It’s fairly well known that AMC’s quirky 1975 Pacer arrived in showrooms as a rather compromised vehicle. The company’s new model was originally meant to be a “true small compact” powered by a lightweight rotary to be developed by GM. As such, AMC’s new compact was projected to weigh a slim 2500 pounds, offering good performance, swift handling, and groundbreaking styling. Or so the idea was.
But once GM killed its Wankel program, the eventual Pacer arrived lacking most of its intended benefits. Overweight, and carrying outdated hardware with dismal fuel economy for its class, AMC’s ad people tried to spin –and hide– the car’s shortcomings under “The Wide Small Car” slogan. A ruse that worked… for a brief while.
After a pretty good first year, sales for the car quickly dropped. Many attribute the car’s failure to its styling, which was challenging. But more importantly, the product just didn’t deliver on its promise.
For all intents and purposes, beyond the futuristic wrapping and reduced length, just about everything in the Pacer felt like a typical mid-size offering from Detroit. As far as performance and utility, the car didn’t make a good case against its competitors.
“What the Pacer should have been from the beginning,” said R&T about the new ’77 Pacer wagon. And they had a point. With the wagon’s added room, there were no longer pretenses of the Pacer being a “true small compact”. Instead, the model was just your usual Detroit family wagon. With quirky AMC styling, of course.
Buyers agreed with the assessment, with wagon sales almost doubling those of the sedan for model year 1977.
Against the sedan, R&T’s thoughts about the wagon were generally positive. “It embodies all the features of the sedan while offering the increased cargo of a wagon. And with no sacrifice in handling. In fact, overall performance is better in most instances as the wagon stops quicker and rides quieter than its 1976 sedan counterpart. Yet in spite of its new configuration, it has gained little in weight and overall length.”
The Pacer wagon’s steering and handling were what you’d expect of a Detroit product from the times. “The power-assisted steering is virtually numb and the car’s dominant trait is understeer…” Braking distances were slightly improved on the wagon over the sedan’s, though suffering similarly to some rear brake lockup.
Meanwhile, the tested wagon’s 49-state 258 CID six engine improved over the sedan’s performance; if slightly. 0-60 arrived in 13 secs. and the quarter mile shed 0.5 sec. against the sedan.
Of course, the car’s main selling point was its newfound usefulness as a wagon. And as such, the model made a better case for itself than it ever had. “Because the Pacer is wide on the outside, it is also wide on the inside and in this case, that’s a definite plus.” It added to a cargo capacity of 24.9 cu ft with the rear seat up and 48.3 cu ft with the rear seat down. It was “about the same capacity as the foot longer Hornet Sportabout we tested in July 1974…” Finally, liftover height was another benefit; “when you open the rear hatch you encounter a perfectly flat surface.”
Staying on the car’s packaging, the wagon’s seating position was deemed comfortable, and “the rear seats are spacious (all things considered).” And just like the sedan, the wagon had lots of head, leg, and elbow room.
Of course, while the new wagon made the Pacer a better car, it wasn’t necessarily an outstanding one. New practicality aside, overall sales kept tumbling until production ceased in 1980. From then on, the company would remain on life-support thanks to its Jeep brand and endless permutations of its 1970 Hornet. But that’s a story for another day (and already covered elsewhere at CC).
Notes: The quote “What the Pacer should have been from the beginning” is nowhere in the review. Instead, it comes from that R&T issue index. Meanwhile, the “true small compact” term comes from AMC’s CEO Gerald C. Meyers, as he discussed the Pacer’s development in a 2010 interview.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1975 AMC Pacer – The Spacer
Curbside Classic: 1978 AMC Pacer D/L Wagon – Roll With It, Baby
I always thought the Pacer might be a cool car to hot rod with it’s width. Lower it, some wide tires, a small block V8, or maybe one of those Evinrude 300hp V8 2 strokes, like that guy that stuffed one in an old Volvo
A bit of clarification: The production Pacer didn’t gain 1000lbs because the GM rotary engine wasn’t available. The origins of the Pacer was the Amigo concept that Teague began working on in 1971, to create a truly space efficient subcompact urban car, one that was a bit wider than the typical European or Japanese design, to appeal to Americans. But those early concepts were smaller and narrower than what the actual Pacer ended up as, but not because of the rotary. The rotary-powered Pacer would have been essentially the exact same car as the production Pacer, but the engine would have weighed some 200 or so pounds less, making it still a rather heavy compact, not nearly the 2500lbs of the early concept target.
