle is dead ugly!
The Eagle was a beautiful car if you lived in the snow belt! They, and Subaru 4WD wagons, were like gold back in the 1980s if you lived in those areas.
I have heard whispers that AMC Eagle 4×4 does work well in bad weather. That is when the car is working at all.
I think I remember reading somewhere that the reason the Pacer was so wide was because AMC had so little money to invest in a new plant. The car had to roll down the same assembly lines as the larger (and wider cars), and thus dictated that the Pacer had to be as wide as the larger cars.
The width of the passenger compartment was intentional as the objective was to build a “small” car with big car room. I don’t think it had anything to do with assembly lines, certainly AMC was building the narrower Gremlin and Hornet at that time. However, the Pacer’s body wound up thicker and heavier than planned due to legal concerns with potential safety legislation. The company was afraid of being put in the position of having to redesign the car shortly after its debut.
Front-wheel drive was considered early on but not seriously since AMC could not afford that kind of extravagance. (In fact the Pacer’s front suspension design precludes front drive since the low-mounted springs would be in the way of drive axles.) Other than the unique front suspension and rack-and-pinion steering the Pacer’s engineering was that of a Hornet with a different body. It probably would have been worse with the GM rotary, given the General’s track record with new engine technology. At least the old Rambler six was reliable.
I remember a print ad billing the Pacer as “the first wide small car.” Even though I didn’t know the full story, it struck me as making a virtue of necessity.
Magnum: What would explain the Hornet and Gremlin coming down the same lines then ? That wasn’t the reason it was so wide. It was a new concept.
Dad bought a new Pacer in 1975 with the 258 six and manual three on the floor. My older brother and I were stunned when we saw the white over blue Easter egg in the garage. It even had a white interior. We had to borrow the Pacer when our own cars (Fiat 124 Spider for bro and my scruffy ’65 Mustang convertible) were laid up. I thought I was surfer cool-looking with a lean build, suntan, and long blond hair but all that style was hopelessly negated whenever I had to pick up a date in the bubble car. I think I still bear psychic scars from the experience.
The car was fairly lame to drive – the engine was a gutless coarse groaner, the shifter was notchy, the handling unexceptional (my Mustang Six was better on the road), and the car got around 15 mpg. The only real positives were the airy-seeming interior and the visibility.
I think you’ve described all AMC’s with the 6 cyl engine. I own a couple. They are torquey and reliable but are no pleasure to drive for the reasons you mention. Frankly they are more suited for industrial applications, and were used as such, on occasion.
The later 4.0 six used in Jeeps is much better. Its basically the same design, but with a bigger bore, shorter stroke, reworked ports and manifolds that improved the power and driving dynamics. It’s too bad AMC did not introduce those improvements 15 years earlier.
HaHa, I had the same experience. A girlfriend in law school had one, blue with white trim and the navajo interior. It was a high trim car, though a little crusty around the edges. I drove it once and felt like I was wearing a “Kick Me, I’m a Doofus” sign on my back. And this from a guy driving a well-worn 71 Scamp at the time, and was quite happy how I felt in it. It is funny how a car can affect your self-image.
AMC just wanted something totally different, even if it was impractical. Consumer Reports did a comparison VW Rabbit and AMC Pacer test. On the front , it said one of these cars is the best small car we’ve tested. I already knew it was the Rabbit. They said it was like comparing apples to cantaloupes .
AMC could have saved money by using the Gremlin chassis with the Pacer . What people really wanted was a small car with decent fuel economy. It would have been lighter weight and would have gotten the same 4cyl. the Spirit got in the late 70s.
AMC got really ambitious for 1974-75 with this, the Matador coupe and the new front ends on the Matador/Ambassador sedans. Unfortunately, this 1974-75 shot for the moon landed in a flaming thud. The underpinnings of AMC’s line had never been really inspiring, and the money they chose to spend on flashy new models turned out to be pretty much money spent on dead ends. I suppose that they were built better than Chrysler’s stuff of the same era, but that is not much to praise.
