(First posted 1/25/2014, now with a number of revisions and additions to make it even…uncooler, if that’s possible)
Life was simpler in the early-mid sixties. It was easy to know what was cool and what wasn’t, unlike in today’s very fragmented world. Or maybe it’s still just as easy and I’m showing my age. Back then we all watched the same TV shows and movies, heard the same music, and we just knew what was cool, and what wasn’t. And nothing backfired worse than the uncool trying to fake coolness, like AMC did with the 1965 Rambler Marlin.
At the time, Ramblers were the epitome of un-coolness. They were driven by the spinster librarian who smelled like moth balls and the grumpy old skinflint who lived around the corner and wouldn’t open his door on Halloween (but we showed him; eggs on his Rambler!).
Or even worse, they were driven by your parents, because they were too cheap to buy a 421 Tri-Power ’63 Pontiac Bonneville Safari wagon with which to take you to the family yacht. No; instead, you were forced to ride in a crowded, hot Rambler wagon with sticky clear plastic seat covers to a scummy pond. We kids all knew the truth: Ramblers blow! And not just because their stupid sixes blew a distinctive nasal farting sound from their straw-sized exhaust pipes as they struggled to increase their speed.
Coolness was obvious and self evident. Just like it was when it came to Kennedy and Nixon. You either had it or you didn’t.
Need I say more?
But if it’s really necessary, how about this: Could you imagine Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Rambler Marlin?
The 1963 Corvette Sting Ray had coolness in spades. And its fastback, the first on an American car in a long while, quickly became iconic, like the Beatles’ haircuts. Everybody else wanted one too.
Fastback-coolness got another big boost with the XK-E as well as on the movie screens in 1964. Oh, the Europeans have been doing this for a while? No wonder we embraced the British invasion.
In the wake of the Sting Ray’s tail, the 1965 Plymouth Barracuda led the charge of the fastback me-too’s. Its giant fish-bowl rear window was a pretty blatant blow-up of the Sting Ray’s. Was it cool? Well, sort of, yeah; like being the first kid at school to grow their hair long, even if he wasn’t really all that good looking, wore boring clothes, and would never be mistaken for John or Paul. And as soon as others did the same thing, everyone quickly forgot about him.
The 1965 Mustang notchback coupe was the closest thing to being the automotive Beatles. It created a mania across the land, even though its actual buyers were a few years older than the screaming and fainting girls at a Beatles concert (and who were not wearing hats!). It really was new—or at least looked new to us—and therefore was the real deal. For the first year or two, anyway.
So adding a fastback on the Mustang was a bit of overkill, but why not? The more coolness, the merrier, as the Stones soon found out.
The hairy bad-boy Shelby GT 350 version did rather evoke a certain rock-music counterpart, even if he preferred a fastback from the home country.
A youthful thirty-six year-old Dick Teague arrived at AMC in 1959, and took charge of its design studios in 1961. In 1963, obviously aware of the Sting Ray’s impact and almost certainly aware of the Barracuda’s development, Teague started cranking out some drawings for what became the Tarpon concept. Neither of these early designs showed the way to the final Tarpon and eventual Marlin, and frankly, that seems a mistake. Both of these designs had more promise; the left foreshadowed GM’s Colonnades, and the right looked rather 1967 Barracuda-ish.
Here is AMC stylist Chuck Mashigan with the final Tarpon design, based on Teague’s new 1964 Rambler American. This picture also shows off the Tarpon’s problem from the get-go: an awkward profile, to put it delicately. Rambler’s dogged adherence to practical priorities were at work here, making sure that there was full-height rear seat headroom. That forced the roof line to stay horizontal for way too long, and the overly-long extended rear side windows only added to this set of issues. Sorry, this is not cool.
And of course, the Tarpon suffered the same problem as the Barracuda: it was all-too obviously just a Rambler American with a new roof. Same stubby hood, tall cowl, upright windshield, and dorky, old man designer standing in front of it. Definitely not cool.
It was infinitely cooler to be jammed into a crowded little rear seat under a real fastback with limited headroom and no side windows. We were young and limber, you know, and cramming ourselves into cars was; well, you guessed it.
The Tarpon was shown at the 1964 Society of American Engineers Auto Show, and it elicited a reaction consistent with the times: favorable, and something to even reach out and touch. But this was hardly a throng of screaming and fainting girls; more like engineering geeks who probably listened to the Kingston Trio or the Dukes of Dixieland. In 1964, a fastback—any fastback—got some attention, even if it wasn’t quite the real thing.
But Dick Teague was proud of his fishy baby, and wanted badly to see it go into production, seeing how Rambler was decidedly weak in the youth market, except perhaps with young families busy with too many kids on their hands to think about being cool. What better way to break the stodgy image that had come to be associated with Rambler, and to give the coming Barracuda and Mustang some competition?
Admittedly, the Tarpon looked a bit better when not in full profile, and its distinctive tail did have some real character, even if it didn’t have a trunk opening. There’s that Rambler split personality disorder at work again: rear headroom galore, but no trunk opening.
Now this is where the Tarpon story starts to really smell. AMC didn’t have a V8 that would fit between the American’s narrow, tall spring-shock towers. The old AMC 327 V8 was a big, wide hunk of cast iron, and AMC’s new compact V8 family was still a couple of years away.
How about an alloy OHC head on that excellent all-new 232 six that arrived for 1964? Or just a bit of performance tuning? For that matter, ditch the me-too fastback altogether, and spend the money on the American’s suspension, brakes and steering, and turn it into a real road machine, like IKA did with the Rambler American-based Torino 3800 in Argentina. Cars that handled well and looked honest were a path to genuine coolness. Ask BMW or Pontiac.
