Ever since I was a little kid looking out at traffic from the back seat, I’ve detested the squinty look created by a beltline upsweep or upkick that raises the lower edge of any side glass. FoMoCo models were some of the worst, and for way too many model years, but Ford were far from the only offender. Just look (but not too long or too directly, to avoid nausea) at the misshapen, randomly-angled, thrown-on ugliness of the AMC Eagle’s quarter glass and its resultant sheetmetal heaviness and tacked-on/droopy appearance in the C- and D-pillars and quarter panel:
Now, I’m no Dick Teague, but on the other hand, I’m no Dick Teague. So I make no claim one way or the other here, and I felt no qualm about having a go at fixing the Eagle wagon; that’s the pic at the top of this post.
Despite the crudity of my Photoshoop skills (please excuse), I think it came out pretty well; at least enough better that I tackled another instance of gross overmass in the C-pillar and quarter panel:
This is the one that prompted five- or six-year-old me to ask my parents please not to get that kind of car because it hurt my eyes. Could wish I’d started with a larger photo, but maybe it’s just as well; I guess the small pic might hide some of my chopping sins. I inverted and stretched the rear side glass and lowered the beltline a bit to wind up with this:
Better, but still not quite right; it’s too much like an overinflated Toyota Starlet or something. I –wasted– productively spent time trying to reckon out why, and eventually figured out I’d added too much glass and subtracted too much funkatron, so:
Hey, there it is! Now we’re no longer quite so generic; it’s once again clearly an AMC shooting brake, only now the driver and rear passengers get to see out the car.
Then my luck ran out; all my efforts to put together a ’77-’79 Chev Caprice 4-door with the 2-door’s bent backglass failed very badly. It’s best you don’t see; deleting them was the merciful thing. So instead I’ll end this post with a real-life splice: Doug Dutra’s Dacuda. It’s a ’66 Barracuda with a ’64 Dart front end. I might’ve chosen a fishmouthed ’63 Dart grille instead, but just look how much more coherently this front end works with this body versus the Valiant front end on the production Barracuda:
I think your Gremlin musings inadvertently created the AMC Spirit “sedan”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Spirit#/media/File:1981_AMC_Spirit_DL_sedan_at_2017_AMO_meet_02of17.jpg
That struck me as well. The Spirit was too little, too late, and is easily forgotten. I’m not sure if it would have sold better than the Gremlin it if had been introduced as the original design in 1970. The domestic makers seemed to think compacts needed to be quirky to sell, in the same way as the Beetle. The Gremlin had a quirky name that played to its styling, and became something of a cultural icon, and a sales success in AMC terms, moving over 100K a year pretty reliably in the mid ’70s.
Comes across a bit like a squared up Pacer…
“I’m not sure if it would have sold better than the Gremlin it if had been introduced as the original design in 1970.”
It seems to me that the problem was American manufacturers faced a tremendous shift in consumer tastes during the 70s. Exactly when, I can’t exactly pinpoint, but the Gremlin in its original form seemed to be on-point for its intended purpose in 1970.
Until today, I hadn’t seen the squared up Pacer in the Spirit before. Interesting to imagine if AMC had put the Pacer development dollars into the Hornet / Gremlin line, making it less crude, and had introduced the Spirit’s styling as a Gremlin refresh in 1975 instead of the Pacer.
Pacer sales may have eaten into the Gremlin, combined 1975 sales were about the same as 1974 Gremlin sales. While AMC sold the Pacer as some sort of “Wide” small car, it looked like an American compact on the road, not anything particularly aspirational amidst a sea of Monte Carlos, Cutlasses, Cordobas and Elites, and drinking fuel like a mid-size car.
Oh my – Please leave the originals as they are.
Don’t fret; I don’t own any torches or float-glass production lines.
As to that Dart/Barracuda – it lacks the round tail lights which balance the rear end with the front end. You liked this angle. Did you see how that front angle appears with the rear end design of the Valiant? I would guess not.
