(first posted 7/9/2012) Call it what you may, but this rather handsome convertible was one of the nails in the coffin of American Motors. How could something this good looking, and relatively luxurious and competitive be such a failure? Well, it’s just one of dozens of sad 20/20 hindsight stories in the American auto industry.
There had always been an “Ambassador” as long as there was an American Motors. But the first truly American Motors themed one arrived for 1958, when the name was transferred from the decidedly dated 1952 Nash based model to a freshly stretched version of the 1956 Rambler body. All of the additional length was ahead of the cowl, so you didn’t get any more interior room. But you got more luxury, and in my opinion, far better balanced looks.
But folks considering Ramblers weren’t really looking for something the size of a 1955 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight, despite all of the luxury and quite vivid performance of the “Big” Ambassador, so it was downsized to merely a trim and engine package for 1962. It really should have been called “Return of the Rebel” since it was still equipped with the 327 AMC V8 in a body barely weighing 3,000 lbs. That meant 0-60 came up in Corvette-territory, in the low seven-second range for manually shifted examples. Wanna embarrass a few GTOs? Look no further than the humble sedan above.
The same philosophy was kept for the Mid-Century Modern update of the Classic/Ambassador that won Motor Trend Car Of The Year for 1963. But a regime change happened, as George Romney left AMC to run for governor of Michigan, and Roy Abernethy took his place at the helm.
Abernethy favored competing more directly with the Big Three, as GM, Ford and Chrysler had encroached into AMC’s traditional market of smaller cars with all their new compact and intermediate cars in the early sixties. A revived (and quite handsome) American set out against the rapidly aging Falcon, Nova, Lark and Corvair for 1964.
But the real change happened in 1965, when the Ambassador said goodbye to being completely joined at the hip with the Classic, put on some 4 inch heels (well, wheelbase stretch) and well, moved into the same size category the 1962 Plymouth resided in: 116 inch wheelbase, and 200-202 inches long. But along with ever-escalating luxury.
Actually this generation of Ambassador was probably closer to true international luxury standards than almost any mid-1960s American car could prove to be. They were often lauded in the press for their build quality, fit and finish, ride and handling – along with the virtues of economy AMC was known for.
In terms of volume, this branching out that Abernethy so wanted worked, with Ambassador sales going from a mere 18,000+ units in 1964 to 71,000+ units by the end of 1966. But with so much new product development, going point-to-point with Chevrolet without even Plymouth’s budget would soon put a strain on developing more than just extensions and restyles.
Soon there would be the Javelin, a freshly updated Rebel and an even bigger Ambassador, now with the DPL label to compete in brocade broughamness with the VIP and LTD. Actually, among all the missteps, this year the Ambassador adopted the unloved Marlin (CC here), which was upsized to the 118 inch 1967 Ambassador platform. Maybe it helped, maybe it hurt; probably the latter. Thank god for the handsome Javelin.
But with so many new AMC models at that flashpoint of 1967-68, all reaching in the same fracturing directions Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth were reaching, left little resources for American Motors to update engines, transmissions or successfully update all of those models released in the first place. And the deserting of traditional economy values started to turn off loyal AMC buyers. Sales for the Ambassador slumped in 1967.
And soon the rot set in, with models equally as moribund and out of date as Studebaker’s last Larks. So was Abernethy’s exercise worth it? For a nice increase in sales for the Ambassador models (at the expense of the Classic/Rebel), American Motors shortly became “Also-Ran Motors.” They weren’t truly “full sized” in the ever bloating way that Big Three cars were becoming, sticking true to their heritage. But they didn’t steal enough away in sales or profits to continue the quest of being unique, more sensible ways of being “American.”
It turns out being the Ambassador to the vast landscape of the American auto industry of the mid to late 1960s was the hardest task any dignitary could handle.
That ’66 Ambassador certainly is handsome with it’s clean lines and proportions.
Quite a leap from it to the Gremlin/Pacer/Matador oddities a few years later.
Although I have never been a fan of the front end styling of this car, it is overall very attractive.
In 20-20 hindsight, I have always wondered if AMC would have been wise to keep the Ambassador sized with the big 3 midsizers (Malibu/Fairlane/Satellite) but with Cadillac levels of luxury. This was a niche not being exploited in the 60s-early 70s. AMC either would have done well with it, or maybe there was no significant market there until the brougham epoch got underway. We will never know.
The only one of these I ever got close to was the robin’s egg blue 67 Ambassador that belonged to my next door neighbor’s grandpa. I rode in it once or twice, and it seemed like a nice car, but not all that luxurious – more like a Ford LTD than like a Cadillac or Lincoln. When his grandpa replaced it with a New Yorker in the 70s, the neighbor kid got the Ambassador and treated it like too many teenage boys treat cars. The old Ambassador was soon followed everywhere by a big blue cloud (I think that there was often another kind of cloud inside), and soon it disappeared.