But AMC’s new boss Roy Abernethy was no John DeLorean, and had other ideas. After he took over, he was determined to get away from the economy-compact-centric image of AMC and go mano-a-mano against the Big Three. Why the hell he thought that an oversized fastback was a key part of that strategy is anybody’s guess. So the Tarpon’s fastback was lifted from the American’s body on to the bigger Classic, which had room for the hoary and heavy 327 in its wider engine bay.
Teague was unhappy enough about having to stretch the Tarpon’s fastback over the bigger Classic because Abernathy insisted on a six seater, no less. But then Abernethy added insult to injury when he ordered that the production Marlin’s roof be raised one inch while Teague was away in Europe, because at 6’3,″ he insisted on being comfortable in every AMC rear seat, even those of “sporty” fastbacks! An unfortunate—and equally disastrous— replay of Chrysler president K.T. Keller’s insistence in the early post-war years that he be able to wear a fedora in his cars, with room to spare.
Here’s that extra inch, rising awkwardly above the top of the Marlin’s windshield and side glass, unlike the clean roof of the American or Tarpon concept. Idiot! Can you imagine that happening nowadays, overriding your V.P. of Design while he was on vacation? And you wonder why AMC went down the tubes (or speculate endlessly how it might not have)? Good luck with that.
Of course the Marlin is madly cool and hip now, as is everything that was un-cool then, like Falcons and early Valiants and fedoras. But in 1965, we were not fooled; not even the slightest.
The Marlin’s affected fastback sitting on the boxy Rambler Classic was the equivalent of Richard Nixon letting his hair grow long and saying, “Peace, baby!”
Not surprisingly, the Marlin was a dead fish from day one. First year sales barely cracked 10k. Meanwhile, some half-million Mustangs were sold to screaming and fainting Americans in its first year.
And the first year was the Marlin’s high water mark; 1966 sales shriveled to a bit over 4k. Oh well; it seemed like a good idea, a mid-sized six-seater fastback. But Abernathy wasn’t done yet: let’s make the Marlin even bigger! Brilliant.
For 1967, the Marlin’s “wig” got to sit on the Ambassador’s new longer head and body. Actually, for what it’s worth, it looked slightly better than the ’65-’66, especially in profile. But nobody cared: only 2,545 Marlins were sold in 1967 before the big dead fish was tossed overboard (1967 Marlin CC here; it overlaps this one partially).
Part of the problem with the Marlin was that it made such little effort to disguise its Classic-ness (not to be confused with classiness). The whole front clip was unchanged, as was the rest of the car except for the roof and tail.
The 1966 Dodge Charger wanted to play in the fastback band too. It least it got a distinctive front grille with disappearing headlights, another cool fad thanks to the Sting Ray. The Charger’s fastback was a bit faster then the Marlin’s too, although that still didn’t make it a success, except in comparison to the Marlin.
And then there were those prominent R A M B L E R badges everywhere: The kiss of death, which was finally dropped for 1966, when AMC became the brand instead. Not that it would really have made a difference in 1965.
There was also the matter of the interior, which again was all-Classic, except for the Ambassador’s round gauges and that huge Marlin badge on the dash, to perpetually remind you that there really was a difference from the otherwise identical Classic hardtop coupe, except for the view in the rear view mirror and the 27% premium paid for the privilege. That amounted to almost $700, or over $5,000 in today’s money; a really expensive bad wig.
No, these are not the bucket seats all the cool cars had, which was another colossal blunder (buckets were optional). But there was, of course, one redeeming feature: the seats folded down into a glorious love den. Every kid who scored a date despite Dad’s bad choice of cars, and managed to take advantage of the girl seats, forever gave Ramblers a bit of grudging respect.
Yes, the Marlin was “the big, bold brand-new car for swingers”. All six of them. Too bad they only bought one Marlin between them; no wonder Marlin sales were so bad. Drive Me!
And what’s up with the grille on that car in the brochure? Was AMC still undecided as to whether they would spend the extra $8 per Marlin for a unique grill?
Unlike the Barracuda and Charger, the Marlin’s rear seat didn’t fold down. That might have been handy in the case of a double date. Or for very tall lovers.
The Charger’s unique and high-quality interior was in huge contrast to the Marlin’s, what with its classy standard full-length console, loads of chrome, four buckets, and folding rear seats.
The Charger also had a unique and expensive instrument panel, with round gauges that had electroluminescent back-lighting. Cool. Given that the ’66 Charger cost only $22 more than the Marlin and had a standard V8 and automatic, as well as all those other features, it was a genuine bargain in comparison. Never mind that a Mustang V8 fastback cost some 20% less. Compared to them, the Marlin looked like a blatant rip-off. Now that just wasn’t cool at all.
And we haven’t even gotten to the Marlin’s utter lack of any genuine sporty ambitions yet. It came standard with the 232 six, three-on-the-tree, and to the best of my knowledge, no modifications to the Classic’s ancient suspension with trunnions, or its slow steering. Oh wait; it came standard with front disc brakes! Perfect for slowing down that 232 six-powered Marlin from triple digit speeds. But too bad they were hidden and no one noticed, like Rambler’s “Ceramic-Armored” muffler and old-school torque tube. Where were the racing stripes? There was no Marlin GT, RT, SS, GTX or even SST version available; just the Marlin POS model.
