This morning is a double-header: Just like we’ve never had a CC on the Porsche 924, so it is with the original AMX. I recently saw a fine ’68-’69 roll by on a street here not long ago, so I know there’s one around. And when I find it, it will get its proper respects. In the meantime, we’ll have to content ourselves with this 1970 shot and posted by nifticus, and a more limited commentary by me.
The AMX was quite a shocker in its day, for more reasons than one.
The first AMX concept was unveiled in 1965. It was of course the work of AMC Design head Dick Teague, featuring his “wet shirt” look: a tight skin, with the muscles and other elements clearly in view.
The next step was for Vignale to build a running prototype (in 78 days), which featured this “Ramble Seat”. That obviously didn’t make it into production.
The final product arrived in 1968. It was of course just a shortened Javelin with a bolder C pillar and a different grille. AMC tried very hard to position it as a genuine sports car on the basis of it being a two seater, but frankly, that just didn’t go over all that well.
Its proportions are a wee bit off, being too short and looking like what it was. But then are the Javelin’s, which had a rather unusually long rear section between the end of the front door and the rear wheels. It looks more like a sporty sedan-coupe than a genuine pony car. The Javelin is of course related to the Hornet sedan, from which this quality undoubtedly springs. AMC did brag about how the Javelin’s rear seat was so much more spacious than any of the other pony cars. Not that it helped much.
How about something right between these two outliers? That might have looked just right.
And of course if you want to know where Dick Teague got the idea of cutting the Hornet’s rear end to create the Gremlin, you’re looking at it. It was just a bigger slice.
Nevertheless, the AMX brought some genuine excitement to AMC, which is something it desperately needed at a time when it was trying to shed its dull and thrifty image. But the effect was limited, as were the AMX’s actual sales: a total of 19,134 for the years 1968-1970. Pretty modest.
And as can be seen here, the 1970 version had a new front end that reflected the change in the Javelin’s front end that year. Engines were all the AMC V8, in 290, 343, 360 and 390 cubic inch sizes. Performance with the 390 was quite decent, with the 0-60 being absolved in some 6.6 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 14.7-14.8 @92-95 mph.
I vividly remember the arrival of the AMX, and did think they were trying to pull the wool over us to some extent. But I also liked aspects of its design, and had to give them credit for the gumption to cut a Javelin down and sell what was left of it, at higher prices, of course. Good old AMC and Dick Teague.
I agree that the original Javelin was just a touch off in its proportions. In addition to the rear wheel issue you mention is the oddly long front overhang that looks like it belongs on a Ford from the 70s. The Javelin looks to me like it couldn’t decide whether it was a fastback or a notchback (with a fast slope) and this hurts it. The 71 version has its flaws, but was much better in its basic proportions, mainly owing to picking up some cues from the AMX.
I always thought the original AMX had a bit of a Hot Wheels vibe going for it, which was a good thing.
We covered the AMX Hornet here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicautomotive-history-1977-amc-hornet-amx-the-long-slow-decline-of-the-amx/
Of course, by this time, AMX was pretty much ‘paint-on performance.’
For whatever their faults, these really were cool. I still remember seeing a dark green one, in 1978. 390, 4 speed, black interior, in near new condition, for sale in my home town. I thought the asking price was quite reasonable too. Look up cool in a dictionary and there could have been a picture of this car. I wanted it so bad. But I was only 19. The insurance would have been more than a house payment back then. Now every time I see a picture of a 1970 AMX all I can think of is the one that got away.
Incidentally Hemmings Classic Car ran an article on the 2 prototypes of the AMX. Both had fiberglass bodies. AMC considered fiberglass for the production AMX (like the Corvette) but was gun shy about potential crash results. AMC destroyed 1 AMX prototype. The other one escaped destruction due to Winter weather in Kenosha at that time, made the show circuit I think known as the “Vixen” and had the Ramble Seat, still exists in Kenosha (last I heard).
