When I spotted this shot of a 1964 Ambassador by robadr at the Cohort, another car suddenly popped in my mind. Does it remind you of a certain other car?
Well, that’s the car (Audi 100 C1) that came to mind. It never has before, and it may well never again, but today that’s the association I made, without trying.
Here’s some more shots of just the Amby:
The ’63 – ’64 Ambassador (and the Classic and American) have the size and clean lines that would make them feel quite at home in Europe. These cars did have a fairly decent following in Europe at the time.
Ramblers were actually assembled from CKD kits at Renault’s factory in Haren, Belgium, and were sold as the Renault Rambler, since they lacked a large executive-class car.
Maybe some Audi designers saw one?
My first thought was also a C1 Audi. My second thought was a BMW Bavaria. And I don’t think that I’ve ever made those connections before. That side profile also gives the roof line a certain Thunderbird influence. It seemed like Ford was sprinkling that on all of their other cars lines, so maybe a little extra made its way to the Amby.
Who knew that the Amby was so international? Good find!
I immediately thought 2500/2800/Bavaria before scrolling down to see the Audi. The front and rear profiles are different, but the BMW’s greenhouse certainly echoes the Rambler, in my eyes.
Fuel fillers on opposite sides. Completely neutralizes the resemblance.
The Ambassador also have some following in Argentina as well. IKA produced them along with the IKA Torino until the early to mid 1970s. https://www.flickr.com/photos/riveranotario/32587968958
I can see it, but would not have thought of it on my own. That rear wheel opening shape has always overpowered my ability to see anything else about the basic design, that is really quite nice. I will admit to a preference for the even cleaner 1965-66 versions.
It is an interesting mental exercise to wonder what might have happened if AMC had kept building the 65-66 version of this car as Chrysler did with the 1967+ Valiant/Dart. There would have been some lean years but it might have been more successful than anything AMC did after 1973.
The interior is stunning – I am not sure I have ever seen an Ambassador of this vintage, at least so as I have noticed.
AMC in the sixties is another of those great ‘what if’ questions. If he hadn’t turned to politics, one wonders how differently George Romney might have proceeded instead of Roy Abernethy, and retaining the ’63-’64 Ambassador’s clean styling might have been a course he’d have taken.
Further, imagine if AMC had chosen to invest in a modern, up-to-date suspension, brakes, and drivetrain for their cars. Unfortunately, as an independent, the price premium for such a car would been way too high. Still, it’s fun to speculate how it might have turned out; the letters ‘AMC’ could have been as synonymous with a driver’s sedan as ‘BMW’. That Audi 100 C1 might have actually been an AMC product.
Romney’s turn to politics is a puzzle. He was succeeding hugely in ’62, moving Rambler up to beat Plymouth. Why quit then?
I could work up a GM conspiracy theory about that, which would make more sense than the GM streetcar theory. Buses defeated streetcars because of cost. For some systems, the total operating cost of buses was just 10% of the cost for streetcars, because the city was maintaining the streets instead of the company maintaining the tracks.
I wonder if Romney was inspired by another successful auto exec who specialized in compact cars and then moved into politics, that being Robert ‘Father of the Ford Falcon’ McNamara who became JFK’s Secretary of Defense in 1960.
It’s worth noting that then-Michigan governor Romney took a shot at becoming the 1968 GOP presidential nominee, only to falter after his famous Vietnam ‘brainwashed’ gaffe.
Or another possibility had Roy Abernethy being more careful like letting the originally the Tarpon as they way it should be instead of growed it into the Marlin and continued Romney’s original plans.
I wonder had Romney stayed at AMC, would he greenlighted the Javelin/AMX?
In hindsight, you’d have thought AMC management would have known that the Tarpon/Marlin were losers doomed to fail, something tiny AMC could ill-afford. They (correctly) declined to put the smaller, American-based Tarpon into production because AMC’s V8 at the time just couldn’t be made to fit. And they were in just too much of a hurry to wait for the smaller, 2nd gen V8 which would be introducted in 1966, in time for the 1968 Javelin, a true ponycar with its own distinctive sheetmetal.
So, the Marlin got the nod. Unfortunately, AMC made one huge error when they went with the larger, V8-capable midsize Classic for the Marlin, and that’s simply that the tall (6’4″) Abernethy insisted that the fastback roofline have enough headroom and be high enough to comfortably accomodate him in the backseat. Coupled with the same doghouse as the pedestrian models (a mistake Chrysler also made with both the 1st gen Barracuda and Charger), the awkwardly styled Marlin just didn’t have a chance, and died unceremoneously after three years of lackluster sales.
