images via Hemmings
The 1957 Rambler Rebel truly lived up to its name; it was totally out of character for the thrifty, compact, six-cylinder Rambler brand at the time. Out of the blue in the spring of 1957, AMC dropped the Rebel onto the beach at Daytona, where it quickly proved to be the quickest production sedan at the Speed Trials being held there. Its husky 255 hp 327 cubic inch V8 — intended for the large Nash and Hudson — shot the fairly light Rambler from 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and through the 1/4 mile in 18.32 seconds. That was seriously fast in 1957, and the quickest 0-60 time of any sedan at the event.
Those results have commonly been used by AMC fans to claim that the Rebel was “America’s Fastest Sedan” in 1957. As much as I’m impressed by the Rebel—especially coming from AMC—that claim doesn’t quite hold up under closer scrutiny. After the vintage road test write-up, I will present the evidence and you can draw your own conclusions.
There’s much to like in the Rebel, but only 1,500 were made, and AMC did not offer any further performance Ramblers for some years to come. The brochures call the 1957 Rebel a “Limited Edition,” suggesting that it was intended as a halo car to capture some attention for AMC’s new V8 engine. If it was intended as anything more than that, it was a solid dud in the marketplace. The more expensive and similarly fast ’57 Plymouth Fury sold five times as well.
Jim Moore (left) and Carl Chakmakian (right) with the Rebel at Daytona Beach
Given that the new AMC V8 engine that arrived in 1957 was built in both a modest 190 hp 250 cubic inch version for the Rambler line as well as an externally identical 255 hp four-barrel 327 cubic inch version for the large Nash and Hudson, it should not be surprising that a couple of AMC engineers and racing buffs, Jim Moore and Carl Chakmakian (pictured above), couldn’t resist the temptation to drop the larger-displacement version in a Rambler. It was 1957, a pivotal time for the performance car boom, when lower-priced cars took on the higher priced ones with their new V8s and increasingly often spanked them. Think Plymouth Fury, and of course most of all, the Chevy with its hot V8.
The ’57 Rebel’s Continental spare might have been better left off, but that was a popular option at around the time, and was seen as adding a bit of cachet to the Rambler. And it probably helped its traction in the hard-packed sand too.
Having gotten the go-ahead, Moore and Chakmakian spearheaded the effort to make the 327 Rambler work well, including the appropriate suspension upgrades. The Rebel wasn’t just a dragstrip special; its chassis was upgraded with stiffer springs, a front anti-roll bar, and adjustable Gabriel shocks, so that it handled reasonably well too. It was a complete package with a top-tier interior and special paint job, and a compelling one in many ways, although the lack of a two-door hardtop was undoubtedly a negative.
And it wasn’t exactly cheap: its $2,786 price was a $360 premium over a regular V8 4-door Rambler Custom hardtop. Not quite as expensive as the Plymouth Fury ($2,925), but certainly more than a Chevy Bel Air V8 coupe with the powerpack. And unlike the Plymouth and Rambler, Chevy made all of its engines available across the line, meaning also in the low-end $1,996 150 series sedan. That was a key element to Chevy’s rapid dominance in the performance sector.
Here’s Motor Trend‘s take on the Rebel from April 1957:
This isn’t a complete road test (M/T called it a “Drivescripton”), as it only documents their experience in driving the Rebel on the beach during the Speed Trials and on some paved roads near the beach. M/T timed a 0-60 sprint in 7.5 seconds, and editor Joe Wherry put the Rebel through the 1/4 mile traps on the beach in 18.32 seconds. Wherry doesn’t say what his speed through the traps was, but claims that all of the various journalists that drove it went through the traps at 85-90 mph (as shown in the table on the second page, below). Unfortunately I’ve not been able to find a proper instrumented test of the Rebel, in order to better put its performance in context. (More on that after the rest of the review.)
It should be noted that the 327 in the Rebel was not modified from its use in the large Nash and Hudson, and was clearly not a “hot” engine, as confirmed by its (gross) hp peak at 4700 rpm and its 345 lb.ft. of torque at a fairly modest 2600 rpm. AMC had planned to also offer a 288 hp version using the Bendix “Electrojector” fuel injection unit, but that system was clearly not ready for production use, and none were delivered to consumers. (Chrysler tried again in 1958, but that too ended in tears all too soon.)
