(first posted 11/11/2015) In the August 1971 issue of Road Test Magazine, the editors chose two American full size cars to review. On Monday, we took a look at the editors’ impressions of the 1971 Pontiac Grand Ville. Today, we’ll see what they had to say about the AMC Ambassador SST. Though both cars were in the full size segment, they were very different in their approach. The pragmatic, sleepy AMC versus the aggressively styled, super-sized Pontiac–which would have been your pick?
I’m still amazed at how long AMC lasted, considering their resources.
I’ve always thought of the Toyota Avalon as the spiritual successor to the Ambassador. It’s out of the mainstream of traditional luxury cars but it still has it’s fans.
So glad CC is back up! Missed this site so much and all you guys too!
AMC knew how to make a good, competitive large-size sedan in 1971, it’s too bad they didn’t know how to update it to keep it that way. I liked these cars better as the slightly smaller Matadors, for some reason the extra space between the front door and the wheel opening just doesn’t really look right to me. Otherwise I think they were probably as good as anything else on the road in 1971.
And that ungainly upward sweep at the C-pillar beltline didn’t do the Ambassador any favors, either.
Actually the 1972 models had some significant improvements. The Chrysler Torqueflite replaced the old Borg-Warner slushbox, electric windshield wipers became standard, and modernized HVAC controls were introduced.
Under the skin though AMC’s large-car platform was the same from 1967 through 1978 model years. The only significant change in the chassis was the move to upper ball joints in the front suspension for 1970.
The fact that were still using vacuum wipers in 1971 is inexcusable, bad enough they were still using trunion-kingpin front suspension in 1969, or torque-tubes in 1966.
The fact that were still using vacuum wipers in 1971 is inexcusable, bad enough they were still using trunion-kingpin front suspension in 1969, or torque-tubes in 1966.
I have a 1970 issue of the Consumer Reports auto annual. iirc, the price for the optional electric wipers was a paltry $20. The reliability tables are an interesting read too. As the 70s work on, the new ball joint front ends gave a lot more trouble than the old trunions.
$20 in 1970 dollars might not have been all that paltry. As pointed out, it really is inexcusable that AMC products did not have electric wipers as standard equipment as late as 1970, as I’m certain everyone else had had them for years.
$20 in 1970 dollars might not have been all that paltry. As pointed out, it really is inexcusable that AMC products did not have electric wipers as standard equipment as late as 1970, as I’m certain everyone else had had them for years.
Check the data panel in the test. This is a $4,000 car, so that $20 was 0.5% of the price of the car.
As for customer’s expectations of electric wipers, iirc our 56 Studebaker had electric wipers. When mom looked at the 64 Rambler, I remember her being taken aback when the salesman mentioned the vacuum wipers, then he assured her they had a “lock” on them so they would never completely stop. Years later, I found out that “lock” was actually a vacuum pump piggybacked on the fuel pump. In any event, I never saw those wipers stop entirely, though they did slow driving up a hill, then flap senselessly when stopped at a traffic light.
When my Aunt bought her Amby in 70, she never thought about the wipers. Her 65 Plymouth and 61 Chevy had had electrics. Wow was she pi$$ed when the car arrived from the plant and she discovered the vacuum wipers. She would have gladly paid the $20 for electrics, if the idiot salesman had only said something.
If the price was $20 at retail then the actual cost to make it would have been under $10, not including any savings of having a single wiper system and all the costs and headaches associated with assembly and keeping stock for two different set ups.
If the price was $20 at retail then the actual cost to make it would have been under $10, not including any savings of having a single wiper system and all the costs and headaches associated with assembly and keeping stock for two different set ups.
You are right that making electrics standard would probably have saved AMC money. That’s why we have less than a dozen exterior colors and two interior colors available on cars now, instead of the wide variety we could get in the 70s and earlier: it’s cheaper to offer fewer options. We also have fewer body styles now: 4 door sedan only in many lines, instead of 4 door sedan, 2 door and wagon.
Here is part of a page from that 1970 Consumer Reports test of intermediate wagons, stating the price of electrics on the Rebel was $20.
