Rambler succeeded on the strength of its practical and staid compact sedans and wagons. Yes, the very first Rambler was a convertible sedan, but that soon grew a solid steel roof. And in 1961, the American 440 dropped its top, the first convertible Rambler. But the mainstay Rambler Classic and Ambassador kept their staid hats on. For that matter, they never had two door hardtop coupes either until 1964.
But in 1965, part of AMC’s new strategy to compete with the Big Three across the board, the first Classic 770 convertible appeared. Less than 5,000 of these ’65s were made, and 1,806 of the similar ’66 model. That was the end of the road for that experiment.
Eric Clem found and shot this veritable Rambler unicorn sitting at the curb on a beautiful summer day, just begging to be taken out for an early evening spin.
These were tough times at AMC, as market share was falling after the long and very successful climb to its peak years in 1960-1962. The whole mission of the company, which had been so laser-sharp on compacts, was now diffused. AMC simply didn’t have what it took to compete stylistically and otherwise with the Big Three. What convertible would you have bought in 1965? A boxy Rambler Classic or a hot and stylish new Mustang? Over 100,000 buyers picked the latter that year.
You have to wonder just who did buy a Classic convertible. It most likely wasn’t the classic die-hard Rambler buyer. Or maybe there were five thousand of them who were ready to live a little after the kids who grew up in the back of a 1950s Rambler wagon had left home. Rambler buyers in the ’50s weren’t necessarily constrained financially; they were drawn to the practical size and features of the more compact Rambler. Now a few of them might have indulged themselves. Emphasis on the “few”.
This one does not have the optional bucket seats, console and floor shift. So maybe its first owner wasn’t quite ready to make that big of a leap from their well-worn Classic wagon.
But they did spring for one of the optional V8s (287 or 327) and automatic. And it’s got spinners on the wheel covers. But I don’t see those in the brochure. Aftermarket?
In any case, this is a terrific find, and a great addition to our growing list of Rambler and AMC cars we’ve covered to date.
Ive never seen a ragtop Rambler Classic in the metal and I like it the sedan was a pretty good car nowdays I’d take that over a Mustang the pony was cool when we couldnt get them easily but now they are as common as Falcons
For the first time ever, I have noticed a little styling oddity on this car. The front corners are sort of softly rounded off (like Fords of the early 60s) yet the back corners have a strong crease and a sharp corner highlighted by the chrome strip like a 60s Lincoln. To me, the car begs for that rear end treatment to carry forward to the front, but there is a kind of transition between the soft undefined front and the formal rear somewhere in the middle of the doors.
I don’t know how much cross-pollination there was between AMC and Stude buyers back then, but for those who did, 1965 was the first year since 1958 that there had been no Studebaker convertible. Also, 1965 was a record-breaking sales year that saw holdover mid-sizers all across the big 3, so the freshly restyled Rambler had the segment to itself as a really new model. The big 3 intermediates were newly styled for 1966, giving the Rambler a lot stiffer competition.
I think a model of this car had to have been on display in the Lincoln styling studio when the big 1974 Continental was designed. They are both similar boxy shapes with chrome tipped fender blades, the bumpers both bulge out at the ends to mimic the shape of the wrap around tail lights. The biggest difference is that Lincoln used near full width tail lights with the license plate between them. I think that it is a testament to good styling that Lincoln pulled off cribbing a design that was nearly ten years old and nobody called them on it or thought it looked dated.
I meant to say that the rear of both cars were very similar, not the whole cars.
Funny, that rear 3/4 shot made my mind go right to a Mercedes-Benz fintail.
And, are those chrome handles at the center seatback for a reclining feature? They sure would serve to impale an unbelted rear seat passenger in the slightest collision episode.
I was wondering about that chrome thingy between the seat backs myself. It kinda looks like something the owner stashed there instead of a part of the car, but I’ll be danged if I know what it is.
Open the pic in a new tab, then click to enlarge: that’s the front seatbelts.
I once read that the front fenders of the Falcon were rounded to facilitate front visibility. Is it possible the same was true of the Rambler Classic, as well as the pointy rear quarters to judge rear distance when backing?
Maybe not the most cohesive styling moves, but certainly ‘Rambler-practical’.
The back half looks very 1965 to me, fits right into the boxy mould Ford and Chrysler adopted on their full sizers that year, the soft front end is where it seems disconnected and out of date. It’s no 65 Pontiac Tempest by miles, but that was the supermodel of the category, when compared to the compact-intermediate designs from the Ford and Chrysler camps the Classic holds its own, the 65 Ford Fairlane wasn’t exactly anything worth gushing over and it like the Classic was even a fresh reskin.
The Rambler Classic did outsell the Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite and Dodge Coronet in 1965. The Plymouth was the least popular midsize car in 1965.
The Classic wasn’t even that far behind the Ford Fairlane (223,954 sales versus 199,063 sales).
The problem for AMC was that Classic (and later Rebel) sales would continue to drop during the 1960s, even as the segment grew in popularity. For 1967, an extensive restyle, along with a new rear suspension and a new name, weren’t enough to stop the slide. The corporation was almost bankrupt by early 1967.
