(first posted 9/12/2016) In my (perfect) memory, 1961 – 1963 Rambler American convertibles were seriously rare back in 1961 – 1963. And they never got more common going forward, as I’m not aware of any body shops making big bucks converting American sedans into convertibles. So when I saw this shot at the Cohort posted by canadiancatgreen, I had to bite. Unfortunately, there’s only one shot, but if its any consolation, it does capture the American’s rather bizarre delectable square butt as well as any could. We all know what the front looks like, right?
Now about that sales claim…
There it is, in the 1962 American brochure: “America’s largest-selling compact convertible”. That would of course refer to the 1961s, as the brochure was written during the 1961 model year. And how many other compact convertibles were there duking it out for the title in 1961?
Exactly one; the Studebaker Lark. And checking the sales stats, yes, the ’61 American convertible outsold the ’61 Lark convertible 12,918 to 5,243. A resounding win! Of course, in 1962, there were several new entrants into this class, including the Corvair. Guess who wore the title in 1962?
I knew a couple that had a 1962 Falcon convertible; so I would say: Falcon.
Wasn’t the Ford Falcon convertible introduced as a 1963 model?
Yes
There was a convertible version of the 1962 Chevy II. The best-selling compact convertible was most likely the Chevy II Nova 400 convertible, or the Corvair Monza convertible. I’d guess that the Corvair Monza outsold the Chevy II Nova convertible, as the Corvair line attracted more buyers primarily seeking a sporty compact, as opposed to economical transportation.
The Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet convertibles didn’t debut until 1963. Same with the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart.
The restyle from the “classic” inverted bathtub Rambler would have been well underway by the introduction of the Corvair, but the back end of the 1961 Rambler American looks like it picked up Corvair styling cues, whether by espionage or by parallel thinking.
The front end obviously did not.
It looks like a MK1 Ford Consul Cortina especially at the front the rear is a Cortina clone too or is that the other way round Ford Dagenham copying the styling for their best selling sedan from Rambler, Nice car though theres a later model 66 I think American convertible cruising locally.
I was wondering the same thing – the flanks and partly the tail look Cortina-like, and the front looks like the early (Consul) Cortina.
Top in a class of two. Ah well, better than the Silver medal position.
Funny, but the top photo makes it look much smaller than the brochure picture – it almost looks like an Hillman Imp convertible. Actually the Imp seems to resemble this even more than the Corvair from the back with those side swages.
Funny, but the top photo makes it look much smaller than the brochure picture
Of course. All the people in the brochure pix are probably standing a good 20 feet farther away than the car. In the 50s, the ads used drawings rather than pix, and the drawings all had impossibly tiny people in them.
Here am I thinking “this is really America’s Minx”, and you spot the Imp link….
I love the compact cars of the 60s. They truly were compact, that anyone with a standard driver’s license could drive safely.
At least Studebaker could claim America’s best selling V8 compact convertible. 🙂
It’s all in how you define “compact”. If you put the cutoff between “compact” and something else at 106″ wheelbase, the Lark is eliminated.
The red one behind the Ambassador is a regular at the local AMC meet.
Photobombing my Ambassador pix again.
Yay!
When I mentioned the other day that the ’65 Toyota Crowne looked like a quality 4 cylinder Rambler, I didn’t fully appreciate my own comment…………
And how many other compact convertibles were there duking it out for the title in 1961?
Exactly one; the Studebaker Lark. And checking the sales stats, yes, the ’61 American convertible outsold the ’61 Lark convertible 12,918 to 5,243. A resounding win!
As the saying goes; “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
I can just see the ad from Studebaker’s vantage point:
“The ’61 Lark takes the #2 position in sales for the compact convertible category. The Rambler American placed next to last in the same category. Nothing from GM, Ford or Chrysler could outsell Studebaker in the compact convertible category for ’61. If you want a compact convertible, the choice is clear. Love that Lark!”
I wasn’t aware of these until about 20 years ago or so, when an acquaintance had one for sale that had belonged to his parents.
Neither these OR Larks seem to be easy to find in convertible form, in my experience.
That model had a rather unlikely time in the sun about 20 years ago when it was featured prominently as the Earth-bound transport for the alien crew of 3rd Rock From the Sun. They often spent the last few moments of each episode talking while sitting in the Rambler and looking at stars.
“You’re suspended!”
I am reasonably sure I’ve never seen one of these in the flesh.
A neighbor’s dad bought a V8 powered Lark convertible in the late 80s, and may still have it…bright red, white top, clean as a whistle. I saw it up close a couple of times but I don’t recall that I ever rode in it. His maroon Avanti, on the other hand, I have great memories of tear-assing around on I-275 with the old man at the helm.