Mack was still using vacuum wipers well into the 80’s. I used to drive 1984 Mack torture chamber and the vacuum wipers were awful. AMC was at least making an effort to be modern. Mack didn’t care.
I doubt they were vacuum, since diesel engines don’t generate any vacuum. I suspect they may have been powered by the compressed air system.
technically a diesel does produce vacuum, otherwise there would be no positive pressure to move the air thru the engine. The amount of negative head produced is less than a spark ignition engine because there is no throttle butterfly causing additional restriction.
The most unique wipers were the hydraulic ones on Dad’s ’64 Continental. The power steering system was used, with a variable speed sliding lever valve.
I drove an old R model the wipers like everything else were air operated I had to connect a nearby compressor every time I used it just to start that old heap.
Yeah, it’s curious how automatic transmission and air conditioning were standard, but electric wipers were optional.
for some reason the extra space between the front door and the wheel opening just doesn’t really look right to me
That’s because it’s just all wrong. It looks ridiculous. They were doing what used to work in the 30s, adding a longer front end like that. But by this time it looks horribly un-organic, and rather pathetic. Poor old AMC.
That’s because it’s just all wrong. It looks ridiculous. They were doing what used to work in the 30s, adding a longer front end like that. But by this time it looks horribly un-organic, and rather pathetic. Poor old AMC.
Looks OK to me. The shortest iteration of that platform, the Rebel, looks a bit pug nosed when you compare the short front clip to the rest of the car. The 118″ wheelbase version was probably the best balanced, but 4″ one way or another isn’t as extreme as the 9″ stretch the late 50s Amby got compared to the Rambler it was based on.
They looked odd under the hood as well because the engine, perched on the front crossmember, sat so far ahead of the firewall. It would have looked much better balanced overall if the stretch were a few inches shorter.
In 1971 these were not bad cars though, especially if you paid attention to the option list. Popular Science that year did a test of full-size station wagons. The Ambassador wagon equipped with 401 V8, power disc brakes, and heavy-duty suspension was judged superior to its Big 3 competition in terms of power, brakes, fuel economy, and handling. It weighed about 1000 pounds less than the others yet had nearly the same interior space. (Also the big AMC wagons escaped the ugly stick that hit the sedans, sticking with the basic 1967 body shell.)
By 1974 though, in a similar PS test the Ambassador failed to keep its lead. Aside from some questionable restyling of the front clip it was still basically a 1967 design while the others had moved ahead.
Now that is stupid. I could have understood the stretch if it had the benefit of an engine sitting further back with all the weight distribution benefits, but to do this so that the car would look longer?
During this time period the full-size cars from the Big 3 were getting bigger, but AMC could not afford major modifications to its 1960s-vintage large-car platform. So they stretched the wheelbase a ridiculous amount to make the car “bigger” in order to to compete. They could now could brag about the Ambo’s 122-inch wheelbase, never mind that it still had the same interior space as a 1967 Rambler Rebel at 114 inches.
In 1974 AMC took the even more ridiculous step of giving their large cars a bulbous Jimmy Durante nose to make them even longer with minimal tooling cost. In hindsight, with their reputation as compact car specialists, AMC probably would have been better off keeping a smaller wheelbase and marketing the Ambassador as a “compact” full-sizer, offering full-size room along with better performance and gas mileage in a trimmer package than their competitors.
It’s hard to believe, but under the skin an Ambassador is the same car as the Rebel convertible profiled on CC in 2011:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-1967-rambler-rebel-sst-convertible-rambler-tries-flexing-its-muscles-again-belatedly/
The long hood did give the Ambassador the long hood/short deck proportions that were coming into vogue with the rise of the personal luxury coupe. The hardtop was the primary beneficiary, a bit odd on the station wagon, nice enough on the sedan……especially for the Brougham!
Lengthening ahead of the cowl to front axle was an old trick from the 1930’s onward with shared bodies, practically every Independent and a number of Big Three did so. By the late ’60’s, it was only seen on the before-mentioned personal coupes; the ’70’s Monte Carlos are great examples.