In hindsight they would have been much better off putting scarce tooling dollars into their core models (Gremlin and Hornet), which aside from having full ball joint front end were still being built on what was essentially the 1964 Rambler American chassis. I’ve read that AMC never even broke even on the tooling for the Pacer and Matador Coupe. Of course the failure of those models pushed AMC into Renault’s hands. What could possibly go wrong with that arrangement?
According to the AMC history book “The Last Independent”, the Matador coupe was the #1 cause of money issues, and then the Pacer.
’74 Matador coupe was meant to compete with Chevelle and Torino, but the mistake was thinking fastback mid size coupes were the future, versus formal roofs. GM and Ford made cash with variations of Cutlass Supremes and Cougars, same with Chrysler Cordoba.
Also, AMC flopped in NASCAR, where they tried the ‘win on Sunday…’ formula.
Again, the Hornet was an all new car for 1970, not based on the 63 chassis. It used some bits and engines and transmissions from the Rambler [formerly American] but it was an all new design.
It took three years,40 million dollars and a million man hours to develop. It also had an all new front suspension.
In some ways, the demographic for these cars seemed to be teen girls. A bubble car for the bubble gum set. My 15 year old female cousins were totally into the Pacer, except for the small problem that they didn’t have any money to actually buy one.
We’re rehashing the same arguments here. FWIW this car was simply ahead of its time. The features that made it ugly and malproportioned in the ’70’s were widely adopted by the 90’s. Relatively short sloping hood, airy greenhouse, hatchback, rounded styling etc were seen on many later cars, like the 90’s Honda Civic, and many CUV’s today.
Furthermore, this car was one of the very few American cars of the 70’s that truly tried to have form follow function. Dedication to visibility, space-efficiency and utility is commendable, but unusual for the day. Those functional proportions made closed minded people think its ugly. It’s not. Frankly it looks remarkably current and up to date for a ’70’s machine. I own several full size 70’s cars that I enjoy. But their utility and space efficiency are ridiculously bad compared to the Pacer, and they look ugly and malproportioned compared to cars today.
The Pacer’s shortcomings were due to compromised engineering because AMC lacked money for a proper development.
OntarioMike
Great write up, well explained!
People have to learn how to take company politics, the atmosphere of the era in which car is created to get the how and why such a car was created. What the market looked like and demanded at the time. Consumers are “iffy” and all over the place often.
This will guarantee that certain car models fail due to the timing and trends at the time of release. Cadillac Seville comes to mind (1980-1985 model).
The big problem was the weight, which negatively affected fuel economy and performance. This, in turn, resulted in a confused message from AMC about what the Pacer really was, and what it was trying to achieve.
AMC initially hyped the Pacer as the “first wide small car.” The problem with that message was that, due to the car’s weight, it offered the economy of a typical domestic intermediate. With the first fuel crunch still in everyone’s collective memory, small car buyers in 1975-76 expected superior fuel economy, and the Pacer did not deliver.
At the same time AMC was advertising the Pacer as the first wide small car, AMC also tried to tell people that the Pacer was really an alternative to conventional domestic intermediates.
The problem with that approach was that people buying intermediates in those days preferred something that looked like a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme or Pontiac Grand Prix. These cars, when compared to the Pacer, offered similar fuel economy, superior performance and better build quality.
If the Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme or Grand Prix weren’t any roomier than a Pacer, at least the purchase of one didn’t leave your neighbors, family members and co-workers scratching their heads.
Valid points, and don’t forget they were almost certainly less safe than a larger car too and didn’t have much cargo space.
The only reason to buy one would be ease of driving and parking.