At least Studebaker had resigned it’s flathead 6 to boat anchor status by this time, AMC bravely soldiered with the flathead until ’64. I am a fan of older(pre ’67) Amc’s and I could never figure out why they continued it as it was glacially slow even in a American. One friend of mine had one in a ’59 American and my other friends ’62 Falcon had a smaller OHV six and was faster and got better gas mileage. It might have even been slower than a Chevy II with a 153 4cyl. This American is just a facelifted 1958 American(100″WB), which is a shortened 1955 Rambler(108″WB), which is a stretched 1950 Rambler(100″WB), ala Studebaker they got 13 years out of the same basic car exactly the same as Studebaker.
AMC upgraded the flathead engine to overhead valves in 1956 and that engine was available as an option on at least some of these early Rambler Americans. (Remember, 1958 through 1963 Americans were really the 1950 Nash Rambler under the skin.)
The flathead was actually used as the base engine in the American through the 1965 model year.
I meant to say though ’64, but I did not realize they it was actually offered in ’65. The ’64 -’69 American was derived from the 1963 Classic,although smaller used many of the same body stampings.
I think Mopar was still building Power Wagons for the US Military with flathead engines as late as 1968… If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
I’d have thought the production guys would want to standardize on a single version, rather than have the flathead and OHV versions both available. Even if the flathead was cheaper to produce. I guess they thought their target market wouldn’t care – but hanging onto old tech (trunnions, vacuum wipers, flathead six) gave then the wrong sort of reputation – in hindsight, anyway.
Since I sell manufacturing capacity, allow me to comment. Manufacturers must cover multiple costs associating with making anything.
In most manufacturing operations, raw materials are the #1 cost. For basic cast iron engines, there is not much difference in raw materials despite design differences between different engine families.
To turn raw materials into something usable, tooling cost is a major factor. In some industries, tooling amortization may even exceed raw material costs. I’m not in the auto industry so I can’t be sure of their costs. I do know that tooling amortization is a major cost and each component supplier faces similar amortization challenges.
Likewise design and development costs must be amortized. These are usually done over a fixed time. If a product life exceeds the amortization timeline for design and development costs, the extra years and extra sales provide a manufacturers bottom line with an extra boost.
Once a product has fully amortized tooling and development costs, a manufacturer is free to look at production costs in a different light. If the manufacturer doesn’t plan to replace tooling after it is worn out, they can make extra money continuing to make otherwise obsolete products. The key is to find a use for the product in sufficient volume to warrant running a line with the old product.
When an automaker introduces a new engine, but keeps the old one in production, it suggests that the manufacturer does not need the production assets & space particular to the old design. If there is a market with sufficient scale, it can make good sense to continue an old design. Chrysler flathead industrial engines are a good example of finding a market outside mainstream autos in which an old design can still be competitive and fit for purpose while being sold at a highly competitive cost due to design cost and most tooling having been long since amortized.
While it is true production guys hate line changeovers, one factor common to most manufacturers is the need to get as much as possible out of capital assets. The more capital intensive the industry, the stronger the economic incentive to continue using sunk cost capital assets.
Few industries are as capital intensive as auto manufacturing.
Vouching for early collectibility: In 1966, one of my friends had a father who was a semi-pro car collector and restorer. At that time the father owned a ’36 Packard 160 with zero miles, a ’40 Plymouth limousine, a ’34 Chevy and a ’27 Studie. When he saw a ’61 American convertible in excellent shape, he snapped it up and cleaned it up. He knew value.
Truth in advertising at last!
Friends father who was our Explorer Scout leader had one. Seemed fine to me. When it was maybe 5-6 years old in 1966 or 1967 my buddy got to drive it some but it was very worn by then. Still, a convertible was enormous fun.
I was never all that fond of this generation of American, the one that followed was a more appealing car.
To me, these Americans looked like they were a bigger car “cut down” to fit a pre-determined size category….like cutting down a Galaxie to get it to Falcon size.
the one that followed was a more appealing car.
Yes, indeed.
Don’t forget the Buick Special, Olds F-85, and Pontiac Tempest convertibles…those were not big sellers! But these Rambler American converts were actually fairly popular back in the day. In the early 1970’s, there were at least 5 of them in Fremont, Ohio (town of 25,000 where I grew up), and I knew of 2 in neighboring towns (and several in junkyards). I still own the ’62 I bought in 1973!
Convertibles were in their heyday in 61-62, but they tended to have short life-spans.
Paul Mittermaier? You must be PAUL NIEDERMEYER’S evil cousin!
There’s a sports reporter on WBAL & 98 Rock in Baltimore named “Paul Mittermeier” who, when I first heard him on the radio, thought may’ve been our fearless leader here at CC until I looked him up. I thought for sure the first time they introduced him on 98 Rock’s morning show that they called him “PAUL NIEDERMEYER”. Easy confusion for me (new to CC at the time) as I read that Paul used to live and work in this area a long time ago in a car dealership far far away (Towson Ford – now LONG gone).
Clearly, you’re not used to Germanic family names… LOL!
