I’ve been an AMC fan since adolescence, starting around the time I had received my first copy of the Encyclopedia Of American Cars by the editors of Consumer Guide. As I had mentioned in a previous post about a ’75 Matador coupe I had wanted to purchase as a teen, the AMC section of that large book with (I’m guessing) over 800 pages had become yellowed and dog-eared from my many returns to read and re-read it. I found AMC fascinating and endearing to learn about.
Doing so had given me an understanding of its origins as the product of a merger between independent automakers Nash and Hudson, and of its initial success as a manufacturer of compact cars. There were subsequent struggles in the marketplace and almost perennially limited funds, as well as various innovations, both successful (its pioneering use of AWD in its Eagle line) and not-so-successful (a longer list). No matter how you feel about AMC’s products throughout the years, I feel like most could agree that many of its vehicles were interesting at the very least.
The Pacer is on my short list of AMC cars I would want to own, along with either generation of Javelin sport coupe, an early Hornet hatchback or Levi’s Gremlin, or a second-generation Matador coupe. Those of you so inclined can stop with the gagging motions, as I’m already aware that some consider these cars unattractive. At my truest inner core, I’ve always been drawn to things that are out of the ordinary, and I genuinely like the aesthetics of these cars… with one exception, which I’ll get to. I have read about the Pacer’s heaviness for a small car, compromised engineering and execution, lackluster fuel economy and performance, and difficulty to keep cool in the summer due to all that glass. I’m still as excited as I was as a young teenager when I look at its smooth styling and interesting details, like its aircraft-style doors, low hood, tunnelled headlamps, and futuristically glassy greenhouse.
1978 AMC Pacer D/L wagon. Flint, Michigan. Saturday, August 18, 2018.
I used to flip-flop between which body style I liked better between the hatchback and the wagon. In fact, I still often do, but today, the wagon is the winner… particularly the ’77, the year it was introduced. Stretching three and a half inches longer than the standard hatchback on the same 100″ wheelbase and with a correspondingly larger cargo area, it looks slightly more normal than the hatchback. I like the extreme compound curves of the roofline of the original, but the wagon’s hint of conventionality nudges it, in my mind, into the realm of genuinely good-looking small cars.
Buyers immediately took to the wagon, which accounted for almost two-thirds (at ~38,000) of Pacer’s 1977 sales of almost 58,300 cars. This was after 1976’s high water mark of 117,200 units, and less than the 72,000 number for first-year ’75. Our featured car pictured at the beginning of this essay is absolutely gorgeous, in a flattering two-tone paint job and with those attractive factory aluminum wheels, one of my favorite wheel designs of the ’70s.
I’ll now address the “exception” I mentioned before. I like Pacers, but the unfortunate ’78 restyle as seen in the above photo, which added the raised and reshaped grille, is what renders the ’77 wagon to be the best that things ever got for the Pacer from an appearance standpoint. I used to think the ’78 model’s upright grille had been an engineering necessity due to the new availability of the 125-horsepower 304 cubic inch V8, but I’ve also read that the V8 would have fit just fine under the original hood. I should say that the V8 might have fit no worse inside the original front clip than the standard 232-c.i. six cylinder did, which basically had to be wedged into that short engine compartment.
We all know I’m no mechanic, so regardless of whether or not the restyle was necessary to accommodate the 304, I can say with decisiveness that the originally front end looks infinitely better to my eyes. Some people with naturally thinner lips undergo plastic surgery to get fillers for a fuller-looking mouth. Sometimes it looks okay, and sometimes it just looks bad and/or unnatural, and can sometimes even make the person look unrecognizable. This is exactly the phenomenon that the frontal appearance of the ’78 Pacer reminds me of, though there would be no mistaking it for anything else, with or without the restyle. Still and in my opinion, its looks weren’t broken, and thus didn’t need fixing, which is especially true of the wagon.
