(first posted 6/9/2014) This shot, posted by William Rubano, perfectly bookends the long and varied efforts by Nash/AMC to find success in the compact segment of the market. In both cases, these cars eschewed the conventional approach for something decidedly different. The little Rambler of 1950 is what started the whole trek by AMC into the world of compacts, and the Pacer wagon finished it off, in an unfortunate grand finale blow-out, the car that pretty much did AMC in. What a compact arc of history we have here.
The 1950 Nash Rambler (I’m not sure of the exact year of this one) was a George Mason’s rather clever solution to make a profitable compact, something that had eluded the other independents so far. Rather than sell on low price, the Rambler was strictly a high-trim model that came only as a convertible-sedan and wagon. More expensive than a low end Chevy or Ford, it carved a niche with buyers who wanted something small but stylish, and even a bit sporty. It’s not a stretch to call it a predecessor of the Corvair Monza a decade later, and appealed to a similar clientele. Sales weren’t big, but it encouraged Mason to essentially bet the whole company on compact/mid sized Ramblers, which really came into their own in the late 50s.
We’ve covered the Pacer here pretty thoroughly, but never the wagon. It was a desperate and utterly futile effort in trying to make the Pacer more acceptable. It did improve its luggage capacity somewhat, but certainly didn’t solve its many other shortcomings. And how much money was tossed away on that extended rear end and that horrendous raised upper lip? The Pacer’s spectacular waste of limited resources and losses forced AMC into the hands of Renault, which resulted in the subcompact Alliance and Encore, and a few other Renaults. But the Pacer was the last new car designed by AMC, a sad ending in their elusive chase for success with compacts, and of course much more.
Related: 1975 Pacer X CC
At first, I was going to post, “no the Pacer isn’t…” but then re-read the article and yes, the Pacer is the last true all new AMC car design. The Concord and Spirit were restyles of old Hornets. Eagle was an engineering effort with old tooling, also.
Renault brought in what was then needed, all new cars. But we all know how well those turned out.
I thought the same way, I guess the XJ Jeep Cherokee would be the last AMC design period, or does that not qualify since Renault was involved? Or where they? Would the 1987 Wrangler qualify?
Renault was deeply involved with the XJ Cherokee, although I’m not sure if they really had any input on the Wrangler. The first ones were built while AMC was still in existence, so 100% of the development was done pre-Chrysler.
Even though Renault helped with its engineering, I believe that the XJ Cherokee was the last production AMC or Jeep vehicle completely designed by Dick Teague.
Wow – I had never considered the start and end points of the compact car from AMC, but here they are. They even look alike – like father and son, or grandfather-grandson.
A choice between the two? I started to say Rambler all day every day, but then started thinking about how an air conditioned V8 Pacer Wagon would look in my garage. I will be the only guy who chooses the Pacer today.
Seeing them together for the first time they have a family resemblance despite the generation gap.
Well as something to drive other than to a show the Pacer is undoubtably more up to the task of modern driving. I could be persuaded to own a Pacer just to do it up Mirth Mobile style and use parts of it’s 258 along with a 4.0 and a 5sp from a Cherokee (2wd) to make a fuel injected sleeper. W/o getting too radical they will produce ~300hp. It would make a great sleeper perfect for hunting V8 Mustangs and Camaros, of a similar vintage of course. I bet it would do pretty well in fuel economy if you kept your foot out of it.
However the Rambler is certainly more desirable from a collectable vehicle in original condition.
Don’t count on it. Outside it is 95°F. I’d go for the air conditioned Pacer, too!
What are Pacers like in the cold? It’s only 50 here (Australia).
Assuming it was air conditioned. A/C was a option, and did not have a 100% take rate.
Nope!
The symmetry of the front and rear fenders of the Nash is remarkable. What sort of range of turning angle do the front tires have within the confines of that fender?
The difference between the wagon and regular versions of the Pacer is kind of subtle. But the wagon is roomier in back, and probably cooler too due to the less dome-like (more vertical) angle of the greenhouse in the rear half of the car, and the addition of rear vent windows.
The Nash? I think it’s more a matter of how narrow the track is, and the effect that has on handling.
What is the turning radius of the Nash? Wow, what’s it like to drive a car with front tires hemmed in like that?