Actually, no… I am somewhat familiar, as my last name is also German, and comes in about 6 different spellings, which in and of itself is kind of amazing, since it only has 5 letters! ?
Yes, his evil, almost-as-addicted-to-cars twin!
…and let’s not forget Mr. Nader’s nemesis, the ’62 Corvair.
The nader of GM technology? 😉
A 215 V8, “switch pitch torque converter” automatic tranny equipped Skylark convertible would indeed had been a Classy Convertible ride.
Make mine black with red interior and wide whitewall tires, please.
Mine was a cutlass F85. 215 cubic inch, high compression, quadrajet, Borg warner T10 4 speed and limited slip diff. (very expensive to replace, blew it twice). Not sure of the ratio but it was prone to shattering if the clutch was dumped. Oh, and POWER convertible top. I loved that car.
That 1961 still looks like a Giant Mk1 Cortina …
A casual look at the numbers for 1962 tell a different story. (Another example of “what a difference a model year makes.) In 62 the American sold about as many convertibles as in 61, but it’s competition sold as many or more convertibles. Not much more, but enough to take the “title” of bestselling convertible from Rambler.
Ah yes, yet ANOTHER pleasing, well researched & written, thoughtful and logical feature article by Paul. Niedermeyer.
Although we don’t always agree in our automotive opinions; most of the time (85 percent, perhaps more?) we indeed do mirror each other more often than not.
Keep ’em coming, Paul! You start my day off in a better frame of mine when you do post than when you don’t post.
My BS/Sarcasm meter’s needle is twitching quite a bit. 🙂
Nope! No BS/Sarcasm intended.
(I’ll save that for other thread replies).
🙂
(Jeeez, some people just cannot take honest compliments!)
Looking back, I think i would had waited a year (or two) for a ’63/64 Valiant or Dart drop top, equipped with Mopar’s under-rated small block V8 engine and push button, Reference Standard (for the time period) TorqueFlite automatic transmission.
My future mother in law had one just like the photo; Kelvinator white with red interior.I remember the heater control knobs looked like they came from a Kelvinator. My future wife would sometimes have it at college in Columbus, Ohio. One winter weekend. we convoyed to Toledo, Ohio where an older Fraternity brother was in grad school.
It was snowing a lot, and the vacuum wipers couldn’t keep up. The flat head and automatic left a lot to be desired when passing on a two lane road. It was named old Rusty Rambler, but I don’t recall any rust. I’d take another in a heartbeat.
If it was a convertible, it had the OHV 196 engine as standard (125 hp). The convertible was the top of the line American, and only came with the OHV, and not the flathead engine. And it had a 3-speed automatic (or 3 speed manual or manual with overdrive). If you didn’t like it’s passing speeds, you’d have absolutely feared for your life in a 61 or 62 Falcon or Comet with a standard 144 CID engine and optional 2 speed automatic. The little Rambler, could at least get out of it’s own way!
Oh, for the days when carmakers fielded a full slate of body styles, even in their lowest-priced compact lines: two and four door sedans and wagons, two door hardtops and convertibles, even four door hardtops, all available in choices of color for both interior and exterior…..we’ll never see that again.
The old 1950 Nash Rambler body substructure left this reskinned with proportions badly out of step with the lower-wider themes of the time. But, AMC never really worried too much about such matters, just knew that availability and price was more important to its customers. Although its likely AMC made money off these, personally an Ambassador two door convertible would have been more appealing, though probably a real money loser.
Back in the early ’70s, there was this local South Richmond-Highway ‘hole-in-the-wall’ used-car dealer in Fairfax County, that had a metallic green ’62 Rambler American hardtop. I remember being surprised seeing it had a buckets & console interior, with an overdrive shifter. Also a 1-barrel Holley carb with a GLASS float chamber. It also had a dual-circuit brake system – 5 years before it became mandatory here!
That dealer was cleared out for urban renewal shortly after to build a mega town-house complex and strip-malls.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I don’t think we ever got these in Australia. What a peculiar looking car! Not actually ugly, just… strange.
If it had normal plain or flared wheel arches it would look better, I think. Just as well this is a convertible though; it looks so much better without a roof.
It’s interesting that AMC found it worthwhile to develop a full convertible top for this car for what would be a short run, rather than reviving the cabrio-limousine style of the 1950-55 Nash Rambler ragtops.
I’ve heard that the nasally exhaust tone that these Ramblers emitted has come to be universally enjoyed. That sound is now thought to be that of a “purring kitten”
Many who were known to have loathed this exhaust tone, have become some of it’s greatest admirers.
The early-60s Rambler American looks reasonably good as a convertible; certainly not like a heavily facelifted 1950 model as does the coupe. Not having that slanted B pillar helps.
The slanting B pillar looks especially bad on the 2-door wagon, which has a C pillar exactly where the 4 door wagon does, in the same upright shape as the 4-door’s. The result is two pillars too close together and at odd angles to each other that look like their “lines” intersect just ahead of the rear wheel.