I’m sure the 25% increase in power for ’78 from the standard 232 inline six (125 hp vs. 100 hp) was welcome in a compact that weighed almost 3,400 pounds (about only 100 pounds less than the five-door ’78 Plymouth Volare wagon and something like 600 pounds more than a base-model ’78 Ford Fairmont wagon). I will periodically read more about the Pacer and often have to stop myself from thinking too hard about what could have been, as none of that matters now. It would appear from the sparkling condition of this example that the owner knows that his or her Pacer is indeed special. Here’s to the ’77 wagon’s one-year stint as the best it would ever look to the most people.
Coldwater, Michigan.
August 2024.
Special thanks to my friend Shannon, who photographed and sent me these great pictures of our beautiful, featured ’77 wagon. Brochure photos were sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
Big fan since childhood – I vividly recall seeing the occasional one in the late 80s, when in lived in the US. They always stood out of the crowd.
And, like you, I can’t decide if I’d go for a ’77 wagon (that mustard/ochre is superb, btw) or a ’75-76 hatchback, given the choice.
It’s a tough choice for me on most days as to whether I’d prefer a 1975 – ’77 hatch or wagon. I’ve seen pictures of the occasional early Pacer X hatch that make a pretty strong argument for that preference.
Nice article: The origional Pacer (and wagon) left me neither hot or cold and a neat family owned the AMC dealership in our small town and I was friends with them. A much better try than somr of the GM messes. Pontiac Astec I’m thinking of you.
Thanks, Donald. Your comment brings to mind that I don’t think I’ve ever ridden in any Pacer. Our family handy-man had one back in the ’80s, but I’m sure I never rode in it.
I drove a college friend’s once for part of a trip home. It didn’t feel like a small car.
I don’t know why they always bob the tail of modern crossovers. An extra 3-6 inches in the rear would make a world of difference in their ability to carry people and cargo at the same time.
I got the same impression when I drove one occasionally in 1976 in a carpool. I was accustomed to VWs and US compacts, and the Pacer felt more like a full-sized car.
That’s because it essentially was a full/mid-sized car without the big front overhangs and a big rear seat. Which explains the excess weight.
One thing I noticed about one small, modern crossover – the Chevy Trax – is how it seems longer / bigger, especially at the tail. Without looking at the numbers, I could see how it would have an appreciable gain in luggage space.
And to Paul’s point below, I recall having read that the Pacer was essentially a restyled Matador coupe that had been given the big chop-ola at both ends.
I’ve also read conflicting things as to whether the V8 needed the new hood’s extra height to fit, or if this was an unrelated styling facelift requested by people didn’t like not being able to see the hood in front of them. I’ve seen a website where they show a V8 Pacer supposedly with an old-style lower hood and it seem to fit just fine.
My issue with the Pacer regards what advantages the wide/short shape offers. The prime advantage seems to be the roomy feel of the front compartment – between the wide wall of the dash (similar to what you’d find in a typical Detroit intermediate circa 1975) and the huge glass area, it feels strikingly big in the front of a Pacer; it’s hard to believe you’re not in a big car. But even here some details betray it, like those inner door side panels that block the lower few inches of most of the length of the side windows. Here again, there’s debate as to whether this was necessary to keep the glass from poking up through the opening when fully lowered into the or whether someone at AMC thought the deep, low window opening made occupants feel too exposed. Also, the huge floor hump made anyone thinking of 3-across seating in front thifnk again.
More disappointment lurked in the rear environs. The rear bench, in stark contrast with the front, was very narrow as the whole thing had to fit between the rear wheelwells. Despite reasonably head and leg room, you were squashed against the other rear passenger (if there was one) and the rear side windows didn’t roll down or sideways. Flip-out window panes on the wagon helped some. It didn’t help that the standard AMC A/C couldn’t deal with hot summer days with all that glass. And the front engine/RWD with inline 6 engine was never the hot tip for space effieciency, and the fuel tank, driveshaft, rear axle, and full size spare all took space away from the exposed luggage area. An intriguing car that couldn’t quite make a case for itself other than unusual styling, and once they were on the road for a few years that reason slipped away too amongst the fashionista. For everyone else, this was a somewhat odd-looking vehcile whose log fuel economy seemed below that of other small cars, but it wasn’t as roomy as an Aspen, Fairmont, or Malibu wagon, all of which had rear doors, nor was it cheaper.
