Vintage M/T Review: 1967 AMC Marlin Vs. 1967 Dodge Charger – Two Fastback Failures Square Off

Composite photo showing the left side of a two-tone Sungold Metallic and Frost White 1967 AMC Marlin and the right side of a Medium Copper Metallic 1967 Dodge Charger; there's a small "MT Road Test" icon in the upper left corner of the Marlin image

In May 1967, Motor Trend examined the range of domestic sporty cars, trying to make sense of the ever-growing array of models by pairing likely competitors against each other (e.g., Mustang vs. Camaro). The most interesting of those comparisons was this one between the AMC Marlin and the Dodge Charger, two big fastbacks that were already clear commercial failures in a crowded marketplace.

Marlin badge on a gold 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin / Bring a Trailer
Charger badge on the sail panel of a copper-colored 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger / Mecum Auctions

 

The AMC/Rambler Marlin and the 1966–1967 Dodge Charger were remarkably similar, and not only because of their shape. Both cars were the product of the same impulse: Their respective maker had recognized an emerging market for compact sporty cars, but deliberately decided to go a different direction, hoping to create their own niche. Neither was successful, for mostly the same reasons: The Marlin and the Charger were largish fastbacks at a time the market was mad for compact coupes with long hoods, short decks, and notchback profiles.

Motor Trend, May 1967, page 38, with B&W photos of the rear 3q of a 1967 Dodge Charger and the front 3q of a 1967 AMC Marlin, with the headline "Sporty Specialties: Marlin & Charger"

Editor Bob Schilling began:

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, but far from homeless, are the Marlin from AMC and Dodge’s Charger. Neither has the compactness of the basic sports-personal archtypes [sic] such as Mustang and Camaro, nor the posh elegance to social climb their way into the company of the luxury-personals: Eldorado, Riviera, et al. Nor, it should be added, do they attempt to.

Each is looking for its own home in this fast-growing market. Most likely competition (in philosophy rather than sales volume) comes from Cougar and Firebird, both upgraded variations of smaller cars but with more of a performance image. Both aim at the driver who wants a sporty-type car, but who doesn’t want to give up room and comfort and isn’t ready to move into the more expensive category.

Charger assumes that the man interested in such a car also wants performance and will spring for bigger engines. American Motors takes a more conservative view of Marlin’s prospective buyer, believing him more interested in the sporty look rather than the sporty reality. Both are large cars which fill all of the average marked parking space but neither drives like a monster, so they have some justification in claiming the sporty image.

To an extent, Dodge and AMC were right that most sporty car buyers were more interested in image than in actual performance — a significant minority of Mustang and Camaro sales were sixes, and base V-8 cars greatly outnumbered the hotter versions — but they couldn’t have been more wrong about buyers not wanting to sacrifice. size and space. Big cars were what many Mustang and Corvair Monza buyers were trying to escape. Utility was a very low priority in this segment, and buyers who wanted a full-size sporty car had lots of other choices, most of them also slow sellers by this time.

Right rear 3q view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

The following passage is, probably unintentionally, a succinct summary of the failure of the Marlin as a product:

Seeking a corner of this market untouched by the competition, AMC emphasizes Marlin as a sports-personal car for the entire family. This isn’t quite the contradiction in terms that it seems, for the head of the family spends a fair part of the day alone in the car. It is the only sports/personal car capable of transporting six adults, so a family with several children does not have to be a 2-car family, though it probably will be anyway.

As the sales trajectories of station wagons and minivans in the past 40 years have demonstrated, vehicles “for the entire family” can be a surprisingly tough sell for family buyers. Having to trade in a sporty personal coupe for a minivan is a sitcom episode plot, not an effective sales pitch, and even buyers who have kids to haul may sacrifice a fair bit of utility just to avoid the ego-blow of “joining the herd” with a family hauler.