The correct way to lengthen sedans giving the customer additional interior room for the money was to do as Cadillac did for the 60 Special/Fleetwood Brougham at times, and as Studebaker built the Land Cruiser/President Classic/Lark Cruiser 1947-’61: add four inches to the rear seat space of the regular sedan bodies with longer doors, floor pan, roof and frame. It was the more costly options to tool but put the space where the customer could actually use it. For Studebaker, their lwb Y-body models accounted for an average ten percent of total sedan volume through the model years offered.
Even M-B did so to create their SEL from the SE, as well as R-R longer sedans over the standard Silver Shadow. Too bad AMC didn’t practice it as well.
… add four inches to the rear seat space of the regular sedan bodies with longer doors, floor pan, roof and frame. It was the more costly options
Answered the question yourself. Tooling the longer floorpan, longer roof, longer doors, longer door glass adds up after a while.
There were cases of two door variants being on a different wheelbase than four door versions as late as the 70s, the 72 Ford Torino being the first that comes to mind, but a two door is going to have unique doors, rear quarters and roof anyway.
Doing a passenger compartment stretch on a unibody may be even more expensive. The early 50s Hudson Wasp had the length cut out of the front clip, instead of the passenger compartment, compared to the Hornet. I wondered how they did it as there was no room to spare under the Hornet’s hood. Found out when I visited the Hostetler: they dished the firewall to clear the back of the engine in the Wasp.
Yes, Mercs and Rollers are unibody, but, at that price level, they could afford the extra tooling cost.
The 1930s long hoods were often necessitated by the need to fit a straight eight under the hood in the upper models. Of course, that need went away almost everywhere after WWII.
Studebaker did an incredible bunch of cutting and pasting to get cars of different wheelbases and lengths. But I suppose this was easier and cheaper to do with body on frame than with unit construction, especially in smaller volumes. Or maybe AMC just wouldn’t commit to its biggest platform. Your suggestion of adding length into the passenger compartment would have been a good one, something to give an Ambassador buyer something to show off for his extra expenditure.
Body-on-frame allowed much more ‘cut-‘n-paste’ re-proportioning on a cost-effective basis than doing so on a unibody. AMC being committed to the latter, if it ever studied the passenger compartment lengthening concept, probably concluded it was too much expense for not much ‘bang for the buck’. Ambassador buyers showed no resistance from its 1958 inception, nor when re-instigated for 1965, though both obviously a Classic with a stretched front clip.
Had AMC settled on creating 1965 and subsequent Ambassadors by adding four inches to the passenger compartment over the Classic/Rebel/Matador, with differentiated styling, a far higher level of trim, features and build quality and done so consistently, who knows what might have been the result.
AMC had their tooling budget spread so thin by the late ’60’s, none of their cars could be the optimum for their market.
AMC had their tooling budget spread so thin by the late ’60’s, none of their cars could be the optimum for their market.
Yup. As sweet as the Javelin was, it required modification of the American floorpan, and all new sheetmetal.
Then the Matador couple had all unique sheetmetal.
Then the Pacer went one farther with a unique platform, as well as unique sheetmetal.
I watched them building them in Kenosha in 75. One line was running Hornets and Matadors mixed, and the other line running Gremlins and Pacers mixed. Computers managed to route the right parts to the line in the right sequence, but I can imagine a guy on the line, just getting used to putting three brackets in place on Hornets, then realizing a Matador was next, and having to shift his procedure to putting different parts in different places.
Bet the line people and QC people all breathed a sigh of relief when every platform had been killed except the Hornet/Gremlin.
In one alternate reality, AMC takes the coil sprung, trailing arm rear of the senior line, and the front suspension/rack and pinion steering of the Pacer, and creates the equivalent of the Ford Fox body, which they could trim and stretch like Ford did, to replace everything else they made, with that one platform.
I actually prefer the proportions with the longer front end, especially when you compare the Classic-based 65-66 Marlin to the Ambassador-based 67 Marlin. tremendous improvement.
The “Macpherson strut” label in the engine compartment photo appears to be incorrect. It has the Falcon/Mustang-style coil spring/shock mounted to the upper A arm.