These are all great points. It’s the whole narrow rear seating thing that kind of negates all the proposed benefits of the Pacer’s wideness for everyone in the car. Front seat passengers feel like there’s a lot of room, but that doesn’t translate to occupants in the rear. I wouldn’t care, though – I’d tell my rear seat passengers to ride back there and like it. LOL
And yes, these were expensive. That’s always the sticking point that comes back to me. For less money, one could have a boring and much more practical hauler.
Ok, my read recollections are of the back seat of a 1977 Pacer Wagon (and for a real short time, the middle front bench seat.) My dad purchased it in 1979. and drove it till 1987 when the timing chain broke.. The rest are what my parents told me over the years.
Being a young kid at the time, the back seat was wide enough for both my slightly older sister and i, but 30 years later i still remember my legs sticking to the vinyl seats. While air conditioning may have been an option, it wasn’t on ours 🙁 When my little sister was born in 1985, we were introduced to the idea of child car seats, which wouldn’t work three across in the back. My dad added another seatbelt in the middle of the front bench seat. Let me tell you there wasn’t much cushioning there.
My mother always complained that it handled VERY poorly on slick conditions. In rain, the back tires were prone to spinning. In snow, the car tend to do donuts.
My dad often complained of the plastic interior and exterior falling apart. At one point the rear tail light fell out, and he had to go to the only AMC dealer aroudn to source a new one. He really wasn’t a real fan of the Motorcraft distributor.
I do love a Pacer, although my only experience driving one was for a month or so in high school driver’s education class. We started out the semester with a fleet of AMCs (so several Pacers, some Hornets and even a Gremlin!) before switching over to GM cars.
While I generally prefer the station wagon style of many cars, I actually prefer the non-wagon version of Pacers; although it seems that nowadays any survivors are Pacer Wagons. When the Pacer first came out, I must have been just the right age (14) to fall totally for the jellybean, Jetsons-like, fishbowl styling. To this 14 year old in 1975, this was the future. The only thing that would make a Pacer better is if it also flew…which certainly would happen “in just a few years”, I was sure.
Great find Joe. There’s nothing like a Pacer first thing in the morning to put a smile on ones face for the day.
Thanks, Jeff! I love that your perspective of these as new cars is as someone who was of the same car-crazy age I would have been when I had first started reading seriously about them, almost eight years after they were out of production. I can’t imagine taking driver’s training in a Pacer! I wonder how that driving experience would translate to once one got behind the wheel of a more conventionally designed and laid-out car.
As an enthusiast of not common cars (and not common classics) I always loved the Pacer. The unique fresh modern design, the courage for AMC to do something different appealed to me. So when I came across a V8 wagon for sale locally around 25 years ago or so, I was very interested. It was a luxury version and had the “wood” on the sides. I tried, as I always do, to make a “business” case for it, or rather, a “home-approval” case. The idea was to make it the daily run-about. However too much rust and a lumpy running engine would mean serious work to start with, and that I did not have the time for. A pity because these always have and have been pretty rare cars around here.
I really hope that Pacer wagon you looked at years ago did find a good owner. So many design elements of the Pacer seemed futuristic. When my family of origin bought an ’84 Ford Tempo, I remember noticing the aircraft-style doors that were cut into the roof. The Pacer had been doing that since early 1975.