In 20-20 hindsight, I have always wondered if AMC would have been wise to keep the Ambassador sized with the big 3 midsizers (Malibu/Fairlane/Satellite) but with Cadillac levels of luxury. This was a niche not being exploited in the 60s-early 70s.
That was my thought with the 1958 Ambassador – it was the first “Brougham” without being called a brougham.
Imagine what might have happened had the ’58 Ambassador been updated for 1960 with a much better, more contemporary roofline, smoother flanks and all the luxury and convenience options that were available at the time. A pity they didn’t spend more development $$ on better suspension, steering and braking systems too while they were raking in the profits in 1958–60. They needed something to differentiate them from the Big 3 and by the mid ’60s economy wasn’t cutting it.
I don’t know that there would have been much market for an ultra-deluxe Ambassador in the mid-sixties. Conceptually, the DPL was intended to be pretty much what you suggest — I assume it was more directly a response to the LTD than an effort to go after the high-end luxury market, but it was a basically midsize car with super-deluxe trim. (The ’66 Ambassador may have been a big car for AMC, but it was very close to the size of the ’66 A-bodies, splitting the difference between a Chevelle and an Olds F-85 or Buick Special in overall length.) You could have gone further upmarket, but the legitimate question would have been, “Who’s going to buy this?”
One big sticking point would have been price. As it was, a ’66 DPL was priced close to a V8 Buick Skylark or Olds Cutlass and about $300 more than a V8 Malibu hardtop. Upgrading the DPL’s interior even more would have put it into the realm of the Olds 88 and Buick LeSabre. At that point, it would have taken a fairly brave and eccentric buyer to choose a smaller AMC over a big Buick or Oldsmobile. (AMC sold about 10,500 DPLs in ’66, maybe 13,000 in ’67, so you could probably start there and move downward.)
Of course, one might argue that Mercedes did all right a few years later with that sort of formula, but it had a big edge in snob appeal and it was foreign, which in those days justified at least a little eccentricity.
In hindsight, we can see the 65-66 Ambassador as a precursor to the Seville, but the Seville market wasn’t there yet. Cadillac passed up a couple chances to field a smaller car in the 60’s (for example, the Riviera was originally pitched as a new LaSalle). Even the slightly truncated 1961-64 Park Avenue models (with less rear overhang) were poor sellers. It took the first gas crisis for American car buyers to be willing to consider the idea of a smaller luxury car.
Abernathy may have gotten the ball rolling but his successor, Roy Chapin, stuck with the strategy. For 1969 the Ambassador was given an even longer wheelbase, and AMC vainly tried to sell it as a full-sized car through 1974.
The biggest problem with AMC focusing on the Ambassador was that it siphoned away badly needed resources for its mid-sized nameplate, the Classic/Rebel/Matador. During 1967-70 the Rebel all but died on the vine sales-wise because it was restyled less frequently than the Ambassador.
I agree with you completely. If the Ambassador had been the loaded-up luxury version and the Rebel/Matador the low trim regular-people version, the whole thing may have worked better. Although I never paid attention, I had never even noticed the wheelbase difference in the two cars. With a single wheelbase between the two models, they could have styled/proportioned the car properly so that there was not a good looking one and a funny looking one, whichever way that happened to be. They could have also saved a lot of tooling money and spent it on more productive things.
The Ambassador had been exactly that from 1962 to 1964, after having previously been a long-wheelbase model from 1958 to 1961. The big difference was that unlike the Classic, the short-wheelbase Ambassador was available only with a V-8, whereas the Classic could be had in either six- or eight-cylinder form. Returning to the long-wheelbase model more than tripled Ambassador sales, from about 18,500 units in ’64 to 64,145 in MY1965.
Even the long-wheelbase Ambassadors still shared a great deal of their structure with the Classic/Rebel/Matador, and I don’t know how much the extra wheelbase actual cost in terms of tooling. A longer wheelbase isn’t necessarily that expensive if the stretch is either ahead of or behind the doors. If you don’t have to do new doors, it comes down to how much of the fender and hood/deck tooling you can reuse. By Big Three standards, it’s not a big deal — the fact that AMC was sufficiently short of capital to make that a serious worry was ultimately the bigger problem, regardless of which direction they went.
My uncle talked about owning an Ambassador for many years before buying one in 67. His main reason was the reclining front seats. The first time I saw it, I was impressed about how the upholstery on the front seats resembled cheap aftermarket seat covers. He only owned it a year before ditching it for a Plymouth Fury.
Great article on an attractive car! When I was in high school, one of the students in the class one year ahead of me drove his family’s 1966 Ambassador wagon to school regularly. It looked good even then (1979) despite its age.