The Marlin was one of the all-time great duds of the post-war years. It didn’t even try very hard at fooling us. Putting a cheap, bad wig on a balding, middle-aged sedan and jacking up the price to an absurd level just showed how utterly clueless AMC was about the youth/sporty market.
Now you’d think AMC would have learned a lasting lesson from the Marlin’s colossal flop. Nope. Dick Teague obviously had a lasting thing about fastbacks, and AMC kept churning them out, mostly to yawns. The Javelin was the best, but fastbacks were already mostly un-cool by 1968, and its sales were modest, at best. The Gremlin and Pacer were semi-fastbacks. The Hornet managed to buck the odds by sprouting one that was both attractive and functional. The ’72 Matador coupe’s swept-back hair-implant was questionable, as was the Spirit’s cramped tail.
But AMC’s fastback fetish wouldn’t end until it essentially re-incarnated the Marlin some ten years later. And we all know how cool that was. You either have it or you don’t.
And if not, GM would gladly send over a hearse to pick up the dead fish corpse. Oh; it’s arriving already.
The one redeeming mechanical feature of the Marlin is that I believe it was available with front discs from the start; Motor Trend‘s first tester had them. Beyond that, I got nothin’.
They were also dual circuit (standard since ’62).
But can’t say these 2 points really make up for it’s special needs look.
At least they didn’t make a Mick Jagger Midnight Rambler edition.
Great coverage. The Jagger pic reminds me of another ‘too-long’ roof, the DB6.
Thanks for a great read Paul and a laugh as well.I like the Marlin though the last ones looked better.Was it that bad? Probably not but when the Marlin appeared there were 3 great cars making their debut,Mustang,GTO & Barracuda.If I’d been old enough to drive and had the money back then I’d have chosen them over a Marlin in that order.
A mate of my brothers had a Marlin in the late 70s,it was reliable but getting a little frayed round the wheel arches at around 15 years old.
I second the great and informative read. It would have taken me days to write this up…coming up with the “cool” angle, then the supporting detail, an outline, a first draft then 2 and 3 edits.
I salute you and the other contributors here for your time and effort every day.
And that Marlin is indeed ugly and uncool.
This is a great one, Paul.
As a side note, I love that IKA Torino 3800.
After the Eagle question yesterday, my search for info on the Tornado 6 led to a number of pages on that Torino. What a gorgeous car!!! Best example of what a Ramer COULD be. They produced that same basic car and the OHC 6 til ’82!?!?
Rambler*
Whoulda thunk? American Motors was capable of competently copying an Alfa Romeo, and upsizing in the process without losing the driving pleasure.
Just not in America.
It looks like there’s a Fuego behind that Torino. I haven’t seen one of those since I rode in one my parents’ friends owned in the early ’80s. They replaced it with a gunmetal gray Alliance four door, which was traded in on a new ’87 240DL wagon.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a colleague. We talked about driving our dad’s car when we first got our drivers licenses and the anticipation of becoming sixteen. Bill lamented that all the other kids were looking forward to driving the family Oldsmobile, LTD or Impalas. All he had was a Rambler. They were generally driven by old maid school teachers and the like but shunned by most others around here. Bills dad was an old Nash guy that just moved into Ramblers as the Nash name was phased out.
It could be worse my Dad had an Austin Allegro!
You’re dad at least had a car bad enough to be noteworthy. Rambler owners had cars that were just . . . . . . . . insignificant.
If only AMC had survived, My first words walking into a dealership would be “Can we go over the retro 2014 model Marlin’s order sheet please?”
The side profile, and stance, reminds me of a bloated Henry J! 🙂
The rear screen shots remind me of the Chrysler Crossfire
Reminded me of a ’51 Nash!
There were some great looking fatback midsizers from the big 3 later in the 60s.Especially the Torino/Cyclones which have been on my wish list since I first saw one.Could the Marlin have been the right car at the wrong time?Some tweaks to the styling,a loud paint job(especially the red,white and blue one) with go faster stripes,scoops and a big block could have given the big 3 something to think about.
As they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle. And it was an ugly hat.
True that the proportions were unfortunate, especially with that raised roof. But in every view but a straight profile, it was not awful. The real sin here was in the concept and whole package. No special dash or interior, no unique sporty or luxury features. It was just another Rambler.
This reminds me of the Hawk at low ebb – a supposed grand touring coupe with a flathead six and a 3 speed. At least the Hawk was in that condition out of desperation. AMC was in its fat years but lacked (in the words of Bush 41) “the vision thing”. Imagine if Sherwood Egbert had lived to have taken over AMC.
I guess this distills my dissatisfaction with everything from AMC during this period: they were so needlessly and relentlessly ordinary. And thus uncool.
One qualification: those window cranks are the coolest I hace ever seen. I had never seen these before. But then I have never been inside of a Rambler if this generation.
A top quality CC, by the way.
The Marlin’s dash was upgraded in that it got the Ambassador’s round gauges rather than the Classic’s horizontal speedometer.
That thought crossed my mind very late last night. So now I have to take it all back, eh?
Ok, everything you said is true. However when you are 16 and are given a shiny fastback with a V8, power discs, A/C (which did away with the large Marlin logo in the center of the dash) am fm stock radio it was the coolest car ever because it was my first car. I was now able to drive myself anywhere I wanted to go or until my gas money was spent. Plus you could spin the tires into smoke without power braking. Maybe every kids first car is the coolest, at least for a little while.
Thanks for the memories,
Richard.