They are a rather interesting if somewhat flawed design. I test drove a first year, stick Pacer and the best I could say was meh. It was a disappointment to me, therefore my wallet remained CLO$ED! 🙁 DFO
Dennis, maybe it’s a good thing that I haven’t actually driven one (yet). Nowadays, I don’t think I’d care. If I had all the room I needed in which to store my fantasy fleet, the lack of the Pacer’s actual sportiness would be less of an issue to me as an adult than if I was a teen shopping for secondhand wheels in the ’80s or ’90s.
Back in the late 80s, a college suite-mate of mine mentioned that his grandparents had bought him a car. I asked what kind of car. He answered, with a huff and a sigh “A Pacer”. Oh how we laughed. Well, when the car arrived it was cherry. We all went for a ride in it and all us car guys absolutely fell in love with it! We thought it was the coolest thing and spacious inside. It was a wagon, I do remember that. It really felt and rode like a big car.
I absolutely love how your friend’s Pacer ended up winning you all over. And how it was a gift from his grandparents!
Dispite my distain for most AMC products, I was always kind of fond of the Pacer. I even test drove one when they came out. It was a dog, but I liked it anyway.
Of course, when these were new, I was not a candidate for ownership. Financially speaking I had only recently graduated from 2 lfigure beaters to 3 figure beaters. I know a lot of guys that bought new rides on credit with their Army paycheck as security, but I could never bring myself to sign any kind of note so my choices were limited to whatever I could buy with cash on hand.
Our neighbor did try out a Pacer wagon, but bought a Hornet wagon instead. He liked the Pacer, but said the door were too long to open very wide in his narrow one car garage.
As a young single young, I never let practicality interfere with emotion. Being a Pacer fan, I thought his reasoning was bogus. With the benefit of hindsight, it makes more sense now.
With all the competing considerations that go into car design, I have can only imagine the many discussions and compromies that lead to eventual design features such as door length and hood shape. You can joke about cars being designed by a committee, but it is probably more truth than fiction.
My liking aside, the Pacer is probably an example of a committee that ended up off the rails.
Your ideas make sense to me. As far as the design-by-committee idea goes, I could see how during the car’s development, AMC had really tried to check *all* of the boxes – boxes people didn’t even know could be checked (i.e. the differing door lengths). They went for it with great gusto with the Pacer – so many chips were on this car.
I always try to imagine AMC products such as the Pacer or the ’74 Matador Coupe with a flat hood without hood protrusion for the headlights, the latter would be replaced by thin rectangular units. Are there any photoshop experts among you?
Quad, rectangular headlights instead of that goofy raised hood for 1978 was exactly my thoughts as well. Probably wouldn’t have improved sales all that much, but at least they would have been better.
In fact, the best would have been those short height sealed-beam rectangular headlights that were used on the 3rd generation Camaro before composite headlights took over the world.
I don’t have Photoshop (though I do have editing software), but I’m curious to know how the revised front end you describe would look. I didn’t have an issue with the raised sections of the hood that culminated in the recessed, round headlights. However, the smoothed-out front end with the rectangular, quad sealed-beams would have looked way, way better than what arrived for ’78.
I wonder – were the rectangular lights more expensive? I mean, certain U.S. cars had them from ’75 on. I wonder what the price differential would have been. AMC had no money by ’78.
I can’t imagine that a revised grille with quad, rectangular headlights would be anymore expensive than using the existing dual, round headlights with the reconfigured new grille and hood stamping that arrived for 1978.
The “semi-short”, lived used car lot, across from my “h/s” entrance had a yellow one like this on it lot for a spell.
I coveted it of course, bright yellow, spiffy wheels.
Think it disappeared during the summer I graduated. (79)
I would have been so happy with such a car, regardless of what my friends and classmates thought.
The issue as to whether the V8 fit under the earlier style hood is instantly resolved by looking at a photo of one with the hood open. The engine sits so far back that the carb is just barely ahead of the cowl. The increase of the hood in the ’78 is well forward of that. So yes, it was purely a stylistic choice, and a pretty dreadful one. But when one thinks of the terrible front ends of the Matador and Ambassador a couple of years earlier, it’s not too surprising.