A convertible Ambassador is a rare bird, and it’s interesting that this is the body style that you photographed. The convertible market was another one that AMC chased with little or no return on investment. AMC tooled up for both Ambassador and Classic convertibles for 1965, and sales were meager, to say the least.
It was another example of AMC ignoring one of its strengths. Station wagon sales been an AMC strong point in 1950s and early 1960s. It didn’t need convertibles in all three lines (the American began offering a convertible in 1961, and the American convertible was enough for AMC to serve that market).
AMC also sold a high percentage of its cars with factory air conditioning, which was the wave of the future, not convertibles. The decision to offer convertibles in the Classic and Ambassador series was an expensive proposition that did little, if nothing, for the company’s image and probably hurt its all-important cash reserves. AMC would have been better off refining its air conditioning system.
Interestingly, for those who say that AMC should have pitched the Ambassador as a smaller, but still luxurious, car – AMC did try to promote the car that way in 1966. There are commercials on youtube for the 1966 Ambassador. In these commercials, the car is pitched as the alternative for those who can’t afford a Cadillac NOW but still want a luxurious car.
The Ambassador did sell well for 1965, but it’s doubtful that the extra sales were enough to justify the tooling expenses. Plus, Classic sales dramatically declined after 1965, which probably wiped out any extra income generated by increased Ambassador sales. Sales of the all-new 1967 Rebel were even worse, and sales of the all-new Ambassador were down for that year, too. By 1969, AMC’s formerly strong position in the critical mid-size market was just about wiped out.
I wonder what convertible development costs are (% wise) as the overall development costs of a given vehicle.
Nice one LJ, it’s not my favorite AMC body style either.
What is interesting to me is that the brown Ambassador by the pool looks like it wants to join the girl for swimming, the front wheels are even turned toward the water.
What could have happened in the next 15 seconds… Vroom, splash!
I kept staring at that ad trying to decide what was wrong with it… it is a goofy setting and the car is such a muted color it almost disapears in the ad.
… and as Paul noted once before, within just a few years the girl would be out of the water, in all her dripping splendor!
Part of me thinks that the agent responsible for the ad had a model girlfriend, our dear swimmer, and he was trying to promote her career. Hell with the Ambassador.
Then again it reminds me of a particular 1960 Dodge Dart ad where the black Dart sedan joins everyone at the grill. Humanizing the car?
I actually like the Ambassador (and by extension, Classic) Convertibles in looks. Then again chopping a top off of any mid-60s midsizer to me makes for a good looking car no matter who built it.
Interesting to note then the 1965-66 Ambassador body was continued to be made in Argentina until 1974 or 1975 depending of the sources by IKA (later IKA-Renault who became Renault Argentina) and sold as the “Rambler Ambassador”, here a vintage Argentine 1970 Ambassador ad http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4845889558/
The Presidential limo of Argentina is a really interesting car. There is one in a museum on the outskirts of Buenos Aires. Youtube has a fascinating video of Juan Peron’s return to Argentina in 1973 and he is driven through the streets of Buenos Aires in this car. Really appealling executive car.
I love the wheels, the taillights, the two horizontal bars running across the rear… The overall shape may be generic, but I think there is a lot of beauty in the details of this car – I like the stacked headlamps, too.
The wheels, which look very much like some unknown cast aluminum ones (rather than typical later copies of actual alloy wheels), are wheel covers.
I don’t know that I agree that this car was itself a bad idea or even that Abernethy was entirely to blame.
AMC’s continuing the Ambassador (which was a Nash nameplate going back 1932) had always been a hedge: depending on whom you believe, the ’58 Ambassador was hastily cobbled together either to placate nervous sales execs or to satisfy company bigwigs who cringed at the idea of a Rambler as their company car (not unlike Brock Yates’ possibly apocryphal account of how the Chevrolet Caprice came to be). And originally it was very nearly as big as this car. The 1958-1961 Ambassador, recall, was 73.6 inches wide and 199 inches long on a 117-inch wheelbase.
For 1962, AMC had tried to consolidate the Ambassador as essentially a trim variation of the Classic, initially on a 108-inch wheelbase, upped to 112 in ’63. At the same time the Ambassador was scaled down, Ford brought out the midsize Fairlane, which did very well in more or less the size category the Ambassador had just abandoned. GM bumped its senior compacts (to which the dimensions of the ’63 Classic/Ambassador were very close) up to Fairlane/pre-’62 Ambassador size, and I imagine AMC figured they had better do the same thing. That decision by itself is hard to criticize — obviously, AMC was no longer alone in the compact and midsize market, and I don’t know that even Romney would have recommended ignoring what Ford and GM were doing in its class.