Right front 3q view of a gold and white two-tone 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic over Frost White / Bring a Trailer

 

A key selling point of the original Mustang and its ilk was youth: Not everyone who bought a Mustang or other compact sporty cars of the ’60s was young, but nearly all wanted to feel young. The very last thing they wanted in a sporty car was for it to make them feel like a Head of Household, whether they were or not. It was just as severe a miscalculation as the styling:

Neither [car] has shied away from controversial styling. Both are fastbacks, considered to be the sportiest shape and the most “in,” thanks to the Sting Ray and several generations of Ferrari. They have their own distinctive interpretations of the form, and as with anything different, provoke much dispute over what is really a matter of personal taste.

Given how out of step these cars were with the styling trends of the period, calling either the Marlin or the first-generation Charger “in” seems like a MAD Magazine joke. The 1967 Marlin was better-proportioned than the somewhat smaller 1965–1966 car, which had strayed perilously close to Camp, but the big fish was still odd-looking, and its design still had enough lapses in taste to deter the serious-minded. The Charger tried a bit harder, sometimes managing to look purposeful and muscular, but less-flattering angles revealed the fundamental awkwardness of its proportions. To modern eyes, both cars are fun, but neither really qualifies as handsome, and if snobbish U.S. Ferrari importer Luigi Chinetti had seen these cars likened to “several generations of Ferrari,” he might have considered sending the publisher a cease-and-desist letter. (Talk about invidious comparisons!)

Right side view of a black 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Hemi Charger in black / Mecum Auctions

 

For these comparison tests, Motor Trend drove each car with several different engines. They tried a Charger with the base 318, which they found “peppy” and adequate for most real-world use, and with the optional 383-4V, which they called “a very reasonable compromise.”

Hemi engine in a black 1967 Dodge Charger
426 Hemi in a 1967 Dodge Charger / Mecum Auctions

 

The 383 was the hottest engine most Charger buyers cared to order, but Motor Trend also drove a Hemi Charger, which broke 100 mph in the quarter mile without any special preparation, and the new 440-4V engine, which “ran close to the Hemi and may be a bit faster out of the hole.” Schilling described the 440 as “very rare,” but it ended up being more common than the 426 Hemi: 660 ’67 Chargers had the 440, while a mere 118 had the Hemi.

Motor Trend, May 1967, page 39, with B&W photos in the right column showing a 1967 Dodge Hemi Charger on a drag strip, the right side of a 1967 Marlin with wire wheel covers, and left side/rear 3q views of both cars

So you don’t have to squint, here’s what the photo captions say:

  • “Performance is part of the Charger image. Here our Hemi-powered test car is shown charging out of the hole at the drag strip. Stopping power was equally impressive.”
  • “Marlin profile shows how esthetic qualities of fastback are employed on a larger car.”
  • From this angle Marlin (above) and Charger look almost identical. Biggest difference is the Charger’s better rear visibility, thanks to full-width rear window, but both are restricted compared to notchbacks despite great glass area. Charger has bigger trunk.”
Left front 3q view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions
Right side view of a two-tone gold and white 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic over Frost White / Bring a Trailer

 

The main text continued:

American Motors, which has eschewed any kind of competition in the past (but may change its mind under new management), offers nothing bigger than 343-cu.-in. in 235- and 280-hp versions. This puts the hottest Marlin in about the same class as the Charger with the 2-bbl. 383, a thought borne out by the performance tests. There was little to choose between them on the strip. The standard Marlin V-8 is a 200-hp engine of 290-cu.-in.

Motor Trend noted that there was a new factory camshaft kit for the 343, although I don’t know how many went into the Marlin. The arrival of the Javelin and the AMX would bring a greatly expanded array of factory and aftermarket performance parts for the AMC Typhoon V-8, along with the rumored 390.

Blue-painted Typhoon 343 engine in a 1967 AMC Marlin
AMC Typhoon 343 in a different 1967 Marlin / Barn Finds

 

As far as I can recall, I haven’t seen any period road tests of the 290 in the bigger AMC models, although I assume it would be in roughly the same performance category as the Chevrolet 283-2V or Ford 289-2V.