Pacers were actually pretty safe since they were designed to meet stringent crash standards that were anticipated but did not materialize. That’s one of the reasons the car was so heavy. From Wikipedia:
“Full-circle body protection was designed into the Pacer, starting with the energy-absorbing bumper mounts through upper and lower box-section rails on each side extending back to the front pillars, as well as from the bases of the pillars behind the doors, the box-section members in the body floor curve up and back in past the rear wheel houses.”
The Pacer also has a very strong roof structure due to anticipated rollover standards. (Originally it was to incorporate a real roll bar but that was never actually included.)
I wonder what the fuel economy would have been had the wankle been installed? I helped my buddy change the spark plugs in his Pacer and the back one neede 2 universal joints to get at it but I really like the cars now.
Rotary engines aren’t particularly economical. The benefits would be lower weight and better performance.
Maybe “form follow function” from the front bumper to the front seat, but not past that. The back seat of a VW Beetle and a tiny uncovered trunk area were just sandwiched inside the form – rather the opposite. A standard intermediate of that width would have had a back seat with a foot more hip room and more leg room, and a trunk twice as big.
I wish modern cars would get a bit wider. Even larger cars are now narrow, at least on the inside. It’s near impossible to fit 3 child seats in the back of most.
They sell more 3-row CUVs that way I suppose.
If anything, this might be looked at as a precursor of the CUV.
Hmmm…with a width of 74.8 in. and a length of 172.1 in., the “Range Rover” Evoque might very well be today’s “wide small car”!
Fun trivia: what modern vehicle, other than the Smart Car, has the highest width-to-length ratio?
“What would you do if you had to compete with GM, Ford and Chrysler?”
This was the advertising slogan that they used in the ’70’s. They should be applauded for having the guts to try some really outlandish stuff. It made them distinctive and probably kept them alive longer than would have been the case if they simply imitated the big three.
Motor Trend’s answer to that in an early comparison test of the Hornet 360 was “Kick some butts on the assembly line and get the employees to finish their work”.
I felt the crisp styling on the new VW Rabbit/Golf, Dasher, and Scirocco looked more futuristic to my eyes at the time. Less fanciful, and more genuine as practical interpretations of what a modern design should look like. Of course the more advanced engineering under the skin of the VWs, told the whole story. Further, coming from AMC, I would have never felt confident with the build quality.
I did feel the Pacer wagon was the most practical design, and should have been the only Pacer design offered. It was the coupe’s styling that was especially polarizing. The wagon didn’t weigh much more than the coupe, while offering significantly more practical cargo space.
Daniel M.
Sometimes a company has to take drastic measures to think outside of the box.
The VW Rabbit/Golf/Scirocco etc, though I’m sure looked neat, clean, and modern for it’s time. They were standard 3 part box design, not revolutionary by any means.
I credit car companies that take a chance from time to time. Sure it may be a miss and not a hit. However, I applaud their efforts. Like say the Cadillac Seville of 1980-1985. People are just to conservative to try new ideas!
The same formula re-done with a transverse inline-six (to take advantage of the width) front wheel drive package would be very interesting.
The closest thing to your idea is the current generation of Volvo S60/V60 from before they dropped the twin-turbo I6.
I had one in about 1982, a dark red wagon with fake wood and a Southwestern style interior (the upholstery looked like Native American rugs). I sold my ’70 ‘cuda for it, because I’d just had a child and needed more of a family car–biggest regret of my life of my life (not the child, getting rid of the ‘cuda). I only owned the Pacer a few months. before something went terribly wrong with the engine, and a local Firestone dealer charged me more than $1,000 to try and fix it, and never could figure out what was wrong with it. Happily, I found a buyer for it, a middle aged man who loved and collected Pacers and gave me a good price for it. For the life of me, I can’t remember what car I got next.
When I look at the Pacer, I can’t help but think “Studebaker Lark”. IOW, a big car made short. I wonder if the Lark’s (initial) success is what inspired AMC to go through with the Pacer even after GM pulled the plug on the Wankel.
