AMC had danced to the rhythm of a different drum for a few years, betting it all on its compact Ramblers during the second half of the ’50s. That lucky and prescient gamble had paid off, with the Rambler reaching third place in domestic sales by 1961. But as the ’60s advanced, with the Big 3 encroaching into compact territory, AMC was to quit with its solo dancing and try to join the rest of the party. To that end, after a one-year interlude in ’62, a 287 CID V-8 was offered once again in the Classic, attuned, and filled with accruements ready to face the sportier V-8 versions of the Big 3’s compacts. It’s this version of the Classic, in 770 Hardtop form, that CL tested in their March 1964 issue.
A bit of backtracking may be necessary at this point. AMC’s master of solo dancing had been company president George W. Romney, who got many to swing to the compact Rambler’s rhythm. But even during his term, a V-8 was offered in the economy range starting in 1957. These earlier V-8s were commended for their performance and handling, though their sales numbers never made up for the effort. It also muddied the waters with the upscale Ambassador V-8.
Starting in 1962, the company’s lineup would be simplified; the last gesture of Romney’s tenure. Only two wheelbases were offered, the 110″ for the American, and the 112″ for the Classic and the Ambassador. The latter two now shared much sheet metal, with V-8 power now being exclusive to the Ambassador. The move paid off, overall production reached new records and even Ambassador sales saw an increase.
AMC was to try a new dance under the guidance of new CEO Roy Abernethy. The new head intended to face the Big 3 directly, hoping to distance the company from the thrifty and homely image Ramblers had acquired. The new Classic V-8 was an early effort in those ambitions; “… to compete in the current trend toward smooth strong power in lower-priced cars, AMC has created… the 287CID V-8 in the Classic… this competes nicely in power and performance with the 283 V-8 Chevy II and Chevelle, the 289 V-8 Fairlane, the 260 V-8 Falcon, and the new 273 V-8 Valiants and Darts…” And with a price tag of $105 over the regular 6-cyl., the reviewers considered the package a bargain.
Extra power and luxury options were becoming the norm in the US domestic compact segment, and the new upgrades gave the Classic V-8 the cold specs to join the fray. Besides higher performance numbers, the V-8 allocated more power to the many amenities present in the test’s 770 hardtop; “… the Classic V-8 buyer gets improvements in electrical system, brakes, suspension and drivetrain components over those in the 6-cyl. Classic… this month’s Rambler, has an extremely high ‘plush’ factor… the ’64 Rambler Classic V-8 is long on comfort… and cruising ability…”
On the other hand, handling greatly suffered with the added V-8. While the model had the suspension and drivetrain upgrades expected in a higher-performing model; “the Classic V-8’s cornering is classic understeer, magnified… it plows through corners with the front trying to maintain a straight line… (with) a tendency to skip about, breaking traction at the slightest provocation…” It probably didn’t help matters that the 287 V-8 offered in the Classic was just a small-bore version of AMC’s already obsolete 327 V-8. Not a lightweight mill to begin with, leading to a 59/41 weight distribution on the hardtop.
At some point, a frustrated Abernethy is quoted as saying “… how long does it take to change an image?” Despite AMC’s efforts, the Classic remained inextricably linked to sensible frugality. The 6-cyl. carried on as the Rambler’s chore product; out of 206,300 Classics built for ’64, only 11,900 were 770 hardtops with V-8 power. Total sales were receding as well, with AMC dropping to 8th place overall by the closing of the year. Ambassador numbers also suffered, doing about half the business it had done for ’63.
For ’65, the company would keep following the Big 3’s tune, with ever-diminishing returns. A larger Ambassador and the Marlin fastback would arrive, but no matter what moves it made, AMC would remain an outsider in the party.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1964 Rambler Classic 770 Coupe – A True Classic?
Curbside Classic: 1964 Rambler Classic 770 – Miss LuAnn’s Ride
How do you change an image? Better products. Hyundai and Kia are the current success stories and in Europe it’s Skoda who went from loser status. Renault are trying the same trick with the Dacia but VW have given up.on SEAT. AMC produced metoo cars until the Jeep turned up, nothing to really stand out and never the best in class.