AMC 290 engine under the hood of a gold 1967 AMC Marlin
The gold-and-white ’67 Marlin has the 290-2V engine / Bring a Trailer

 

Schilling continued:

Unlike Charger, Marlin offers a 6. In fact, they offer a pair of them. The difference between the 145- and 155-hp versions is a 1- versus 2-bbl. carburetor; both displace 232 cubic inches. The performance of these engines in our tests will start no rush of hot rodders to AMC showrooms, but they were not intended to. It was flat-out impossible to burn rubber (not surprising, since the biggest V-8 couldn’t either), which made for a long, thoughtful 20-second plus ride down the strip. Even more thought-provoking is the problem of trying to accelerate into a hole in another lane of expressway traffic.

Who would buy such an engine? Someone who wants a sporty car, but belongs to the growing legion which commutes ever increasing distances from the suburbs to the city, while paying more and more for gas. So far, however, these people seem more inclined to solve their dilemma with a Mustang 6 or an import — and Marlin 6 sales are very low.

Fourteen percent of 1967 Marlins had a six-cylinder engine, although production was SO low for ’67 that that amounted to very little: only about 356 cars!

Left rear 3q view of a two-tone gold and white AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic over Frost White / Bring a Trailer

 

The 15.4-second 0 to 60 time Motor Trend quoted for their 155 hp six-cylinder Merlin was really not bad for a car of this size, but the quarter-mile performance (20.3 seconds at 68 mph) suggests that it quickly ran out of steam above 60 mph. This was something Car Life had noted with their six-cylinder Rebel: Asthma started setting in even at legal freeway speeds. The AMC six would go on to a very long and successful career, but in this era, its breathing was too restricted to give decent performance in midsize and large cars.

Left rear 3q view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

On the handling front:

Getting a Charger or Marlin around a turn is no great problem. Neither is a real sports car in this respect, but they don’t throw the driver any curves either. On the straight we were pleased to notice that both were suitably shocked. There was none of the wallow that makes a long trip seem even longer. If one of the cars is better than the rest, it is the Charger 318 by virtue of its weight distribution. With the small V-8, it comes very close to 50-50 distribution. Going to the bigger engines steals some of this, but even the Hemi version, which adds over 300 pounds to the front end and more than 400 to the whole car, had no strong tendency to push the front end.

The Hemi Charger came with a heavy-duty suspension with much stiffer rear springs (with six leaves rather than four and a half), which helped to mitigate the understeer caused by the heavier engine.

Motor Trend, May 1967, page 40, final page of Marlin & Charger comparison, with small photos of the back seats of both cars in the upper right corner above the main text and the data and specifications panel in the lower right

The captions of the photos in the upper right read, “Marlin rear seat (above) was meant to hold three. Charger has rear buckets, but various fold-down combinations lend versatility to luggage/passenger capacity.”

Gold stripe tire on a gold and white 1967 AMC Marlin with Turbo-cast wheel covers
13.8 percent of 1967 Marlins had front discs, but this one has drums behind its “Turbo-Cast” wheel covers / Bring a Trailer

 

Schilling continued:

The Marlins also handled well compared to the opposition and far better than the other AMC products we’ve driven. Again, weight distribution is a major part of the story, for the 6 felt better than the V-8, at least going into a turn. But, lack of torque sometimes gave us a moment getting out of the turn.

Stopping the cars was an interesting problem. We’ve often found that a small-engine car with drums stops better than the same car with a bigger engine and discs. This proved out in the Marlins where the drum-braked 6 pulled up slightly shorter at 60 mph than the V-8 with power discs, though not as straight.