Somewhere along the line in the development of the Amigo into the Pacer, it got bloated. The first running mule of the Pacer was a Matador sedan cut down, which rather set the parameters of the Pacer as a shorter Matador, although the final version did get new suspension and such.
Mission creep, or something like that.
Yes, the Pacer would have made relatively more sense as this in the first place, although how it was better than a Hornet wagon is questionable, given that 4-door wagons were obviously more versatile.
What Teague originally envisioned would have been something like a somewhat wider VW Golf, but AMC was in no position to develop and build a dedicated FWD drive train and chassis, so cutting down a Matador and then improving its chassis was the only real solution, as well as hoping to get a boost from a rotary under the hood. Of course that would only have made its mediocre fuel economy worse, never mind its reliability/durability.
The advantage the rotary would’ve allowed that having to shoehorn a straight-6 under its’ snub nose killed, would’ve been a really roomy front compartment even once that first compromise of sticking with RWD had been made.
The front compartment of the Pacer was really roomy; that was the whole point: to have a front seat as roomy and wide as a full size American car. Which it was. Modifying the firewall did not impede on that.
The Pacer is roomy for 4 people. The front compartment is compromised by a huge transmission tunnel, from that long straight six shoehorned in there.
I always thought of the Pacer as sort of the front seat of a midsized car, combined with the back seat of a compact. From some specs I found online, it does come up a bit short in legroom up front…40.7″, whereas I think most midsized cars were probably around 42″. But, it also depends on how they measure legroom. Shoulder room up front was 57.3.” I think the typical pre-downsized intermediate was around 59″, but I’m sure that was still wider than any compact of the time.
In back, legroom was 34.9″, which was more than any midsized coupe of the era. GM’s Colonades, for example, were something like 32.9.” Shoulder room was tight, because they really had to shove that back seat in between the rear wheel openings. It was probably as good as any intermediate car for 4-passenger seating, but if you needed 3 across in the back seat, forget it!
I’d imagine the ride in back was pretty bad though, since you were sitting practically on top of the rear axle.
Yes, the post’s second paragraph is so brief that it can be misunderstood. Just adding more information to your comments, Gerald Meyers was among the executives pushing to get AMC out of the full-size market, since their models struggled in that segment. Instead, he felt the company should focus on compacts.
As such, he pushed for the Pacer and the rotary deal with GM. By the time GM killed the program, AMC was understandably too invested in the Pacer to turn back. Meyers, of course, felt lousy about the whole matter and blamed part of the car’s weight gain on the heavier hardware needed (suspension, transmission and so on) to go along with the old six.
Meanwhile, Bob Nixon, who was head of passenger design at AMC under Teague, blamed the Pacer’s design and weight troubles on other factors during its development: “…at the 11th hour, Engineering/Product Planning said the new government side-impact laws would require us to widen the car considerably –turning the design into a rolling bathtub.”
There were probably more factors at play, but like all failures, the actors involved barely enjoyed recalling the events at all (the Pacer is a short paragraph in the Nixon interview, and he clearly disowns the design).
at the 11th hour, Engineering/Product Planning said the new government side-impact laws would require us to widen the car considerably –turning the design into a rolling bathtub.”
Sounds like typical point-the-finger-at-someone-else rubbish. The side impact requirement did not require anyone to widen their cars; they just added a simple stamped steel girder inside the door. Did all of the little imports and the Chevette and Omni/Horizon have to widen their bodies. Not.
We’ll never know just exactly how the Pacer came to be so fat, because there’s too much ass-covering. “Success has many fathers; failure has none”. That never applied better.
The bottom line is the little FWD Golf-size car Teague originally had in mind was not something AMC was capable of doing. So they copped out, cut down a Matador, and went from there.
The creation of the Pacer actually sounds a bit like how Studebaker came up with the Lark by simply using the Champion center section with new, shortened front and rear clips.
The difference is the center section of the Pacer was not a direct lift from the Matador, but ‘almost’ completely modified with an all new body. Unlike the Lark, nothing from the Matador’s body transfers over to the Pacer.
