Some cars are immortalized in music. The cool cars, mostly. From the rockabilly classic Hot Rod Lincoln to the Beach Boys’ T-Bird (that was so Fun Fun Fun) to Prince and his Little Red Corvette. It is a pity that lesser cars did not get songs made about them, and this was true nowhere more than at American Motors Corporation. OK, technically the Rambler got its fifteen minutes of fame in the 1958 novelty hit Beep Beep (which we touched on here), but that was certainly not the vibe that the new and improved American Motors of the late 1960’s was trying for.
1970 saw the introduction of two Machines – one a car, the other in music. AMC introduced the Rebel Machine and James Brown dropped an album called “Sex Machine”. As much as AMC might have wanted there to be a connection between those two Machines, it is pretty clear that there was none.
We all know the history – American Motors was the product of a 1954 merger between Nash and a moribund Hudson, and a company that only survived because of Nash’s heroic little Rambler. When George Romney took over as head of the company, all of the Nashs and Hudsons went away and American Motors became The Rambler Company in all but its official name. Ramblers of the late 1950s and early 1960s were solid, economical, sensible cars and AM (as it was then called) sold a bunch of them. But one thing they were not – sexy.
In the mid 1960’s, pop culture was all about sex appeal. Glamour and performance became the thing that sold cars, and everyone fell all over themselves appealing to the “youth market”. Detroit begat the GTO, the Mustang, the Barracuda, the Charger, and models with designations like “Super Sport”, GT, R/T and anything else the marketers could think of. Even Plymouth got in on the act with its Road Runner. Really, if ever there was a blown opportunity for American Motors, it was the failure to capitalize on the Rambler’s image in the old Beep Beep song, that had “the little Nash Rambler” blowing off the far more powerful Cadillac – A road runner would have been a perfect mascot for that kind of car.
American Motors under Roy Abernethy was nothing if not ambitious, desiring to go after customers wherever they could be found so that his independent auto maker could run with the big dogs. Curiously, he seemed to seek the mass market to the exclusion of the youth market. The ’65 Marlin is an example – the ad copy is about the “swinging” 60’s, but can’t break free from the kind of “sensible” you could count on from Rambler. Really, you could substitute a Buick LeSabre into any of those photos and nobody would have noticed. Poor results caused Abernethy to retire in January of 1967, when he was replaced by Roy D. Chapin, Jr.
Chapin, son of Hudson founder Roy D. Chapin, saw the youth demographic as the key to the company’s recovery. In short order the company introduced performance versions of their cars, including the 1968 AMX and the cleverly named 1969 SC/Rambler. During that time the company was working on plans to turn the performance dial up to eleven with a hot, performance version of the Rebel, to be called “The Machine.
There is an internal photo from June, 1967 of a proposed 1969 version of The Machine, menacing in its dark paint and dark wheels and almost total lack of trim. For reasons that are unclear (very likely the company’s thinly-spread resources) no 1969 Machine would be built. That would be rectified in 1970, although The Machine that did get built would be a little different.
We opened with some thoughts about the music of cool American Cars. One of the most iconic albums of 1970 was not specifically about cars, but certainly had a Detroit vibe to it. That would be James Brown’s album entitled “Sex Machine”. Well, technically it was more Cincinnati (the location of King Records) than Detroit, and maybe it was more Georgia (Brown’s birthplace) than Motown, but I think Brown’s album hit the classic Motown vibe square on. The title track could be considered Brown’s anthem, with a funk beat as contagious as any virus. A shortened 5+ minute version was released in 1970 (parts 1 and 2) and zoomed to the number two spot on the R&B charts and even number 15 in the Hot 100. So, what does this song have to do with a hot AMC car from that same year? It is that Brown’s Machine was both sexy and a great success. AMC’s Machine was neither.
It was not for lack of trying on AMC’s part. First, AMC stuffed The Machine with some very credible hardware, some of which got an assist from Hearst Performance. The big 390 cid (6.4L) version of its V8 got a unique intake, special heads, larger exhaust manifolds and a 4 bbl carb fed by ram induction. This was the hottest V8 in the company’s line, generating 340 bhp @ 5100 rpm and torque of 430 ft. lbs. @3600 rpm. The Machine’s version of the 390 had a full fifteen horsepower advantage over the most powerful engine you could get in a Javelin or AMX.