The issue wasn’t the product. The Rambler Classic had its good points and bad points, but it was fully competitive with run of the mill Chevelles, Fairlanes, and tween size Plymouths in the showroom. Switch the badges and no one would know who made them. The curved window glass of the Rambler is a very nice styling touch.
But the Chevelle was obviously the reincarnation of the 55 Chevy. Fairlane won the US Nationals drag race (with an engine you couldn’t buy in the showroom in a Fairlane), and the tween size Plymouth won the Daytona 500 (with an engine you couldn’t buy in the showroom in a Plymouth). That’s the image Rambler had actively rejected in the Romney years, and couldn’t get “The race we care about is the human race.”
That’s where I take issue with the Romney disciples, if anyone set up Rambler/AMC for troubled times with Abernethy, it was Romney himself making pious statements like that. VW was a counter to Detroit values but there was no such virtuous quotes from the president of VW attached to the Beetle – if anything it was the opposite with its intrinsic Porsche lineage and dune buggy conversions. – To tell a large and growing(at that time) chunk of the buying public in so many words that they’re not interested in their business, it shouldn’t be surprising they’re going to shop elsewhere, especially with Rambler no longer being the only game in town with well built smaller cars, which was the whole reason Romney’s vision worked, timing.
There were some mechanical limitations though, the small block Chevy, the Windsor Ford, and the B block and soon LA block Mopars among others were potent engines with room to grow, even if the race winners were exotic variations they were variations on existing architecture. By contrast the the Rambler 287/327 V8 had some significant limitations for high performance with restrictive heads small valves and limited growth potential. Other aspects of the cars themselves weren’t necessarily limitations on family cars were far from ideal for performance like the old torque tube rear suspension and trunnion front suspension. AMCs ended up being capable performers to the point of winning the Trans Am championship in 1971, as well as becoming the choice for LAPD patrol cars, outperforming the stalwart mopar B bodies in trials, but these came with significantly revised(and conventional) suspensions and a new generation V8 do do it, but that anti-car stigma of the company lingered despite it.
1964 was the first year of the Formula Vee single seat racing championship with VW engines in the US. My family had a Beetle with an official factory Formula Vee trim package (stripes and fake Porsche/Fuchs wheel covers).
In 1964, my parents had their 2nd of 2 Rambler Classics (both wagons) a 1963 with the 6 cylinder. That was the last 6 cylinder they were to own till ’86, like many in the prosperous 60’s they moved up to mid-sized (Olds F85) and V8 (the 330) in their next car.
In a way, 1964 for AMC might have been similar to 1980 or so for Honda. In a few years both companies were to expand their offerings pretty drastically…more than double the models. I remember Honda ads at the time mentioning that they didn’t offer larger cars, but this soon was no longer the case. Similarly, AMC was trying to grow to offer more models, by 1967 they expanded to (almost) offer what the big 3 did, and by 1970 with Jeep they expanded even farther. In a way they were both ahead of their time and behind; SUVs would prosper in the future, but large sedans were on their way out. Wonder what would have happened if AMC stayed with only compact cars? Probably not well, as we know you have to “connect the dots” between trends…it is well and good to be a “monday morning quarterback” and look at the endpoints and say they should have gone one way or another, but you also have to figure how to get there…the intermediate points are just as important as the end ones, and people’s taste changes I think that’s pretty hard to do in practice.
Anyhow, like most families mine upsized in the 60’s then downsized in the 80’s…partly due to gas prices, but also due to changing sizes of the family…fortunately (for us) larger cars were available when we had a larger family, we didn’t have to get a truck (nor even a minivan) when we had more family members at home. Were we predictable…I guess more than most, but we were different at the same time…my Dad was also a longtime import buyer (with his 2nd car) starting with his ’59 Beetle. Starting in 1980 he bought domestic cars as his 2nd car…and never went back to imports for the rest of his life. So our family did follow trends, but we also did the opposite…hard for marketers to know.