The big Nashes had the shrouded front wheels too. As for turning circle, I would imagine 40 acres would be a good guess… 🙂
Actually, the turning radius was not restricted at all, at 37 feet between curbs. In fact, the 1950 Rambler had a tighter turning radius of any American car except the tiny Crosley. Looks can be deceiving.
My parents bought a Pacer wagon (D/L, mind you) brand new in 1978. Almost a dead ringer for the one above, but less custard and more taupe. Funny thing is my father was pushing for an older Land Rover 109, but my mother said it was too ugly and went with the Kenosha Kicker.
I cannot help but to notice the similarities between the 1950s license plate and the 2010s license plate. The best New York plates ever were the Liberty ones followed by the Blue and White Empire ones, but then New York went on a retro craze that was actually a money grab which got shot down. We still got stuck with these new Gold and Blue Empire plate since the money had already been spent, but they are slowly growing on me in a weird sort of way.
It seems unforgivable that an independent American car company like American Motors would be allowed to deteriorate to the point where it’s vulnerable to being bought out by another car company, and of all companies, Renault and Chrysler? Why did that happen?
Corruption shouldn’t be ruled out.
Corruption, and possibly piss-poor build quality. That seems to have been a common problem plaguing cars built during the late 1960s and the 70s.
The Big Three invaded AMC’s turf in the intermediate and compact classes. AMC heralded the swing to smaller cars in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but that encouraged the Big Three to bring out models that competed directly with its offerings.
AMC’s smaller size also gave it less room for error compared to even Chrysler.
Note that, by 1980, even Chrysler needed government-backed loan guarantees to stay in business, and Ford was on the brink of bankruptcy. Chrysler was saved by the federal government, and Ford was kept afloat by profits from its European operations. AMC’s “savior” was Renault, which kept it afloat until Chrysler bought it in 1987.
Poor decision making and the resulting lack of funds….
Next to the Rambler, that Pacer looks downright futuristic. Like putting a Chrysler Concorde next to an old Newport.
AMC was the king of quirky beginning about 1967 – with details of the large Rebel, Ambassador and later Matador. Quirky went from details to the entire car, certainly with the Gremlin. And, of course, it almost always didn’t work – short of introducing 4 wheel drive to the Hornet in the form of the Eagle.
The odd thing is, AMC became the king of conventional in 1963 with the updated Classic and Ambassador – and they were rewarded with decent success.
My most up close time with an AMC was a college friend’s 1971 or so Ambassador. Black vinyl over medium blue, blue interior. Nice in a conservative way. But, the paddle door handles, the little, pointless, emblem on the panel behind the rear window and ahead of the trunk lid. Some other details I forget. I think some ’67 – ’77 dash details were pretty odd. You just had to say, why?
I think the Pacer wagon looks better than the Pacer sedan.
IMO the best looking Pacers were the early ones with the original thin horizontal grille and the slotted or turbine wheels. It at least looked relatively sporty and original. The initial grille would have looked better on the wagon as well. In fact, I thought the wagon was far more practical, and it’s styling more palatable, than the original coupe. To me, it should have been introduced first, as I feel it would have been better accepted.
I find the combination of the wide whitewalls, body-colored wheel covers, roof rack, chrome mirrors, hood ornament, wood trim and the newer grille, gives this one a garish, broughmide appearance. Gaudy as heck, and not in the Spirit (pun intended) of the original Pacer. I couldn’t live with a Pacer as weird looking as this one. Looks like something Mary Hartman would have drove. Slotted wheels and blackwall or thin whitewalls would help immensely. But white paint unfortunately, doesn’t flatter the Pacer. It looks pudgiest, in light colours, it appears.
It seems strange to me that AMC bet the farm on the Pacer. Even with a Wankel engine (and it’s bugs worked out), the Pacer was an outdated car underneath. Besides being overweight, and having limited cargo space. It was never going to be the sustained decently reliable sellers that the Hornet or Gremlin were. The novelty of it’s quirky, polarizing styling would never carry it. It should have became more obvious to the planners, as cars like the VW Rabbit were being introduced, as this one was being developed. Novelty/quirky styling for the sake of being different, so often wears out, sooner than later it seems. By the second model year, I never gave a PT Cruiser, or the new Beetle, a second look. As the initial hype can (and will) overexpose a car.