But, down deep, the Pacer was still on a shortened Matador chassis. Goes a long way to explaining the Pacer’s transition from concept to production vehicle.
I’m grateful for this discussion, because it only dawned on me when I read the stats just how very wide the Pacer was, and I was literally just about to ask why that was so. Seems the answer is…”.not me, I didn’t do it!”
My dad bought a low-mileage 1980 pacer wagon in 1992. Looking through old brochures now the color was “Bordeaux” with the Di-noc wood grain.
As a teenager, I was thoroughly embarrassed. However, I do remember that it had an exceptionally cold air conditioner and unusually comfortable leather seats (in a similar Bordeaux color) akin to what was used in the contemporary Grand Wagoneer.
Your dad had ac? My parents had a 77 wagon in blue, no ac. I remember stitching to the vinyl seats in the summer.
I always thought this version of the Mitsubishi / Dodge / Plymouth Colt-Mirage (whew!) was similar in styling to the AMC Pacer. Smaller, cleaner but similar.
This is essentially what Teague originally wanted; add maybe 10% to the width. But there’s no way AMC was going to be able to build something like that.
For sure. But arguably AMC could have built something like the Chevrolet Chevette/Opel Kadett C or Ford Escort Mk II, both of which still current in 1975.
I had the “Dodge Colt”, version. Loved it!
Always had the same thought, Allan. And I think it’s why I retain a soft spot for the bulbous old Pacer.
I forgot to mention “Champ”! The Plymouth version was named “Camp”, as shown on the license plate of the photo. So the car was sold as the Mitsubishi / Dodge / Plymouth Colt-Champ-Mirage !
And Plymouth dropped the Champ name and called it a Colt in 1983, for one more permutation.
I was too bad AMC didn’t put the Jeep (Buick) V-6 in the Pacer. It probably would have fit better than the AMC straight 6. AMC sold the old Buick V-6 tolling back to GM around the time the Pacer came out. It also might have been too tall of an engine. It would have been an interesting “what if.”
What ive always found was wild is that AMC thought that they could sell the pacer in the uk
Where your average small car had probably a 1600cc engine, not to mention that the “longer door on the passenger side” was on the wrong side for a rhd conversion… And said conversion was agricultural at best, using a chain(!) to move the steering between the now relocated wheel, and the rack which stayed in it’s original orientation.
And then the price tag put it it up against jaguars and mercedes. Madness.
Needless to say they didn’t shift many.
(I’m not a pacer hater, as they had some genuinely good ideas, but a car for Europe it was not.)
If you’ve never driven or ridden in a Pacer, they are actually very nice riding and driving cars by 1975-77 standards. They didn’t have a lot of power (but nothing did back then. The 304 V8 became available in 1978). The rack and pinion steering was good. The seats were comfortable. They also were safe! Pacers had one of the lowest injury to occupants ratings back in the day, according to insurance industry rankings (that I used to read in the college library!)
It always looked pretty roomy to me.
I’m giving you a no-honk guarantee.
Party on Wayne.
The kitchen at the beginning in Wayne’s parents’ house is nicer than mine. GM Frigidaire Flair double-oven stove with lift-up oven doors and pull-out cooktop and side-by-side fridge with two freezer compartments. Excellent!
I know! I’ve always coveted one of those Frigidaire ovens with the pull out cooktop. So so cool. (and probably not so very functional, oh well.)
Always thought a Pacer would make a fun hot rod. A late model GM LS v8 would fit right in and run like a new car with about 400-500hp. Would be fun to keep it quiet and low key.
I always liked the weird styling of these(and the Gremlin), yeah they were very flawed cars new as discussed. But for a hobby car, well too many people own old Camaros, Mustangs and Chevelles. More people need to think outside the box on vintage cars IMO. Not to mention how overpriced the “good years” of said above cars are now days. You could have the worlds nicest pacer with that engine swap for well under 20k. Under 10k if you found a good survivor and kept it stock
Sadly, the Pacer answered a question that almost nobody was asking. I will grant that it was a far better looking car than the final versions of the Matador (including the Matador coupes).
For me, who had developed the habit of driving with one elbow resting on the door with its open window, the Pacer had a fatal flaw – the tall window that would not lower all the way into the door.