A well designed product. However, I prefer the 63 Grille. The 64 grille looks overinflated and an obvious change for change’ sake. Perhaps changing the texture while keeping the concavity would have sufficed. The taillights were unchanged. and to be contrary. I wish they had been extended in the deck lid. along with a contiguous trim panel would have given the car a wider look. AMC made a science out of using the same stampings for front and rear bumpers.
The 64 grill was something of a transition away from the styling of the ’63 and a preview of the flat grill that would show up on the ’65.
These ’63 and ’64 Classic and Ambassadors were very good looking cars in all iterations. The quality was also supposed to be greatly improved so I would have definitely considered one of these back in the day.
Rich, thanks for the article! I think the styling of the ’64 Classic/Ambassador hardtop was just right.
There is a correction needed on your mention of two wheelbases in ’62. In 62-63, the old style American still retained the 100″ wheelbase, and the Classic and Ambassador did share the same wheelbase. In ’64, the redesigned American grew to a 106″ wheelbase, and did share some structural sheet metal and some side glass with the Classic/Ambassador body. (In ’65-Abernathy wanted the Ambassador to stretch again and compete with the Big 3, so for the remainder of its run, the Ambo had those extra inches added in the front. They still used the body structure of the Classic/Rebel/Matador, and had the same interior space.)
The Rambler was a fairly attractive car, but mechanically outdated with the trunion front suspension, the torque tube rear suspension and an outdated engine. Compared with the intermediates of that period from the Big Three it was hopelessly outclassed.
The problem was George Romney with all his anti-horsepower, anti-speed and anti-racing sermonizing which was reflected in AMC’s advertising. Romney painted AMC into a corner it could never escape from. This was reflected in their advertising-1964 and ’65 it was “The Sensible Spectaculars” which has to be one the worst advertising campaigns of all time. AMC was talking out of both sides of its corporate mouth: “Horsepower is bad”; “Our engine has 270 horsepower!” By this time period driving a Rambler labeled the owner a luddite, a tightwad, a maiden aunt or a librarian-not exactly an exciting demograhic.
Here’s a scenario to ponder: imagine if Romney (or someone like him) had remained at AMC and devoted all their energy and resources to building superior versions of their existing American and Classic lines. I’m talking something akin to a Rambler company that was like a sixties’ Toyota, ten years before they took the US by storm.
Then, just like Toyota, with a solid reputation and sales under their belt, AMC could have ‘then’ slowly and methodically branched into the other markets of the Big 3. IOW, doing what Abernethy did, just in a more thoughtful, careful manner.
The idea is, Abernethy wasn’t wrong in branching AMC out with his model-to-model lineup plan with the Big 3. He just executed it poorly and too soon.
It is an interesting idea, I’m not sure if AMC had the time and resources to carry it out. Toyota by comparison was a blank slate in the United States and wasn’t carrying the baggage AMC was saddled with. I’ve often thought the best course for AMC was to follow Checker’s example-leave the automobile business and become a manufacturer of automotive parts. Of course, Checker had a much easier time of it as they did not have a dealer network and the dealer franchise laws to contend with. Perhaps they could have gradually reduced their models until they were selling one car only, giving their dealers time to shut down or find new venues.
The model to model plan never really came to fruition anyway, the American and the Classic were the core products with Romney and all through the Abernethy era, yeah he got the Ambassador back on a split wheelbase strategy(like Ambassadors in the bulk of the Romney era) but it was itself a superior Classic. The only car they added at that time was the Marlin, again, not exactly a huge investment. Only think I can think of that would have made the line more more quality streamlined would be to cut down on bodystyles (hardtop, convertibles, fastbacks – again, marlin) and standardize options.
Maybe cut out styling changes but lets be realistic, VW was unique in getting away with that, and AMC was lean in that department anyway, the 63 American was essentially the same as a 69 and classic/ambassador only had two major ones up to the Matador era(which by then Abernathy was out).
