AMC’s PR people came up with the term “dinosaur” to refer to the ever-larger cars being built by the Big Three, and it became a key part of a PR campaign and a speech Romney used over and over: “The Dinosaur in Our Driveway”. In it he blasted the competition’s “bigger is better” credo, saying, “Cars 19 feet long, weighing two tons, are used to run a 118-pound housewife three blocks to the drugstore for a package of bobby pins and lipstick.”
Not surprisingly, it did not go over well when first delivered to an industry group in Detroit. The media loved it, though, and the “dinosaur” concept became a household word.
In 1955, it was time to take on the UAW. In complete opposition to any logic, the tradition had been for the UAW to demand higher wages from the independents than the Big Three, when obviously it should have been the opposite. The union would negotiate a new contract with the Big Three, always with higher wages and benefits, and then taking that contract to the independents and demanding a premium or risk a strike, which they simply couldn’t afford.
Romney took his campaign against this unfair pattern by the union to the public and to Washington, where he spoke about the monopoly power of GM as well as the UAW. It was the kind of fight he relished, taking on any power structure he deemed to be unfair.
After a grueling negotiation, AMC won a major victory with the union that reduced, if not eliminated this premium.
Romney took a risk and committed a big chunk of Rambler’s advertising budget on a new and untried tv show, “Walt Disney’s Disneyland”. The bet paid off superbly, as Disneyland became one of the hottest shows on tv. It suited Rambler perfectly, especially with its emphasis on station wagons, which always sold at vastly higher levels than at other carmakers. It’s safe to say that the Rambler wagon was analogous to the crossovers and SUVs of today; the go-to car for families. They were considered stylish and youthful. Meanwhile, there were no two-door coupes or hardtops; one could also compare Rambler to Volvo in its prime, where wagons were also exceptionally popular and the only coupes were expensive and in limited production.
1955 turned out to be another bloodbath. Romney decided fresh new cars were essential. The big Nashes and Hudsons were already old, having last gotten new bodies in 1952. And the Ramblers were looking even older, their basic body going back to 1950. Romney could afford to redo only one of them. Which should it be?
Romney decided bet the farm on Rambler, and made a bold decision, to advance the introduction of new Ramblers up one year, to 1956, instead of 1957. He also halted the work on new large cars. This was an expensive bet, as the tooling for the 108″ wb four door Ramblers introduced had not been amortized yet.
Although sales ticked up some 35% over the dismal level of 1954, there was still a loss of $7 million.
1956, with the all-new Rambler line of four door sedans, hardtops and wagons, was to be the breakthrough year. It had better be. But the ramp-up was problematic, as it was bound to be, given the new cars’ timeline being reduced by a year. Dealers were starved of the new cars. Not surprisingly, quality suffered, especially in comparison to the typical high Nash standards.
In the summer of 1956, Romney had to go looking for more money from the bankers. It was a very hard sell, given how the year was unfolding. These same bankers and insurance companies had just turned down Studebaker-Packard, precipitating another of seemingly endless crises there. But Romney was persuasive about the positioning of Rambler, that it represented the future, not the past. They gave him $45 million instead of the $73 million he asked for, but that was a lot better than nothing. AMC was still in the running, sort of.
1956 was a crushing disappointment: despite the new Ramblers, sales were down, and big Nash and Hudson car sales evaporated. Cash burn was ferocious, and Romney cut back expenses wherever possible. The two company airplanes were sold, and sheet toilet paper replaced the rolls, among other privations. At an executive meeting Romney suddenly announced that he was taking a 35% pay cut, and asked who else would be joining him. No one dared not to.
Through drastic cost-cutting, AMC’s break-even point was reduced to 120k cars; now Romney just needed to sell that many.
In another move, Romney decided that there would be no more unique bodies for future big Nash and Hudson cars; they would move to the Rambler platform, with an extended wheelbase and unique styling. For the moment, it seemed like a viable plan to keep these cars and brands alive in the future.
Sales continued to be weak, so more of the furniture was burned. The El Segundo plant was sold, as was the old main Hudson plant. Other Hudson plants were put on the market. AMC’s Ranco Inc. division, the largest maker of temperature controls for appliances and cars, was sold for $10.6 million.
There was another problem: a threat of a hostile take-over and liquidation by the feared financier Louis Wolfson, who announced that he had bought 16,000 shares of AMC stock and was not happy to see its value tanking. Romney managed to fend him off, basically by procrastination, charm, and bluff. He managed to win Wolfson’s support long enough until AMC’s 1957 turnaround began, by which time he was happy to move on to better hunting opportunities. But the threat of a liquidation was very real for some time.
Near the end of 1956, Romney had something of an epiphany. Things were terrible, and there was still no end in sight. He decided that the future was 100% Rambler, and decided to kill off the big Nash and Hudson cars totally. AMC had to stand for one thing only: Rambler. There would be a Rambler Ambassador in 1958, but just as a Rambler with a longer front end. That also spelled the end of the storied Hudson and Nash brands. Somewhat surprisingly, dealers mostly supported that move. The big cars had become increasingly difficult to sell, and it was easier to sell something like the Rambler, with its unique qualities and image.