Talk about plain and boxy, the 64 65 Chevelle had no style. Just butt ugly.
Nice essay about this little known or seen Rambler. I have seen them when I was a youth. Maybe I should have bought one back then instead of my Dodge Coronet two-door sedan.
The brochure picture of the red convertible struck me as odd, the way the background is flying by, but the wheels appear static. Made me kinda go “Wankawankawanka.”
I spent many days in a turquoise 1965 Rambler wagon – way back, being one of the big kids. So I know the styling of this car as any car-loving kid would, at a 4 foot height.
The difference between the rounded front end and the sharp rear end was very noticeable. The wrap-around tail lights were very modern. The interior was attractive, and the radio was mounted vertically. It hauled eight kids and two mothers on day trips to Indiana, Dairy Queen, visits with grandparents, stops at parks, filling stations and grocery stores.
The wagon was still going strong five years later when it was totaled at an intersection one night by a drunk driver who flew through the stop sign, t-boned another car, and shoved them both through the front end of the Rambler. My aunt was driving and she was hurt, but not as badly as the drunks and the poor guy they struck. No deaths, fortunately. It happened at one of the many busy intersections found in industrial Cook county Illinois, at the corner where the school pizza factory, the Sears paint manufacturer, the Calumet steel plant and the train car manufacturer buildings met. There were about twenty train crossings there too.
It was replaced by a 1971 AMC Rebel wagon, also a shade of green. Unfortunately, it was definitely not as good a vehicle as the old 1965 had been.
1965 was the year that my Dad actually totalled his ’63 Rambler wagon, outside our motel room in Catonsville, MD…we were moving out of our house in Catonsville as my Dad changed jobs and we were relocating (did a lot of that in his younger days). It was actually the 2nd of 2 Rambler wagons he owned in a row, he also had a ’61 he bought new (not sure why he traded it so early on the ’63, he usually kept cars more than 2 years) that was bought in Compton, Ca. The ’63 was replaced by a new ’65 F85 wagon he bought near his new job in South Burlington, Vt.
I’ll echo the “seems odd” comments about the Rambler convertible, since they seemed to be sold to the no-frills crowd (not that a convertible is necessarily flashy but they tend to be). My Dad really didn’t fit either category, though his first car was a stripper ’56 Plymouth Plaza he also bought new, he was just starting his career, though he never really bought an outright luxury car, he did buy some more pedestrian models that were well equipped. The Olds was replaced by a ’69 Ford Country Squire which was otherwise pretty plain, but it did have the 351 and disk brakes. The Squire replaced by a ’73 Country Sedan which had lots more options (first air conditioning, first power locks, first AM/FM stereo). Though he eventually owned similarly equipped cars later on (as options became standard) his peak was probably his ’78 Chevy Caprice Classic wagon, it had the 305, but was pretty much loaded, it was the only car he bought out of the showroom (Shearer Chevrolet in South Burlington).
The Ramblers were nice, but kind of a stepping stone to nicer cars he was eventually to own. They did have automatics (my Mother has just stopped driving this year, and even though she learned on a semi-automatic 1951 Chrysler Windsor, she has never been comfortable with manual transmission, which the ’56 Plymouth had (my parents hadn’t even met when my Dad bought it). When my sister and I came along (twins) the wagon became the go-to bodystyle, which only ended in 1984 when the ’78 Caprice wagon was hit, and replaced by (disaster) ’84 Pontiac Sunbird.
Wouldn’t mind an AMC…for me though, a Hornet or Concord, to get past the trunions. Kind of wish I’d bought one back when they were new.
Nice crisp styling .
-Nate
It’s worth noting the 100k Mustang convertibles Ford was able to move in 1965 since it was both the peak annual volume and also as a percentage (~20%) of the entire line for any car.
I’d be curious what came in second in number built and as a percentage of a line that also included hard roof models. Couldn’t venture a guess on the former, but I’d think the latter was some model year Corvette after 1963 when they had both versions.
From what I’ve read, the Mustang convertible accounted for a much higher percentage of total production than was normal for a domestic car.
I’m guessing that Cadillac would be pretty high up there. For 1965, Cadillac production totaled 182,435 cars, of which 21,325 were convertibles (sold in both De Ville and Eldorado trim levels). That was roughly 11.6 percent of total production.
Looking at the Rambler 770 from today’s perspective, it reminds me somewhat of Mercedes vehicles in the early 70’s. The styling is bland but compared especially with the intermediates of 1965 from GM, Ford and Chrysler it was totally overshadowed-not even competitive. The youth market was in full swing in 1965 with the Pontiac GTO and Ford Mustang; with only about 5,000 sold I’m guessing they all went to AMC fans who wanted to project a slightly sportier appearance.
My guess would be Rambler was picking up Studebaker buyers who were wary of their impending demise.
That’s the way it was back then: the biggest increases in sales for smaller manufacturers was when one of the independents went belly-up.