Was the Pacer really outdated underneath, or just another conventional American car for its time? Coils at the front, leafs at the rear (now they WERE dated!), and RWD. Those underpinnings sure seem outdated now, but back in ’75 it would just have seemed normal. Europe was in the middle of a wholesale swing to FWD, and Japan was just dipping a toe in the water with Subaru and Honda – both minor-league manufacturers back then.
Space efficiency? Now that might be another matter.
Well, if you are marketing a car as futuristic, with futuristic looks. But other than styling, it’s pure early 70s traditional Detroit engineering, I’d call that quite disingenuous. Wouldn’t you? Like Palmolive selling the same original dish soap, in a fancy new plastic bottle, and placing a flashy ‘New’ label on it.
True, Daniel. I hadn’t considered the marketing angle, just the product.
Coil springs all round instead of leafs at the back was pretty popular by the mid 70s except in Detroit which is strange because Buick by GM had that arrangement first.
I hate to admit it, but I agree. While I’m not impressed with its overall looks, I do like the grille of the earlier Pacer. I’d prefer the Pacer wagon over the sedan.
There were Pacer wagons without this dumb, horrible grille. Originally, the raised hood/grille was only for the V8 models, but I think the later model years all had them. I love the early style one, and although I like both body styles, I prefer the bubble back for the full mid-70s futuristic look. Most people apparently agreed with you, though, because it seems like almost every >1976 Pacer was a wagon.
Here’s a ’77 six-cylinder wagon with the early grille:
From 1975 through 1977, the Pacer was only available with a six-cylinder engine. For 1978, AMC made its 304 V-8 optional in the Pacer, and raised the hood line to accommodate this engine. All 1978-80 Pacers had the revised grille and hood, whether they were equipped with the V-8 or one of the sixes.
I prefer the station wagon over the sedan any day. I also prefer the six cylinder Pacer over the V8 engine Pacer. I don’t know whether the engine improved acceleration much over the six cylinder engine, but the raised upper lip of the grille didn’t do its appearance any favours.
Rather than that awful down/up/down/up/down/up/down hoodline, they’d’ve done better to have raised the entire grille to the level of the headlights and gone straight across.
My parents had a 1976 Pacer wagon, in blue with the old style grill. I agree it was a nicer look that the later ones. There wasn’t air conditioning, btw in our car – you would stick nicely to the vinyl seats in the summer. In the winter, I was told, you had to be really careful on ice. They bought it used in 1978 and they drove it till the motor blew in 1986. In the meantime, we made many trips with it across the North Eastern United States, including one time we had eight people (four adults, four kids.) It was the 1980’s and kids could ride in the rear compartment My dad always said that there were certain design cues in the Pacer that were starting to be used by other manufacturers in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
I’m not gonna minimize the damage the Pacer fiasco did to AMC; but frankly their goose had already been cooked the year before with the introduction of the ’74 Matador. By only redesigning the coupe, AMC not only was sacrificing the Ambassador line but they also condemned the carryover Matador sedan & wagon models to eventual death. AMC would’ve been much better off playing it safe and designing a common body that would work for all three body styles instead of betting everything on the coupe.
I think the Matador sedan, particularly from 1974 on, was better looking than the coupe.
+1 the coupe was certainly”different”.While the Matador coupe was a definite nail in the coffin I’m in 2 minds about the Pacer.Part of me thinks it was another odd car from AMC that sent them to death row while another part thinks it gave them a reprieve for a few more years.
I find it interesting that both these cars have rather obvious patch jobs to cover up older structure on a “new” car:
On the Rambler, that chrome trim pasted to both sides of the cowl allowed the stylists to match new fenders to an existing door and cowl assembly, while on the Pacer that “raised upper lip” allowed hood clearance for a V-8.
In both cases, it represented a company that was “making do,” instead of “doing it right.” Those underdog efforts added charm to the AMC story, but it was one of the reasons why consumers kept away- Half-baked only works in seller’s market.
Did the Rambler share its cowl and front doors with the Nash Ambassador and Statesman? The Rambler was supposedly an all-new car when it debuted in 1950.
Both Nash and AMC had to save pennies whenever possible. AMC prospered when it watched its tooling costs carefully, as it did with the Ramblers from 1956 through 1964.
The Pacer helped sink AMC precisely because AMC DID spring for all-new tooling. Beyond the drivetrains, the Pacer shared very little with other AMC cars. That was a big part of its problem. After one good year, sales fell off dramatically, so AMC never recovered its investment in tooling for the Pacer.