The ’65-’66 Ambassador was still not a particularly large car by contemporary American standards: if you averaged the dimensions of all the variations of the GM A-body, the result would look a lot like the AMC’s spec sheet. If AMC had stood pat with the Classic-size Ambassador, I strongly suspect that historians and enthusiasts now would be wondering why AMC didn’t just bump the Ambassador back up to its former size to keep pace with the new competition, etc., etc.
Now, I would criticize Abernethy’s decision to try to go after every major Big Three market segment for the same reasons you mention. However, I think the bigger problem was that the market was shifting more than AMC could easily afford to adapt to. Betting everything on the Rambler worked in the fifties in part because by the time Romney convinced the board to do it, most of the direct domestic competition was gone. Before the recession, the compact market was big enough to sustain one company, but not three or more rivals. Had it not been for the recession, AMC probably could have coasted for a while in that niche. The timing of the recession produced a boom, but I suspect in part that Rambler was a beneficiary of a buyer backlash against the Big Three’s general extravagance (in styling, size, and general glitz) that the recession certainly exacerbated, but didn’t necessarily create. By 1964, Big Three styling was much less gaudy and you could buy most Big Three brands in small, medium, or large sizes, so I think it’s inevitable that AMC would have faced the “what have you done for us lately?” problem. Even if AMC had spent less on tooling the later big Ambassadors, I don’t know that the outcome would have been much different.
You make a strong argument. But as they gained sales with Ambassadors, Javelins and the rest, how many sales did they lose to VW, Volvo, Mercedes by turning away from the “dinosaur-fighter” strategy?
Suppose they had continued to strengthen the quality, durability and reliability of the American and Classic lines? Put capital into higher quality production lines, and keeping the platforms and engines more up-to-date, instead of tooling up the other cars? Made a genuine run at Mercedes-type luxury compacts, and Volvo-type compact sedans and wagons?
If AMC had remained profitable through the sixties, instead of losing $76M in ’67 ($500M in today’s money), they’d have had another 1959-class bonanza when the gas lines hit in ’73. Kenosha might have even set an example to Detroit, and drawn them away from some of their own Deadly Sins.
Fun to speculate anyway. What if George Mason had taken better care of his health, and lived to combine all the independents? (Ever seen a picture of Mason near the end? Morbidly obese.) AMC could have outdone Chrysler. What if, what if.
Thanks for another serving of your first-rate writing and photography, Laurence.
George Mason in his last year. He must have been a helluva character. If only.
Mason originated the upscale compact car with the 1950 Nash Rambler. All the big car options, like radio, whitewalls, custom trim, and a curved one-piece windshield were standard. Ideal second car for the Cadillac owner. Launched Rambler into a successful decade.
As I said above, since the Ambassador still shared a lot of its structure and tooling with the Classic/Rebel (and later the Matador), I don’t know how much more it really cost AMC to differentiate it in size from the intermediates. Something, certainly, but I don’t know that that in itself represented a major shift in strategy so much as a straightforward product decision: “For $X more, we can differentiate this product from the one below it and justify a somewhat higher price.”
I don’t know that AMC lost any sales to Mercedes. VW was certainly a threat, but Mercedes was in a whole other league. Datsun and Opel, on the other hand…
As for Mason surviving, AMC would still have had the same problem it did in terms of trying to integrate all of the independents that it actually did: namely, succession. Mason was 63 at the time of the merger, and even if he had lived another decade, he would probably have been thinking about retiring before too long. Romney and Jim Nance both saw themselves as the obvious successor, and since their ages were roughly the same, neither was likely to want to stick around until the other retired or moved on. By all accounts they didn’t much like each other, so while Mason might have been able to persuade them to coexist as long as he remained chairman, I imagine there would have been a lot of political infighting. Eventually, one or the other might been defeated or gotten frustrated and moved on, but it’s hard to see such a conflict having a positive effect on AMC’s prospects.
Also, the various practical problems, such as the geographical distance between the companies’ production facilities, the loss of Briggs, and the fact that Studebaker was operating deeper in the red than its management had apparently realized, would still have existed. Mason was a good guy, but the logistics of such a merger would have been very daunting, and I think it’s likely that it would have ended up being more like BMC than General Motors.
Incidentally, I would be curious to know who actually did sign off on the return to the long-wheelbase Ambassador. Romney didn’t leave until February 1962, at which point the planning for the ’65 models would have been well under way. The ’65 cars debuted in September 1964 and pilot production would have begun earlier that year, so unless it was a real rush job, the designs for the ’65s would probably have been locked (or close to it) by the time Romney resigned. I don’t know — I haven’t looked into the development history of these cars in any detail, but I do wonder if Abernethy is being blamed for a decision Romney had already made (or would have made had he stuck around another few months).
You’re right about Mason’s impending retirement and lack of clear succession. AMC going out like BMC, now there’s a chill thought.
I still think Rambler could have been the American Volvo.