AMC’s answer to the car’s suspension needs came in the low-budget use of extra stiff coil springs, including units from the Rebel station wagon in the rear, which also gave the car a butch-looking forward rake. Both front and rear sway bars were added, as was a Twin Grip differential. The package touched the ground with E60-15 white letter tires mounted to some awesome wheels. In a turnabout from most of the competition, AMC made a 4 speed manual the standard transmission. Although some sources claim that no automatic was offered, this is incorrect. A cast iron Borg-Warner M-12 (“Shift Command”) automatic was optionally available.
The 114 inch wheelbase Rebel had been a conventionally attractive car in its first three years, and this first significant refresh added a 1967-68 Mopar-style fastback hardtop roof that was not unattractive. But when even Plymouth’s new Duster sported some modern curves, The Machine (like all Rebels) looked a little more, um, Classic than was the current style. It has been said that Chrysler’s styling was three years behind that of General Motors, but here was AMC imitating a three year old Chrysler, in all it’s rectangular glory. Another throwback to 1967 was the use of the three clean-cut young guys in place of the bikini-clad girls Chrysler was draping all over its cars in the promotional shots.
The Machine was announced with great optimism in the company’s October, 1969 promotional materials to dealers. “Our goals in introducing “The Machine” are threefold …
- Help position the Rebel as an intermediate-sized car through a hot performance model rub-off.
- Improve the company’s image among young people – – the principle market for this model and for intermediate sized cars.
- Obtain a share of an over 400,000 unit muscle car segment.”
It was also announced that the first 1,000 cars to be built would be trimmed in what has become known the “25A” package – a red (tape)/frost white/electric blue paint scheme. Thereafter all 18 paint colors would be available (with a “shadow black” hood and scoop). That first 1,000 units would turn out to be over forty percent of the 2,326 units AMC would eventually build.
So what happened? The car was a credible performer, but it was not cheap for what you got. The base price was $3,475, which was more expensive than a Pontiac GTO ($3,267), a 429-powered Torino Cobra (3,270) and almost the cost of a 440-powered Plymouth GTX ($3,535). The base Road Runner coupe, in contrast, could be had for $2,896, with the hardtop only a little more ($3,034). Performance figures are a little murky, but one modern source said the car was good for a 6.8 second 0-60 and a quarter mile in 14.4 seconds at 99 mph. Those were respectable numbers for the period but not anything that would separate it from the competition.
There was also a problem in the overall muscle car market, which was beginning to implode in 1970. Road Runner production, though over 41,000, was down drastically from 1969. And considering that there were only 32,373 GTO hardtops built that year, maybe the Machine’s sales numbers weren’t too bad for something from AMC.
The most successful muscle cars had always added compelling looks to match a compelling mechanical package, and this was where this effort from AMC had a problem. The Machine would surely have done better in 1967 when the muscle segment was growing and when the Rebel’s styling was more in line with the competition. By 1970, The Machine was looking a bit old fashioned next to the quickly moving style changes coming from the big Detroit companies.
Finally, could it have been the red white and blue thing? AMC got a lot of traction out of the “American” part of American Motors, and used those colors in some fairly successful racing efforts that featured Mark Donohue driving for Roger Penske. But red, white and blue may have been more associated with Grandpa’s Pabst Blue Ribbon than it was with the kinds of cars aimed at America’s youth during the peak of the Viet Nam era, among whom the appeal of red white and blue was not universal.
Maybe it is simply that some people “got it” and other people didn’t. James Brown certainly “got it.” And his iconic “Sex Machine” performance was just James Brown being James Brown, and doing it at a really high level. AMC’s Machine, unfortunately, was not so much about AMC trying to be the best and most authentic version of itself, but about trying to be like the cool kids. Did anyone ever see The Partridge Family or The Osmond Brothers do a cover of anything by James Brown? If they did (and I doubt that it ever happened) it probably would have been as successful as this car.
But in fairness, popularity and success are not everything. Although The Machine may have more camp factor going for it than much else today, we must acknowledge that it was a serious (if flawed) contender dropped into the thick of an ebbing muscle car fad. For a company that had never managed a performance program for a sustained period and that did not have much in the way of resources to change that, The Machine was certainly nothing for its makers to be ashamed of. AMC did what it could with what it had to work with, and built a pretty fast car. If only we had celebrated the American Bicentennial in 1970. Because not even James Brown could have made this Machine sexy.
Further Reading:
An excellent find and history, thank you. That mockup/prototype from June 1967, looks fantastic. And what the production interpretation, should have more reflected. The raised stance in the rear, adds volumes to its seriousness, and masculinity. Though a production version, would obviously not be raised so much.
Like the music of Creedence Clearwater Revival, and the image of swamp rock and folk music, I think a muscle car with a home-built, grassroots, back-to-basics, look and feel would have been a strong way to go. Not this red, white and blue silliness.