I disagree. The flat front of the 1966 A-body makes it look the most like a Valiant of any Barracuda to the point it falls into the “what were they thinking ?” category.
Unfortunately, the 1966 Dart is no better. In effect, Chrysler would be using the front end of a two year old Dart on their sporty Plymouth ponycar, and that just wasn’t going to happen (at least not in the US).
Oh, the ’66 Dart is fine unto itself—even better in Spain, with more appropriate headlamps—but no, it surely wouldn’t suit as a front-end donor for a Baccaruda!
I’d love to see that rectangular-light Dart front end on a 1966 Barracuda.
Barreiros! cars of my adolescence. Adelante hombre del seis cientos!
Hi, Jiro. I wish I could speak Spanish, but I have to use a translator. Onward, 600-man…?
VanillaDude, I agree with you that a ’64-’65 Baccaruda’s round reversing lamps would be a bit better. I don’t agree that it’s very visible either way from this photo’s angle.
As to your guess: I daresay I’ve spent more than a lot of time seeing a great many Chrysler A-bodies from every possible angle.
It still conjures up memories of being a high school kid trying to get a date in my parent’s 10 year old Rambler.
The passage of time has probably colored my perception of how being seen in a Rambler could affected high school social standing. No matter what you do to the surface, I’ll can’t help myself from seeing the underlying Ramblerness.
ARGH!
You obviously have not read Geek Love, by Katherine Dunn.
If you had, then you would understand that it is not our perfections that make us memorable and loved – it is our imperfections.
In this case, what you did is create generic cars from what was a memorable auto design. It is the imperfections in these designs that made them uniquely memorable. Making them generic made them just another car.
We love symmetry. We love balance. Our favorite landscape photos are often unintentionally balanced and symmetrical. When a designer designs a product they can enhance the design by throwing in an asymmetrical element which makes the product more memorable.
This also works in the arts. It is the discord that makes the chords sound sweeter. It is the applied mole above the quivering lip of Marilyn Monroe that makes her more beautiful. It is in every child’s drawing.
When we embrace the imperfect, we accept our own imperfections and in doing that, we love the object even more.
Kind of like the way Neil Young misses a chord now and then or how I find a slightly lazy eye very attractive on a woman.
I like the occasional bubble in the crust of my pizza.
There is a limit, though. I stop at half a deep-fried fly in a dim sim. (Once I’d finished gagging, I it back to the Italian takeaway, where I was informed, after a squinting peer, “Oh! No, no, he flew in”, to which I replied “He’s CRISPY!”)
Any AMC product still conjures up high school memories of trying to get a date in my parents’ 10 year old Rambler.
At one time, being seen in a Rambler had a serious effect on high school social standing. Incredibly silly in hindsight. Painfully real at the time.
I should have thanked my parents each time they let me take the Rambler out on a Friday night. Instead I beat that car unmercifully trying to get some semblance of performance out of it. I probably harbored some hope it might drop dead in a way I wouldn’t get blamed and my parents would then buy a cooler car they could ill-afford.
Memories of being a stupid teenager can be painful. No matter what you do to the appearance, the underlying Ramblecentricity of any AMC seems to trigger such memories.
Interesting work! I like your version of the Eagle. I agree it looks much better with the rear window dropped down to the beltline, but personally, I would still give the D pillar a little more thickness, just a scotch less than stock. I wonder if there was a structural reason they had such a small window, like adapting the wagon internal structure to run on the same production line as the sedan was simpler that way. At its best, AMC was the master at squeezing its pennies. Probably not, but more likely it was just an AMC tradition to have smaller quarter windows going back to the 50’s and early 60’s wagons which had even more egregiously small windows. Those ones bothered me more than the Hornet/Eagle.
I like your Gremlins, too. It’s really hard to get my mind around, since that triangular window is so strongly associated with the Gremlin. The longer Spirit version Evan pointed out above gets it about right, I think, and it would have been ideal if they would have offered that as an option from the beginning of the Gremlin.