Volvo ended up Chinese anyway. Oh well.
As for Rambler competing for Mercedes sales, you know in the sixties M-B had none of the image or market position here it had by the eighties. A few engineers drove their diesels and appreciated their merits, but if you’d suggested a Mercedes as an alternative to a Caddy or even a Buick in 1966 America, well you’d have gotten some strange looks.
On the other hand, as Paul pointed out in a Rambler CC last year, the ’59 Rambler and ’59 W111 Mercedes had a lot of basics in common. That’s when M-B was selling through Studebaker dealers. A premium, top-quality 1966 Ambassador on the Classic platform competing for Mercedes customers in the US? Not entirely out of the question.
Not the market share, but Mercedes has enjoyed a lofty image in the US going waayyy back. Always, actually, since the SSK and such in the 1920s. Yes, there were the “diesel engineers”, but they weren’t buying the 220SEs and such. It was doctors,lawyers and and other successful folks. Mercedes already was hot stuff in Hollywood (and some other tony places) in the fifties, with their 300c, 300SL roadster and 190SL.
Having said that, I do think that Rambler might have had an ability to ride on the growing coattails of MBZ and other higher-end imports.
Rambler did ride the coattails of the late-50s import boom by being sort of like an imported compact, but not quite as small and not quite as alien in engineering (or parts). However, I have a hard time seeing AMC competing on prestige. Nash had tried to position the original Rambler as an upscale compact second car for luxury car owners, but neither Nash nor Hudson had really been a luxury brand. The pre-AMC Nash Ambassador Custom had been in about the price range of the Buick Super or Olds Super 88, but it had been hard pressed to keep up in prestige, particularly after Buick and Olds introduced V-8 engines. For AMC to establish itself as a prestige brand would have taken many years of hard work, much as it did for BMW and later Audi, and I think trying to go farther upscale in price and trim would have only accelerated AMC’s decline in the sixties. Buick had more badge cachet than Rambler, and even they ended up having problems selling the compact Y-body Special/Skylark once buyers could get a decently trimmed but visibly larger Fairlane 500 for less money.
All true. Thanks for such a fascinating and expert discussion Aaron, Dr Lemming, CA Guy and our host Paul. Only at the Curbside.
In the very small midwestern town I grew up in there was a family that had two Mercedes Benz automobiles, both purchased new – a red diesel sedan that I think was the year MikePDX includes here (I remember the funny fins that did not look quite right) and a 190SL in white with black hard top, red leather interior (first MB I ever rode in). I never really knew their source of money. The owner was retired and I think a former CPA.
Definitely true about Hollywood and MB – I read a lot of old Hollywood history and celebrity biographies and you see lots of photographs of Mercedes in the background. You see them in movies of the time as well (e.g., Laurence Harvey’s wealthy character drove a 300 sedan in Butterfield 8).
Didn’t Mason often have a big cigar in hand as well? No wonder he had those big reclining seats in Nashes. Not destined to live a long life.
Ate, the problem with the 1966-74 Ambassador wasn’t just the extra tooling costs. It was that AMC devoted exceptionally little attention during much of that period to its bread-and-butter, mid-sized nameplate in order to break into the full-sized and pony car markets.
As a case in point, the Rebel kept the same front-end sheetmetal for an exceptionally long four years (1967-70) whereas the Ambassador was restyled after only two years (1969). Just as importantly, whereas competing mid-sized nameplates placed a heavy emphasis on sporty coupes, by 1969 the SST had devolved into a bland custom version of the base Rebel — presumably to leave room for the Javelin. Nor did the Rebel offer a luxury version because that would have competed against the Ambassador. Yet the Ambassador was never particularly competitive as a full-sized car.
By 1969 the Rebel had become a narrow line of little old lady cars. Compare that with the competition, which lavished great attention on its mid-sized cars, both in terms of frequent restylings and trendy trim lines.
Economies of scale matter. By the late-1960s AMC diced and sliced its limited resources to such a degree that it could no longer stay competitive in any one field. In contrast, George Romney’s genius was that he consolidated AMC’s lineup in the mid-50s to an exceptional degree, e.g., not even offering two-door hardtops between 1956 and 1962.
PS: Abernathy championed the long-wheelbase Ambassador (it was a rush job designed to distance AMC from its Rambler heritage). In contrast, one of Romney’s last acts was to protest when Automotive News classified the 1963 senior Ramblers as intermediates rather than compacts.
My uncle traded in his 64 American (three speed with overdrive) for a new 66 Ambassador because my aunt wanted to go back to an automatic transmission; she also wanted something larger than the American but smaller than a Big Three standard sedan. They liked the quality of the American and so stayed with AMC (his daughter later bought a new Javelin in 68). The Ambassador was a dark blue four door sedan and we all thought it was a very nice looking car; it also was well built and reliable and he drove it until 72. By then my aunt had passed and he decided on a handsome new LTD, a two-door hardtop in metallic brown with black vinyl roof that unfortunately turned out to be a lemon. He was sorry to have let the Ambassador go. I still like the size and style of the 65-66 Ambassadors. That convertible is a very sharp looking car.