The Pacer took a lot more engineering effort and expense to develop than the Lark. AMC couldn’t afford not to build it when GM failed to deliver the rotary engine. Designing a new car around a nonexistent engine was a really big gamble, and AMC lost.
You’re not too far off. I have vague memories of a Pacer television ad where the plot was a couple driving a full-sized American car into view, they stop, and the front and rear ends are pulled off. Voila, it turns into a Pacer.
Some argue that the Pacer was ahead of its time, but a small car with a piggish appetite has never been a winning combination. AMC resale value was in the toilet in the mid seventies and they had an image of being owned by math teachers and librarians. Yeah, and theys UUGGLLYY!!!!!!!
Pacer was a styling fad, like platform shoes and mood rings. Fans who wanted one got them its first year, and was out of style by spring ’76.
Sure AMC had ‘guts’, but they can only sell so many goofy cartoon cars before France [Renault was state owned then] bailed them out.
AMC – always somewhat odd, to say the least. The Concord was probably one of their “most normal” and best executions, even if it was a dressed up Hornet.
I remember my Dad saying the Pacer looked like an upside down bathtub. There were several back in the day roaming my neighborhood, the most memorable a white one with the Rallye wheels, a red stripe and red cloth interior with the white and red Aztec style stripe running down the seats. The owner kept that car immaculate for the many years they had it.
Tom C
Now whoever at the company that “green lighted” this interior design deserves no less than a full year in prison-yes it is that bad looking. I get it was the 70’s but still, no excuse.
Huh? I like that interior.
Too funny – AMC vehicles were always good for creating a lot of emotional reactions – some good, others not so much!
All these years later I can appreciate what they were attempting to do – design cars outside the box and with what little resources they had, they definitely tried very hard. Too bad the public didn’t appreciate what they offered.
And these days, new cars all look like angry upside-down bathtubs.
Much like cars of the Forties and Fifties.
LMAO ONTARIOMIKE!
I imagine the best use for that body would be to drop it onto a jacked up 4WD chassis with a hi-po V8, and painted flat black, including rear windows. And a fresh coat of mud, natch. Total badass!
Many years ago a co-worker replaced the 258 six in his Pacer with a 401 AMC V8. I may be wrong but I believe that all of the final series of AMC V8’s used the same block, with variations in the bore and stroke. In any case the 401 was installed with few problems. The car was certainly entertaining to drive, at least in a straight line. He relocated shortly after completing this project; I sometimes wonder what became of the Pacer.
“… a precursor of the CUV…”
I think the AMC Eagle and Hornet Sportabout that it was based on, is a more apt precursor. Pacer doesn’t have cargo capacity of a Ute, and sits low.
“Ahead of its time”?
90’s Honda Civic is a much better overall design than the Pacer, and its roots were the actual 1970’s Civic.
But, Honda did offer something that looked like a 4 door Pacer, the Crosstour that was a marketing flop, rare for them.
It’s interesting how success or failure in some medium(sales, racing, safety) can cloud our senses of attractive design. I grew up when the Pacer was very rare and known only from Wayne’s World fame. I just don’t see the outright UGLY others are seeing in them, most Japanese cars looked worse in the same years and compared to the schnoz on the 74 Matador sedan, the 74 Matador coupe, or the Gremlin it’s downright sexy. That’s me though, I always wanted the mirthmobile. It does make me curious what those calling this ugly consider a beautiful car, I’m thinking I’d disagree.
The Pacer’s faults are mostly present in modern subcompacts as well, for the same reasons even, 3,000lbs doesn’t seem so heavy for a car in this class by today’s standards. The difference was the Pacer got powered by the same plants that powered the full sizers, and not exactly high tech ones at that, which is unheard of and physically impossible today. The rotary engine plan wasn’t the right answer but it was in the right spirit, had instead a Honda like powerplant powered these things from the start, the inefficient as a midsize notoriety would be a non-issue. So I agree with those arguing it was ahead of the time, technology just hadn’t caught up on the drivetrain front to make it much more than a futuristic prop car available for the masses(which sort of relegates it into the same class as fin cars with their jet age flying car aspirations), ultimately the alternate answer for AMC in this time would to spend the Pacer budget on new efficient drivelines for the Gremlin/Hornet and their derivatives, but with those aging out by 75 that may have end up being money down the drain as well.