Barracuda definitely looks better than the real one, the front end was the weakest styling point of that car. I was never a big fan of the roofline, but it is unique. The cleaner, visually lowering front end helps a lot.
Thanks! I think you’re probably right about the D-pillar; it does look like it wants to be a little thicker than I’ve made it, but perhaps with a slightly less fast (more slow? More vertical) angle to the trailing edge of the glass versus the trailing edge of the sheetmetal. I’ll have to level up my photochop skills before I can try something like that.
I like the ’64-’65 Baccaruda front end…on a Valiant. Not curvy enough for the Baccaruda body.
Often, it’s the feature that seems a bit off that makes a design memorable and eye-catching. The Avanti has almost too many of them. Your Hornet/Eagle could pass for generic wagon in the 80s if it weren’t raised.
When I worked for a defense contractor in a previous life, we were taught to place the reversible, magnetic, open/locked signs on the safes at an angle so they were immediately noticeable.
Yes, quirky styling was an AMC hallmark and we can’t say from today’s perspective they would have been more successful without it. Of course, Daniel wasn’t making that assertion, just that he would personally like it more.
The Hornet Sportabout (original wagon before the Eagle) was of course intended to be something of a hybrid between a hatchback and traditional station wagon, with its steeply sloped back and top-hinged hatch. As such, it was essentially the first “sport wagon”, which Audi popularized with its Avant and which then became increasingly popular.
As such, the original rear window works well. Your window is too big, and the top edge is too level in relation to the gentle slope of the roof. Also, the little kick-up (“Hoffmeister kink”) on the rear door leads to the lower edge of the original’s window, which also works organically. And your D-pillar is too narrow.
I understand your thinking, but it just doesn’t work. Dick knew what he was doing, and it looks quite good, especially from certain angles like the one in the picture below:
I wouldn’t try to ridiculously suggest Dick didn’t know what he was doing—just that I don’t like some of what he did. I’ll grant you the production window looks more integral to the car from this specific angle, but I’d still like its lower edge dropped.
I’m 50/50 on the improvement of the Sportabout station wagon’s quarter windows. The key here are the words “station wagon”. I think Teague was trying for a sort of early, minor crossover with the Sportabout’s raked rear window/hatch and lowering the quarter window’s beltline just made it a better looking station wagon. I don’t think that’s what he was aiming for.
As to the Gremlin, as others have said, it was a product of its time, and as such, it worked well to create a very distinctive look. The Gremlin sold quite well, and that was undoubtedly part of it.
Since its rear seat was essentially useless, the lack of a bigger rear side window was no great loss.
Your version does look quite a lot like the Spirit which replaced it. That was a reflection of its time, but it did nothing more than that, except improve visibility.
One does have to judge car styling from the context of their time.
The Dart front end looks good on the Barracuda, but it was also becoming a bit outdated by that time. Actually, more than a bit. But it certainly adds a bit of zest to the front end.
I’m indifferent to the Gremlin revision, but the sportabout design was perfect as is. Best looking wagon ever made.
The Barracuda looks much better with the Dart front end. AMC’s ’66 Marlin would have looked much better with that year’s Rambler American front end too.
I can understand the desire to improve the awkwardness of AMC designs. Being
a devoted acolyte of the brand, the sheer oddness is one of its products most
compelling aspects, and they seem, in their misshapen legions, perfect to my warped
tastes. To my mind, American Motors vehicles, particularly from about 1972 or so,
might as well have been developed by aliens from a Philip K. Dick novel, attempting
to infiltrate middle America through car sales. They are just off enough.
I like honest designs where glass is glass and metal is metal. I dislike the “opague glass” trend that modern glued-on mounting has enabled. One recent example is the 11th gen Honda Civic Hatchback, whose rear quarter windows are almost all opaque (and whose rear hatch window is at least 30% opaque).