Yes it is funny that they are calling it that. Hard to say if that was because someone at AMC was calling that or if the writers were just trying to be cool calling it that. Of course it really just is the old fashioned coil spring mounted on the upper control arm with a standard shock in the middle just like used on the Falcon.
I used to have a ’71 Ambassador, purchased used, equipped just about exactly like the one in this review. I’d say the article is pretty accurate aside from misidentifying the front suspension as MacPherson strut type. The pre-1970 trunnion suspension did look kind of like like a strut at first glance until you noticed the details, but that changed completely when AMC went to upper ball-joints. It is very similar to the Falcon suspension.
One of the things about AMC is that they used the same pieces on their cars whenever possible. An Ambassador used the same front suspension as a Gremlin. (Not just the design, the actual parts!)
I noted that too. Strange that they made that error, especially considering how struts weren’t mainstream suspension components on American cars at that point.
How awesome would an Ambassador SST 2-door with 401/4-speed/3.51 rear end be? Did anybody actually order one?
A factory 4-speed Ambassador would be an amazing CC and almost certainly one of the most rare AMC finds, ever. I’d be more inclined to believe it’s a misprint, similar to the Macpherson strut claim. Maybe someone has access to an old Ambassador sales brochure to see if it’s listed.
It is!
Actually, it’s not. From that sheet, the engine options for the Ambassador are:
304 (standard)
360 (2v or 4v)
401
All come with either a 2.87 or 3.15 rear axle (the latter is probably the limited slip option). But all of them are with a column-mounted automatic.
The manual transmission and console automatics are surely options for the Javelin and Hornet, or maybe the Rebel ‘Machine’ (if it was still being built at that time).
A Matador Machine was planned for 1971 but only prototypes were built, and at least one exists today.
Glad you’re back, I enjoy my daily dose of CC.
Though styling is subjective, I find the ’69 frontal design one of Teague & Co. best, followed by the ’70-’73, and ’67-’68. The Ambassador should have kept the ’67-’69 rear quarter panels and received unique taillights separate from the Matador of the same design as the elegant vertical items used on the station wagons.
To alleviate the jarring clash of the nearly-vertical C-pillar door frame and the fast rake of the backlight, a roof cap to give the backlight a steeper angle would have helped, see attach Lincoln Versailles image. Ambassador would have been a first to do so, as the industry slid into the Brougham Epoch. Although it would have been retrograde, adding a functional vent window to the rear door would also have enforced the upmarket image. The interior should have had a rear seat folding armrest too.
I agree. They could have gone back to the 67 with the tall taillights as well. the Rebel and Ambassador were better differentiated in 67-69 than they were from 70.
With the vinyl top you got most of the look you’re going for 58L. It really did change the look of the car, added a trim piece at the c pillar that bisected the vertical height from the door bottom to the roof peak.
“Differentiation” ‘You said the secret word’ as Groucho’s said. As long as they had to share the central body for both Rebel/Matador and Ambassador, significant differentiation of both front and rear styling was the primary way to establish these cars in their respective segments. For 1967-69, the two couldn’t be confused from any view; from ’70 on, Ambassador looked too much like its cheaper brethren. People that sprung for the Ambassador likely knew they weren’t getting any more interior space, but they definitely wanted exterior styling that projected an upscale image. From ’70 on, they weren’t getting their money’s worth.
I’m struggling to identify a car available in 1971 that I would buy. I couldn’t afford a Mercedes, which does seem to be an excellent design advanced for that time. The intermediates weren’t very roomy, even thought they were very large. Mustangs weren’t great during that generation. Camaros were great, but their quality wasn’t. Vegas, Pintos, Gremlins, Beetles – these were miserable wrecks.
Valiant. I’d probably end up in a nice Valiant.
There is nothing about this Ambassador that justifies a dealer visit. The exterior is generic, the interior is forgettable, and how it performs on the road is unremarkable. It offers nothing unique. A decade earlier, Studebaker found surprising success with a Scotsman model. It seems that AMC decided that being a 1971 Scotsman would be a viable marketing plan for half their cars. If Wal-Mart made a car in 1971, this would have been the full size model.
