I have been driving past this car for the last two months or so, and finally brought my camera. It’s for sale on a used car lot off the highway in Albany Oregon. Looks like it’s selling about as briskly as when it was new (all of 1686 of these were sold in 1967). A once and future Classic?
Some might say that Rambler actually invented the muscle car in 1957 with the introduction of the mid-sized Rebel with a V8 engine. But in retrospect it really looks more like a happy accident than an intentional market shift. Somewhere along the line between the somewhat revolutionary ’57 Rebel and the muscle car boom, Rambler missed the memo. However in 1966 they seemed to wake up to the trend which they had arguably started.
And for 1967 Rambler offered just about every configuration possible with the Rebel, including a wagon. But the big deal for ’67 was the available 343 ci V8. And of course the SST package which was merely a fast sounding moniker for a trim level, being that all the good parts could be optioned in any Rebel. It was AMC’s belated response to what Chevy had been offering on their Malibu SS since 1964. As well as everyone else, except Rambler.
Late to its own party; and almost nobody noticed when it finally showed up. SST = Super Sport Tardy. Maybe they should have named it Stealth.
Unfortunately this one was optioned with the 290 V8 and not the 343. AMC’s new V8 family was desperately needed to replace the old heavyweight 327. And they were mostly a pretty capable bunch, with a few rebellious exceptions.
The ’67 Rebel even had four link rear suspension, replacing the old torque tube suspension of ’66. Like what GM had been using for some time. At least it sounded pretty advanced compared to some of the competition’s buggy spring and U bolt fixings.
So what happened to AMC/Rambler’s muscle car? Two things really, the Javelin (AMC’s pony car) and the Matador. Most of AMC’s meager development funds went into the Javelin/AMX as their poster car. The quite clean and handsome Rebel was replaced by the less-so Matador. Same basic car, new name, and uglier. Lot of good that did.
If there was ever the possibility of a bull market for AMC cars, the Matador certainly slayed it. And as you may know, it was a painfully slow death for AMC through the 70’s and 80’s. That reputation is reflected in the price tag which has dropped another thousand dollars in the two months I have been driving by it. If this was GTX or a Malibu, I dare say the asking price would probably be quite a bit higher. However, if you want to have fun in the sun in what was once called a Classic and may some day be again, this might be a cheap rebel’s way to go. And you’re not too likely to see yourself coming down the road.
As I’ve stated before, very few convertibles do anything to get my blood pumping (to the point where I “exclude” convertibles as a body style when searching online car ads). My father’s 1967 Mustang convertible I love for sentimental reasons but for some strange reason I am drawn to this Rebel SST Convertible. Maybe it’s the uniqueness, maybe it’s the color, maybe it’s just the extremely clean design…
I have a rambler reble sst, 4spd,conv, in the middle of a class 1 restroation, sadly the company screwed us with over 60k into the car, so we brought it home after a few years and he still have most of the parts.. we have the fully rebuild motor.
will u sell the trans?
I don’t get why a decent Mid 60’s convertible is still on the lot at that price in that (superficial visual) appearance. Not on my top 10 cars to own, but if I had a random $4000 sitting around and it was as good as it looks I’d buy it for the fact what other V8/Automatic/Mid Sized American Convertible could I get for that price now? None….
Has this dealership heard of selling cars on eBay?
I agree, it seems that for $3500 in cash you can probably own it easy, especially if its been sitting that long. Even if it wasnt so nice up close, it would probably be worth $3500.
In defense of the Matador, I owned a 73 Matador wagon that was a very comfortable enjoyable automobile at the time and in retrospect still ranks high on the list of favorite rides I have owned. The V-8 engine was super fast, seats were very comfortable vinyl, plenty of room throughout, and handling was ok as long as you kept in mind you were driving a Matador wagon and not a sports car.