By 1978, sales resistance to the Pacer went far deeper than an unattractive hood and grille ensemble. Completely reworking the front end to eliminate the raised center portion of the grille, or somehow lowering the V-8 to allow it to fit under the existing hood, wouldn’t have made much difference by that point.
What a delightful pair! I’m not shy about my love for the Pacer, and I’ve wanted one since childhood. The above example looks fantastic. However I do prefer the pacer without the brougham gingerbread and the restyled grille. The earlier ones look much sleeker, and I love the optional basket weave upholstery trim that was available.
Two AMCs Ive yet to see in the metal the early one we likely never got and the later one was too weird to sell here plus AMC had evaporated by then.
When you see them side by side, it really looks like some Airflyte virus got into the Pacer modelling clay.
BTW, did the Pacer wagon keep the extra-long passenger side door? Dick Teague’s ultimate quirk.
Interesting to see them side by side. AMC did take kind of the same approach with the Pacer, and really all their cars, beginning in the mid-70s. They could be optioned out to trim levels that weren’t even available on most of the small cars from Detroit, and it seems like a decent amount were (or at least the ones that have survived). But there had to have been plenty of strippers, too. Maybe they’d have been better off more closely adhering to the Nash Rambler method? Probably wouldn’t have made much difference.
Here’s a thought out of left field: should the Pacer have replaced the Gremlin? It was long in the tooth by then, and had been a stopgap measure in the first place.
Paul, your idea that the 1950 Rambler only came as a wagon or sedan-convertible may not be quite accurate. Or it may be accurate for the 1950 model year. But, in fact, my family acquired a 1952 Nash Rambler 2 dr pillarless hardtop for a 2nd car in 1956. Our Rambler was the same yellow shown on the car in your article and had a black roof. Would have been a nice little auto except for the 12 inch square rust holes in each back fender right about in the middle of the fender. Also the tops of the rear fenders were totally rotted out. It ran great though and dad bought it for $225 from a private owner. We went to a local body supply store and bought a bunch of fiberglass repair kits with which we molded the fenders back together. It looked like crap but was reasonably solid. I then painted over all the yellow paint with light grey Dupont Duco auto enamel and it looked pretty decent though slightly laughable perhaps except from a distance. I had learned to work Duco enamel with a brush fairly well trying to keep the rust at bay on our 56 Ford station wagon. Pennsylvania winters were death to all cars in the fifties.
This is a great find. The wagon body style did wear the post-1977 front better than the coupe. It sticks in my mind that virtually all of the wagons stocked by our local AMC dealer were very either D/Ls or Limiteds after 1977. It was as though AMC decided to promote the Pacer as a luxury compact by that point.
Is it me or does the Nash look like a Twinkie?
All the Pacer haters have never driven one – especially the last Limited wagon with a 304. A well mannered car with rack and pinion and handling that belied its looks. Let’s face it – to abort without the rotary would’ve caused Kenosha to shut down way earlier than it ended up. Quirky and despised by many for its lengthy shortcomings, it deserves a better fate than history has given it. I’m not sure a Wankel, with the attendant teething and poor mileage would have fared any better, but at least the package would have made more sense. Our family was supported by Chrysler-Plymouth and AMC for many years. Loyalty is a virtue at our house.
I’ve never understood the reasoning why people don’t like the Pacer, or any of the AMC cars for that matter.
The Pacer’s styling was rather strange,even by 70s standards.AMC built some great cars with good performance and looks,the AMX,early Javelins and Rebels were as good as the big 3s equivalent cars.
I had a 69 Javelin 6 cylinder for 2 years which was very reliable with good MPG.It spent another 4 years as my big brother and little sister’s first American car with no major repairs or mechanical failure.
Uhhh – I actually have driven one. I have a vivid memory of the one feature that would have never let me own one: That oddball built-up edge of the inner door panel that was put there because the tall windows would not roll all the way down into the doors. So, instead of risking people getting cut by resting their arms on the glass, AMC raised the inner upper edge of the door panel by about 3 or 4 inches in the exact contour of the door glass at its lowest position.
For those of us who liked driving with the window down and one arm resting on the door top, the Pacer was one uncomfortable car.