The Tarpon not making production because of AMC not having a suitable engine would be somewhat eerily repeated a decade later when the oddily styled, Wankel-intended Pacer ‘would’ make production but with a standard AMC 6 or V8 drivetrain. And, since this was the economically depressed seventies (as opposed to the go-go mid-sixties), the damage of the Pacer impacted AMC’s bottom line a whole lot more than that of the Marlin’s failure.
The ’65-66 was not only cleaner looking,it was better differentiated between the Classic/Rebel and the Ambassador with the latter’s stacked headlights.
By 1968/69 AMC was referring to the 1966 facelift of the American as having “Stabilized Styling”; I can easily see Romney having picked up that ball and run with it. Using the money not spent on annual sheetmetal changes on chassis tuning and upgrades might well have been done – he greenlit the ’62 move to ball-joint suspension on the senior line, which was in its’ last model year on the 1956-vintage unibody rather than saving it for the ’63.
The above mentioned cars might look similar…..but did NOT drive similar.
Good call Paul, I would say yes, the Audi C1 designer(s) appear influenced by the Rambler. There are enough consistent details that match, to make the similarities more than coincidental. The Audi has softer edges throughout, but the basic proportions and angles are very close. In the greenhouse especially. I very quickly applied Audi-like wheel arches to the Rambler, in this Photoshop. Numerous examples of late 60s styling appear derivative like this.
I would also suggest the Peugeot 604 appears influenced by AMC/Rambler design.
Peugeot 604…
I find the Hillman Hunter looks almost like a tall and narrow subcompact version of the third generation Ford Falcon.
The MK II Cortina even more so.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Audi “influenced”? The Audi is a brazen copy of the rambler lines! The A pillar is identical, they copied all chrome strips and even the dishes. Later on they sold it as their own brilliant idea. (Afaik it was the most sold Audi in America).
On the other hand methinks that the Rambler somehow reuses the look of a ’62 Lincoln and brings it to a more objective level.
CC effect: Joe Ligo just published a video on the history of the Ambassador. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKCs4qA04g
I always thought Richard Teague was a great automobile stylist. He designed the great 55-56 Packards, the Predictor, did a commendable job with the ’57 Packard (given the limited resources). Then he went on to AMC and created these 63-64 clean-lined Ambassadors and Classics which are a lot better looking than one would expect. Then–I don’t know what happened–he comes up with the “pig” PACER and the GREMLIN?!? Yuck! Well, it was the ’70s–what can you do?
I see a little of the ’57 Packard in the upswept trim line behind the rear wheel:
Then he went on to AMC and created these 63-64 clean-lined Ambassadors and Classics which are a lot better looking than one would expect.
Actually, he didn’t. His predecessor Ed Anderson designed the ’63 Classic and Ambassador. Teague gave them the new front end for ’64, and did the American, which was also just a variation of the ’63 body.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-rambler-classic-660-ed-andersons-departing-farewell-is-a-classic-as-well-as-motor-trends-coty/
Wikipedia:
“Teague joined American Motors Corporation (AMC) as a member of Edmund E. Anderson’s design team in 1959, and became principal designer when Anderson left in 1961. Teague’s first assignment, according to designer James W. (Jim) Alexander, was to re-do the front sheetmetal on the 1961 Ambassador.[14] The first cars influenced by Teague’s styling were the 1963 Rambler Classic and Ambassador, AMC’s first all-new models since 1956.[15] With the ascendancy of Teague in the early 1960s, “AMC Styling began to be written of in a more positive manner” within the industry and automotive press.”
“The first cars influenced by Teague’s styling…” sounds like he had a major role in their creation. So maybe you can tell us whether this is right or wrong.
It’s wrong.
Ed Anderson abruptly quit at the end of December 1961, at the prime of his career aged 55. he did that because AMC wouldn’t make him VP of Styling. It’s not like he was retiring, and handing the baton to his likely replacement. The ’63s were the first all-new Ramblers in over a decade, and Ed was very much in charge of what would be such a critical new design. These were career-makers or breakers.
By that time (Jan. 1962), the styling for the ’63s would have been approved, locked in, and heading for tooling. Only very small changes could have possibly been made.
Teague is credited for cleaning them up a bit for ’64, as the concave front end was a bit controversial.
The problem with Wikipedia and other sources is that when it comes to taking credit for styling, everyone wants to be credited for successful designs, and nobody wants to take responsibility for duds. The designers and their families often re-write history to that effect. I’ve run into it numerous times.