A friend has a 68Matador SST hard top coupe very rare car here its a RHD convertion has the 343 motor and is a very nice car in good order He wont say what he paid for it but 4k is very cheap fpr a muscle car rag top if it was here Id buy it at that price, Im told these drive ok a bit like a old Holden so one is useable but this car would start at $10k here and go up. The good thing my mate reveals is parts are redily available he has just redone the upholstery with new material from the US but this raptop looks ok in that dept
I have a chance to purchase a 1967 Rebel 290 SST at what I think is a good price. 68000 org. miles, no dents or rust.
What do you think this car is worth. Has not ran for 10 years but stored inside.
Thanks,
Ernest
How much did you pay for the rambler?
AMC is one of those companies that’s just kind of out there. The demand for the majority of their cars just never happens..
Here in the midwest a Belvedere, Fairlane, Chevelle in that condition wouldn’t sell for less than twice that of the pictured car.
That does make AMC a bit of a value though as well as perpetuating the stereotype of AMC owners being cheap (AKA the “Rambler mentality”) ..
It looks nice, maybe an older restoration? With a bit of work on the paint and a 360 swap she’d be a pretty hot number.
Here’s the problem: it costs the same to restore a ’67 Rambler as it does to restore a ’67 Mustang… and which would you rather own? The Rambler, which you put $20,000 into and can only sell for $3,500, or the Mustang, which cost you 20K to restore, and can SELL for 20K?
Certainly looks in great shape. I like that it is an “off brand” for a muscle car but not sure I could ever love that brown colour.
The price could partly reflect problems with the car. The 1967s were apparently rushed to market — and suffered from an unusual number of teething problems. Have read horror stories about the convertibles.
The Rebel is a sad tale because it epitomizes the rapid decline of AMC. In the mid-60s AMC’s mid-sized offerings were the company’s bread and butter — and for a while sold in numbers quite competitive with the Big Three. However, between 1967 and 1970 Rebel sales sank by roughly 50 percent.
The name change from Classic may not have helped, but the key factor was that AMC management effectively gave up on the mid-sized market. Virtually all of the company’s development dollars were spent on the Javelin/AMX and Hornet/Gremlin. Meanwhile, AMC management thought they could make a higher profit per car if they stretched the Ambassador (which was based on the Rebel body) and sold it as a full-sized car. The public wasn’t fooled.
By 1969 the Rebel had become a little old lady’s car. Even the SST had been downgraded to a sedate trim line available on all body styles. Sure, the Machine was added in 1970, but that was a low-volume novelty.
Those weren’t teething problems, those were Rambler problems.
I have heard that these cars had teething problems, as well. The interiors also looked much cheaper than the interiors of the previous year’s Classic and Ambassador, both of which had nice quality touches liberally sprinkled throughout the car.
AMC was counting on these cars to sell, and they simply didn’t. Part of it was that 1967 was a down year for all car sales, but these cars were also facing very stiff competition from the Big Three. In 1960, Rambler had the intermediate segment all to itself…but by 1965, the Big Three had invaded this market with a full range of models.
Why did these cars have a rear sidemarker light but not a front? Were they just saving money by getting the rear fenders 1968 compliant a year early?
If I had to guess, the rear corner piece that contained the marker light was a casting that was expected to be around for several years. The front marker light appears to have been a separate piece that was inserted into a hole punched into the 67 front fender to make the 68 front fender. The 68 front marker light looks like the same light as the rear piece. But this is just a guess.
For a couple of seconds I thought I had a bug underneath my IPad screen!
It could be that the rear-end molding was off a 1968…after a wreck.
Which might have something to do with buyer resistance. Maybe there’s frame damage also, that’s not showing up in the photos.
I have always liked the looks of these. Very reminiscent of the 68 Satellite, to my eyes. But I wonder what the thinking was that led to that big chromed bullet in front of each rear wheel. It ruins an otherwise very clean design.
I have never been bitten by the AMC bug, but this one is the closest I have seen to an AMC calling my name.
The “bullets” apparently did two things. First, they echoed the fender blisters next to the bumpers. Second, they visually distracted from what at the time was viewed as a styling problem: Compared to other mid-sized cars, the Rebel had an exceptionally stubby front-end ahead of the cowl. This gave the Rebel more interior space but went against the long-hood, short-deck look that was becoming all the rage.