A friend has a SST hardtop a rare car in NZ it arrived here new and underwent a RHD conversion though not the window controls they remain on the left door, these models werent locally assembled and had no real market penetration,though Campbells screwed Classics and Rebels together here the big one missed out.
Bryce, I find that interesting because I had read that AMC in 1967 made a major push to manufacture and sell RHD Ambassador sedans to the US post office to use for rural delivery, with the idea being that they could also be marketed to left-drive countries, primarily Australia and New Zealand. I do know that I saw a number of the RHD cars here in the US.
Sedan yes my friends one is a two door coupe a very rare body style here.
Lawrence-a very interesting article. American Motor’s success in the late 50’s and early 60’s was in part related to the public’s dissatisfaction with the overwrought styling and poor quality of the big three during that period-I had a friend who drove a ’59 Rambler in the late 60’s and it was a well built car. I think George Mason had a good idea that about
the only way small cars could be successfully sold was by making them as luxurious as a Cadillac. I don’t think Romney ever fully embraced that strategy-I know Roy Abernathy certainly didn’t. I think the problem was that AMC tried to straddle the fence, trying to build cars that appealed to the Lake Wobegone set-utilitarian practical vehicles and at the same time trying to appeal to a demographic who wanted more stylish and powerful vehicles. AMC’s ad campaign-“The Sensible Spectaculars” -was there every more terrible ads? I saw one-about 1964 I think-that blasted the big three for their excessive horsepower and at the same time bragged about their 270 h.p. 327. You can’t have it both ways.
Even when AMC brought out the Javelin-a nice looking car-one of their main advertising points was the fact that it had more room in the rear seat. Was that anyway to sell a ponycar? I remember a television ad in1965 for the Marlin-they were stressing it’s “tight turning radius’ on a vehicle that was supposed to be sporty…. The advertising AMC used sent mixed messages and I think really turned a lot of buyers off; throughout its existence, AMC was labeled by most people as a manufacturer of staid, utilitarian automobiles.
It was their market…the only market segment they controlled. Face it, the biggest single reason anyone bought an AMC car was…tradition. Because they’d always owned Nash or Hudson or Rambler products.
What that meant was…their buyers were older; set in their ways; hyperconservative; and not discriminating. Let them THINK they’re getting a little flash from the Rambler store. Their shuffleboard buddies probably won’t try to dissuade them; the only person to argue with a fool is a bigger fool.
It’s a trend in this kind of industry. As economies of scale disappear from one manufacturer, the product line gets slimmer and more staid and stale; and advertising starts to appeal to values that have little to do with the product. Like “Made in the USA” …or, “roomiest back-seat in the ponycar class.”
Once the business starts circling the drain, it’s hard to pull it out. Just ask the Ford boys…or Nissan.
“Once the business starts circling the drain, it’s hard to pull it out. Just ask the Ford boys…or Nissan.”
What does that mean?
That’s true, although AMC did admittedly try to change that by hiring Mary Wells in the late sixties. The Javelin ads and commercials of 1969-70, for instance, were a good deal more creative (and funnier) than AMC had dared previously.
That must have been awkward, given her faltering post Motown career. “Also-Ran Motors features the Pre-Diana Ross, and her new Javelin….”
Ha, ha…that’s the legendary Mary Wells Lawrence–the greatest Mad Woman. Read her autobiography “A Big Life (in Advertising)”
The white convertible in this photo is FOR SALE. The owner’s a buddy of mine, doesn’t use it anymore, is thinking of selling it. It’s nearly perfect. Offers?
I never realized at a time what an overhaul/expansion they’d done for 1965:
I remember first seeing pictures of the 1958-62 Nash and Rambler cars, and thinking “ugly!” Today, I find them quite attractive, except for the front end appearance, which I still find to be unattractive.
That car, or it’s exact twin used to park on the 1500 block of Delaware St. In Berkeley, CA.
Makes sense. There’s a Berkeley residential parking permit decal on the back bumper.
The 58 Ambassador was created to serve the market of traditional Nash and Hudson buyers. Early mock-ups showed both Nash and Hudson nameplates before it was decided the names were to be dumped for the 58 model year.
Another claim I have read is that the Ambassador was created as something for AMC’s executives to drive. Can’t have corporate types going to industry affairs in a Rambler American, can you?
AMC’s Ambassador was sold as a luxury car. In 1968 it became one of the only two or three offerings in the business to include A/C as standard equipment. Hence the ad: “An Unfair Comparison To The Rolls-Royce”.