M/T reported that the Rebel tested at Daytona came with a 4.10:1 rear axle and the heavy-duty Borg-Warner three-speed manual with overdrive (although Wherry may have been wrong about the axle ratio — more on this below). In production, GM’s Hydra-Matic was optional, with a taller 3.15:1 axle.
Thanks to its overdrive and fairly modest weight, the Rebel got 17.5 mpg, according to the engineers who drove it down to Daytona from Kenosha.
Handling was rated as “fine—not superb, but improved over the regular Rambler line.” Given that Ramblers with the none-too-light V8 (which weighed 623 lb) were inevitably nose-heavy and tended to understeer badly, that was a good thing. Four turns lock-to-lock was a bit much for power steering, but this was a common issue back then. The torque tube drive and stiffer heavy-duty springs prevented rear axle wind-up on full-throttle starts. The brakes were just barely okay in this limited drive, but larger ones were very much indicated given the Rebel’s potential.
M/T wasn’t the only magazine to drive the Rambler Rebel at Daytona Beach. As you’ll see from the table in the lower right-hand corner of the page above (“Rambling in the Quarter”), M/T editor Joe Wherry’s 18.32-second 1/4 mile time was actually only the Rambler’s fourth-best result at the event. The top time was by Ken Fermoyle, who described his experience with the Rebel in the April 1957 Motor Life:
Fermoyle ran the Rebel through the 1/4 mile traps on Daytona Beach in 17.87 seconds, almost half a second quicker than Wherry. The next morning, he was able to drive the car a bit more extensively and recorded some 0-60 times (based on corrected speedometer readings) of under 8 seconds. He said, “With practice, I’m sure the average of 7.3 which American Motors engineers reported they got in tests could be reached easily.”
According to Fermoyle, the Daytona Beach Rebel actually had a 4.40:1 axle, not the 4.10:1 axle ratio M/T reported, which would help to explain the quick 0-60 times. Since the car had overdrive, the high numerical ratio wouldn’t have hampered highway fuel economy. (With a 4.40 axle and an 0.70 overdrive, final drive ratio would be 3.08:1.)
Both Motor Life and Motor Trend seemed optimistic about the Rebel’s commercial prospects. Fermoyle said it “should be the answer for those who liked everything about Ramblers but the lack of performance.” M/T‘s Wherry mused:
Will this rig sell? It should, for it has the quality and performance of many more costly cars, as much interior space as many, and a personality all its own. It’s unlike any other car made in this land. The integral (no chassis) construction has proved to be extremely durable, strong, and rattle-free, and the price, we are told, will be lower than for competitive, equally high-performing cars.
Wherry went so far as to predict that others would replicate the Rebel on their own, dropping the 327 into existing Ramblers. (The second page of the M/T article above describes one such homemade Rebel, created by William D. Bowman and Grimes M. Holcomb, Jr.) Wherry ends his article with a prophecy: “I’ll bet there will be more Rebel-ized Ramblers.”
History shows that his predictions were all wrong. After building 1,500 “Limited Edition” Rebels for 1957, AMC restricted the 327 to the new Rambler Ambassador (pictured above), which took the place of the defunct big Nash and Hudson. The Ambassador had a stretched front end (purely for looks and presumed prestige appeal), was about 140 to 150 pounds heavier than the Rebel, and had zero performance pretensions. Hot rodders were not the slightest bit interested.
For 1958, AMC slapped the “Rebel” name on the smaller 108-inch-wheelbase Rambler with the 250 engine, which had been called “Rambler V-8” in 1957. (It was renamed “Classic Eight” for 1961.) The 1958 Rambler Rebel got a four-barrel carburetor, giving it 215 hp, but it offered neither the bigger engine nor the ’57 car’s chassis modifications. Did anyone other than the owner mentioned in the M/T article spend the time and money involved in swapping the 250 for the 327? Who knows? But I have never come across any indication that this happened more than once (or twice?). The reality is that the go-fast crowd and aftermarket suppliers simply didn’t take to the Rambler or the AMC V8. I’ve seen more evidence of Studebaker V8s being hopped up and raced, but never a Rambler, at least back in the ’50s.