PS. I of course installed the required illuminated three gauge under dash cluster.
Unless you’re Mitt Romney!What an ungrateful brat
Great write up. I liked the comparisons to “either you had it or you didn’t”. The Marlin was the guy who wanted it, but had no idea of what it was
Mr. Niedermeyer, you really nailed this one. The story of the Marlin is such a sad and silly tale, and you told it well. AMC could have built something like the IKA Torino, but dogmatic thinking on the part of AMC leadership prevented that from happening.
It’s just so strange that Mr. Chapin insisted that Abe Lincoln should be able to sit in the back seat while wearing a top hat. One of the great perks on being a bit on the tall side is that you get to ride in the front seat! Who wants lots of rear headroom in a fastback? Roy Chapin and how many other people? Hah!
Wait a sec… I meant to say “Abernathy,” not “Chapin.” I always notice these mistakes too late!
Count me as the only(?) fan of the Marlin since I saw one back in 1965, and I still like them, no matter how ungainly that roofline looks now.
I also love the first Charger, too.
For what it’s worth, the Matador coupe also strikes my fancy, after all it’s the last American coupe where the back windows open, I believe!
Zackman, Look up four posts. You are not alone.
I like the Marlin too Zackman and the first Charger
I’m puzzled. The Marlin’s rear seat didn’t fold down, and there was no trunk opening. Am I reading that right? What did they keep back there in that long tail, spare air? I’m surprised the moonshiners didn’t make this car a success.
The Marlin had a trunk opening, it was the Tarpon show car that didn’t.
That was the Tarpon concept. The production Marlin had a trunk; the lines of it are visible in the pictures. But the opening was rather small.
Great article Paul, yes the Marlin was a dead fish from day one. The Tarpon wasn’t perfect and a more sloping roof line would have helped greatly. In regard to engines, AMC could have offered a high performance version of its new six(along the lines of Pontiac’s OHC six) and possibly bought Ford’s 260/289 V8 engine as a stop gap until their own modern V8 engine was available.
Call it the Curse of George Romney, but his Mormon sermonizing about the big three as dinosaurs building oversize, over-styled automobiles turned most people off. Few people wanted to drive a utilitarian, underpowered penalty box-look at Pontiac’s advertising and image during the same era a see how wildly successful they were. Even after Romney and Abernathy were long gone, AMC kept straddeling the fence, trying to appeal to more modern and upscale buyers without alienating the Lake Wobegon crowd. I remember when the Javelin was first released, one of its features AMC promoted heavily was its more spaceous back seat. Who bought a ponycar for the back seat?
That reminds me of the smiling young men with white shirts and ties. They all drove Cheepo Rambler American 220 2 door sedans back in the mid sixties. George must have given them a fleet deal
Sheesh, all this talk of coolness and no mention of Steve McQueen….sad
Funny that you mention him, because just as I got up this morning, I had the thought to add this line: good luck trying to find a picture of Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Marlin
Still trying to hook one
And not just because their stupid sixes blew a distinctive nasal farting sound from their straw-sized exhaust pipes as they struggled to increase their speed.
Funny you should mention that. When Tom McCahill tested the Marlin, AMC had provided two, so he, being best buddies with Bill France, borrowed the Daytona Speedway for his test and driving behind the other Marlin, reported “the exhaust sounds like a tornado being forced through a keyhole”. He elaborated that AMC was famous for it’s ceramic coated exhaust systems, but the 327 really, really needed bigger pipes.
Who says they quit making Marlins?
I guess it’s some sort of rally raid truck. (Photo: marcovane)
“Who says they quit making Marlins? ”
Nobody I know
Honda’s keeping the flame alive.
Seriously, why do we have to endure looking at this when an Accord wagon would be so much more practical and attractive?
I can just picture it now….Steve McQueen driving a Marlin chasing two guys in a VW bug!
Robert Mitchum driving a Nash would be cooler than anything McQueen was ever photographed in. That’s been one of the mysteries of my life:just what is there about this twerp that grown men seem to swoon over.
Ive only seen a couple of Rambler Marlins the look of it explains why.
Marlin histories always seem to give a nod to the Mustang, but being a spin off of the large car with some unique sheet metal, it would seem the market position would be more similar to the Grand Prix.
At the end of the day, what was it’s intended competition?
Very odd that they choose to put what looks like a rehash of the ’64 Classic on the front of this car when the rest of the ’65 large car line-up sported the all new stacked headlight look – a bit of a Grand Prix rip-off that was sweeping the industry in ’65.
The first Marlin I recall seeing in the metal was a full on two-tone white (down the center top and trunk) over turquoise car that was already in a museum by about 1976 – in the Harold Warp Pioneer Village in Minden, Nebraska (still a pretty cool place). The classic ’60s paint job made it a bit more palatable compared to the very blah white subject car. The rear end was sort of cool anyway.
The front end is identical to the ’65 Classic – only the Ambassador got stacked headlights that year. There are photos on the web of a Marlin with a ’65-’66 Ambassador front clip, which helps the proportions somewhat. They ended up with a ham-handed effort at appealing to the youth market, where positioning it instead as a personal luxury car in the Ambassador line might have been a better strategy.
The front end is identical to the ’65 Classic – only the Ambassador got stacked headlights that year. There are photos on the web of a Marlin with a ’65 Ambassador front clip, which helps the proportions somewhat. They ended up with a ham-handed effort at appealing to the youth market, where positioning it instead as a personal luxury car in the Ambassador line might have been a better strategy.