The Dodges were even more interesting and less predictable. The 318 stopped in an almost straight line in 147 feet; eight less than the best Marlin. This was with drums. The 383, also with drums, took eight feet more, the same as the Marlin 6. No surprise so far. The Hemi-Charger with discs did the same test in an amazing 133 feet, despite its greater front-end weight.

Heavy-duty suspension probably also aided the Hemi Charger in braking: Despite the extra weight on the nose, the stiffer front springs helped to resist nosedive, while the stiffer rear springs did a better job of keeping the axle on the ground in hard stops. Their 440 car, which shared the Hemi suspension, also had front discs, which were available but not common — just 5.2 percent of 1967 Chargers had discs.

Left side view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

As for the interiors:

Both Marlin and Charger have done better than average by the driver and front-seat passenger. All the seat and upholstery variations we tried were comfortable, although we would give the edge to the Charger’s buckets over the full-width seat that permits the Marlin to bill itself as a 6-passenger personal car. We also have some second thoughts about the fancy cloth that is standard in the Marlin. How fancy will it look in two years or so? The vinyl upholstery in the Charger has the texture and feel of real leather. The vinyl in the Marlin has a basket weave embossed on it which leaves room for some air to circulate and gives a non-skid effect. Instruments and controls are well laid out on both cars.

Both the Marlin and the Charger had a jukeboxiness to their dashboard designs, although the Charger benefited from having a full set of real gauges.

Dashboard of a 1967 AMC Marlin with column-shifted automatic
1967 AMC Marlin with tan vinyl upholstery, column-shifted Flash-O-Matic, and 8-track stereo tape / Bring a Trailer
Dashboard and front seat of a 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger with copper vinyl upholstery / Mecum Auctions

 

The Charger had by far the fancier rear-seat treatment, with fold-down bucket seats and a center console for backseaters:

Rear seats of a 1967 Dodge Charger with copper interior
1967 Dodge Charger with rear console and fold-down bucket seats in copper vinyl / Classic.com

 

This particular Marlin has a relatively subdued two-tone vinyl interior rather than the absurd brocade fabric AMC offered in this era. There were no throw pillows with this trim option.

Back seat of a 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin with tan vinyl upholstery — it looks green to me, but it may be a trick of the light / Bring a Trailer

 

Unfortunately, neither car was terribly roomy in back:

The problem of headroom for rear-seat passengers is the petard on which the fastbacks of the ’40s were hoisted. The concept of the sports-personal car is that the rear seat will be used only occasionally. We might add that that occasional passenger had better be less than 5-foot-8 and forget about wearing a hat. This was equally true of both cars, although part of their total bulk is doubtless due to the attempt to give the back-seat passenger as much room as possible. Neither does he have much foot room; he fairs better in the Marlin.

As far as luggage space is concerned, it’s less a space problem than it is getting to it. The deck opening in the Marlin is very small to fit inside the trim strips. We were just barely able to load our 5th wheel through it and getting at the space is also tricky. Charger has a bigger deck lid, but a combination body stiffener-sill intrudes into the opening.

Both trunk openings were inconveniently small:

Trunk compartment of a gold and white 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic and Frost White / Bring a Trailer
Rear deck and open trunk compartment of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Classic.com

 

In addition to limited rear headroom and poor luggage access:

Both [cars] suffer another fastback curse; restricted rear visibility. Rear windows are large, but the sloped angle limits the view to a slim slot. The Charger, with a wider window, has a slight edge, but neither is as good as the Mustang.

The performance figures in this article’s data panel would be of particular value because they actually sampled a wider range of the available engine options than usual. Unfortunately, the usefulness of these figures is hampered by the fact that neither the next nor the data table bothered to specify what transmissions the test cars had, much less their axle ratios or test weights!

Front view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger with its headlight doors closed
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

Looking at the numbers, my guess is that all of the Chargers had TorqueFlite, probably with the standard 3.23 axle ratio. A four-speed manual transmission was available, but rare; 92 percent of 1967 Chargers had automatic.