This was a historic step, and it invigorated Romney as he no longer had any doubt what he and AMC were fighting for: the triumph of the compact car, period. He had always believed in it, but had hedged his bets. No more.
This now became a genuine cause, and Romney was at his best fighting for a cause. He traveled the country making speeches and appearances. He was fighting for AMC’s life, which was hanging by a thread. And his message invigorated the troops, workers, dealers, and management. The battle was coming to the final showdown. and Romney was going to have all his guns blazing, even if he went down.
That was a very real possibility, given the massive $31.7 million operating loss for 1956. Two reasons for the size of it were the excess amortization of the old 1954-1955 Rambler body as well as the V8 program. At least these were non-recurring.
At the new-car introduction for dealers in late September 1956, Romney gave a sobering but prescient speech. He explained everything that had been done to position the company for survival and growth, and then he quoted Ibsen: “He is in the right who is most in league with the future”. He pointed out how Rambler could compete with the Big Three, because “our automobile program is more clearly in league with the future”. Romney urged them to increase sales, pointing out that if each dealer sold just one more car per month, AMC would turn the corner. He received a standing ovation, but more importantly, they had signed on to the fight to save American Motors. Romney’s missionary zeal was contagious.
But there was no respite, at least not yet. The winter of ’56-’57 was a grueling slog for survival, cutting even more costs, hoarding what little cash there was. But in the spring, things suddenly picked up; just enough to give Romney a sliver of hope and conserve precious cash. A rumor that AMC was looking to sell its Rambler operation to Chrysler popped up, but eventually Chrysler denied it. They had problems enough on their hands.
Despite the uptick late in the model year, there was still another painful loss for the year, $11.8 million. But automotive operations were increasingly in the black, and there was light at the end of the long, dark tunnel. Romney set out on another crusade to make that light brighter as fast as possible. He went on a massive nationwide PR blitz, traveling 70,000 miles in 12 months, speaking at union halls, dinners, churches, fairgrounds, radio and tv stations, wherever anyone would listen. His two years experience as a Mormon missionary in Scotland and England had well prepared him for this arduous task. He was on a crusade to sell the compact Rambler, and the timing was good, as a nasty recession had set in, and there was an increasing negative perception about the overwrought and oversized cars from the Big Three.
In response to the recession as well as the rapidly growing sales of low-cost imports, Romney decided to bring back the 100″ two-door Rambler sedan. Fortunately the dies had been stored in an AMC warehouse. There was no need to even build a prototype for the changes, mainly the rear wheel openings and a few other details. A low mileage 1955 Rambler two-door was purchased on the market, and had its rear fenders cut open and its taillights flipped. The total tooling cost was under $800k, about the same it took to restyle a fender at the Big Three.
It was a rather audacious move, resurrecting a model that had been discontinued three years earlier, and was essentially a 1950 car with facelift in 1954. It was targeted at potential import buyers, with a very low $1789 price tag. It sold quite well, but one does wonder why it had been killed in the first place. Presumably Romney wanted only fresh new Ramblers in 1956 to call attention to their new design and features.
The four door Rambler was restyled for 1958, with new quad headlights in the more traditional spot on top of the fenders, and sporting fins at the rear, which seems a bit of a sellout to fashion, given their utter uselessness. Romney had his factories gear up for increased production.
In February of 1958, Romney dropped a bombshell at a Senate hearing on the soaring cost of living, especially the increased prices of steel, petroleum and automobiles. He stated that for the good of the country, the Big Three should be broken up into smaller firms, to stimulate genuine competition. In particular, he suggested that GM could be broken up into three smaller companies. He also called for a reduction in union power, to bring back control of the supervision of plants into management, not by the unions themselves.
The Big Three were fine with that last sentiment, but the talk of breaking up the Big Three created a furor, and Romney became a pariah in Detroit. But he was quite comfortable in that role; speaking out on excessive power wherever he saw it was his passion.
Rambler sales exploded in MY 1958, up 58.7%; calendar year sales were up just over 100%. Rambler was the hot brand. Romney’s message had finally gotten through, and was being embraced with a passion. The result was the first full-year profit for American Motors, $26 million, and tax free, due to loss carry forwards. New dealers were flocking to Rambler; some 425 were signed up in 1958 alone.
Rambler had been very close to bankruptcy in 1957. It’s more than a bit ironic that a deep recession would be what it took to save an automaker, especially since it affected the others so negatively.
Romney was now a media star, with a cover on Time magazine and endless interviews. His message continued to be in essence “who wants to have a gas-guzzling dinosaur in the garage?” Time stated that Rambler’s explosive growth in 1958 was the catalyst that committed the Big Three to their compact programs for 1960. The Big Three claimed they were responding to the growth of imports, but there’s no doubt that the timing as well as the size and price range of the 1960 compacts were clearly targeted at Rambler and not VW and Renault. All of the Big Three’s earlier compact programs had been smaller cars with four cylinder engines, but when they pulled the trigger in 1958, it was with larger cars, all with wheelbases very close to the Rambler’s 108″, and with six cylinder engines.