When I was little, I found the styling on these Rebels/Matadors too formal. And certainly, too serious for a muscle car, entering the ’70s. Why I loved, the so ’70s 1974 Matador. It pushed the envelope of style and individuality, if not as practical.
Between the red, white and blue color scheme, and the too serious styling and image, these seemed super nerdy to me back then. I’d be embarrassed to be seen in it, compared to what the other domestics were putting out. Maybe, I misunderstood them? But how can this be seen as anti-establishment?
I never for a moment, thought The Osmonds were cool back then. But I was admittedly impressed by ‘Crazy Horses’, when I came across it. Contrived, but a pretty cool song for 1972.
That promo shot with the copper car in the foreground makes me wonder how these might have fared without the red/white/blue color scheme. That copper paint with the blackout hood conveys more of the menacing look to go with the car’s performance capabilities. A solid color like that one really changes the whole vibe of the car.
I agree with you on the 1969 version. Also, it occurs to me that the styling went backwards between 1969 and 1970 on the hardtops. I like the 70+ hardtops, but in the same way I like 68 Chrysler and Plymouth Scamp hardtops – they are a little sporty but in a conservative way. The 1969 car had more curves in its shape and was probably more in tune with the styles of the time.
The copper colour is an improvement, but it remains a still somewhat pretty serious colour. Bold and highly graphic was the way Chrysler went. Made The Machine look like an undercover police car. lol
These Machines, didn’t have a strong ’70s look. More like remnants of the ’60s. Muscle cars were meant to be in-your-face. Like the Boss 302 and 351. Bright colours and strong modern graphics. Besides the silly, red, white and blue, The Machine graphics are not bold and modern. They say ‘County Fair 1966’
Yes, the Donohue Racing paint schemes, and the track Javelin had an excellent, very bold 1970s look. In stark contrast to The Machine. There was a significant transition in pop culture happening, and the Machine’s image, was tied to the past.
AMC executives should have went to Woodstock. lol
And the Crazy Horses video is great – I have never heard this before. It is kind of a perfect analog to the Rebel Machine. No matter how good the music, it was still the Osmonds. Cool people were never going to be caught listening to it, but it wasn’t going to appeal to Osmond fans because it was so off their normal sound.
Yes, I think ‘Crazy Horses’ made a lot of Osmond fan heads explode. lol
Crazy Horses = The Osmonds channeling Aerosmith.
The black prototype was WAY ahead of its time. So much so that it might have been rejected buy consumers back then for the wild colors like Chrysler had. Now you see all kinds of cars with mat black wraps and black wheels, from Dodge Challengers to Mercedes, with owners trying to make them look more sinister. It would be cool for someone to find a ’67 Rebel and recreate that car, mechanically as well as cosmetically.
Re: “Sex Machine”
A fun game is trying to find as many circumstances to say “can we hit it and quit it?” in everyday life. I’ve been doing that for years.
You’ve also cleared something up for me, JP. Every once in a while I’ll see a Machine that isn’t red, white, and blue, and I’ll wonder what that’s all about. For much of my life, I thought they were all done in that color scheme, kind of like the SC/Rambler.
FWIW, there was also a bit more subdued, alternate color scheme available for the 1969 SC/Rambler:
This may be the first one of these I have ever seen in person, and I knew virtually nothing about them when I snapped these pictures. I thought the same thing you did about the red/white/blue color treatment.
Hi J P,
I came across this on a group I am in on FB. This is my car and glad you liked it!
Aaron65, has anyone ever gone ‘ah-whomp! bomp! bomp! bomp! bomp!’ in response?
Sadly, not yet!
The Rebel/Matador was burdened with a rear quarter window (and greenhouse) design, that was very much associated with the late ’60s.
Chrysler gave the ’71 Charger a ’60s-style rear quarter window. I thought it was a mistake. Looked out of place, with the rest of the ’70s styling, dating the look. Later, replaced with a rear quarter window shape associated more with the ’70s. Less serious-looking, as well.
You could say, AMC made the same mistake with the Gremlin. A ’60s style rear quarter window. When the AMC Spirit Kammback, is more of a true 1970s look.
Even more in line with AMC’s being late to the party is the styling of the 1974 Matador coupe. By that time, everyone else had effectively moved on from the sixties’ fastback theme, with upright ‘formal’ rear window versions being the big sellers.
Yet, here was good ‘ole AMC and their ‘radical’ new Matador coupe. It was a major seventies’ styling blunder, possibly eclipsed only by the Pacer debacle.