With the stacked lights, there’s a lot of Plymouth Fury in those lines. Hard to say which car wears the look worse, however.
That was exactly the problem when Abernethy tried to move away from the econobox image: Instead of settling on some other niche and trying to go after it, AMC kept hedging, wanting to compete with GM and Ford but afraid of losing existing customers. The Marlin was a sort-of-youth-market-but-sort-of-personal-luxury-sort-of-economy-fastback; the Rambler Rogue, which could have become a budget GTO, was not quite econobox but not quite a Supercar; and so on and on. You can get away with that (sometimes, for a while) if you’re as big as Chevrolet or Toyota, but if you’re already a shrinking non-premium brand, you won’t get anywhere that way.
Car Life‘s withering review of the 1967 Marlin — admittedly the best-looking of the lot — broke it down point by point, spelling out how the Marlin failed to be compelling in any of the myriad ways it could have conceivably distinguished itself, from performance to interior comfort. It was really quite savage. (I loved the ’60s Car Life; they could segue from sober engineering analysis to a level of deadpan snark that even Car and Driver couldn’t quite match.)
Wow, finding one in the wild is really something! I presume this is the same car you featured in a teaser Outtake with just the rear quarter panel showing?
I saw a near-identical one at the big show in Monmouth, IL, but it had the correct ’65 wheel covers with spinners. I really dig the red-and-white paint; seems these were always shown in red with a black roof.
I’ve had a soft spot for these ever since I got the ’60s Corgi Marlin. I have several of the red-and-black version and the rarer blue-and-white one (pic from vectis.co.uk).
Sadly, my blue ones do not have the kayak, trailer or figures.
I had the red/black one. I’m sure Corgi sold a lot more Marlins than AMC ever did.
Or how about the Jo Han promo, or the Jo Han assembly kit? Very rare and valuable today .Regardless how you feel about Ramblers, the Jo Han 1-25 th. scale models are very cool..
The Tarpoon was a rather cool automobile….bad name however….the Tarpoon might have gotten AMC some sales…..a shame, AMC always seemed to be dropping the ball….A Tarpoon/ Marlin with front discs standard, a reasonably good sized V8…….
I can just imagine it being nicknamed the name of a ladies sanitary towel by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson
Yes, no doubt the entire project was scrapped after AMC’s series of rather unfortunate focus groups with junior high school students. 🙂
I fixed it–kind of.
Cool!
The problem with the Marlin is the front half says conservative and slow, and the back says Corvette fast. The car can’t make up it’s mind what it wants to be. For starters those front vent windows should have been removed or redesigned to look more like the ones on a Mustang. Then build some slant into that front end.
Agreed, and they did it in a way that made the back look bulky too. The front just looked like another grocery getter.
Strange. I loved their looks back then as much as I do now.
I like them too, but I think I’d rather have a ’65 Classic convertible. Red with white interior, just like this one, please!
How about an alloy OHC head on that excellent new 232 six that arrived for 1964? Or just a bit of performance tuning? For that matter, ditch the me-too fastback altogether, and spend the money on the American’s suspension, brakes and steering, and turn it into a real road machine, like IKA did with the American-based Torino 3800 in Argentina. Cars that handled well and looked honest were a path to genuine coolness. Ask BMW or Pontiac.
Imagine if AMC had actually gone this route? Picking up where Pontiac left off in the mid-late 60s before BMW snatched that niche for themselves a few years later? To my eyes, the American already had the looks to pull it off and the Classic was nearly there. The cars had a rep for dependability and AMC could do quality when it wanted to. IMO, the Marlin dash is a good example of that – it reminds me of expensive stereo equipment from the same era and has held up remarkably well on this one (not that such high quality pieces were uncommon in US-built cars prior to the late 60s). At the very least, I think it can be said that they had a good eye for detail. The name “Rambler” already went against the grain and certainly could have appealed to the same people who were interested in BMWs and Datsuns with the right fine tuning of car and advertising. This is really not all that different from what the original Nash Rambler was in it’s day.
I guess the reason it never happened is that AMC just didn’t see themselves that way at all during this era. When they did get into the muscle car game, their offerings were only slightly different versions of the cartoons that Detroit had been cranking out. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Javelin and AMX and think they were very strong efforts, but AMC really needed something profoundly different. I like VanillaDude’s thesis that had AMC dumped all their efforts into a compact world-beater circa 1962, history would have been much different… but then again, is that something that would have seemed sane at the time? Not really sure about that one, although I question how much sense the path they took made to some of those involved.
The Rambler Marlin was the worst example of AMC’s mid-60s delusions – a car intended to make a big splash with little regard for anything beyond that. I do have to admit that I’d love to own one now and I like the ’67 version a lot, but as the article makes abundantly clear, these were just “me-too” cars that fell flat on their face. The enthusiasm wore off before they even hit the showrooms. AMC (and Hudson/Nash earlier) always did best when they were tackling something that Detroit couldn’t or wouldn’t offer, cars like this were just a less appealing Ford/Chevy. Raising the roof by an inch in the name of “practicality” is hilariously misguided and so indicative of how the people running AMC back then completely misunderstood their products and audience.
One more thing I took away from this – the roof on the right side of that early Teague drawing for (what became) the Tarpon showed up again on the ’70 Rebel and Ambassador hardtops. Not exactly the same, but very similar!
Bummer that the ’70 as you showed didn’t come out when the Marlin did. That car has some really attractive lines going on and could have totally turned AMCs image around.