Another great AMC article! Thanks! Just a little correction that the Classic/Ambassador wasn’t offered in a 2 door hardtop until the 1964 model year…and then sported a very nice roofline! (A ‘breadbox’ American hardtop was offered in ’63!)
Some critics of American Motors under Ralph Abernathy’s leadership was that he wanted to compete with the Big 3 (think of the vertical headlamps on the ’65-68 Ambassadors and the larger wheelbase of the Ambassador starting in ’65, although that had been a Nash trait prior). Would AMC have been better off to stay focused on the compact segment? Maybe.
Good catch. Fixed now.
The question is does staying focused on the compact segment mean the American only? The Classic(soon to be Rebel) were as much descendants of the original Rambler as the American was, both were smaller than the Detroit full sizers, even with the long nosed Ambassadors derived off them they still were more or less.
I don’t think AMC had much chance for survival regardless, the compact and midsize niche was entrenched by the big three by 1965, with Ford just releasing the most popular and iconic American compact car ever. Romney was exactly right that more modest sized cars were the future, but that future didn’t involve AMC – perhaps that soul searching he did contemplating his leap out of the automotive sphere and into politics came to that inevitable conclusion. Bringing back the Ambassador as a “full sized” car and the Marlin were the prime examples of deviating from the Rambler formula, but they were extremely modest in execution, with an extended nose ahead of the firewall, and a fastback roof on the existing Classic respectively. Neither of those things could have cost that much, at least not enough to use in a meaningful way elsewhere. The Javelin/AMX were taking on the big three ponycars, but that’s a niche AMC née Rambler would have been natural in from the start.
AMC convertibles arrived just in time to bask in the final greatest sales year the industry would ever experience for convertibles. From there, it was all downhill for even the most popular makes. More than just the availability of air conditioning, heavy urban traffic, polluted air, vulnerability to crime and vandalism and a costlier upkeep conspired to spoil the appeal of ownership. .
Rambler convertibles, like Studebakers, were an anomaly sold to a segment of buyers with seemingly contradictory objectives: practical transportation with a dash of frivolous enjoyment all in one car. It was something of the outlook of the pre-war low-priced convertible buyers who would pay the extra price just for occasions when the opportunity to cruise in their open car arose, taking whatever small pleasures they could when they could. Even as ultra-conservative as Nash management was in the 1930’s nevertheless fielded convertibles every model year through 1941.
The mix of soft-shoulder front with rectilinear rear of the Classic might have taken inspiration from the 1963-’64 Buick Electras which have a similar theme. The 1965-’66 Ambassador comes off better being consistently rectilinear, and with a four inch longer dash- to-front-axle displays more pleasing proportions. Abernethy’s drive to challenge the Big Thee, foolhardy and doomed as it was, produced some unique models such as these convertible and the ‘luxury’ DPL models that were very un-Rambler-like.
The last convertible to be badged “Rambler” was the 1967 Rebel. The company’s last convertibles (until the Alliance) were the ’68 Rebel and Ambassador, but the Rambler name was dropped from the Rebel that year.
I like the looks of these but trunnion front suspension, vacuum windshield wipers, and torque-tube rear were obsolete even at the time. A plus is that you could order front power disc brakes and the Twin-Stick transmission available for 1965 was kind of neat, and of course the reclining front seats were an unusual feature on a domestic car.
The spinners, by the way, are a factory accessory that can be installed on the standard Rambler wheel covers. I had a set years ago.
Great point about Rambler buyers. George Mason’s great insight was that small cars didn’t have to be cheap cars, and from the start, Ramblers were well equipped and trimmed, and commanded a price premium. Hudson and Willys got that too, but the former wound up with horrendous proportions and the latter lacked the dealer network and money Nash had.
The Ford Mustang convertibles’ sales may haved dwarfed the Rambler but there is no comparison in terms of rear seat usability, trunk space or rarity
Back in the day (the late 1970s), one of my high school buddies had one of these. Of course, it wasn’t his first choice and if he’d had more money he would have bought something more sporty. Convertibles were unusual and rare in the northern state where we lived. The car was more than 10 years old and the biggest problem with it was that the floor was rusting out and it had holes in it. If he drove through a puddle you got wet, and by the time he got rid of the car the holes had gotten so big, if you sat in the back seat you had to consciously hold your feet above the holes or you risked scraping your feet on the moving pavement below. Ah, good times.
Bought my Rambler Classic drop top 18 years ago, was also looking at a 67 Pontiac Tempest. The amc was 1500 less and in slightly better condition. The Pontiac had a auto tranny and a 326 v-8. I wanted a 6 cylinder and a 3 speed manual. Dependable and easy to work on, this does have power steering and am radio that’s it. Black paint outside red interior. The car seems more popular every year. Still like the looks though a little more leg room would be nice. Put new shocks on this winter but still leans quite a bit in the turns. The 232 straight 6 is a good engine.
I have a a 65 Classic convertible like the one shown, except for having a white top and blue interior. Mine also has factory air conditioning. So many comments about the boxy styling. I think it’s much better looking than a 64 or 65 Chevelle.