Was AMC ever serious about entering the performance market? Or was the Rebel only ever intended as a limited-time showcase for the new V8 engine and the duller mass-market Rebel that arrived in 1958? The facts suggest the latter. Did AMC miss an opportunity by not offering the 327 in the ’58 Rambler as an option? Hard to say. American sold 162,182 cars for 1958, 374,240 for 1959, and 458,841 for 1960, and most of those were Rambler Sixes, not V8-powered Rebels or Ambassadors. AMC had no problem observing the 1958 Automobile Manufacturers Association racing “ban.”
After the Rebel’s brief moment in the sun, AMC dropped any performance aspirations and stuck with its compact/economy schtick. That is, until the late ’60s, when they suddenly got performance religion again and bestowed something of an update of the ’57 Rebel: the 1969 AMC-Hurst SC/Rambler (above). It was the same formula: Drop AMC’s biggest 390 V8 into their smallest model (the soon-to-expire American), beef up the suspension, and add lots of over-the-top graphics. In this case history did rather repeat itself, as AMC managed to sell all of 1,512 units; exactly twelve more than the ’57 Rebel. (“Fool me once…”)
Admittedly, AMC’s second performance push was drastically more extensive than in 1957, with successes in Trans Am and NASCAR as well as drag racing. As to whether it really made an impact on the sales of AMC cars, that’s a difficult question to answer, although it’s pretty easy to argue the negative side. Maybe George Romney was right back in 1957.
Bill France (second from left) presents the Leadfoot Trophy to Ken Fermoyle at Daytona Beach in 1957 as Carl Chakmakian (left) and Jim Moore (right) look on
As to the ’57 Rebel’s timed performance at Daytona, we need to qualify that a bit. As Ken Fermoyle said in the Motor Life page above, “If the time of 17.87 for a quarter-mile sounds slow, just remember that it was made on sand, not pavement. Running on asphalt or concrete would cut something like three or four seconds from the time.” The 0-60 times, however, were recorded on pavement, although it looks like both magazine tests used corrected speedometer readings, which aren’t as accurate as a fifth wheel or drag strip timing lights.
Let’s consider the competition (and some of their 0-60 times, where I could find them): an Oldsmobile with the top 300-hp, 371-cu.in. V-8 with three two-barrel carbs; a supercharged 289-cu.in., 275-hp Studebaker Golden Hawk (8.7 seconds); a 290-hp Pontiac Tri-Power 347-cu.in. V-8 (7.9 seconds); a 300-hp supercharged Ford and Thunderbird; a Chrysler 300C with a 392-cu.in. dual-quad V-8 (7.6 seconds); a 345-cu.in., 345-hp dual-quad De Soto Adventurer; a Plymouth Fury with a dual-quad 318 producing 290 hp (8.0 seconds); two Dodges, including a D-500 powered by a Red Ram 325 that made 285 hp (9.4 seconds), and a D-500-1 with dual quads and 310 hp (8.8 seconds); a Mercury Monterey M-335 pushing 335 hp from its 368-cu.in. V-8; and a Chevrolet Bel Air with the 270-hp dual-quad 283 and Powerglide (8.2 seconds).
Here’s a chart of the hot 1957 Chrysler cars that I made for my Vintage Review of the ’57 Plymouth Fury, comparing the Fury to its Chrysler stablemates. These figures are all from various SCI magazine review/tests.
Here are some comparative figures from a 1976 Hemmings comparison, drawn from various period road tests:
Since the Rebel’s 1/4 mile times were on the sand at Daytona Beach, those numbers can’t really be compared to elapsed times recorded on pavement at a regular dragstrip, although being only a second or so behind the Fury and Adventurer even with the traction handicap was still impressive.
The Rebel’s 0-60 times (7.5 seconds, per M/T) were highly competitive with most of these ’57 performance cars, but there’s still no doubt in my mind that a stick-shift ’57 Chevy with one of the hotter 283s and the right gearing would put away the Rebel. Road tests of ’57 Chevys with the 283 hp fuel-injected engines are scarce, but ’57 Corvettes with that engine consistently managed 0-60 in 7.0 seconds or less.