I also don’t hate the Pacer’s styling. Although it’s quirky, it wasn’t trying to look like “mini-me” anything else. I detest small cars with forced-looking and poorly proportioned design cues (Mustang II in the ’70s or Mercedes CLA today) – better to try to make it look like something different altogether. I also respect the Kia Soul and Nissan Juke – yes, I said it – because they have their unique design language instead of awkwardly scaled cues.
+1
I kinda like these too. But I still wouldn’t have wanted to be seen in one, lol.
Give one of these the 4.0 HO I6 from a Cherokee and 4-speed automatic transmission and I’m sure that it would be a much nicer car. Nothing wrong with malaise era cars that can’t be fixed with fuel injection and overdrive.
Operator…? Yes, the review cites a 3.08:1 final drive ratio, lower* than the ~2.7 ratios in other 6-cylinder cars of comparable weight and tire size (Dart/Valiant/Duster, etc); that’s always going to mean more engine noise at speed, so whence the “despite”? The 16-mpg fuel consumption might(!) also have been improved with a higher** 2.7 rear axle, though it would’ve made the car pokier from 0-60.
*Numerically higher
**Numerically lower
Oh no! You just reversed one of the all time great lines written about the Pacer, or any other car- “even when it’s going 60, it looks as if it’s standing still”. The second best line was one of yours: “the first compact car designed for the obese”
I go back and forth between thinking these were either a brilliant (but misunderstood) design masterpiece or a colossal disaster. I’m trending to the latter.
The concept of a wide, roomy, airy car that offers all the advantages of a compact with 6 passenger seating sounds great. But all that width is negated by the narrow back seat between the wheel wells. Buckets up front made little use of all that width either. Then there was the poor handling, mileage and performance. It’s like AMC blew the entire budget on the design, then was forced to cobble together everything else. AMC should have saved its money for a better Hornet.
I find it interesting that this was a $3600 car with $2100 worth of options. Was this common in the 70s?
It was somewhat common in the ’60’s. I remember seeing an article on how a Chevy could be optioned out to sticker higher than a Cadillac. Things you would not believe were optional back then, heater, outside mirror, electric wipers, etc.
Yes. And well into the 80s. We bought a new Jeep Cherokee in 1984. The base price was about $11k. To end up with the level of equipment that would be standard nowadays (outside mirrors, interior lighting beyond just a dome light, the V6, automatic, A/C, cruise control, power windows, extra sound insulation, etc..it ended up at $16k! Almost a 50% increase over base price. And it still was anything but “luxurious”, with vinyl upholstery, and just the mid-level Pioneer trim; not a Laredo. That was pretty big money in 1984.
Equipment levels have changed drastically in the past 30 years.
A $2442 base 74 Pinto could have $1500 worth of options, so yes. In 75 you could add $2000 of options. On a 77 Granada you could build a $8100 version.
I made a mistake. I just added up all the options you could get together on a 74 Pinto and it adds up to $2258! And in 75 you could add $273 for V6 and $119 for power steering.
It was amazing how back then the manufacturers were able to strip a car down to keep the base price low. Features like tinted glass, power steering & brakes, rear defroster, automatic transmission and side view mirrors – items standard on every car today, and for the most part usually ordered back then as well – were costly options back then. It didn’t take long to add $1000 to a car simply by adding those few features. You want air conditioning? That’s another $500! Then you got into the next level of luxuries – maybe an upgraded engine, power this and that, upgraded seats, a radio, whitewalls (LOL) and the $2000 mark could easily be reached.