There were plenty of industry predictions that the Big Three compacts would decimate Rambler. But they failed to appreciate the underdog image that Romney had cultivated for Rambler and himself. He had become a very public figure, appearing in Rambler advertising and network tv commercials on “Disneyland”. It was a preview of what Lee Iacocca would become in his crusade to save Chrysler twenty years later. There’s little doubt that Iacocca was very much influenced by Romney.
Meanwhile, 1959 was a stellar year for AMC, despite the competition form Studebaker’s Lark. Sales continued to explode, and net profit was over $60 million, after paying taxes for the first time in many years. Rambler was now the #6 brand in the US, with a market share of 6.2%, from 1.6% just two years earlier. Romney invested $40 million on plant expansions to increase capacity.
1960 brought another refresh to the Ramblers and a new crusade for Romney: quality. He coined a new slogan “The New Standard of Basic Excellence”. He wanted his employees to craft the best-built cars in the industry, to both retain existing customers and appeal to new ones. It was straight out of Toyota’s future playbook.
This was not just PR; Romney was increasingly aware that the lax standards in US union plants were no match for the imports, and that would not only affect quality but future affordability. His perception was that the union just wanted to perpetually do less work for more pay, a sure-fire formula for long-term failure.
Romney decided to address this in a fundamentally new way, and he started by doing something completely out of character for Detroit: he set up a series of meetings with Walter Reuther, head of the UAW, not to negotiate anything, but strictly to start an honest dialog to explore ways of improving the relationship between the two parties, and see if there was common ground.
The group met repeatedly, and Romney and Reuther forged a genuine relationship. Both of them eschewed drink and tobacco, and were honest, hard-working dedicated leaders who agreed that forging human dignity was the most important task of all. These conversations eventually led to a ground-breaking new contract in 1961 that broke the “pattern agreements” acknowledging that AMC was a smaller, more vulnerable firm as well creating incentives for workers to be more productive. The key element, which was lauded as “the most significant and historic collective-bargaining agreement ever signed in the US” included profit sharing, which made the workers feel invested in the financial success of the company through greater productivity and quality.
Romney’s competitors were shocked, and called him a socialist. He didn’t care, and of course he had been right: profit sharing eventually became universal in UAW agreements with the Big Three and other companies. Once again, Romney had been ahead of the times.
In 1960, AMC enjoyed a banner year despite the onslaught of new competition from the Big Three. Wholesale deliveries to dealers totaled 478,249 cars. Net profit was $48 million, and would have been more if not for the significant investment in expanding production facilities. AMC shares continued on their upwards momentum, making Romney a wealthy man. Not that it phased him: he still wore the same suits from the ’40s and ’50s, updated some by a tailor from double-breasted to single breasted. And he still drove his beloved Rambler.
Romney was increasingly aware of the inevitable globalization of the industry, and sought an international partner. He had sought merger agreements with VW and BMC, but these went nowhere. Too bad he didn’t have the foresight to look to Japan. It could have been a good fit, with the emphasis on compact size, efficiency and quality.
Meanwhile, Romney did blow an opportunity to buy Kaiser-Jeep in 1960, which the Kaisers were eager to unload. It would have both expanded the dealer network considerably as well as given AMC a very complementary product line. It also would have expanded AMC’s overseas presence considerably, given Kaiser’s strong presence in Brazil and Argentina. Of course this came to pass exactly ten years later, but passing on this opportunity was almost certainly Romney’s biggest strategic mistake.
There was another economic downturn in 1961, and this time AMC was not immune. But the company was still quite profitable, booking a $23 million net gain. Market share stayed high, despite the entry of a number of new competitors in the form of the “senior” compacts from Pontiac, Olds and Buick, which were clearly targeted at Rambler.
1962 would bring even more competition, in the form of Ford’s mid-size Fairlane as well as downsized “full sized” Plymouths and Dodges, which had obviously been created in response to the explosive growth of Rambler in 1958-1959. Rambler sales increased anyway, and revenue topped $1 billion for the first time ever. The new profit sharing plan paid out a tidy $12 million to workers.
Romney had become a major national figure, and not surprisingly, politics called. And he answered, taking an unpaid leave of absence to run for the governorship of Michigan as a Republican. Sales VP Roy Abernethy was promoted to president.
Romney left AMC in very good shape, a profitable major independent car-maker larger than any independent had been since the 1920s. Obviously, American Motors was destined to face new challenges in the post Romney era, which it did not meet as successfully as it had done in the late ’50s. But that’s a story for another time.
Pages: 1 2
Very nice piece. I remember vaguely in the 2012 election some muttering of associations of George Romney being anti-union as well as somehow responsible for AMC going out of business. This article shows that to be entirely NOT the case.
What I was thinking is that union power was reaching a high-water mark in this period where it had been in decline for decades by 2012.
Direct talks with Reuther, then, were a wise move. Also because while the conundrum for labor is obvious – you can’t do well if the company’s not doing well, don’t kill goose that laid the golden egg etc – from management perspective there’s something akin to the belling-cat phenomenon in play. It’s in no employer’s interest to be forced to pay workers more, it’s in every employer (manufacturer or service provider)’s interest that all workers be paid more. People making sub-living wages don’t buy new cars.