Ah, some of you are too mean. True – the Marlin on the Classic 112″ wheelbase with the Abernathy raised roof is awkward looking – but – only when viewed from the side. All the promo photos from ’65 and ’66 show the 3/4 view which isn’t bad. The ’67 is a huge improvement as on the Ambassador wheelbase, the proportions look “right” – sadly, the larger fastback vogue was quickly fading away. The Marlin could be well equipped, including the disc brakes and the 327 4-bbl and trimmed like the plusher Ambassador. The ’66 model for the sake of generating sales, did delete much of the ’65’s standard equipment, however, the Marlin isn’t as bad as all seems. A little out of touch, but certainly no worse than it’s contemporaries.
in hindsight, it would’ve made more sense to go with the Tarpon. . . . .
The Marlin is so ugly and different as to be “fugly”. And so fugly as to be cool. I won’t explain fugly for those that don’t know. I think the production car was a series of compromises that just didn’t all mesh well. I LOVE my Marlins. A red and black 65 327 auto fully loaded and a silver and white 65 232 auto with no extra options. All Marlins came with power front disc brakes and dual reservoir master. AMC did try to spruce up the interior with a funky headliner with a ribbed center section, extra plush carpet and the available Classic buckets, console and fold down front and rear arm rests. Making it not an unattractive place to be by my eye. I have to agree that the Marlin missed on many marks and was a dead fish from day one. That said the reason I love my Marlins is that I can go anywhere locally and not run into another and under all the ugly it is still the trusty and reliable (for the time) Classic. I once had a young couple in a Mercedes Kompressor follow my off the freeway when I made a gas stop just to ask me what the hell I was driving-they loved it, and for that reaction so do I.
Some angles are quite good, even…!!
I know someone who has a 1965 Rambler Marlin and a 1966 AMC Marlin. One of them had a V8 engine while the other had a straight six. I got to ride in the 66 AMC Marlin with the V8. I thought it looked better in person than pictures ever could. 🙂
I like the way the utterly un cool stuff back then becomes a exquisitely cool no w a days. Well i can picture a 1967 Marlin with a Big Block Chevy and make it a nice Hot Rod…
The really odd thing: Rambler owners were cheapskates, but Abernethy didn’t have the sense to be a cheapskate. Using the IKA Torino would have been vastly cheaper in terms of design and tooling.
Semi-related: BBC features a remarkable ’64 E-Jag barn find.
You may never find a picture of McQueen behind the wheel of a Marlin, but he sure did love his Hudson…
Mick Jagger may have never owned a Marlin, but at least at one point he did drive a Rambler…
Here’s his too-longroof after a bit of a scrape…
Ramblers may have had a dorky image in those days, but that flavor of Rambler is actually a nicely styled car. Theyre very clean, and as a 2 door hardtop mated to that OHC six, it could well have been a desireable little sled.
The Marlin is the equivelant of your best friends hot girlfriend asks you to take out her fat friend and says, “She’s got a great personality.” She didn’t get the date and it didn’t sell cars.
The two I see every six months for my safety inspections are both V8 four speed floorshift cars with drum brakes all round one lives on a hoist and seems to be a rusty collection of spares for the driven example Ive had a look underneath its quite old school, The owner of these beasts loves them and they are quite rare here so very collectable, none of the other US fastback cars ever appeared new on our market either so only a Jags with that bodystyle was all we ever had apart from the odd used import.
Did export right-hand-drive Marlins have the old 1963-1964 dashboard? I’ve seen pictures of 1965-1966 Classics that were like this. AMC didn’t want to spend the money to make a mirror-image of the new dash for those markets.
This photo is of the interior of an Australian ’66 Classic. Since despite the styling changes these cars are identical to the 1963 models under the skin the old dash bolts right in…
I like the 63-64 dash over anything before or after. It had a great layout for the driver and your hands or eyes didn’t have to go far for operation & monitoring. For the best looking the 65-65 Ambassador dashboard wins hands down IMO.
The best thing about the ’65-66 Marlin was its badge. The ’67, however, wasn’t a bad looker at all. I’m glad 2545 Americans decided to be decidedly different.
+2. These were both my same, two exact thoughts! I like the artful script of the first Marlin badge, and I genuinely like the look of the ’67 – perhaps over the same-year Dodge Charger.
There is no getting around it, Nixon and Sullivan were the epitome of ’60s cool. That was the point of those photos, right? They even looked and acted rather alike.
The original Blues Brothers…………………
I wonder if “Marlin” Brando drove one. At least give AMC SOME credit. They tried, but……..
The fastback proportional mistake started with the Tarpon: if the rear top section is moved forward about six inches, it improves a immeasurably. The Marlin was a victim of over-thinking, deciding that rear seat passengers in a sporty two door required the same headroom as a sedan…….duh!
Ha ha! I had to look three times at that photo of RMN with long hair! That cracked me up, as I don’t recall that photo being there originally.
That has to be Nixon’s head superimposed over a photo of Jim Morrison, as he had his shirt off in several shots back then.
Good job!
FWIW: I still like the Marlin…
The Marlon was ugly and wasted precious resources that would better have been better spent upgrading the workaday Rambler’s suspension, steering and interior to make it more competetive.
You lived round the corner from Silas Barnstable?!
This is one of those few 60s cars I approve of putting bigger wider modern wheels/tires on, the dorky stock Rambler stance does it no favors. The Tarpon concept’s wide aftermarket wheels actually shows that way forward.