Dull car from a very dull time.
Have you ever seen a Studebaker Scotsman ? It was not even in the same universe as this car.
WalMart would have made a ton of Big Three cars in that period.
It would make an interesting QOTD if the ’72 wagon one wasn’t so similar;
The Mopar A-bodies seemed to hit a sweet spot in the market, appealing to people who weren’t ready to go foreign but wanted honest, form-follows-function transportation.
Nissan/Datsun was on a roll (that soon would end) but in ’71 both the 1200 (Sunny) and 510 (Bluebird) were well worth considering; Popular Science’s Jan Norbye and Jim Dunne loved the 1200 (“..a hoot to drive”). They rated the Fiat 124 sedan over the 510 in its’ price bracket but knowing what we know now…
There was also the GM A-body. I’ve heard way more good than bad about the ’68-72 A’s; again, Norbye/Dunne commented there was starting to be some cheapening out of the ’71 Malibu 4-door hardtop they looked at; maybe that’s why Olds Cutlasses were starting to be the hot ticket.
Lastly, the muscle-car party wasn’t over yet in ’71, even if the seven-layer dip was starting to look like it had already explored someone’s digestive tract before emerging the way it went in. ’71 was the last year for the unibody Fairlane/Torino and the really hot Challenger/Barracuda variants, but I’d love to at least get to drive a Duster 340 4-speed…
The GM A-body sedans of this era offered good interior room and a reasonable exterior size. The Oldsmobile and Buick versions, in particular, offered decent build quality for the era and were very reliable. Properly optioned, they were considered a credible alternative to the full-size cars.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the AMC Ambassador lost more sales to the GM A-bodies – in particular, the Buick and Olds versions – than the Big Three’s full-size cars.
B body Chrysler.
The Ambassador is a nice looking car although it has a rather vanilla look about it as
opposed to the Pontiac Gran Ville which had a somewhat more aggressive look although it was reduced considerably from Pontiac’s in your face look from the 60’s.
If anything, the Ambassador’s styling reminds me a lot of Toyota’s-rather bland and vanilla looking-it’s attractive but there’s nothing that really stands out.
What I found most interesting was how it’s performance numbers compare with the Pontiac: in nearly every respect, the AMC wins. It gets much better fuel economy. Only in the 0-30 test is the Pontiac quicker; after that, they are equal, with the AMC taking the win in 0-75 and the quarter mile. The Pontiac stops slightly better, and has a better estimated top speed. Being 500 or so pounds lighter certainly had its benefits.
Being 500 or so pounds lighter certainly had its benefits
As GM and Ford found out when they downsized their big cars in ’77 and ’79. And what made the tri-five Chevys so sought after.
That’s damning with faint praise, and some actual damning as well.
Ambassador was always my favorite….source of parts for my 72 Matador 🙂
Sad how poorly this car performed. I pass an SST wagon every morning that’s slowly returning to the earth in the front yard of an abandoned house here in PA.
Thanks so much for posting. Reading this article made my day!
Reading that article makes one appreciate today’s spell checkers and grammar checkers.
It’s particularly apparent when you grew up reading some of the other magazines of that era.
Writing quality and proofreading/editing were two areas where Car and Driver and Road & Track stood out among automotive journals, even long after John Bond and David E. Davis, Jr. left their respective helms.
They’re not completely extinct yet, Kansas City Craigslist, Veteran’s Day week 2015, a ’71 Ambassador Brougham:
http://kansascity.craigslist.org/cto/5247664646.html
A brougham before the apex of the Great Brougham Epoch!
I’d fogotten that the headliner in these was a cheap looking stamped one piece affair, not competive with typical Big 3 cars that used fabric liners in their average and upscale cars.
The contrasting white headliner probably wasn’t typical.
It absorbed noise, added padding and didn’t sag or rip, unlike the competitor’s headliners. I’d take AMC’s solution over theirs any day. And especially any 80s GM cars.
I didn’t look at the headliner much in my Aunt’s 70 Amby. I did notice in Mom’s 64 Classic. Weird loosely laid fiberglass or some such. I guess it worked OK, and you don’t buy a car to look at the headliner.