Yes, AMC could not afford that financial gamble. Even though, it gained them a lot of favourable press for a few months, to a year. It was a large long term mistake. In ’74, I did find them a breath of fresh air.
That Charger is a shape that seems to be very sensitive to colour. In a light colour that pillar is like a magnet for the eye, and reads as huge. In a dark colour however…
Very nice work! You’re right, this attractive purple gives it a more modern, and menacing look, than a lighter colour. And makes the C pillar look quite strong here. I love the detailing, I can actually see the wood trim on the passenger door.
“In a turnabout from most of the competition, AMC made a 4 speed manual the standard transmission.”
With the exception of the 1968-69 Road Runner/Super Bee, it’s true that most GM and Ford musclecars came with a 3-speed, although they were typically upgraded to an extra-cost 4-speed or heavy-duty automatic. I ‘think’ that the 1969 Fairlane Cobra might have gotten a standard 4-speed for that car’s inaugural year, too, though.
IDK about 1970, but by 1971, Chrysler went to a base 3-speed, too. The recent CC on the 1972 Duster even mentions that it was extra-cost to get the 3-speed on the floor instead of the column.
As to The Machine, the June, 1967 date of the prototype image makes me want to know how much AMC executives knew about the upcoming 1968 Road Runner. It’s worth noting that even Chrysler was unsure about how successful the Road Runner would be and were quite taken aback when they ended up building 10x the amount they thought they could sell that first year. Since they sold twice that number the following year (making the Road Runner the top selling musclecar, ahead of the Chevelle SS396 and the GTO which, for the first time, was not #1 and dropped down to third place), it goes without saying that AMC really missed a golden opportunity with at least a Machine for 1969 (if not sooner).
By 1970, the musclecar market was quickly dying (mostly due to exorbitant insurance surcharges) and, as pointed out, the 1970 Rebel didn’t come off nearly as well as the previous model. Simply put, they just missed the boat, although the decision to go with the compact musclecar 1969 SC/Rambler might have been the reason there wasn’t an earlier Rebel Machine.
Likewise, the red, white, and blue paint schemes AMC was favoring at the time might have been a tactical error. This was the height of the counter-culture period and those patriotic colors might have been viewed as way too establishment for the youth market. Chrysler’s wild high-impact colors were more in tune with America’s psychedelic taste of the time.
Ironically, both GM and Ford would embrace patriotic red, white, and blue color editions in the mid-seventies to take advantage of the upcoming bicentennial. There’s would seem to have been much better timing than AMC.
Don’t forget Delbert McClinton’s homage to the “Lay-Down Rambler” in “B Movie Boxcar Blues” — which my generation knows via the Blues Brothers.
James Brown was not Motown; think Supremes, Four Tops, Temptations. Motown cultivated a squeaky clean image, to make it suitable for the whitest of white folks too. Not JB.
Agreed that the ’67-’69 Rebel was a better design than the ’70+, which looked boxy and out of touch. And yes, the red, white and blue treatment was all kinds of wrong in 1970, after Kent State and such. If you wanted to target Oakies from Muskogees, yes. And maybe they were…
Motown could get down and gritty when they wanted to, as with the Jr. Walker track below which could easily pass for a Stax track. By the end of the 1960s Motown records trended towards funkier sounds with more socially-conscious lyrics, giving artists like Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder more creative control over their own records, as well as bringing in songwriter/producer Norman Whitfield to update the sound of the Temptations and others acts with edgier material. Songs like “Psychedelic Shack”, “Ball of Confusion”, and “War” were a long way removed from the sappier, sweeter, more polished mid-’60s Motown output. But yeah, “make it suitable for the whitest of white folks” was a central aspect of Motown’s appeal up to that point.
Seems like every time leadership changed at AMC, the new guy had a brilliant idea about how to make the company viable and/or profitable. In hindsight, that makes the company’s history look like a rudderless ship.
I will forever contend that the only true genius to run AMC was Roy D. Chapin Jr., who made the brilliant decision to buy Jeep from Kaiser in 1970. Without that move, AMC would have been extinct much sooner.
Looking at the pictures of the two Machines in different color schemes, the copper vehicle has a far more powerful and menacing look about it. If AMC wanted to go with the red, white and blue image they should have borrowed the scheme from their Javelins, that was far more effective in my estimation. Also, it was introduced in 1970 just as the super car market imploded thanks in large part to the insurance companies boosting the insurance premiums on the super cars so much most buyers couldn’t afford one.