I was thinking the same thing. The Tarpon’s wheels look like an early version of the 8 spoke ‘wagon wheels’ that were on pretty much 99.99% of trucks, 4x4s and even a lot of vans during the 70s. The one in your pic has some light customization of the grille making it look a bit more palatable also.
One thing the Tarpon, and your pictured car has going for it too is at least an eye catching color scheme. That crimson and black is pretty nice and does it some favors. The feature car looks absolutely dumpy in hospital fixture white and wearing that wimpy tire/wheel combo.
Other than the mirrored headlight covers I think that grille is the stock version for 1966. The mirrors are definitely not original though
If they’d called it the Rambler Mullet we’d be admiring their foresight.
Here’s the Hot Rod magazine 3000-mile road test of the ’65 Marlin. Since only one pic can be uploaded I’ve combined all the pages into a single image, it should be readable when enlarged…
Thank you for posting this – great read. As published in May of ’65, “…The car’s parabola-shaped rear windows seem taken straight out of 1984.”
The article provides an interesting counterpoint to all the negativity, and from an unlikely source. (Hot Rod magazine reviewing a Rambler and loving it? I can just see their readers at the time shaking their heads!)
An error in the article is that the Flash-O-Matic transmission is called “GM-built” but in fact it’s a Borg-Warner M8 automatic. The author may have been recalling earlier Nashes and Ramblers that used the GM Hydramatic. Maybe I should write to Hot Rod and correct them!
I can’t ever remember a HR review that wasn’t very favorable to whatever they were driving. They simply weren’t in the business of objectivity, never mind comparing any given car with the competition.
It’s not because I’ve got a thing about the Marlin, but this reads like a classic puff piece. Not one real word about its handling, which Rambler cars of the times were consistently nicked about by other magazines.
Frankly, the Marlin’s performance numbers were quite modest; for the price that this cost, one could have done much better with numerous other cars.
Let’s not forget that the Marlin (with std. six) cost several hundred dollars more than a GTO, which came standard with a potent 389. I’d have liked to see a direct comparison between those two cars.
Their report mirrors my own experience driving a Marlin on a long trip years (all right, decades) ago that was outfitted pretty much the same way as Hot Rod’s. It was definitely not a sports car, but handled well enough for the day equipped with heavy-duty suspension, had good power with the 327 V8, the disc brakes worked great, and the car was very quiet and comfortable. AMC advertised the Marlin as a “swinging” sports model but what they really had was a weird-looking but cushy cruiser. It was obviously out of step with the market but was not really a bad car.
On the featured car, am Im the only one who can imagine this thing being designed behind the Iron Curtain? Seriously…it looks like kind of Slovakian attempt at a sporty Volga or something….and this is coming from someone with a soft spot for certain AMC products. The Marlin was at least SOME attempt at a turnaround of AMC/Ramblers frump-O-matic image but PN’s dissecting of how out of touch it really was is brutal. Its stupefying to think that the same company that unloaded this chud as well as the Pacer also managed such a gorgeous car as the first gen Javelin/AMX, and the Hornet wagon…arguably the best looking wagon ever.
FWIW, I never cared for the fastback look on big cars as a whole. The ’66 Charger, ’65 Impala, and all of the Mopar C bodies with the ‘FastTop’ all look awkward to my eye.
I had never, until this day, realized how ugly the Tarpon was right from the start. Anything done to it would not have improved it’s awkward profile. Moving it to the Classic only made bad styling worse.
The best part about it was the taillights.
Still love the Marlin, especially the 67. It would have made a perfect personal luxury AMC with designer interiors and the new V8 engine family coming online.
Another missed opportunity, like selling the Hornet as “The Little Rich Car” several years before the Maverick LDO, yet offering none of the luxury [Concord style] to back it up.
Marlin’s rear passenger window got an email from Corvette:
“I want my cove back.”
Why does the Marlin remind me of a ’51 Nash Airflyte?
If the Marlin had stayed on the smaller platform and had been given a hatchback…I dunno. Maybe it could have found a niche as a practical semi-sporty small-ish car, which an awful lot of people were driving just a few years later. Ah, never mind. I think I’m about to say the Marlin had a chance to be ahead of its time, and I don’t think I want to own that.
I remember seeing ads for Marlins the year they came out. I was 9 years old, but I thought they were cool!
Now, not so much. If I ran across a deal on one, though, I’d get it.
In ’67, they got the proportions right.
(And if you take the bumpers OFF the mid-70’s Matador coupe, they look MUCH better!)
There were so few of any model Rambler/AMC products in the city where I grew up (where the UAW was born) that a Marlin would be a rare sight. I do remember exactly where a 67 silver Charger with a 426 HEMI was parked in my youth. I would drive by it many times and even knocked on the owners door to ask him if he would sell it (even though I had limited funds.) The reply was NOT for sale!?
Great one, Paul. Very enjoyable read on a car that always made me think “What? Why?”
That ‘uncoolness’ thing reminds me of that Steve Buscemi scene in 30 Rock…
H For hideous! The Marlin especially 65/66 looks like the humpback turd you’d get if you mated a stripped ’77 LTD II coupe (the ugly windowless one with LTD IIemblazoned where the rear side window would be, mated with one of those tubby tuba 1958 Olds or Buick full size wagon and bred with the rolling dog kennel on wheels 1960 Plymouth wagon. Then stretched it out to become the Marlin. The car was all wrong. Fugly oval rear window, a back end that looks like an English bulldog taking a dump. Then, that ghetto depression interior. Sorry AMC/RAMBLER. The only things you did right back in the day? 1. Fully reclining front bench seats for your love bandit and making factory AC standard on the Ambassador back in ’68. First plebian car to feature standard cooling! You could wave at that poor Indian crying as you traverse the polluted highways on your way to Wally World!