The sad story of the Pacer… When these came out in 1975, I was still in middle school, but I “got” the Pacer. I liked the design overall, I thought it made sense. But, what does a 12 year old really know?
All these years later, I think to myself and wonder what could have been. Had they not sold the rights to the Dauntless V6 back to GM, they could have had a Plan B for motivation for the Pacer. That six was crammed in there with little regard for serviceability. Would the contemporary Ford 2.8L Cologne V6 have worked in there? With 90-110 HP it was close to what the 258 delivered at that time. It’s not like AMC didn’t buy engines to suit their needs.
A different powertrain (Ford sourced possibly) and maybe a different marketing trajectory, this could have been a real winner for AMC. Marketing it as an alt-economy car was not really a good move; it was readily apparent that the car was nowhere near the same class as the real economy cars of the 1970’s.
To my eye, the spiritual successor to the Pacer is the Concord, a well equipped compact, but with a trunk, not a hatch. The Hornet-based Concord saved AMC in the late 1970’s, but was not modern enough for the changes required in the 1980’s.
I don’t know why folks always think the Pacer would have been more successful with the ex-Buick V6 under the hood. It was uneven-fire, so that it always sounded and felt like a V8 with two plug wires pulled off, and it made no more power than the AMC six. What would have been the advantage? Better engine access? That’s not why folks buy cars.
The Cologne V6 would not have had enough torque. It didn’t power a Pinto with satisfaction.
The price Ford was charging for it to outside retail companies was also pretty high, as DeLorean discovered in this period. (I assume that to some extent reflected high internal demand for the engine.)
I recall seeing “spy” photographs of the Pacer in the early to mid-1970s that claimed it was the replacement for the Gremlin.
The restyling in 1978 with the raised hood (to accommodate the V-8) completely ruined the styling. In 1977 there was introduced a version of the 258 six with a 2-barrel carburetor that raised the horsepower a bit and in combination with a 4-speed transmission that’s the Pacer to get.
The front-wheel drive Dodge Colt/Plymouth Champ/Plymouth Colt hatchbacks that were introduced for 1979 (and built by Mitsubishi) look an awful lot like miniature AMC Pacers. There was probably a Mitsubishi Mirage version that was never imported into the U.S.
I got to work on a few of these in my time, and we even wound up with a ’76 Pacer in the family when my Mom inherited one after her folks passed away.
The sixes were smooth and the Pacers rode well enough. The rack & pinion was an improvement over the old recirculating-ball – until the GM-sourced aluminum steering units started leaking. My mom’s Pacer was on it’s third steering-rack by the time my folks got rid of it in the early ’80s
In addition, there was horrible engine access from replacing the rotary with a long engine stuffed in a hole, plus all that extra width wasted by bucket seats, and the tight space created by the fat doors and bulky interior plastic panels. Topped off by that hideous frog-eye look dictated by American bean counters deciding that the folding headlights originally on the drawing-boards were just too expensive. Adding mediocre fuel economy, and typical malaise era quality, it’s no wonder the Pacer was a major coffin-nail for AMC.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I was fascinated over these cars when I was a young boy, studying the magazine ads. I recall reading an issue of Playboy (I found in 1977, at age 10), which had a car comparison article on Detroit’s subcompact cars. The Pacer stood out from the Vega, Pinto and even AMC’s own Gremlin. I especially liked the last years when the Pacer hood was enlarged and included a stand-up hood ornament, in the “Limited” luxury model. Here’s a couple pics.
The quote from the article was ..”even when it’s going 60 it looks like it’s standing still”, rather than the opposite.
Got it; fixed now!
Inflation adjusted about $31.5k, jaw dropping actually.
I have often compared the Pacer to the Studebaker Lark – two cars that were larger cars that had been truncated into a new look to save the parent company.