For all its limitations, Pacer was a great name for a car AMC wanted to portray as advanced. And the very 1970s styling was fresh, and unique, for the immediate era. I felt as well, it was the station wagon and its greater practicality, that should have been the first (only?) version. Even if it was far less dramatic stylistically, than the coupe. They looked best with sporty rally or alloy rims. Dowdy with dog dish, or flat wheel covers, or dark, mature colours.
The Pacer name had previously graced a lower trim Edsel series. I guess AMC’s marketing mavens saw this as an omen of future success.
Youthful buyers in the mid ’70s, would likely have had little or no knowledge of the more distant automotive past of the Pacer name.
Can’t help but like the Pacer. I know it’s not remotely a good car as ended up, but it somehow looked fantastically like The Future to my 8 y.o. brain, and let’s face it, we take all of what we once were into who become.
So, somewhere, deep within, I probably expect that one day we’ll all be driving things like it.
Years ago a friend’s parents had a light green Pacer. Another friend nicknamed it ‘The watermelon’.
I recall TV ads promoting how wide it was. I saw a width of 77.3″ for the Pacer, certainly very wide in proportion to the rest of the car. My 20+ year old Silverado is 79″.
Now that everyone’s fatter than 50 years ago, someone should try a wide small wagon again.
Pretty much explains the reason full-size pickup trucks and SUVs are the number one selling vehicles in the US.
Greatly appreciated article, Ric.
Had the wagon appeared in 1975 as the one and only Pacer, it would have been a stylish kid and grocery hauler poised to become the Space Shuttle of suburbia.
Its rounded form, the opposite of Seville’s new sheer look, probably could have taken much higher pricing had AMC gotten over its inferiority complex and loaded the car with features, finished it with premium materials and executed it with quality. But Studio needed to stay clear of tack-ons and stick-ons… and hide those wimpy headlights!
Wonder if a V8-only powertrain with displacements starting at 250 CID would have avoided the engine packaging issues.
Love the ’77 wagon, and exactly in the configuration seen here. For me, it’s the Pacer to get – that or a ’75 X coupe. It’s refreshing to read a period review of the Pacer cast mostly in a positive light.
I was a bit surprised as well, the review is so positive. Especially, coming from Road & Track, probably the most demanding reviewers of the car magazines. It helped, they frequently compared the more practical wagon, to the coupe.
Something to consider here. Could the Lincoln C-Concept from a few years ago be a modern take on the Pacer concept of small, wide? The C concept was a 2 row , 6 passenger wide vehicle that was small. Too bad Ford never green-lit the concept for production. As I recall, the designer mentioned that the interior room volume was similar to the 1961 Continental.
Weight was within 200lbs of the Aspen/Volare wagons, which both offered four doors, and over 20 cubic feet more of cargo space. While offering comparable mileage. Before the Fairmont and Malibu wagons came along, the F-Body wagons were more practical than the Pacer wagon. Hurting the Chrysler products of course, was their early reputation for recalls, rust, and poor reliability.
AMC missed a market by not offering a Panel version of the wagon as Pinto did in those years. A Pacer sedan delivery would have been far more practical and more power to haul goods than a Pinto ever would have. Given the wide body for its length, a high-roof version of a panel would not have looked out of place. I believe Ford’s swb Transit vans have a similar length & width in proportion to a Pacer wagon.
I attended the Feb.1975 Daytona 500 NASCAR race. As part of the pre-race festivities, a group of 50 AMC Pacers were driven around the track for multiple laps. At a bit of speed. It was something of an eerie sight as no one had seen them before. About a week or two later they debuted in showrooms. I’ve always wondered how much that cost AMC.
The Pacer Wagon only looks good compared to a Pacer Coupe.
Neither looks good compared to the new Honda Accord.
Seems like a bizarre observation to share, and a big-time non-sequitur as well.
The Accord hasn’t looked good since the late 1990’s. Way too bloated.
He may have been referring to the new for 1976, Honda Accord
Thank you. Yes – I was.
It wasn’t even an original comparison either.
I’m so old, I clearly remember when the Accord showed up and stole an entire generation of buyers. I guess one had to be there to clearly understand my original post.