While Dick Teague no doubt contributed to the overall shape and details of the 1963 Rambler Classics and Ambassadors, Edmund Anderson deserves overall credit for their successful styling. No one can blame him for departing abruptly after the shabby, dismissive treatment when he requested the VP of Styling title, only to be refused. His decades of professional work in service of first Nash and then AMC were key to their success, apparently accounted for nothing to upper management.
“Success has many fathers.
Failure is an orphan.”
-some dude (I forget)
I always liked this Rambler’s looks. I also like the Audi 100 for same. I’m surprised I never noticed how similar they are, but they both make me smile. Good catch.
Oh for the days when cars looked like cars, instead of reptiles, insects, or fish!
Happy Motoring, Mark
…or at least looked like (Thunder) birds.
I’m getting used to all of the ugly now, though.
Still think the tiny windows are unfortunate.
Once Toyota joined the ugly party I really started to feel like I was being trolled, or there’s a glitch in the matrix or something. All around, reality has gotten too ridiculous for me to take seriously.
I too have often wondered what AMC would have been like if Romney had stayed on and not entered the political arena. If I remember correctly 1963 was a good year for AMC sales (I think the company also got the Motor Trend Car of the Year award), but sales slumped in 1964. AMC invented the intermediate size automobile which sold well, which did not escape the attention of the big three. AMC did not have the resources to effectively compete with GM, Ford and Chrysler, I think Romney saw the handwriting on the wall and decided to leave AMC and let someone else take the heat and not have to answer for declining sales.
Many US carmakers took styling cues from Mercedes in their designs. If I turn the camera lens out of focus just a wee bit, I can see a bit of a Mercedes resemblance in the Rambler, not strong mind you. Certainly the practice continued into the 1980s, witness the 1985 Dodge Aries, for example.
What Mercedes?
In 1964, this is what a Mercedes looked like (below). It seems to me you’ve got it backwards.
The 63-64 AMC Classic/Ambassador does have that ‘70’s German look of the Audi 100 C1, BMW Bavarian, and Mercedes W123, or should I say those German cars have a ‘63 Classic look?
I like these cars a lot, especially the trim size. There are still a few in service around SoCal. This one is a 990, nicely equipped with bucket seats, floor automatic, and A/C. It appeared to be a daily driver back when I took the pictures.
And the interior.
A ’64 Rumbler with AC and FM?
Okay.
But….
(drumroll please)
…tilt column with floor shift?!?
Mind blown!
That can’t be a remote mirror control on the left, can it?
Had Abernethy understood the 1963 Classic and Ambassador should have been developed primarily in terms of reliability, build quality, handling, braking, durability and longevity, relegating styling updates to a secondary role, the future trajectory of AMC might have been much better as the public came to understand the greater value they offered.
There aren’t many mid-20th century cars that look this contemporary 55 years on. I don’t see any other particular car in it, but stylistically it be the forerunner for the W123 Mercedes.
I suppose in size and packaging it’s close to the sweet spot between American and fully-recovered-postwar-European size preferences, a size which early 1960’s Mercedes were also exploring albeit with more traditional styling. Maybe what we’re looking at is an early take on a true ‘world car’, with now-global standards of practicality and efficiency clearly evident in its design and a design language that could work in every market.
Unfortunately, when this car debuted, AMC was under attack at the top and bottom. The 1964 GM A-bodies were targeted directly at the Classic and Ambassador. Note that their sales declined in 1964, despite the design still being fresh, and AMC adding a modern six and handsome two-door hardtop to the mix.
At the bottom of the AMC line-up, compared to the American, Chrysler’s Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant offered better handling, along with a better standard engine (the American still offered a flathead six as standard through 1965!) and electric windshield wipers.
In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better for the company if the 1963 Classic and Ambassador had debuted for 1961, followed by the new American for 1962. That would have helped ease AMC’s stodgy image, and also given these cars more time to gain a foothold in the market. The competition wasn’t as strong then, as the Mopar compacts were still hampered by their odd Exner styling and suspect build quality, and the GM senior compacts weren’t quite yet what the public wanted.
Abernethy spent too much on tooling for styling changes, but Romney was perhaps too tight with a dollar…
A timely, brief history of the Ambassador by the proud owner of a 1972 – if you stay with it to the end you’ll find a fun review of his own car.
A friend of mine picked up a 63 Classic with a 327 for a song, it needed some repairs but will be a nice daily driver.
It’ll be in good company, Don also has a 32 Ford 5 window and a 42 Ford coupe.