Studebaker had two cars – the Hawk and the standard coupe/sedan. The Lark was based on the right car – the standard coupe/sedan. Studebaker could have created the Lark by using a beefed-up Lark, turning it into a four door sedan and wagon – but they didn’t. They chose to hack up their dowdy loser car which, in turn, gave them more flexibility to create a practical compact sedan with larger car attributes such as larger engines, proven dependability, and a larger interior look and feel.
AMC already had the right sized car – their Hornet. Imagine what could have happened if the money spent on the Pacer was reinvested into a new Hornet design! By 1974-1975, the Hornet was old. It had a slick new hatchback design, but the sedan and wagon hadn’t seen any refreshining beyond the front end clips. AMC could have taken the Hornet and turned it into a Granada. AMC completely missed the entire Baroque Brougham personal luxury car era. That Matador Coupe was a total miss in the market. AMC could have recoup that loss with a Hornet that was new. The Hornet eventually becomes the Concord, but still looked like the decade-old design that it was when it ended production as the Eagle.
AMC never needed the Pacer. It had a better car waiting to be updated right there in front of them. However, it seemed that the thought of creating a new small car that incorporated all the “future” buzz was just too attractive to ignore. Also – if AMC used the Pacer funding to create a new Hornet – they would have also had a new Gremlin as well. However, AMC turned its back on their most popular cars, let those go stale, and produced the Pacer – an entirely new design that needed real-world testing and time to have succeeded when AMC had neither.
AMC ended up with two competing vehicles, the outlandish Pacer and the proven, but dated Hornet in the same showrooms. I easily imagine buyers coming in to see the Pacer, but driving out in either a new Hornet hatchback, or new Hornet wagon at a lower price.
The Lark added six years to the life of Studebaker and delivered profits for South Bend. The Pacer did neither for AMC and Kenosha.
Maybe “form follow function” from the front bumper to the front seat, but not past that. The back seat of a VW Beetle and a tiny uncovered trunk area were just sandwiched inside the form – rather the opposite. A standard intermediate of that width would have had a back seat with a foot more hip room and more leg room, and a trunk twice as big.
The “idea” made sense.
People bought “economy” cars and often drove them alone or with one other person, maybe with some kids in the back. But there was no elbow room – so build a car that’s as wide as a Chevelle so the two folks up front feel like they are riding in luxury, and who cares really if the kids in the back suffer, they’re not in there all the time anyhow – that’s what Mom’s wagon is for, oh and by the way, how about a new Matador wagon, or maybe a Sportabout. After all, people bought the Pinto and the Vega, and the VW Bug before that. The “idea” really harks back to the original Rambler – an upscale small car, sold at a premium to all of those penalty boxes.
It’s the execution that they got wrong. My feeling is this car became the target of all the anxieties of put-upon AMC executives (and engineers), and had to fulfill all of them – “new regulations are coming!” – add bulk. “Need a low-profile front-end” – redesign the suspension. “Need space-age looks” – take a greenhouse better seen on a auto-show one-off and put in that weird ledge because you cannot make the windows roll down all-the-way.
They could have really got a lot more mileage out something made from their original test mule. It probably would have been a lot lighter and handled better. They could have taken some of the money and weight they saved and made a chopped-down four from their six, which they did anyhow later. It would have still been rear-drive, but they could have progressively used lighter transmission and drivetrain components an further lightened the thing.
It’s sad to say, but manytimes failure really does start at the top, and here is another example in spades. No one was really making sure that the “idea” was followed through.
According to the spec sheet, the only emissions control on the car was EGR, which hardly seems like justification for engine performance on a par with Depression-era flatheads.
“emission controls” aren’t just those devices added to the engine, like EGR. All engines back then had retarded ignition, sometimes retarded cam timing, significant changes in carburetor calibration, etc. Those may not be listed, but they were the primary factor in reduced power.