We’ve managed to keep things patched up for a long time on ever-cheaper and easier credit, but that still lay in the future in Romney’s day. 1/3 down on a 3-year note was the standard consumer auto loan and would be for a while longer.
If any one man is responsible for the slow death of AMC, it’s Roy Abernethy. I’m reminded of the political parallel here…George H.W. Bush was a loyal VP to Ronald Reagan for eight years, yet barely a year after taking office he asked his Cabinet members, “How much longer do I have to wait until I can raise taxes?!” – Bush just didn’t get it.
When George Romney decided to leave AMC to run for the governorship of Michigan, Roy Abernethy was tapped to take his place. Abernethy chafed for years under Romney’s almost missionary zeal to promote small, well-built, well-trimmed cars. The moment Abernethy assumed command, his mission was to abandon the market AMC virtually owned and try to take on the Big 3 by making larger cars – leaving the compact market segment to the imports and the American big guys. In one view, AMC produced some of its most beautiful vehicles under his aegis…but he also cut the legs off of AMC’s core market and reduced AMC to triviality.
I’d like to know more about the merger of AMC and BMC, which sounds very interesting
They were just approaches. I’d say it’s a very good thing it never amounted to anything.
BMC was of course building the Metropolitan for American Motors, so there was already a substantial connection. It’s not surprising that they would have discussed bigger ideas at some point.
Seems to me, the REALLY interesting merger or association would have been with Mazda. Their involvement with the rotary engine was still in the developmental stage back then, but otherwise their commitment to quality rivalled that of Toyota …and with the advent of the R100 and RX-series of cars, AMC would have been a shoe-in to use a rotary engine in the Pacer as was originally envisioned.
You spoil us with these great postings.
It was exciting and fascinating to read.
Although I knew a great deal about AMC history, I had no idea how close it came to going bust. I see the products from 1955 to 1958, and can’t imagine those cars being unsuccessful. They became so iconic during the 1960s, I couldn’t imagine them ever being hard to sell when they were new.
AMC’s popularity between 1958-1964 seem to be similar to other suddenly-popular car lines, in that suddenly, everyone wants it without realizing how many of their neighbors want it too. It benefited from a wave, a fad, a moment when Rambler was suddenly the answer to American’s travel needs.
Fascinating.
Romney obviously deserves the credit of accomplishing this. His Mormon underdog roots polished him for the job. Being born in Mexico in an ex-pat Mormon settlement refusing to abolish polygamy, meant from the moment he understood his unique predicament, he needed to ignore the cat-calls, ostracizing, and heckling surrounding him, and believe in himself. Selling Mormonism was a lot harder than selling a Rambler, and Romney believed in both to his very core.
Kudos also goes to Mason who recognized Romney’s potential. Mason seems to have had a knack of recognizing a wave building from which he could benefit. Mason understood how to survive against the Detroit 3, and had he lived longer, would have really enjoyed seeing the fruits of his planning. Mason gave us the first real compact car, and the Metropolitan, a captive import from England. He built AMC when the other independents were lacking any vision.
Also Studebaker was a mess and it couldn’t be saved by any merger. They were in a hole and no amount of money could have turned Studebaker around. We might imagine today that they could have become our own version of Subaru, or Volvo, however, Studebaker was not salvageable. It was smart for Mason and Romney to avoid the fate Packard suffered partnering up with that bottomless pit in South Bend Indiana.
You spoil us Paul.
Thank you!
They became so iconic during the 1960s, I couldn’t imagine them ever being hard to sell when they were new.
Tell me about it. Iowa City was crawling with Rambler wagons when we moved there and in 1960 and for a few years more.
Americans are highly prone to fads, and the Rambler was a big one. It suddenly seemed like the better way to go; a more compact but still plenty roomy car. In that period, it was seen as smart and stylish.
But that obviously didn’t last. The next fad was the Mustang, as well as the more stylish intermediate cars from GM, among others.
I do not see just how American Motors could have maintained the momentum of 1958-1960. They rode a wave that they had largely initiated, but it led to nowhere. It would have taken someone with much more vision that Abernethy to see a viable future.
I can think of several possibilities, but that’s easier to do in hindsight.
Clearly Abernethy’s strategy of going up against the Big Three was fated to fail.
Indeed, had James Nance swallowed his pride and decide to play second fiddle who knowere Nash/AMC would had been.
Then another car come to my mind, what if AMC had greenlighted the Budd XR-400 instead of the Marlin?
On Studebaker-Packard, Jim Nance would be one of my candidates for worst auto executive, ever. As the story highlights, Nance had not one but ‘two’ opportunities to merge Packard with Nash. Yet, thanks entirely to his pigheaded desire to be unquestionably in charge, it didn’t happen.
Instead, Nance merged Packard with the 100% loser Studebaker, and Packard quickly became history. Yeah, it bought Studebaker time to get the initially successful Lark into production, but was it worth losing Packard to forestall Studebaker’s eventual going under (which was going to happen sooner or later, anyway)?