1970 also added a new rear clip and roofline for the 2 door hardtops [shared with the Rebel] and different grilles.
This car, much like the full-size 1965 Fords and Plymouths seems to be an interpretation of the beautiful and successful 1963 full size Pontiac. Thanks to that, it is a quite handsome car. But, it is probably the stogiest interpretation anybody did. And by 1965 it was competing with the mid-size Pontiac LeMans which was also sporting the classic ’60s Pontiac look, that only got better with the amazing 1966 LeMans.
A tough act to compete with in 1965……
And then this rolled into the party in 1966 and all eyes moved away from the Ambassador…….
Nobody stacked headlights better than Pontiac.
The AMC product placement guys were busy. Awhile back I saw an old episode of I-Spy. Kelly and Scottie were running away from bad guys in a dapper AMC convertible. I checked the Imdb cars site, and it appears to have been a mere Rambler Classic instead of the big Ambassador. But here it is.
Abernethy spread AMC into segments where they had little prospect of succeeding, failing to understand the good basis the 1963 Classic/Ambassador platform represented for development into high quality, bullet-proof reliable, “International-sized” luxurious economical cars that would increasing find acceptance in the 1970’s.
That said, personally the 1967-69 Ambassadors remain favorites of their late ’60’s efforts. They easily have the cleanest, most elegant styling Teague directed, the ’67 Ambassador convertible the best. Its a shame it wasn’t built for 1968-69 as well, even if it sold minimal numbers. One deficit is the too-small 14″ wheels that fail to fill the wheelhouses, giving the authoritative look of 15″ wheels appropriate to a top-line car.
As with the Imperial, given the relatively low sales returns, the management motivation to have a top-line make/model for executive use had to be one reason these cars were kept around. Certainly, it wasn’t because they continued to hope they would make significant in-roads into their intended segments. At least in the AMC case, while unintended, the Ambassadors became the savior for steady sedan/wagon volume as the Rebel/Matador failed to repeat the success of the Classic.
One point I have seen brought up about AMC’s failure is how they ended up with two platforms, one for the American and the senior platform for the Rebel/Ambassador/Matador, and the strain on their budget from trying to keep two completely different platforms up to date. They probably backed into that situation by reviving the 55 Rambler as the American, after they introduced the larger 56 Rambler, then stretched that platform for the Ambassador.
So, maybe we need to point our fingers at George Romney for putting AMC back on the two platform path, after dropping the old senior platform in 57. Let’s jump into the Wayback Machine and imagine the new 1963 Ramblers, the 55 and 56 platforms both gone. One platform in two wheelbases: short wheelbase with simple front clip, single headlights as the American and a longer wheelbase, fancier front clip, dual headlights as the Classic/Ambassador.
Seems I read one of the old posts above as saying that the Rebel was a cheap, old lady’s car….
I have driven every version of the Classic\Ambassador platform from 1959 to 1972, not every year but a representative model. I learned to drive on both a 63 Classic(of which I have owned 3) and a 65 Ambassador at which time I was driving over 800 miles a month at age 15 in 1966. I loved driving the Ambassador over the road on our weekend trips to the beach which was a 200 mile round trip. It was equipped almost the same as our 63 Classic, V8-Auto-R&H the difference being the 63 had a 198hp 287V8 & the 65 had a 270hp 327V8. It had power and ride but the 63 Classic was a bit more nimble but less hp. The Classic eventually became mine and I proceeded to make it over. 4bbl carb, dual exhaust, the heaviest front & rear springs I could buy, HD front shocks, Gabriel rear air shocks(which were actually listed for 57 Chev but I found the through an interchange book), chrome reverse wheels and wide oval tires. At the time my friends were driving 67 427 450hp Vette, 62 Ford 406V8, 68 Dodge Coronet 383 HPro, 64 Malibu with 327 365hp and 65 Tempest 421V8. We would all cruise downtown like American Graffiti in the late 60’s to early 70’s and I got a lot of compliments on my 63 Classic. It wouldn’t win many stoplight drags but it would handle, going 25 mph and crank the wheel to make 90 degree turn onto a cross street and it would make the turn with almost no lean, where most other cars would be sliding and uncontrollable. I once made it from Seaside to Portland, Oregon in 55 min meaning this car could handle when set up right with stock available parts.
Once they came out the 67 Classic\Ambassador platform I did not like them. New engines, drive train and the larger size of the cars turned me off. My dad owned 67,69 & 71 Ambassadors all which I have driven. I would have rather have the older ones, I still would like to own a 61 Ambassador and a 58-59 Ambassador 4dr HT sedan or station wagon although there are probably less than 10 in existence of the latter. The smaller 62 Ambassador which I have driven is no different than the 62 Rambler other than it offers a V8 where 62 Rambler is a 6cyl only.