Yeah, Abernethy gets a lot of grief over his tenure at Rambler, but it was more about letting AMC’s core products slide than trying to go model-for-model with the Big 3.
To that end, if there was a guy who would have focused on using AMC’s meager resources to improve their existing products, it would have been Romney. I like to think that’s what he would have done with the money wasted on the Marlin project.
And I don’t know if Romney would have been able to implement W. Edwards Deming’s management principles in the way they transformed the Pacific Rim’s auto industry, but it’s an intriguing prospect to ponder.
I just fail to see the slide, the core products with Romney were the Classic and American, and those remained the core products through Abernethy’s tenure, the stretched ambassador and fastback Marlin undoubtedly added production cost but they were just extensions of the Classic, with a limited amount of bespoke tooling to make them possible, unlike the Javelin/AMX, Pacer and Matador coupe with his successor. The Marlin was a major misstep that if executed properly should have been Rambler’s gateway to the ponycar youth market but instead its frugally executed humpback on a Classic styling reinforced the market perception of Rambler’s being dorky for several more years.
Beyond the Marlin misstep mostly what I see in the Abernethy era was an effort to modernize the cars from their previously early 50s roots with a modern OHV six cylinder, the much better second generation V8, hotchkiss drive replacing the arcane torque tube and try to keep up with styling trends with the big three, which given the Classic/Rebel line got near annual styling updates between 63 and 67. The American was all new for 64 and itself was kept fresh enough through his run as well.
The only way I can see improving “existing products” working is if all of this was eschewed and the 1962 cars were frozen in time with only substantive updates… but the bones and styling of those cars weren’t that endearing, and given the timeline it’s pretty safe to assume Romney himself was still running things when the 63 Classic and 64 American redesigns were greenlit, and these were costly thorough refreshes of the models lines, not just new exterior skin but all new internal body structures, which lasted not just through the Abernethy era but also the Chapin era and into the 80s with the last Eagles.
One way or another resources needed to be spent to make Rambler remain successful. Romney was a great leader for the company in his time, but I don’t think he’d be nearly as lauded had he remained at AMC through the 60s. Times changed rapidly, the big three matched and exceeded their core market and the Japanese imports were on their way.
I can see one scenario, albeit far-fetched, where Romney could have bested both Abernethy and Chapin, and that’s the subcompact market. Romney might have eschewed all the goofy stuff like the Marlin and Pacer (as well as the Javelin and Gremlin) and went full-steam-ahead bringing a real, ground-breaking subcompact (instead of the sawed-off Hornet that was the Gremlin) to market before the Pinto and Vega.
The problem is I don’t know how he could have accomplished something of that magnitude with AMC’s meager resources. As it was, it took them until 1979 (and a merger with Renault) to get the lackluster FWD Alliance to market.
Back in the sixties, well, I don’t even know if they had an appropriate drivetrain for a subcompact. They’d have had to use the old Hurricane 4-cylinder engine and I wonder what kind of subcompact Romney could have created around it.
OTOH, Chapin spent lots of AMC money on the Pacer, too…
In the 1960s, the North American market hadn’t yet settled on the BMC Mini’s front-wheel-drive layout as the ideal for subcompacts.
The most popular entry – the VW Beetle – used a rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive format. The Japanese entries from Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota used a front-mounted engine and rear-wheel drive.
AMC could have followed the Japanese and stuck with a conventional layout. The main challenge would have been sourcing a decent four-cylinder engine, which AMC did not have.
Romney had greenlighted the all-new 1963 Classic/Ambassador and 1964 Rambler American. He personally approved the curved side glass for these cars, which raised their cost. But others pointed out that, if the cars were to remain in production for several years, they needed the curved side glass to remain competitive with the Big Three entries, which were adopting this styling feature.
I also believe that Romney approved the new six-cylinder engines, which debuted during the 1964 model year. The engines were all-new so given industry lead times, I would imagine that he signed off on them before he left. Not sure about the V-8s, which didn’t debut until the 1966 model year.