1967 Dodge Charger Performance
Performance (2 aboard) 318-2V 383-4V 440-4V 426 Hemi
0–60 mph 10.9 secs. 8.9 secs. 8.0 secs. 7.6 secs.
¼-mile 18.6 secs., 76.0 mph 16.5 secs., 86.4 mph 15.5 secs., 93.0 mph 14.4 secs., 100.3 mph
Braking from 60 mph 147 ft. 155 ft. 140 ft. 133 ft.
Avg. mileage, city 13.3 mpg 12.1 mpg 11.7 mpg 11.7 mpg
Avg. mileage, highway 17.9 mpg 15.2 mpg 14.4 mpg 14.5 mpg

 

Motor Trend tested only two Marlin versions: a six-cylinder car with the 155 hp two-barrel engine and a V-8 car with the 280 hp 343-4V and front discs.

Front view of a gold 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic over Frost White / Bring a Trailer

 

Both AMC test cars probably had automatic, I assume with the standard axle ratio (3.15) — only 3.7 percent of 1967 Marlin production had four-speed manual transmissions.

1967 AMC Marlin Performance
Acceleration (2 aboard) 232-2V 343-4V
0–60 mph 15.4 secs. 9.6 secs.
¼-mile 20.3 secs., 68 mph 17.6 secs., 82 mph
Braking from 60 mph 156 ft. 161 ft.
Avg. mileage, city 17.3 mpg 15.3 mpg
Avg. mileage, highway 20.4 mpg 17.6 mpg

 

Motor Trend preferred the Charger, mostly due to its greater range of performance options. However, they concluded:

Even with their biggest engine options, neither has the pretensions of sports car performance that the Sting Ray or Shelby cars (or even the hot Mustangs. Camaros and Firebirds) can claim. Both hedge short of being luxury cars. But even being betwixt and between, each seeks a special part of the market, though not the same one.

Neither model found what it was seeking in 1967. Marlin production ended in May, just weeks after this issue of Motor Trend went on sale. 1967 model year production totaled only 2,545 cars, bringing total Marlin production to 17,419 units in three model years.

Rear view of a gold and white 1967 AMC Marlin
1967 AMC Marlin in Sungold Metallic over Frost White / Bring a Trailer

 

Charger production for 1967, meanwhile, amounted to only 15,788 cars, which was better than the Marlin, but still not good. However, while the AMC fastback expired in ignominy, Dodge was subsequently able to reinvent the Charger as a more conventionally styled midsize muscle car, which quickly overshadowed the commercial disappointment of the 1966–1967 model.

Rear view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

The Charger is by far the easier of these two cars to take seriously, thanks mostly to the availability of the 426 Hemi, but at the end of the day, it’s almost as much of a kitsch object as the Marlin. It has its appealing points (the concealed headlights, the flashy interior), but most would have worked just as well or better on a regular Coronet hardtop, without the fastback roof.

Right front 3q view of a copper 1967 Dodge Charger
1967 Dodge Charger in Medium Copper Metallic / Mecum Auctions

 

It’s easy to see why neither of these cars was successful in its day, but the same off-the-beaten-track eccentricity that made them flops in the ’60s has made them interesting collectibles today, with well-kept survivors now commanding good but generally not outrageous prices. Decades after their initial failure, the Marlin and the first-generation Charger finally seem to have found the niche they were always seeking: as a change of pace for jaded collectors who roll their eyes or shake their heads at the thought of yet another Mustang or first-generation Camaro.

Related Reading

Vintage Review: 1966 Dodge Charger – A Better Marlin (by Paul N)

Curbside Classic: 1967 Dodge Charger – Chrysler’s Marlin (by Lee Wilcox)

Curbside Classic: 1965 Rambler Marlin – The Rambler Classic Shows Up With An Expensive Bad Wig And Gets Laughed Off The Stage (by Paul N)

Vintage Car Life Review: 1967 AMC Marlin – Beating A Dead Fish (by me)