And last in 1970, the performance market starting switching to compact vehicles personified by the Plymouth Duster 340, which sold like crazy-around 32,000 or so if memory serves me right. AMC should have dropped the 360 in their Hornet instead, that would have probably so much better.
AMC did exactly that with their final, one-year-only musclecar, the 1971 SC/360 Hornet.
The trouble was, the first generation Hornet was a boxy, Rambler-looking 2-door sedan with a formal rear window. Sporty, it was not.
Then, when the much better looking Hornet hatchback arrived, well, the 360 option was dropped and the biggest engine that could be had in the Hornet by then was the weak-sauce 304-2v. A pity, because the 360-4v would have been right at home in the Hornet hatchback and definitely would have given the Mopar A-body a good run.
All of AMCs performance cars except the Javelin AMX were practically one off orphans; the SC/Rambler -1969 only, the Rebel Machine 1970-barely 71 (as Matador) 1970, SC360 1971 only. By the time the latter arrived, even if buyers could get past it’s looks, it’s rightfully assumed it’ll just be another one year only novelty package before AMC drops support, yet again.
The supercar market was one of reputation and bragging rights, GTO was a name, Roadrunner was a name, Mach 1 was a name, SC/Rambler, Machine, SC360 werent. By the time anyone got beat by one at a stoplight by one of these wondering what the heck that patriotically colored flash was the model was out of production for the next novelty package.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler had all developed solid engineering credentials which had taken decades to establish. AMC? Their reputation was for building boring small cars. They had one shot (the 1957 Rambler Rebel) but that was just another, short-lived one-year wonder. Inexplicably, the Rebel’s 327 engine was dropped from the Rebel the very next year, replaced by a 250 CI unit, with the 327 going into the bigger, heavier Ambassador. This engine lasted thru 1967.
AMC’s second, new ‘thin-wall’ V8 came out in 1966. But this was years after the Big 3 had introduced lighter engines with this new casting method. It wasn’t a bad engine, but it wasn’t anything special, either.
AMC’s legacy was one of building small, frugal cars. It’s tough to convince buyers that they could build musclecars at the same performance level of the Big 3 with that kind of history.
There was silver one of these ((assume it was a repaint)) at a car show/cruise my brother went too , (years ago now)
I remember him mentioning it was well maintained. I thought them a way to continue that “hopped up , American model”, that went away after “1969”.
Our small “western PA” town had two of those roaming the roads then. ((2 of the American’s))
Photo summarizes AMC’s muscle car lineage. The Javelin looks supersonic, compared to the others. SC/Rambler looks homemade.
What a terrific collection of AMC’s performance offerings nearing the end of the musclecar era. The SC/Rambler, Rebel Machine, and SC/360 Hornet were all just souped-up Ramblers and all reminiscent of the old 1963 Studebaker ‘Super Lark’. A ‘hot’ Rambler or Studebaker definitely seems like an oxymoron.
And the comment of the SC/Rambler looking ‘homemade’ is actually spot on, since that’s exactly how it was concocted, with a couple highlights being the aftermarket Sun tachometer radiator-hose-clamped to the steering column (from the factory), and the multi-color headrests atop the base Rambler front bench seat.
It’s not my work, found at Pinterest, but it is a very telling comparison image. As you suggested, the SC/Rambler, Rebel Machine, and SC/360 Hornet, don’t look very convincing as super cars. 🙂
Yeah, the middle three look like they were created via a JC Whitney catalog.
In fact, the awful blue color of the SC/Rambler’s steelies appear as if they were rattle-can spray painted in someone’s backyard.
Really, AMC’s musclecars weren’t that bad. If only they didn’t try so hard with all the loud tapestripes and paint. It smacked of desperation.
Lol Indeed, the SC/Rambler and Rebel Machine, look especially amateurish, in their paint, and graphics treatment. A genuine challenge to make stodgy, conservatively-styled cars, look overtly masculine. Near-impossible, in this case.
How about Saucilito Summernight by Diesel? They left for Frisco in the Rambler, the radiator running dry…..
A classic case of a car introduced to the market 3 years too late. I’m fairly certain that had they pulled all the stops and got the 1st version out in 1967 it would have been a lot more successful.
Fun Fact:
The song Little Red Corvette was inspired during a nap Prince took in band mates Wendy Melvoin 1964 Mercury Montclair Marauder.
Jalopnik story link below.
jalopnik.com/everybody-was-wrong-about-the-car-that-inspired-princes-1772882304&ved=2ahUKEwj87rLM3uz_AhUFjYkEHRNRA9UQFnoECDsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0k7lsC_3dFalFUgRFoHcgO