It’s one of those great ‘what ifs’ that we’ll never know how a Nash-Hudson-Packard company would have fared (with Studebaker’s demise coming all that much sooner). It could have gotten Rambler into a better model-to-model marketing position with the Big 3 earlier than when Ray Abernethy took over AMC from Romney
The heck of it is that Studebaker should have been the independent juggernaut after the war, with volumes far higher than Nash and a truck line besides. But management wouldn’t invest in the operation when times were fat. The real mental exercise is what if Romney had taken over Studebaker in 1950.
Indeed, it does sound like Kelvinator and Studebaker had similar issues, specifically labor problems. Studebaker, to the very end, never had an organized labor action. Essentially, management always gave the union whatever they wanted to keep the assembly lines running. Unfortunately, it also meant that Studebaker had the highest labor costs in the industry. An independent could never compete with the Big 3 in that manner.
If Romney had been at Studebaker, you can bet he’d have dealt with that situation in a hurry (just like he did at Kelvinator).
The Packard Board of Directors was determined to merge with Studebaker. There is a real question as to whether Nance could have stopped the merger, given the Board’s determination to move in this direction.
About Nance and Packard – the Packard board would have been an anchor for Romney’s AMC evolution. It wasn’t just Nance, it was Packard leadership. I have read in the 1961 Time write up about Romney, that the Packard board was old and conservative. It is possible that with Packard’s investment into AMC, there would have been problems with Romney’s shift to small cars. It is possible that with the cash Packard had – they could have removed Romney when times got rough.
Great story on AMC. The old AMC headquarters on Plymouth Road still stands, although abandoned after Chrysler moved Jeep-Truck engineering out to Auburn Hills.
Besides his success in industry, George Romney had many different talents which separated him from most politicians of his time. In early 1968, after a defense department sponsored tour of Vietnam, which he as well as other politicians attended, he described the experience as having been “brain washed.” He was widely attacked for this comment and it ended his campaign for the republican nomination for the presidency. Years later, it was disclosed that the defense department did indeed intentionally mislead attendees about war progress and other matters during these tours.
He also sired a son, of whom he could be justifiably proud.
Nash (Kelvinator) first made refrigerators, then they made cars that looked likes fridges on wheels. This is not only cool, this is true heroism.
I recently acquired some 1958 & ’59 Rambler brochures, and I was impressed with the way the photographers & artists made the cars look clean, sharp, colorful, and contemporary (Like the red ’60 on p. 2). This, despite the (later?) Rambler reputation as “dull” or “uncool”. To a buyer looking for an alternative to “longer, lower, wider”, (but still “American looking”), these would be appear to be a smart, socially acceptable choice.
Would have preferred to see Nash & Hudson continued as separate (albeit badge engineered) versions of Ambassador, with unique styling and features. But Romney made the most profitable choice. I admire Romney, but if everyone (including Harley Earl) were square like him, the fascinating exuberance of the ’50s would have never happened!
Auto history (in fact ALL history) is really the story of PEOPLE–their inspirations, talents, visions, and . . . foibles. And once those people move on (or pass on), that unique spark vanishes, and those who come after will not do things the way their predecessors did. I think that’s what happened to AMC post-Romney. Part of our problem is that human lifespans are just too short (my opinion).
” Part of our problem is that human lifespans are just too short.”
Until someone like Elon Musk comes along and shows what can be accomplished before you turn 50…
According to Wikipedia, quoting “Time” magazine, (perhaps with a grain of salt?) the success of the Nash Rambler was assisted by the release, in the Autumn of 1958, of the song “Beep Beep”, by the Playmates. The lyrics suggested that a Nash Rambler, while stuck in second gear, could keep up with a Cadillac. (I somehow doubt that!).
https://genius.com/The-playmates-beep-beep-lyrics
+1 on ‘Beep, beep’ highlighting the popularity of the Rambler. Most popular car songs are about stylish, performance cars. Yet, here was one about a practical economy car. I remember listening to it when I was a kid and wondering what was the big deal about taking a car out of second gear. It wasn’t until much later that I learned the reference was to the Rambler Flashaway (GM Hydramatic) 2-speed automatic transmission.
The Hydramatic was a 4-speed automatic transmission.
Must have been an Ultramatic.
The performance of early Ramblers was a lot better than the reputation. Uncle Tom loved them, and testers for Motor Trend agreed. A ’52 was entered in the Darlington 500, mainly stock, and finished in the middle of the field.
Good point. Maybe the Rambler in ‘Beep Beep’ was a 1957 Rebel (which could be had with the 2-speed Flashaway automatic, too).
Didn’t y’all always fake a shift out of second when you went by actually all wound out? LoL
I made an impulse purchase of a Rumbler when about 400 miles from home, probably to relieve the “cabin fever” in the ElCamino three of us were riding in. LoL Anyway, on the way home we figured out that 327 Ambassador would give 350 Elc a good run for the money.
Ramblers were an impressive combination of performance and fuel efficiency at a great price. Nobody else in America had a car that would top 100mph and also capable of 20mpg with an engine that outlasted pretty much everything else available. They were impressive cars, mechanically, for their time period, but didnt have the flashy looks or the v8 sound so they werent a “car guy’s” choice.