When I saw the first photo of the Pacer, I assumed it was roughly the dimensions of a Ford Pinto. It looked terrific — in my mind’s eye. It was a shock to see how wide it was in the metal. I thought, what if it really was a subcompact, and imagined scaling it to those proportions. It might have been a good replacement for the Gremlin
As far as the poor gas mileage with the Pacer and the Matador coupe, probably contributing to lower sales, don’t forget up until the 1973 gas supply crisis, gas could be had for as low as 19 cents a gallon. After it sky rocketed to 45 cents or more. All American car makers were pushing land yachts fearlessly, downsizing in 1978 at the earliest. Was an unforseen world.
The average price of a gallon of gas in 1973 was .36 cents. Although I was too young to drive back then, I was still aware of gas prices since our cars needed regular stops. I never saw a gallon of gas at .19 cents – perhaps in Texas, or Louisiana, but certainly not throughout the Western US states or Midwest.
Gas prices doubled by 1975. That might not seem like a lot – but it is like having a gallon of gas go from 3.00 to 6.00 – you know, like today.
Folks bought those large cars because they liked them. Ford thought they would take a hit after GM downsized, but thousands of buyers wanted the bigger traditional cars. Every American manufacturer was downsizing as fast as they could – they were not pushing land yachts.
US average gasoline price 1973: $0.39/gal
US average gasoline price 1975: $0.57/gal
That’s a 46% increase.
But yes, there was no 19 cent/gal gas in 1973.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough for you –
Where’s the Monaco? Oh – yeah, it was downsized in a hurry and now based on the Coronet. The Coronet was the “new” Monaco now. The old Monaco was the “Royal Monaco” because it was being phased out. Even Dodge realized that it needed small versions of their big cars ASAP. The new Plymouth Fury? That was the old Satellite, renamed as the Fury. The old Fury was renamed the Gran Fury, remember?
When I said every American manufacturer was downsizing as fast as they could, you posted proof that the old versions were still on sale, even after they lost their brand names, to the smaller offerings from Chrysler. That is how Chrysler was downsizing as fast as they could.
Ford already had the new Fairmont. They already had the Granada. They downsized the TBird to Torino size by this year. They were also downsizing as fast as they could. Within a model generation, the LTD/Marquis was on the Fox. The Lincoln Mark was on the Fox. The Lincoln Continental was on the Fox. They were downsizing as fast as they could and that is how Ford did it.
Did these companies “fearlessly push” their land yachts? Nope. They were downsizing as fast as they could, but being surprised at the same time by the number of buyers still buying those land yachts.
What your video proves is that sales promos are nothing more than turd polishers.
My friend’s mom had one. It made an impression. Here’s what I remember (going on memories from almost 50 years ago:
1. It was that ugly rusty brown inside and out.
2. It was huge inside. You rattled around in it.
3. Hard plastic everywhere, especially the inner door panels.
3. It had a hard and bouncy ride and crashed and shimmied and shivered over every ripple in the pavement, and felt like it was going to come apart.
4. The doors rattled in their frames.
5. It was no more than 2-3 years old at the time.
I came across an article about the Pacer in a 2007 issue of old Classic and Sports Car last week. CC effect, kinda? The article came across as dissing it because it was an American car – not one of their best writers… Anyway, aside from rehashing the old ‘Matador platform’ story, and some other misinformation, the writer said that 40% of the body surface area was glass, and this was what made it so heavy.
I can see some truth in that (auto glass sure is heavier than body sheet metal), but it made me think. While big windows are great for visibility, the body structure would have had to be made stronger to support such huge pieces of glass, which in turn would add weight. After all, you wouldn’t want the body flexing and those huge glass panels cracking. Wonder how much lighter it could have been if the window size hadn’t been as extreme?
Oh, and as regards style, I quite like it aestherically; it’s a precursor of the curvaceous late-eighties-mid-nineties style. But the packaging shortcomings would rule it out for me. Except in scale!
Ones without air conditioning must have been sweat boxes in the summer.I`m seeing the rowers on the Roman galley in ‘Ben-Hur’, the 1959 version.