In contrast, my Aunt’s 65 Fury III wagon had a headliner of perforated cardboard.
This may be the most attractive front end the Ambassador ever got on its final body. This car strikes me the very same way it did when it was new – I don’t hate it, but it does nothing for me. Somehow, these were always less than the sum of their parts.
A friend had one of these in the mid 1980’s, a mint condition hand-me-down from his grandparents. In full Brougham trim, blue with a black vinyl roof, it looked sort of upscale. My friend was a serious pharmacy student, and didn’t have time to beat up the car or be stupid with it. It served him fairly well as a comfortable daily driver.
Objectively, it wasn’t a very good car for all the many reasons in the article and the comments. Its strong suit, as I remember it, was it was pretty roomy inside for a car with its modest external footprint. It felt a lot like being in the ’77-’79 GM B bodies that littered the driveway around our house. I’m not sure I’ve seen it mentioned here yet, but the wheelbase extension on this compared to AMC’s Matador was all ahead of the cowl. It was purely cosmetic and added weight. Completely useless.
If my recollection (whick seems to agree with the Road Test article) on the decent interior packaging is correct, this could have been a competitive product if executed better. Roomier than a typical Detroit mid-size, without the penalty of size and poor gas mileage in a typical Detroit full-size. That was suddenly a big selling point for GM large cars just 6 years after this car was made.
To answer the question, would I pick this or the ’71 Grandville? I’d have to go with the Grandville if money were no object. This car really didn’t compete with the Grandville, probably more typically with Plymouth, Ford or Chevy mid and full size products – and used cars!
The Ambassador wasn’t a mid size though it shared the same body as the Ambassador with a longer wheelbase all in front of the cowl.
From the caption under the picture of the article “..interior room is more generous than most standard size cars “. So much for the claim it was a “full size car with an intermediate sized interior” comments I have read in earlier articles referencing it and the Matador.
My folks had a 72 Ambassador Brougham. At least Road Test’s model had the door windlacing attached properly. Ours, you could stick a finger through. Their summary of AMC’s workmanship is spot on.
For 72, AMC switched the gauge cluster and panels of the Matador [square speedo and gauges] and the Ambassador. An inexpensive ” update” for the Ambassador.
A sensible alternative to other foot longer standard size cars. Reasonable mileage. Looks good on paper. Road Test described the target market for this car precisely.
I loved my parent’s , but it was a cost cutting/poor workmanship victim all the way. A very good looking car that still looks great today.
GN: Thanks for posting this. What a treat.
Missed my CC fix! Glad you’re back up.
My folks had a 72 Ambassador Brougham. At least Road Test’s model had the door windlacing attached properly. Ours, you could stick a finger through. Their summary of AMC’s workmanship is spot on.
From the CR reliability reports, looks like AMC quality deteriorated significantly from the late 60s on. Mid 60s models were about bullet proof. My Aunt’s 70 Amby had several squeaks, rattles and ill-fitting bits on the instrument panel, as well as repairs to A/C, carb and trans within 5 years.
I noted the report talked about several chips in the paint. Nash was a lashup of several different companies. The main plant in Kenosha dated back to the Jeffery company, while the body plant in Milwaukee was the old Seaman body plant. The lakefront plant in Kenosha was a repurposed Sealy mattress plant. While car bodies were still being trucked from the Fleetwood plant to Cadillac on Clark St into the early 80s, that was only a couple miles. The AMC bodies rode closer to 40 miles from Milwaukee to Kenosha, in all kinds of weather, which exposed the bodies to damage, as well as pushing up the cost of the car, so they had to cut corners elsewhere to price competitively.
Seems they finally got rid of the Milwaukee body plant when they were making the Alliance, but that was another lashup. Apparently, the bodies were assembled at the main plant, then trucked to Lakefront for painting and trim, then trucked back to the main plant for final assembly.
My parents had a 1973 AMC Gremlin with the 258 I-6, floor-mounted Torqueflite transmission, factory air conditioning and power steering (but bench seats). It was bought as a one-year-old car in a private sale to replace their dying 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air wagon.