Even if the Marlin had standard buckets, fun to drive handling and rear seats that folded down. This turd on wheels was Fugly bar none. The rear side window has got to be one of the most hideous in my lifetime. Even worse than a lot of the crossover/SUV tubs of today. And that rear end narrow door just looks out of proportion. And lest we forget such “Shambler” items as vaccum windshield wipers. This car goes great with one of the worst songs of the 60’s; They’re Coming To Take Me Away. Its sad because as you mentioned, the original Teage sketches were actually cool looking. When I think of Rambler, I think of Life With Louie always referring to the Anderson families wheels which was a Rambler. AMC/Rambler always shook the ugly stick, the gross Gremlin, Hippo Pacer, anachronistic plumper Hornet which spawned some rolling disasters in themselves. Even in the Opera Window 70’s The Concord DL rear window looked like a penis. But they sold tons of them. At least the Matador Coupe wasn’t bad looking. The Javelin could have been OK looks wise but they overdid it on the Corvette bulges. Rambler/AMC reminded me of the strange ugly 1960-1964 Mopars. The ones with the bloated chrome bodies and ugly out of round steering wheels that looked like it was in an accident! And then some of those frog eyed dashboards. And then AMC hooked up with Renault! I settle my case.
To me it looks like a VW Type 3 after a growth spurt and a diet of chips and cola.
Vacuum windshield wipers alone would make people run away from Ramblers. Once they don’t work in the rain, driver would say, “I’m getting a real car next time!”
Also, AMC as a brand name never caught on with ‘regular folks’. Like with Acura, the model names were more prevalent, like Gremlin, Pacer and Eagle. Before Lee I bought them, local dealers were calling themselves “Jeep-Renault” stores. ‘AMC’ name would have went the way of Rambler, either way.
I looks like something those “wild and crazy guys” at SNL would have driven… well, actually maybe they did, but by then it had morphed into the dorky ’74 Matador coupe
Marlin
Rambler
“nuff said
The risk it seemed with all small car makers, was if the design lead (and team) weren’t rock solid, with excellent (and consistent) design credentials and judgment, you’d have turds like this appear once in a while. Not enough checks and balances either.
Growing up in Chicagoland, back when it was Rambler country, our neighbor had a new one. Turquoise with the white roof. It was such an odd looking car and I used to really wonder how anything could be fit into through that tiny truck lid. It was a 65 as well, and I was naturally very personally familiar with the new 1965 Rambler Classic Cross Country station wagon that was put into use by my aunt who lived a block away, along with my cohort cousins. All nine of us filled it for trips to the beach, Dairy Queen, church, school, Brookfield Zoo, all over. My folks had an older Rambler wagon and a worn-out Dynamic 88.
So, the Marlin was directly across the street and my classmate, Dawn, lived there too, so I had a lot of time riding in the backseat of their Marlin. I loved it. It was so amazing and cool. Instead of sharing a vinyl bench seat with diapered siblings, I got my own bucket-seat-like spot next to a cool curved window. The roof disappeared behind me and the window was really too small for the car. It was blind-spot city back there. But Dawn and I thought it was the coolest. It was just like my aunt’s car, but then it wasn’t. It didn’t have any room for all the stuff we jammed into the Rambler wagon. (By the way, both the wagon and the Marlin were the exact turquoise and white!)
I liked the Marlin like any kid would have liked it. Riding with Dawn in that cool back seat was much better than being stuck in the way-back in the Classic wagon, along with my three other cousins. To us, it was like riding in a fancy carriage. It didn’t even smell like a soiled diaper.
Maybe, AMC should have used THAT as its ad tag line: “Doesn’t smell like a poopy diaper!”
Something else uncool is being able to see the far-side leaf spring through the wheel opening.
If I were to try and pinpoint the real Deadly Sin aspect of the Marlin, it’s how the money for the always threadbare AMC that went to the goofiness and poor execution could have, instead, been put to much better use towards development of the Javelin. The Marlin was a monumental, half-assed attempt worthy of another auto company known for doing dumb things, i.e., Studebaker.
AMC’s new thin-wall V8 was introduced for 1966. Imagine if the money wasted on getting the lame Marlin into AMC showrooms had, instead, been spent on getting the Javelin to market when the ponycar market was still red-hot.
Unfortunately, by 1968, the ponycar market was beginning to wane, mainly due to all the competitors now crowding the field. And it’s a real shame that the Marlin likely held up development of the Javelin, a car which could have been a contender instead of a typical AMC also-ran.
Similarities between the Marlin and the 1948 Pontiac just occurred to me.
(I kind of like the appearance of the Marlin’s greenhouse in side and rear-corner view. I reckon that’s gotta count for something; ordinarily I strongly disprefer 2-doors.)
The Marlin ad’s phrase “most exciting Rambler ever built” should be the epitaph for this car. Talk about damning with faint praise.
Talk about style over substance….oh no wait!
Looks better scaled down!
The Marlin in profile has overtones of the early ’50s ‘bathtub Nash’. I’m wondering if anyone in the styling department thought it might be possible to design a cool modern hatchback while also paying homage to their corporate design history?
The answer was ‘no’.
The white Marlin reminds me more of the 1947 Chevrolet Fleetmaster Fleetline Aerosedan