Being from northeastern Illinois (close to Kenosha WI), I always liked these. The proportions are off a little, but they are improved by adding wider tires and wheels to the rear and jacking it up ever so slightly. I worked with a designer in the 70s who worked for AMC in this era and talked about how they got clever with sheetmetal rework. They took the Javelin hood and added those two embossed “power bulges” for ’68 and ’69 anyways. Rear quarter panels were about the only unique metal on the thing.
And I had an original issue Hot Wheels of this, agree they are a “Hot Wheels” vibe car.
In addition to wheels lowering the ride height helps a ton visually, the wheels aren’t really centered in the openings which is evident in the picture of the pink one above the Javelin, on the AMX with its extra shortness it appears even more exaggerated.
One of my top five American cars along with 63-65 Riviera, first generation Cougar, Avanti, and… well the fifth car changes with my moods. Today I go with a 72 Camaro.
The AMX certainly turned heads back in the day with styling distinctive from the competition.
As for the Javelin, I agree with BlueovalDave that the right wheels and tires could make that model look a little better. As teenagers the guys I hung out with questioned the quality of these cars as with any AMC model back then. What did we know back then? That perception would change over time when I talked with owners of older AMC (Rambler) cars who were very pleased with the reliability of their cars including my next door neighbour.
I don’t remember that crease above the rear wheel.
This goes against my usual complaint about the lack of headroom, but AMC should have used some of the Javelin’s long wheelbase to lower its stance, like the 2nd gen Camaro. Perhaps the Hornet underpinnings prevented that.
AMC seriously considered making a real sports car around this time, a limited-production mid-engined fiberglass-bodied car called the AMX/3. Several prototypes were built before the idea was abandoned. A smart move I think; building these would have diverted money away that AMC needed for their mainstream cars. But it sure looked cool.
Rode in one, it was brutal fast.
Concave backglass was certainly a fad at the time, eh? ’67 Dart, ’68 Nova and AMX, ’71 Caprice coupé, and I’m sure I’m leaving more out. Not very practical—snow and ice tended to collect—but visually unusual and interesting.
The actual trend was coupes with long wide sloping C pillars. Dodge showed all three possible glass solutions with 67 Dart, 68 Charger, and 69 NASCAR charger specials.
Citroen claimed that the concave window on the CX kept it cleaner.
Dart and Nova sedans had the concave backglass, too.
Citroen CX!
Always liked these unlike Mustangs and Camaros we could order these in new so they did have appeal but the Aussie V8 & 6 rocketships of the time were readily available if you had the coin
The proportional problem of the Javelin is so largely answered by the AMX you have to wonder if it made production just to a bit of a loss leader to boost the Javelin’s image. Both cars clearly worked off the same concept but in the process of shaping the Javelin for mainstream(and probably killing two birds with one stone providing the new basis for the upcoming Hornet), the designers realized that AMX concept look might have been too softened and got the green light to make the pure design a reality too. JP makes a good point with the 71s, more radical AMXy cues made it into the Javelin footprint and even though its proportions(wher placement) is still funny it has more of a true ponycar look to it that the 68-70 AMX had, there simply wasn’t a need for the two seat version anymore even if it were profitable.
And of course if you want to know where Dick Teague got the idea of cutting the Hornet’s rear end to create the Gremlin, you’re looking at it. It was just a bigger slice.
And before the slice happened on the Hornet it happened(again) to the Javelin 🙂
Just think, AMC dropped the Javelin/AMX so they could build the Pacer. They could have had a big share of the pony car market by doing nothing. Maybe they could have even brought these back like they brought back the American in 1959.
I bought a ’69 390/4 speed when I was 19. Had it for six months but sold it because of its heavy, ponderous handling. Well, heavy and ponderous compared to the Corvairs and rear-engined VWs I’d owned prior. It was fast, though. Not the greatest body/interior integrity. Lots of rattles, more than expected for a seven year old car. Unlike my dad’s solid ’64 American, my AMX was a real Kenosha shaker.
Same basic platform as the American, your’s must have been built on a Friday after lunch.
To be fair it was a hardtop while my dad’s American was a sedan. But the AMX had a whole lot more plastic on the inside than the American. The rattly nature of the car plus the front engine, rear wheel drive handling turned me off to American cars such that I didn’t buy another one until my first American pickup truck in the 1990s.