Lexus RX comes to my mind, though there are dozens offenders. The rear pillar glass amounts to a 70s brougham opera window at best from the inside while the outside has the inexplicably trendy “floating” flowing shape that continues to the back window.
Looks like they were going for the surfboard look.
Ha ha. Yes. Toyota Sienna is only slightly better. The need to hide the sliding track means the bottom 2″ to 3″ of the rear quarter window is opaque.
There was a car company called VAM in Mexico that built AMC cars under license and had some interesting cross that were a cross between an AMC Spirit hatchback and a Concord. These cars were called a VAM Lerma from 1982.
This is the 1982 VAM Lerma 4-door hatchback.
AMC clearly had your rear side window shape in mind from the get-go, but were only given enough funds to fake the looks, which they did quite a good jog of IMO on models where they tried to. See:
… and:
Hey, lookit there! Life imitating art imitating life!
That’s some quite effective coloring-in and trimming there: at first glance, I thought they’d actually put in a bigger window. I reckon, though, that the original look was largely intended, as it fit the times, just as this look looked more contemporary in its time.
Coloring to de-age has limits, mind. Volvo tried so hard, but cheaply, to spiff up the ancient 240 that towards the end, they not only colored all the door and window frames black (fair enough), but they actually drew black paint halfway across the width of those thick exterior window sills. Not content, they also used the paint to cover the sills AND put a black trim piece along the bottom of the doors to meet it. Instead of visually enlarging the windows and visually lightening the sides, it just looked either like a little kid’s coloring book or your great aunt in teenage goth makeup.
Here is another one, the Australian styling department hated the high belt line and lack of glass area on the VH range, including the Chargers, so the luxury oriented 770 models had vinyl covering the fake side vents and continuing along the top of the door.
This picture highlights it, but the effect sort of works when looking at the whole car. White vinyl was also available which gave a different look.
This trick was used from the very start in 1971 right to the end.
Could have saved money including on advertising, by using the original Hornet rear side window and all the Hornet trim. Gremlin should have been a Hornet model from the start.
A little longer in the rear along with the Hornet side windows would have helped the weight distribution issue on these and allow for thicker seats and maybe a regular spare. I realize they were trying to keep costs down. I figure they might have been able to build a better car for maybe less. I like the way yours look BTW.
I love your thinking, especially on the Hornet wagon, sorry, Eagle.
Now for an encore, try fixing the Matador coupe! I’d start by flattening out the headlight tunnels and mounting four rectangular lights (NOT stacked) in the resulting rectangular grille cavity, something like this (net photo). Your move next….. 🙂
Once one had attended to the manifold failings on the Matador, one would have some entire other car.
Which, upon reflection, is probably the best solution in the first place.
I did that photoshop to that picture, don’t know whose car it was but they physically removed the bumpers and added the wider wheels which made a substantial difference alone. The Matador coupes look tippy toed with their narrow track width and skinny tires
I thought it might have been one of us. Interestingly, when you google Matador Coupe, this seems to be one of the most popular photos. Take a bow, XR7Matt!
And I agree; once you do that, it needs lowering/wider wheels.
I’m sorry, –
Dave– Peter, I’m afraid I can’t do that. You see, I like the Matador coupe—big headlamp nacelles, big quad round taillamps and all.(I agree with XR7Matt about the too-narrow track)
There are aesthetic depradations out there, my dear Mr Stern, that vastly exceed these things that exercise you so, and it is perhaps to those which you should draw your photoshopish attentions. And besides, upon your new rule of side glass levelling, may I present the case of the 300C wagon, wherein the window line stays low and faithful to its preceding door, and has the effect that the back of the entire car is in the permanent process of falling off.
As for the Gremlin, it is not the rear side that causes a wrinkle of the nose, it’s the nose. Unlike every person in Hollywood who thought their nose was too big and had it trimmed, this car, respectively, should have, and didn’t.