The subcompact would certainly have been the jumpstart that got them back where the original Rambler left off, on the engine front I suppose logically they could have developed the six with a sibling containing two less cylinders, ala the Chevy 4 found in Chevy II/Novas(I’m actually surprised AMC never did do that actually).
Problem is the the engineering/ manufacturing investment; the 64 American shared some structural elements and running gear with the Classic to keep the budget in check, but I don’t think that could extend to a smaller subcompact body. It would be a Pacer level investment, which may well have been a life or death gamble for the company at that time. Plus the competition would have their subcompacts by 1971, leaving a fairly narrow window for AMCs to flourish with the competitive advantage.
Given the frugal, practical nature of both Rambler’s products and clientele, it really is odd they never brought out a new, modern 4-cylinder engine derived from the latest six that could have been used initially in the American. Seems like Rambler customers would have eaten that up in droves.
Then, it would have been a relatively simple matter to use the same engine in an even smaller car than the American (i.e., subcompact).
Is there any information that indicates Romney had even pondered such a scenario? Seems like it would have been right up his alley.
It’s worth noting that George Mason brought over the British, Austin-derived Metropolitan that had a 1.2L/1.5L four engine. Maybe the lackluster sales performance of that car dissuaded Mason/Romney from further exploring an Austin subcompact sedan for the US market.
The cheapest course would have been to badge-engineer an Austin A40 Devon as a Rambler for the US. Wouldn’t that have been an interesting experiment.
Fact was, Romney didn’t change the AMC executives into Rambler fans. He gave them a successful product, but AMC executives wanted their old Hudson and Nash cars, not the Rambler. The AMC men wanted cars like their counterparts at GM, Ford and Chrysler. So they sold themselves on bringing back larger cars, because THEY wanted large cars to drive to Detroit country clubs, theatres, and not some embarrassing Rambler.
Rambler, had Romney stayed, could have ended up, not with a Toyota, but with a Volvo. That 1965 Ambassador and Marlin could have been the revolutionary 124.
Rambler couldn’t compete with the majors once the majors got into the Rambler size category. Rambler wasn’t actually better or much different. Volvo’s US sales numbers wouldn’t have been nearly enough.for a brand at Ford/Chevrolet prices.
I yield to no man in my dislike of Ramblers, but they were popular through the early 60s. As a mechanic in a small Wisconsin farming community, even our Ford garage serviced plenty of Ramblers.
Regardless of their styling and design shortfalls, most of the Ramblers I worked on seemed rather well put together. I’d consider them better built than competing Chrysler, Ford or GM products of this era.
Good strategy devotes resources to exploiting success rather than reinforcing weakness. Too bad AMC didn’t build a strategy around their early strength of making well built cars rather than pouring resources into their styling weaknesses.
I really love the design of these – nice proportions and tight surfacing make them amongst the best designs of the ’60s IMHO. That rear 3/4 view of the coupe is really sharp. As Paul has said, the sizing and general proportions are reflected in the very successfull downsized ’77 GM full sized Chevies. Even the rear wheel cut outs are similar.
The underpinnings were outdated, but I’d still love a coupe with the V8.
I owned a ’64 Ambi 990H with the twin-stick manual in the early 90s, bought for $500 because my previous car had been repossessed and I needed wheels. It ran but smoked badly. Spent too much getting the engine rebuilt and even then engine parts were nearly unobtainable. The shop had to make new rocker shafts on a lathe. Eventually sold it to a friend who sold it to someone who finished it. Probably still running around Long Beach, CA.
Wish I still had it, but parts now would be impossible, and there was so much old tech in that car from the 40s/50s like torque tube drive, vacuum wipers, foot-pumped washers, etc. Still, it was pretty!
One cure for the old AMC/torque tube drivetrain problem has been to replace those units with a 1990’s 4.0 Jeep Cherokee units which fit surprisingly well.