I cant express how impressed i am by the rambler. Choose the optional engine in a plain 2 door with the 4speed manual and you got one helluva capable car that can do Bakersfield to Tulsa or Reno to Des Moines high speed runs non stop over and over no problems. You’ll grow old and wear out before it will. If it werent for the fact that cumulative costs of oil and filter and maintenance costs exceeded the price of a good used one there’d still be lots of them on the road. Once people figured out it made financial sense to drive them into the dirt without any maintenance, thats what they did. A cashiers check and the title in the glovebox along with the registration for the day it quit was how it was done.
All the car manufacturers would accept customer custom-build orders but – except for AMC – didn’t bruit the option, as they wanted to sell what they’d already built and had, collecting dust, in dealers’ showrooms. (Chevy’s COPO program is just one example.) AMC gladly took special orders…and the customers doing so were quite pleased, as the assembly-line workers tended to pay special attention to those cars. My dad loved our ’63 Classic wagon so much, he decided two years later to get another Rambler – but not off the lot. He special-ordered a ’65 Ambassador 990 4DR sedan, with front bucket seats, center console, 287 V8 mated to a 4spd manual transmission, and power everything. He told me, years later, he shelled out $5100 for the car which was almost 60% over the base price of a run-of-the-mill Ambassador. I guess that, at 39, this was his mid-life-crisis gentleman’s hot rod. Our family made a lot of trips around the country in that car, and it got a LOT of curious looks from people at filling stations.
I would think Romney was also responsible for the tie-up with Renault that led to the Rambler-Renault Classic being built in Belgium starting in 1962. Per Wikipedia, that deal was signed on November 21, 1961. Perhaps if more had been made of the Renault relationship during Roy Abernathy’s tenure, AMC might have been positioned to share Renault’s overwhelming competitive advantage in small cars at the time of the 1973 oil crisis. A Pacer or Hornet with a Renault 12- or 16-based FWD layout would have been very interesting during the 1970s.
What a great lunchtime read! Thanks for this deep dive into early AMC.
I think it is fair to say that the tag-team of Mason and Romney may have been the strongest management team in the entire US auto industry. Nash/AMC was certainly better run than any of the independents, and almost certainly Chrysler by that time, as well. Both Mason and Romney saw things that nobody else saw, and beyond that they were good with the basic blocking and tackling that made the whole thing work smoothly. I do love Studebaker (and Packard) but their managements had been a mess for ages by 1953, and almost every one of their successes was in spite of their management, not because of it.
I think our divergent backgrounds affects how we view the Rambler. While they may have been new and hip among the college professor crowd that surrounded you, they were anything but in my neck of the woods. My parents were of the generation and demographic that new and hip were aiming at in the late 50s – their new cars in this period were an Anglia, a Karmann Ghia and an early Olds F-85. Neither they nor anyone in the extended family on either side nor anyone in our neighborhood, nor anyone we knew owned a Rambler. I take that back – the neighbor kid’s Grandpa Bob had a Rambler, but he is all I can think of.
I would say that before 1958 the Rambler was a well-built car trying desperately to find a niche where it could make money. The new 56 Rambler was not really a success any more than it had been in 1954-55. Which makes sense, because it wasn’t all that much smaller than a basic Ford/Chevy of 1954. But by 1958 there was nothing else of any reasonable size at the same time when the economy went to crap and a smaller, high quality car was suddenly hot – events conspired to open a wide lane for AMC and the company was ready with the right product to fill the need (much in the way the Chevy Suburban was there to take advantage of changing market conditions in the second half of the 80s).
This story reminds us that gifted, visionary people running car companies is the exception, not the rule.
While they may have been new and hip among the college professor crowd that surrounded you, they were anything but in my neck of the woods.
They might have been so to the grownups, but not to me! They invariably had sixes and had a pathetic exhaust sound. My eyes (back then) were only on the gas-guzzling dinosaurs. 🙂
In 1960 our Explorer Scout leader (and local FBI agent) had a yellow 1957 of 1958 Rambler station wagon. It was a solid yellow base model. He took five of us camping on a two+ week trip to west Texas where we camped at three different rances owned by his friends. What a grand time we had. We stayed in tents or under the stars, did our own cooking (mostly), swam in three different rivers, and hiked all over the place. The Rambler pulled a six foot trailer with all our gear and also took us on excursions to various sights in Texas. We must have covered a couple of thousand miles altogether.
The trip was the swan song for the Rambler. Within a week of our return home it was traded for a cute Rambler American convertible. That car became my good buddy and fellow scouts car several years later. Looking back I can see that was the plan all along.
I offered wondered if FBI agent/governmet employees were offered special deals on Ramblers.
What a fascinating story – I knew a bit of this from the business perspective, but reading about Romney’s personality and the effect that his interpersonal skills had on AMC’s survival made me realize that I’ve read virtually nothing about him personally, and that I’ve really missed out.
There’s many interesting angles to this story, but his ability to deal with labor issues, during an era when unions and management were at ridiculous odds with each other just about everywhere, is perhaps the most intriguing part of the story for me.
Also, I hadn’t realized quite the extent to which Romney had become a pariah to the Big Three execs. I’m wondering how quickly that changed once Romney became governor — I suppose that Romney had the ability, like Churchill, to forgive old enemies, which is a leadership quality that’s often overlooked. Sure beats being perpetually vengeful.