Wow. So now I know for sure! The front of the ’74 Ambassador looked good to me. The ’74+ Matador sedan… not so much. As everyone knows, I love the 1974 – ’78 coupe, which I know runs counter to popular opinion.
I would say the wagon pulled off the facelift better than the terrarium coupe. Same was true of the square front Pintos.
You know what? I think you’re right. The Mercury Bobcat wagon does look less objectionable with the original front clip than the coupe – and the same could be said of the Pacer wagon (versus the coupe). Maybe the extra length out back helps balance out the thicker front look.
When I hired in to AMC in fall of 1974, they were getting ready to build the Paver. I actually welded them together for a few months till I got my apprenticeship to become an electrician. Many of us in the plant didn’t know what to make of it. I was told it was supposed to handle great with it’s wide track and short wheelbase, but it’s performance was killed by being overweight. Towards the end of it’s run I say a completed body accidentally dropped on it’s roof from three decks up. When they cleaned up the mess there was an entire wheelbarrow full of glass swept up from the floor.
This was fascinating to read – thank you for sharing your firsthand experience with these from your time in Kenosha. I can’t imagine what that sounds like and how it echoed when that Pacer dropped. I’ll bet there were glass shards found for years afterward.
I was glad that a company made something this far from the mainstream, but I did not actually like the end result. I think the 1998 Fiat Multipla was a European interpretation of the “short and wide”approach. I liked that it was unconventional, especially the first version (1998 to 2003). I don’t think it sold very well, but I liked it. Possibly wide is not as appealing on narrow roads.
The Multipla is a good comparison I woulsn’t have thought of. I think the difference with the Pacer is that they actually tried to make it look good, but just in an unconventional, new, novel way. The Multipla seemed to be deliberately styled to, I guess, not look good. But no one asked me. I’m a guy who genuinely likes the look of the AMC Pacers.
With modern design elements, the Pacer looks fine. Not so controversial, as it did in 1975. I liked the shape, when it was introduced. Like the Matador coupe, looked its best with rallye wheels. And in bright, cheerful, primary colours.
As I’ve said innumerable times here, many 1950’s through 1980’s cars would have looked significantly better, with proper wide tracks. Wheels and tires, that come out flush with wheel arches. Properly filling, their wheel wells. Design would not look frumpy, rather quite cute, and athletic. And European.
I’m with you Joseph. The original hood and grille design, was a winner. Suited the overall clean styling, much better. Foolish, what AMC did with the later nose.
Nice essay, and photos, thank you!
More 1975 era cheese for you. Thought you might enjoy, this Abba-sounding Canada only top 20 pop hit, from 1975. Written by Paul Davis. It was never released in the US, but I think it could have been a big hit in America. Missed opportunity. Patricia Dahlquist winning the Best New Artist Juneau Award for this song, in 1976. Our equivalent of the Grammy Award.
First song, on her initial album. Dahlquist, like the AMC Pacer of pop singers. lol
Thank you, Daniel. It’s sort of amazing what an improvement wheels that are flush with the body make to the overall look of the car.
And I like the Patricia Dalquist song – I had never heard it before. Do you mean the Sam’s Paul Davis who was responsible for so many great AM pop hits of the ’70s? Such a great era for music. Happy-sounding stuff.
Yes! ‘I Go Crazy’ Paul Davis. A very different sounding tune. Released, the same year.
This photo from this article illustrates poignantly the disturbing direction automotive architecture has taken over the last 40 or so years:
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IMG_20240820_103303-1977-AMC-Pacer-DL-wagon-for-CC.jpg?ssl=1
To the left is a late model Fusion or Sonata(can’t tell, they all look the same to me!) next to our subject AMC. Both the same height.
Over five decades, car beltlines (the bottom of the side windows) have gone up, and glass area has diminished, replaced by CAMERAS to aid drivers view out.