Obviously, the Rebel’s numbers (0-60 in 7.5 seconds) owed something to the low-end torque of the AMC 327 V8 and to its short (4.40:1) axle ratio. Acceleration above 60 mph is a much better indicator of genuine performance, as are quarter-mile trap speeds, but in the late ’50s, car magazines didn’t always present those kinds of results. Also, automakers didn’t always give magazine editors the chance to wring out limited-production high-performance models beyond brief driving impressions on manufacturer proving grounds. Short of loading a fifth wheel into a time machine, we can only go with the information we’ve got.
However, look at it like this: The ’57 Rebel was not any lighter than a ’57 Chevy four-door hardtop, and the AMC 327 was not a high-performance engine. The Chevrolet V8 gave away 44 cubic inches to the AMC, but Chevy offered an array of hotter cams, dual carburetors, and other performance equipment, right on the regular production order form. (And both Chevrolet and Pontiac kept adding more, even after the AMA “ban.”) With both cars on a proper dragstrip with comparable transmissions and gearing, there’s no reason to think the Rebel would keep pace with the hotter Chevy for long.
I’m not interested in taking anything away from the Rebel, and the test data that is available shows that it was certainly one of the quicker production cars of 1957. But “America’s Fastest Sedan”? Close, but not quite.
Related CC Reading
Vintage SCI Review: 1957 Plymouth Fury – The Best All-Round Performance Car Of Its Time?
Vintage Review: 1969 AMC-Hurst SC/Rambler – AMC Pulls A Fast One On Us
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1956 Chevrolet 210 205 HP – “The Hot One Is Even Hotter”
You say you’re not interested in taking anything away from the Rebel, but that’s obviously not true. You’ve thrown in a lot of could have, and would have , and should haves, but proved nothing.
I’ve thrown in a lot of credible statistics. If someone can come up with a 1/4 mile time from a credible source back than of a stock Rebel that’s quicker than some of the others I’ve noted here, I’d be glad to update this.
The girl in the first pic…..is she on her phone?
Her phone is at home on a cord the way it should be. I would suspect water in her ear.
I had a 60 rambler American flathead six, I would go to the gas station and have them fill the oil and check the gas.
It had a early form of GPS, it would leave a smoke trail behind it.
Fun car I used to drive it on the frozen lake, spinning around and drifting.
LOOKING BACK AT IT NOW FROM 2025, AMC’S MARKETING FOCUS SEEMS TO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A BIT CONFUSED. WHAT BUGS ME IS WHY THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT IN 1963 AT AMC’S PEAK YEAR OF SALES, DIDN’T SEEM TO COME BACK TO AMC IN 5-10 YEARS FOR A REPLACEMENT. WHERE DID THEY GO INSTEAD?. I KNOW THAT VW WAS BEATING AMC IN SALES IN THE MID-TO-LATE 1960’S
A nice looking, genuine 4 door hardtop in the side views. However, that front clip with the grill mounted headlights looks like a bad dream,almost as ugly as the front clip of a `61 Ambassador.
Agree 100%. The front clip is a double-bagger.
In the mid-sixties my dad brought home a used ’61 Rambler Classic. My mom started crying when she first saw it (and not in a good way). Eventually the car won us over and it lasted forever. Even the firefighter who bought it from us drove it well into the ’70s. Good car, but not fast.
Interesting article. My dad loved his Ramblers. They ran and ran so well that he refused to shop for a replacement. My neighbor in about 1972 sold me his Ambassador hardtop with the 327 with 4 barrel and 4 speed Muncie trans and posi-traction. Very elegant, powerful, comfortable handsome car in turquoise with black vinyl top. People would leave notes on it to say they might wanna buy it. Just a couple times I saw how fast it could accelerate and it was seriously faster than the Chevys that trailed me on “a road to nowhere “.
It guzzed gasoline when the fuel crisis came. Great engine that sorta looked like Packard V8 of the mid fifties. Thanks for the article.