You can see visual tricks like that on a number of cars. For example, the Dodge Charger and Dart used a vertical, wrap-around bumblebee stripe to make their rear decks appear shorter than they actually were.
Nice observation. I always thought those Dodge rear-end stripes were a pretty creative trick, if a little weird.
If it weren’t for the stubby proportions, I’d say this is one of the better clean 60’s designs.
If I lived nearby, I’d give it a close look. Probably aren’t too many like it still on the road. That certain has appeal.
I’m more into Javelins and AMXs (see my avatar), but this would make a killer resto mod with a nice LT or LS motor and a TH700 4R behind it. Too bad I’m in Michigan. But then again, I don’t need another project.
Tardy for sure, they should have skipped their 1965 lineup and been selling these that year. Don’t know if the Rebel name hurt sales north of the mason dixon line but leave it to AMC to arrive late at the party bringing a slightly off product.
That being said I really like this, aside from the brown and the fake vents as JP mentioned.
Many early 60’s Rambler customers moved on to full sized Big 3 cars, like my parents. Or, went to B3 compacts/Midsize cars. Rambler simply went out of style as the the 60’s evolved to the ‘mod, mod world’. Then, with the Gremlin and Hornet, AMC became known as ‘small car company’ in 70’s, and Matador had no chance.
I owned a new ’67 Rebel SST coupe in gold, no vinyl roof with black bucket seat interior and tinted glass with the 290 and automatic. That car drew as many WOWs as any car I’ve ever owned. Of course it was always detailed to the max. Many a Chevelle and Torino owner did a double take at that car. Couldn’t beat ’em away from a stop light but I absolutely loved the car.
This convert SURELY is sold by now, right???
Dear sir looking at the pictures of the 1967 Rebel convertible it looks like a very good buy is it still there let me know thank you . Steve
My husband and I own a 1968 Rebel SST Convertible. It looks similiar to this one but I like the 68 better. Ours is at least more of a Maroon color. The 290 definitely doesn’t have the power of a muscle car, but we are getting to old to drag race anyway. The biggest problem is trying to find decent parts when needed. We have been thinking about selling it though, we could use the money at the moment. AMC only produced 823 in the convertible model in 1968 and I don’t believe there are many left on the road that are driveable anymore. We live near St. Louis if anyone is interested, but I think we will have to get a little more money than the one above.
I am interested if still for sale. Please contact with price
Good morning I’m just wondering if this car is still for sale. I remember my dad having one but sold within 6 or 7 month’s of having it. I beautiful and thank you for your time.
mrsid1313@outlook.com If its still there I will buy it. please tell me where it is. I had 1967 sst 343 auto that nothing in N. Y. could touch they all said it must be a Plymouth At esta drag strip an AMX would come from Fulton an walk the full blown 440 rail that held the track record. I think Chrysler should have ben run out of business instead of amc. an never bailed out not once let alone twice!
Some of you have commented on the stubby look of the front end. I see your point but still think this is a nice style job. You only have to look at the Ambassador to alleviate that front end. The wheelbase is longer and the front end longer. It’s a beautifully designed car. The redesigned Marlin took well to this change also. At this point the Marlin should have been marketed as an affordable luxury coupe. To me, 1967 was a pinnacle year for AMC styling and product. Many engineering changes for the better were made. Their engines were the most modern of the 1967 auto industry. And then came 1968! And let’s be honest, even GM, Ford & Chrysler were putting out some real junk with poor quality. It wasn’t just AMC. Thankfully, AMC has some very enthusiastic fans and collectors that will keep these cars around.
Changing name of core product 3 times [Classic > Rebel > Matador] in a decade can’t help. Rambler/AMC Rebel vs Pontiac LeMans? No contest.
These were for Rambler loyalists in Chicago/Milwaukee metro areas. But, were still also-rans. “The Rise and Fall of Rambler brand name” would be a good story. Hot selling make in 1958, removed from badging in 1968.
Tom McCahill liked the car plenty (quotes in AMC’s advertising):