I’m not beating up on American cars of the period. The then new ’75 Rabbit had a whole lot more plastic in the interior and was much more prone to rattles than the Bug it replaced. Probably one of the reasons for the rise of tightly screwed together Japanese cars in the US.
I’m having a hard time finding fault with these. A red 1968 or 69 tore up the streets regularly when I was growing up. That 390 really moved Lane’s AMX.
Again, the cry to add more inches! First the the Range Rover, and now a big American. Where does it end? (That’s the real question, I guess – here, or there?!)
Got to agree here, though, I must admit. It’s too short, if still a good-looking car for my money.
Here’s an odd footnote from the land of odd footnotes (tree bears, hopping gigantic rats, etc). In Oz, this car was regarded as a prestige item back then, given that it came in in the tiniest of numbers (and may even have been locally glued together in Port Melbourne from CKD kits like other AMC cars). Imagine, the slightly goofy-looking, rather declasse AMX as an expensive, exclusive purchase.
Maybe that’s why I still like them, faults and all. I’m fairly sure that the very few that came here probably still exist, given that I’ve seen ones at shows. Likely a product of that initial “prestige.”
To me, there is absolutely 0% wrong with the styling of the ’68 Javelin. It looks ultramodern to me in comparison to its competition of the day, with its steeply raked windshield (especially compared to Barracuda) and smooth tail with wraparound taillamp clusters. The fact that it had the added utility of a much more usable rear seat was only icing on the cake, and not at all to the detriment of its proportions. For me, there is no true beauty without brains and resourcefulness.
Its looks are easily top-3 in its class for me, and not at the very top only because the Mustang is so iconic (I love the ’68 fastback) and the ’68 Cougar is probably one of my favorite designs of that decade.
As for the AMX, I like it, but when I was first reading about its intent as a Corvette competitor, I read that as reinforcement that people often give the less attractive car extra points. Wasn’t buying it, but if the performance was there and the car brought the receipts, then great! It earned the comparison.
The frontal 1970 restyle of the AMX was not my favorite. The earlier cars looked a bit better. I wonder what the overall tooling budget was for the AMX exercise. If it was done on a shoestring budget (which would have been my assumption), I’d say it was definitely a good investment.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the Javelin’s styling per se but as a ponycar contender it’s definitely missing a few ingredients, it reminds me more of a compact coupe like a 68 Nova or Duster rather than a Camaro or Mustang it was targeted against.
I like the 70 restyle on the Javelin but not the AMX, the more protruding grille and those gunsight turn signals have shades of 74 Matador sedan in it.
Put a Javelin front on a Gremlin rear and call it the GMX!!
I had never heard of the term “wet shirt” design before, but it’s so appropriate for the AMX’s styling.
Thanks again to Paul and CC for another new factoid; I’ve learned so much over the years here!
The AMXs were very fast and 250 to 350 lighter than the Corvettes of the period. Further, several engine builders / dyno operators have told me prior to the introduction of GMs LS, no small block with factory heads put out as much HP as AMCs. To get that much out of a Chevy you had to go to after market heads. I’ll admit to being biased, I’m retired put of AMCs Kenosha plant.
A buddy of mine had a ‘70 with a 390 – it would spank my 327 equipped ‘67 Camaro in a straight line but was no competition in the twisties. He only had it for a couple of years – the oversteer issue these were plagued with resulted in him terminally wrapping it around a tree.
Pretty car though!
Yes, they could go fast but not handle a curve. Well, most of them.
There were many muscle cars written off in the city where I grew up because young men got flying on a straight piece of road but couldn’t get through a turn or curve at the end. I attended many a collision where Darts, Dusters, Super Bees and others left their driver or passengers maimed or worse.
Pro tip of the day……Sway bar pac……kids…..Add larger front bar and a smaller rear bar and you better have oiling system mods on your AMC engine or you’ll burn it up ’cause it corners so hard…..I’ve burned up one it was that good.