No Muncie’s in any AMC, but a Borg Warner T-10? Yes, starting very late in the ’65 model year.
This is perhaps my favorite automotive “what if.” Of course, AMC eventually got into the muscle car market, but the sooner the better.
I agree that this is a truly fascinating car. I wonder if the performance guys who pushed this were former Hudson people because I don’t think Nash ever pushed performance after WWII, and if before, not very effectively.
I also remain fascinated by the wide variety of small displacement V8s that flowered with thoughts of performance across all 5 domestic manufacturers only in 1957. The results were, of course, all over the map, as were the ways that performance was developed.
Lastly, I remain wowed by that 4 door hardtop. I am not sure I’ve ever seen one in person, and recall reading somewhere that it used a removable center pillar, much like the old convertible sedans of the 30s.
No removable center pillar. A true hardtop.
I was born in 1955. Mom and Dad had that elusive 57 Rebel. First car in my memories. I do remember it was a hot car from all the people who wanted to race and from my “hot footed mom’s” speeding tickets. Dad’s favorite story was how Mom drove off from the car dealers make ready department with the tires squealing and engine roaring through the garage and into the street..
Yeah, something is very wrong with the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. 7.5 is quick even today, 18 thru the quarter is not, not at all. 7.5 to 60 should be in the 15’s for the quarter. Or working the other way, 18 in the quarter would likely be in the 11-12 second range to 60. Only thing I can imagine is super low gears where it was almost topped out at 60.
Article did mention the car in question had a 4.10 rear.
The M/T review clearly states that they made several runs at 110+ mph.
4.10 gears wouldn’t even remotely top out at 60. First gear would go to 43 mph, and second to 70 (5500 rpm). Then there was second-overdrive, then 3rd, then 3rd overdrive. If the engine had enough power, it would only have taken 3871rpm at 110 mph.
Ken Fermoyle, who also drove the Rebel at Daytona Beach, had a short item about it in the April 1957 Motor Life. He said:
My Parents purchased a 57 Rebel in late 1957. The car became somewhat of a family legend because the car brought the “lead foot” in my Mom.
I’m old enough to remember the Rebel ran the 1/4 in mid 15’s, I can’t verify but I remember 15.7 so mid 18’s is bullshit
It’s what it is: the result of a number of journalists and other drivers at a NASCAR sanctioned timed speed trials event.
The times were on the sand at Daytona Beach, which limited launch traction.
With 410 gears the small port 327 was probably topped out at 84 mph,the valves were probably floating through the traps.
The M/T review clearly states that they made several runs at 110 mph “and slightly better being achieved”.
Every engine listed on that chart is a high performance version. Except the Ford. That 11.1 0-60 time, which is probably inaccurate, is from a standard issue, single 4barrel 312, a far cry from an E‐Code or F-Code 312. But, as usual, we had to make chevy look like the crown prince
The AMC 327 was not a hi-po engine, nor was the 250 hp 283 Chevy (mild hydraulic cam). And how many E and F Code 312s were ever sold to anyone other than racers? A handful. And how many 270 hp dual-quad 283s were sold? Thousands.
I did find the 0-60 time for a ’57 245 hp 312 manual: 9.5 seconds.
The acceleration times for the four-barrel Ford 312 are from the January 1957 Motor Trend, for a four-door Fairlane 500 sedan with Fordomatic. It was a half-second quicker to 60 mph than the ’56 Ford they’d tested a year earlier.
When I was a kid, dad bought an Ambassador. I don’t know what was in it but it was a gutless wonder. I once had to help my mom push it up a hill. The kicker is, dad traded a Nash for it. When he went back to buy it back, it was gone in less than 24 hours.
What about the 1957 Dodge D-501 that used the previous year Chrysler’s big hot dog on a stick, the 354 hemi?!
I assume you mean the D-500-1, which is in the first table in the text. Those numbers are from a June 1957 Sports Cars Illustrated test of a 1957 Coronet with the D-500 engine, TorqueFlite, and a 3.36 axle. There was also a February 1957 Motor Trend test of a Dodge Custom Royal sedan with the D-500 engine, which gave the following results:
(They didn’t record top speed, and their acceleration chart only went up to 80 mph.)