I will leave for your contemplation my favorite piece of errant trim, one so egregious that I felt strong urges to make adjustments to them in real life (by coincidence, a wagon with a rising line too). The side trim on the 929 surely looks exactly like the meeting which broke off before it was finalized. This, THIS is the sort of thing for which we should be marching in the streets. This, and the Nissan Juke.
Pic won’t load. It’s from CC on a 1974 mazda RX-4 wagon, from David Saunders in March 13, 2012. Can someone do it?
That might be because its a WEBP file, not a JPG. Do you want his pic particularly, or will this one do?
Here’s a tastefully-modded one.
Ah, just so. Thankyou, Rev.
300 C wagon – fixed that for you. 🙂
Painting the c-pillar does wonders. On a model, anyway.
Because Japanese cars were much smaller than US ones they aped, the effect of the coke-hip was much pronounced – it had less length in which to rise.
Before I go, I’ll just leave this here for you, Daniel.
Sleep tight.
In a more restful hue.
»gurgle«
Datsun wagons were even stranger on the home market. Here’s a ’79 Skyline, also available without a rearmost window entirely.
Squack‽
.
Apparently they carefully studied, reviewed, and listed everything good about the previous xB/bB design, and then deliberately did the opposite for this one.
Having photoshoped a few images myself, I have to say your efforts were very nice. It’s harder and always takes much longer than it seems like it should.
Thanks kindly!
In my book Daniel would make a fine designer. Perhaps his Eagle wagon D pillar could be a bit heavier—but the other changes are improvements, as I see it.
I’m from the “less is more” school–and that includes elimination of unnecessary deviations from a chosen design parti. My ’88 Civic Wagon was descended from the earlier model (’84-’87), which featured a rear quarter lite that swept up into the roof. The ’88-’91 body dropped this gratuitous fillip, but referenced it subtly by bending the leading edge of that window into the C pillar, leaving the top and bottom edges of the glass aligned with the windows ahead of it. Much better, if not perfect . . .
Thanks, Stephen!
I remember those Civic wagons always registered first as “Oh, no, wait, that’s one of those looks-almost-like-a-Tercels”. I mean the ’82-’88 variety. Both very thoughtfully designed, to my eye. I like the Tercel a little better for its sharper corners, but the side glass configurations are similar. A very practical and agreeable design, as it seems. I’m right with you on the coherence of the design(s).
(And yet I dig Virgil Exner’s stuff. Go figyuh!)
I too think Daniel could make a fine designer, and when he had done that, he could employ that person to stunning effect. The results would be brilliant, but most of all, with lights like no other car. Am I wrong or am I wrong?
This Civic is a good example of the variations on the theme in comments above, namely, that the ’88 job is without question, a cleaner look. However, the original, whose back side window somewhat irritated me too, looks more characterful than the neatly-haircut version that followed. Somewhat imperfect, but in the long haul, more interesting for it.
In the day, I thought rather meanly that the Tercel and Honda both looked as if someone had strapped a phone box onto the back, an impression caused largely by that ill-aligned glass arrangement, but it has aged well on both. It still intrigues – and, perhaps, still vaguely irritates, but that just sort-of helps prove the point.
(Oh, please, no, you don’t have to thank me, Daniel, and yes, yes, it’s all for free).
I think the original untouched Gremlin is far better looking than either of the two altered ones. It’s one of the few AMC cars that looked “right” to me. The rest of the looked either a little bit off, or in the case of the later Matador, one of the most hideous cars ever made.
.
Interesting post! My dad had a 74 Sportabout (with wood grain trim) and I’m impressed at Gow that design has held up over time. From a practical standpoint, the sloping hatch left less room in the cargo hold and my dad was envious of the squared off Volvo wagons of the era. He test drove an Eagle he was considering to help deal with Cleveland winters and was dismayed that the 4WD gear further limited cargo space. As others have noted, the Dick Teague designs really stand out because they were different, and made AMC an iconic part of the 1970s/early 80s automotive landscape.