Thanks for this writeup, and I’ve added Foster’s book to my reading list.
I suspect that didn’t last long. He was still one of them, ultimately. Well, sort, of, anyway.
The Achilles heel for George and Mitt is what made them successful – their religion. While both have succeeded in many ways, they overestimate themselves and underestimates others. Both have a belief that no one is more moral than they. Their religion put great demands on their lives, both private and public, yet it also caused both men to believe that only they could solve any problems. Good team leaders, but not good team players.
Consequently they choose to stand apart from their fellows on many issues, make pronouncements showing their superior morality, then wonder why they have few close allies.
I am not sure how a man who doesn’t smoke and drink can be handicapped by his religion.
I am equally unsure if there is any basis in fact for what you write.
You must not know many missionaries.
FWIW, I believe the Marriott hotel chain is a Mormon organization. Other than charging for local telephone calls in their early days, I’ve always found their lodging among the best for business travelers.
Yes, everyone remembers that critical Romney speech where he said “I alone can fix it” and we know how that turned out.
Oh wait, that was some other guy.
Always liked the way Romney did business. But, being a fashion business more than a technical one, the automotive winners were not always the sensible ones.
Incidentally, those bathtub unibody Nashes of the early 1950s were real rust buckets. They were astonishing in that the rust enveloped the whole upper body, not just sills and rear quarters.
Paul, your work of late has been some of your best. Thank you for the effort you put into pieces like this. I never knew much about American Motors but now I know much more.
I am too young to have experienced the Rambler fad of the late 1950’s but I understand why they were popular. They were a well made and well sized car sold for a reasonable price. I bought my Golf SportWagen for the exact same reasons.
The world has changed so much and it seems many are willing to spend a higher proportion of their income on a vehicle than in the past. There are right sized cars that sell for a reasonable price but it appears to me they don’t sell well. There’s really no place for a modern Rambler in the North American market.
Had Willys-Overland / Kaiser-Jeep played their cards right* before merging / being acquired by AMC in 1960 (as mentioned in the article below), it is likely AMC could have been in an even stronger position and negated the need for merger agreements with either Volkswagen or BMC.
* By way of the following:
– A post-war 4-cylinder only successor to the Willys 77/Americar that could slot below the Rambler/Rambler American and directly replace the Metropolitan, together with a properly conceived Willys Aero.
– A pre-war or post-war OHV conversion of the pre-war Willys 77 4-cylinder / stillborn Willys 99 6-cylinder aka Go Devil/Lightning later Hurricane 4/6-cylinder engines
– Production version of the 288-327 Kaiser V8 with 90-degree V6 derivative to replace alternate OHV Hurricane 6-cylinder (in place of the Buick V6)
https://www.indieauto.org/2021/01/22/1933-42-willys-offered-a-better-template-for-an-import-beater/
Even though AMC and Studebaker-Packard could not come to an agreement, with there being underlining problems with the Studebaker side and Packard being the more salvageable of the two.
It is interesting to speculator how things could have evolved had both Studebaker and Packard remedied their issues beforehand as mentioned in the following two articles for Studebaker, where it is posited that had it been developed properly the Studebaker V8 could have been comparable to the SBC V8 with Studebaker also having at the time the only passenger-car platform flexible enough to be used for both a larger and a compact car.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/engine-history-the-studebaker-v8/
https://www.indieauto.org/2019/10/01/1951-studebaker-pointing-in-the-wrong-direction/
As for the proposed merger agreement with BMC, the latter would have probably been better off acquiring Willys-Overland / Kaiser-Jeep on the basis of the Jeep itself having indirect ties to Austin via American Austin / American Bantam together with Austin/BMC’s own 4×4 efforts being lackluster (despite the Austin “D-Series” 4/6-cylinder petrol and diesel engines being a reverse-engineered version of the 2nd gen 216 Chevrolet Straight-6).
AMC would have also benefited from an earlier more equal partnership or alliance with Renault during the 1960s by way of Kaiser-Jeep’s and their presence in South America.
There was the 1965 Jeep/Renault Model H: A light 4×4 prototype based on the Renault 16.
The South American built Renault 12 which AMC would have used to develop a smaller model, the former being to the latter what the Audi 80 / VW Passat (B1) was to the Brazilian built VW Gol (BX). Since not sure if a US built three-box version of the Renault 14 would a viable alternative to the above or if the Renault X-Type engines could be made US emissions compliant (not to mention the end-on gearbox layout).
AMC could have also made use of the Renault A-Type engines which via the Renault 114 Project were capable of spawning inline-6 engines as well as played an earlier role in the development the 2.0-2.2 Renault J-Type Douvrin 4-cylinder engine in place of the 2-litre EA831 used in the Gremlin, Spirit, Concord, etc.
In my neck of the woods, in addition to being popular with women and the egg-head crowds, Ramblers were very popular with senior citizens because of their fuel economy and comparatively low operating costs. As the 1960s progressed Rambler lost some of their sales to the mid-sized and compact cars offered by the Big 3, but there was a loyal group of customers who traded in their Ramblers for AMC Hornets, Concords, and even Eagles right up to the end when AMC was bought out by Chrysler. The AMC Hornet Sportabout was the successor to the Rambler wagons of the 1950s and for several years it was the only compact American wagon available.