For me, the first order of safety in any vehicle is being able to SEE out of the thing. And a close second, being able to stop reasonably quickly.
Both of those things are important. And regardless of whether I’m operating a vehicle with cameras and screens, I’m always going to be checking my mirrors, etc.
I agree on the original front end – it looked better than the update. I also agree on the Hornet hatchback – I had a red ‘73 in college and loved it so much I bought another ‘73 when it got totaled by a drunk driver. Great looking car that wore the ‘73-‘74 grille better than the ‘75-‘77. The Concord rebirth definitely improved the interior to the detriment of the exterior.
The 1973 – ’74 Hornet grille just looked more natural and organic to me than the restyle, though the ’75 – ’77 look wasn’t particularly objectionable. I woild want the ’73 with the small rear bumper and exposed fuel filler door. It combined enough of the swoop of the Matador coupe with a smaller, more manageable size and the utility of that hatchback. Great looking, little coupes.
For me, Pacer’s highwater mark was 1979. It was the last year of the V8. and AMC top line flagship after the Matador was discontinued after 1978. The interiors got nicer, padded door cards, with a grab-handles on the Limited, and options previously reserved for the Matador, such as power windows became available on the Pacer. Like the writer, the station wagon gets my vote for the better design.
I did actually know about the redesigned door panels for ’79, and I thought that was an interesting development for so late in this car’s design – especially since production has ceased in August of ’79, with 1980-serialed cars being leftovers. I hadn’t thought of the idea that additional luxury components from the discontinued Matador then being able to be allocated to Pacer production, but that makes sense. I had to check my encyclopedia to see what the most expensive AMC was for ’79, and it was actually a top-line V8 Concord Limited wagon, at just under $6,900.
A friend of a friend of mine had one of these when they were new.
It was a deluxe one with woodgrain exterior trim and what I might call “Indian Blanket” interior. She seemed to love it, finding the wagon version especially handy.
A stylish, still very attractive woman in her 40’s the Pacer wagon fit into her relatively up-market lifestyle.
I tend to think the recently introduced Buick Envista would be a contemporary vehicle.
I like that upholstery that you’re talking about very much – it seems all of a piece with the styling of this car, inside and out. And I like your Envista comparison. I also think this fits.
I like the Pacer now better than I did then, and agree that the wagon is more traditionally attractive. I also agree that the original front end was far superior.
I drove one a single time. A girlfriend in law school owned one – she somehow still had it after getting a black V8 Mustang II. This was probably around 1984. My undying impression was of that big plastic ridge atop each door panel that was the same height and shape as the glass fully lowered into the door. I had the window down and was long used to resting my arm atop the door with my elbow sticking out the window – a position made impossible in the Pacer. It was like some modern cars with their realIy high belt lines that make you feel like you are sitting too far down inside. I also remember the car feeling heavy and sluggish in everything it did or everything you touched. Despite the car being a high-trim version, it held no appeal for me at all.
I love that these exist, but will save my AMC-love for a Hornet Sportabout.
JP, I think about that high door sill thing every time I rent a vehicle for travel. It’s annoying now with modern vehicles (the last Corolla I rented earlier this year had that), but in the ’70s, it would have probably driven me bananas not to be able to rest my arm on the sill.
Great article. I’ve always liked AMC products. A friend in high school drove his mom’s light green Pacer and it was great. His dad owned a 1972 Mercury Comet with a V8 and I think every option including a little consolette that had a clock. But he chose the Pacer every time.
My dad, however, didn’t like AMC at all and I never knew why. I know he rented a Gremlin one time and hated it!
Me? I’d own a Pacer wagon.
Thanks, Chip. I remember AMC being the regular target of derision by the ’80s amomg my grade school-aged cohort. I can imagine a time just ten years prior when a car like the Pacer might have been seen as unironically cool by a significant number of people, like your friend.