I saw a Pacer wagon (sans the wood grain vinyl siding) yesterday on the I-10 in New Orleans. It had a Louisiana license plate. Ugly as hell, but I gave the driver a tumbs-up which he appreciated!! Hard to believe this thing still lives!!!
It’s hard to believe the Pacer had a five year run. I’d have thought, going on memory, that it would have been about three years max. A car with this lack of success would have been taken out of production much sooner than AMC did. I’d guess the same with the Gremlin.
The car officially debuted in February 1975, and was discontinued in early December 1979 (after a low number of 1980 models had been built).
Sales had been so low during the 1979 model year that people could be forgiven for believing that the car had been phased out before December 1979.
The two cars look to be about the same height and length, but the beltline, cowl, and hood line on the Pacer are so much lower. I remain a bit mystified on why the hoodlines on ’40s to mid-50s cars are so tall; it’s not as though the engines were that much bigger or anything. Was the packaging not as efficient?
Which brings me to a question I have about the Pacer: I’ve read in numerous places (including some earlier comments here) that the raised on on later Pacers was done to accommodate the V8 engine that was added as an option. But I’ve also read that the old hood will fit on a late-model V8 Pacer and the shape was changed just for a new look and/or because drivers preferred being able to see the hood. Does anyone here know for sure the true story regarding this?
Just a guess on my part but the end of the tall hoodlines kind of coincided with the phase out of the bulbous oil bath air cleaner. Paper element air cleaners were much more squat and compact, allowing for lower hoodlines.
Besides the switch to paper air filter elements, weren’t V8 engines shorter than a six? A lower hood line was the whole reason for Chrysler’s slant-six but did GM and Ford’s sixes continue to be as tall as they ever were?
I would think the V8 would be both shorter in both length AND height than the 6, so I cannot imagine the newer, uglier grille was in order to accommodate the V8. Must have been simply a desperate attempt to normalize the design somewhat, in an attempt to recapture some sales magic.
The V8 is considerably shorter than the I6, the V8 is four cylinders long while the six is six cylinders long. The V8 could be shorter (in height) than the six, it depends upon things such as the size and shape of the intake manifold and so forth. On my 1961 Ford, with the six, the air cleaner was not on top of the manifold. Most of it hung on the side of the block and only where it fit onto the carburetor was it as high as the valve cover. I’m pretty sure that Chrysler’s slant six was designed that way so it fit under the hood.
The Pacer is just plain bad.
Should never have been made.
Both that Matador coupe and the Pacer were wastes of money that needed to have been better spent on a Hornet upgrade. If AMC upgraded the Hornet, they would have been also able to upgrade the Gremlin. AMC decided to keep buttering the stale bread that was the Hornet, to build two cars that were complete misses. No one was building something that looked like a Matador coupe in the age of the Monte Carlo! Bad!
No one should have ever approved the Pacer. If it was a good vehicle, it would have competed against the Hornet. If it was a four door, instead of a goofy two door, the Pacer would have been more usable, yet also cut into the Hornet market share. What was the reason for building a Pacer instead of a brand new generation of Hornet?
What was the reason? I guess you had to have been there.
I really liked most of the Nash/Rambler/AMC cars up through about 1973, But after that, I recall the ugly, extended nose-jobs on the standard 1974 Matador/Ambassador line, and the frog-eye Matador coupe & Pacer after bean-counters nixed the originally-planned flip-up headlights. Excess glass area on the Pacer made AC mandatory, except in the coldest climates. The straight-six was buried in a tunnel, required by a too-short engine compartment designed for the originally-planned but never-to-be rotary engine.
The Pacer rode well, and looked roomy. But the thick doors cut interior space.
Cheap interior plastics biodegraded in the sun, un-greased window regulators ground them selves to powder, and the GM-sourced power-steering racks failed repeatedly. During the ’80s, the sixes got plastic valve-covers that warped and leaked oil. And the last generation Eagle/Concord, based on the original Hornet, looked really dumb jacked way up on 4-wheel-drive.
Happy Motoring, Mark
IMO AMC should have updated their best car, the Javelin, for the mid-late ’70s, but given the insurance and sales climate of the time that’s unlikely to have happened. The hideous googly-eyed Matador coupe and ruined styling of the previously not unattractive pre-’74 sedans made the bloated and corpulent Pacers just the merde on the cake of AMC’s gag-worthy styling by the time they came on the scene.