I have always considered the 65-66 Ambassador to be the best of the line factoring in looks, size, handling, power and ride.
It is amusing to hear/read all the know-it-alls drone on about bad choices AMC made, or they claim! how AMC fumbled. It seems by Consumer reports the black circles for lack of quality seems to hurt AMC as much as anything else, and I am a big AMC fan. I have always thought MOST of their styling was pretty, through the 1960’s, and they were current. It was unfortunate, un fair, AMC had a REPUTATION for elderly people. To place some of their designs by the over done Chrysler lines of 1961, the sad ’62 Plymouth, over done and over loaded, full sized GM cars 1965 and later, make the nifty intermediates look very modern! through 1964, and the Classic-Ambassador-Rebel rather pretty!!! 1965 till 1970. The grill on the 65-66 Marlin did NOT fit a sporty car, and for a car with supposed ZIP, the 67 Marlin seemed to have too much sheet metal. 1963 Rambler was Motor Trend Car of the Year. MT said of the 67 Rebel, it would SELL to the public, if it could get the buyers in the showroom. Know it alls will not want to admit it, but the beautiful 68 Javelin….was the ONLY pony car….style conscious European car makers would look at. Not the copy versions, Camaro, Firebird, Mustang, etc. AMC was rather small, and made a couple of bad guesses they had trouble bouncing back from. Bad guesses? Like the Corvair, Falcon, the 65 Barracuda / “fastback Valiant” UGH! the Chevy Vega OUCH!, and how Chrysler stumbled, mmmm, a couple of times in the mid 70’s . Tom McCahill said the 67 Rebel was the BEST! intermediate that year. The Big Guys made their share of mistakes, but they simply had the size to recover. AMC did not. I agree with Loco Milado, the 66 Ambassador has always been at the top of my list, a real beauty.
It’s amazing AMC stayed independent until 1979, with all the recessions, inflation, strikes, and safety and emission regulations. If only Jeep had exploded sooner.
My uncle had one of these, bought new. White with a black interior and black vinyl roof. We met up in Montreal in 1975. He’d driven up from Connecticut in the Ambassador. It had 105,000 miles on it, and looked like new. He was around 60 at the time, and said it was the best car he’d ever owned to that point.
To me the Ambassador epitomized the beginning of AMC’s finest hour, for styling at least. The earlier Ramblers and so on were very quaint, almost comical in appearance, looking outdated even when new, and of course by the ’70s they had gone off the deep end with the Gremlin, the Javelin, and the Pacer, but in that golden age of the mid- to late-’60s AMC’s cars were both practical-looking and stylish, successfully walking the narrow road between the dangerous ditches of too stodgy and too weirdly futuristic.
My opinion only, of course! Taste in car styling is like musical taste – evoking strong feelings, and very personal.
I still think AMC would’ve been toast had they stayed the course with just their sensible cars that sold so well in the late 50’s-early 60’s. They only had the Studebaker Lark playing in their field in 1959, but then they got bombed with Falcons, Valiants, Comets, Lancers, GM’s BOP compacts, Chevy II, Fairlane, Chevelle… and on and on in the first few years of the 1960’s. So many more mouths looking for a piece of the same pie.
I quite like the look of the 1965-66 Amby, even the front end treatment. It’s fairly simple, yet unique, and definitely not unattractive. Those tail lamps that employ transparent red lenses with optics on a separate, inboard lens are a neat touch. I’ve only driven a Jeep J-series truck with an AMC 327, and can only imagine that it would make a rather potent performer out of a midsize car like this one… especially with a manual trans. I think they nailed the Ambassador’s styling for 1967 (ditto Marlin). It’s sad that the greater buying public didn’t feel the same.
Toyota did this correctly, AMC did the opposite.
The Avalon is based on the Camry, but the Camry gets all the attention.
The Ambassador was based on the Classic, but AMC ignored the Classic which then caused them to lose the Ambassador.
If AMC did what Toyota proved it could do – AMC would have invested in the Classic and the American, kept them cutting edge in their class, and then offered up a pony car derivative and a luxury derivative off of those cars. This would have been cheaper than creating the Javelin and propping up the Ambassador, and more profitable too.
Abernathy wasn’t innovative enough to lead AMC. He belonged in a big Detroit corporation, not a niche Kenosha corporation. He lacked the nose for smelling out new markets. He followed a conservative playbook. He was the wrong person to take over from Romney.
When Chapin took over, AMC was already on its death bed. The Post Office bailed out AMC in 1966 or it would have ended along with Studebaker. The politics in Washington couldn’t permit two US auto independents to cash out at the same time, so Washington saved AMC to die another day.
Abernathy’s gamble was a disaster for AMC and AMC ended up with obsolete cheap cars until it was bought by Chrysler.