Great article! I’ve been reading the huge book The Reckoning, on how the US Auto industry really paved the way for competition from the Japanese (and then the Koreans) that the Big 3 really weren’t prepared for. The argument in there is that the Big 3 was indeed essentially a monopoly that stifled competition, and quit taking risks, and breaking new ground. I haven’t finished the 700 page book yet, but I’m learning a lot I didn’t know about the Japanese and the US auto industries and their respective leaders. Romney was truly one of the brightest and best (even if Ford had the supposed “Whiz Kids”). Thanks, Paul!
Fascinating article. The longer the article, the more interesting they get. Does anyone under the age of 40 know what an amc is? I hear the names studebaker and Packard and I can recognize a 50s studebaker but they don’t really mean much to me, having vanished from the automotive landscape years before I was born. I learnt a lot reading this.
In the ’55 Rambler “Mickey Mouse” sales film, starting at :47, what are the cars that the Rambler is parking between ?
The car in front is a Nash Healey. The car in the rear looks like a ‘50 Nash Rambler.
Another great article Paul-thanks for your fascinating article on George Romney-he was certainly an interesting individual. I agree that AMC’s best years were from about 1958 until 1963, as you point out, the company’s products sold well due to the ’58 recession and negative public reaction to the big 3’s overstyled vehicles and their build quality- from what I’ve read Chrysler’s products from that period lasted about eighteen months before falling apart. American Motors invented the intermediate body style, something that the other automakers certainly noticed and began working on their own versions.
For all of his qualities, and maybe because of his Mormon upbringing I sometimes felt Romney regarded automobiles as somewhat utilitarian vehicles as opposed to Sloan’s views of automobiles as status symbols. In my opinion, I felt a lot of AMC’s advertising was the equivalent of Mormon sermonizing on the evils of horsepower, speed and racing-their ad campaign of the ’60s-“The Sensible Spectaculars” comes to mind. By the mid-sixties the image of AMC was that their cars were driven by penny-pinches, bookeepers and maiden aunts, not a terribly great image.
Romney left AMC in 1963 for politics and I’ve always wondered if Romney saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the company’s vehicles and it’s image and being aware of what the other companies were planning(like the Ford Mustang for example) and decided to get out before things turned against AMC.
Absolutely the best explanation of Romney and his role in the survival and success of AMC in its first, most challenging period. Thanks Paul for researching, writing and presenting such a thorough history. It will be the standard recommended go-to source from here forward!
“Romney felt strongly that these women were going to prefer a smaller car, for obvious reasons of parking, ease of handling and fuel economy. The 100″ wheelbase prototype that Mason showed him made a deep impression on him: this was the car of the future, a new category between the little imports and big American cars, one he could really get behind.”
Obviously his thinking has gone wildly off the rails in this day and age as women are driving big SUVs and trucks which took the place of big full size four door cars. The draw to go big never really went away.
Power assists made a huge difference, plus you’re talking about two almost entirely different cohorts of women raised with very different expectations about their own abilities with regard to machinery.
AMC could very well have been still around, had Romney stayed at the helm. Growing up in the Winter, Water, Wonderland, and being from a family that owned quote a few AMC cars, this was a very interesting read.
Roy Abernathy was a flop for a replacement. A Packard flunky I think.
Abernethy ascended to the top when the Big Three and the imports were invading AMC’s niche.
Mason and Romney had been correct – plenty of Americans would buy a smaller vehicle, and low price wasn’t necessarily their main motivation.
The problem was that, by 1965, the Big Three were exploiting this phenomenon with cars like the Ford Mustang. If the choice was between a Rambler American 440-H and a Mustang fastback…guess which one most young Americans would choose?
Meanwhile, the Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant sedans with the slant six and Torqueflite were successfully attracting buyers who wanted a practical, sturdy and economical car. AMC was increasingly hemmed in from all sides.
Geeber makes good points.
Falcon and Chevy II/Nova took former Rambler owners, too, along with Chevelle/Fairlane/Coronet mid size class.
AMC became “old fogies” by 1965, and tried too hard to compete head on with Marlin, Ambassador, Matador and Pacer. Only Hornet, Javelin, and Gremlin were good matches to Big 3. But also, imports took small car market.
Buying Jeep in 1970 was best thing AMC did.
My parents were Rambler owners. 1960 Classic 6 and 1964 Classic wagon. But, when time to get newer cars in 1968-69, they were “sick of Ramblers”. Got used ’65 Mustang I6/3 speed manual for commuter car and 1969 full size Plymouth wagon. Mom went on to Cutlasses and then Toyotas, now a 2011 Prius [maybe last car]. Dad stuck with GM [Buick/Olds] after the Mustang til he passed 4 years ago.
You have to give then credit for the first fully integrated dashboard A/C system in cars based on their experience with Kelvinator.
GM and Ford were still hanging them under the dash as late as the mid 60’s.
Another very good article .
FWIW, the “BEEP-BEEP” song was written about the Nash Metropolitan .
I asked the man who wrote it .
-Nate