Even as a young pup I thought that car’s interior was the cheapest I had ever seen. It was as though every component cost about .10 cents.
The interior carpet wore through after two years (and was also tearing away from the transmission selector housing).
The dashboard was a collection of poorly fitted plastic pieces that were “warped” by the screws holding everything to together. The overall fit-and-finish of the dashboard would have embarrassed any self-respecting high-school auto body class.
The vinyl in the front driver’s seat began splitting within three years.
The manual tuner in the AM radio began slipping within three years. My friend and I took apart the dashboard to remove the radio and fix it with super glue. It promptly began slipping again with a few weeks.
The driver’s side window kept falling out of its tracks, and the outside rear-view mirror wouldn’t stay in place when the driver’s door was slammed shut. My parents bought a brand-new replacement mirror from the AMC dealer – and it did the same thing within a year!
The struts holding up the rear window hatch gave out after about four years.
The alternator light began glowing permanently after about three years. This was apparently a common malady of mid-1970s AMC products, as I saw a few Hornets and Gremlins with permanently glowing alternator lights.
It would be nice to say that, in spite of all this, the drivetrain was mechanically rugged, but it was literally in the shop every six months with a major problem. It was easily the worst lemon either I or my parents have owned in our combined history of car ownership. That car probably should have had a permanent parking spot at McKnight Motors in Chambersburg, Pa.
Needless to say, even if AMC hadn’t been circling the drain by the time my parents began looking at a replacement car, there is no way that they would have bought another AMC product.
Even by the standards of mid-1970s Detroit, that Gremlin’s quality control was abysmal. Interestingly, in his book Muscle Car Confidential, Joe Oldham notes that, during his test of a 1971 Javelin AMX, a rear wheel literally fell off during the test! The magazine duly noted this event in its write-up off the car, which resulted in a personal phone call from a very irate Gerald Meyers of AMC.
“Styling is pleasing and not subject to drastic changes each year, as American Motors averages about six years between tooling for all-new bodies.”
And about twice that long for chassis redesigns…
Walking up to one of these, sitting on the showroom floor, I would have been struck by the poorly executed rear design (the rear bumper doesn’t quite look “right”), and while the dashboard/instrument panel design is also “off”, sharing a steering wheel with the Gremlin cheapens the look when sitting in the driver’s seat.
BTW, I agree, the idea of a roof “cap” to distance the Ambassador from the Matador (?), would have been a cool idea. But then, to me, the rear quarters/bumper area would then have looked even more unbalanced.
I think the problem is with the taillights – they seem disproportionately small.
I miss Road Test Magazine as it provided comprehensive reports and photos of cars meant for everyday driving. Outside of Consumer Reports, today’s car magazines focus on exotics that only a billionaire can afford or testing cars for how fast they can go on a racetrack. I have a feeling that most of today’s automotive editors are actually 12-year-old boys with a Hot Wheels obsession.
Totally agree with that, it’s why I stopped buying Car & Driver and Motor Trend years ago.
Same. I don’t get any new car magazines any more.
The Ambassador and Matador looked too much alike….One could probably option up a Matador and come out quite comparable to an Ambassador in comfort.
The Matador’s front end design looked nice up through 73……What they did to it from 74 on made it look hideous with the pronounced snout……AMC used that snout style grill design but not as overstated in its Jeep truck and Wagoneer lineup starting in 79.
Hmm – this or the UltraBloat™ Pontiac? Probably this. While I like the idea of the Pontiac, it’s just too big and heavy with no consequent material benefits that I can see. The Pontiac was roomy, but then so is this, without all the Pontiac’s added bulk. But then there’s American Motors’ build quality problems. Was 1972 GM any better?
Really, for me it would come down to which is the better driver’s car. I suspect the answer to that question would have me looking somewhere else.
Yes. build quality of Mom’s ’72 Skylark was pretty much flawless.
The SST model designation still cracks me up. This was the automotive equivalent of the Concorde, really?
Just not having a four door pillarless hardtop availiable in your top model at that time made you non-competitive with the big three.
I was a high school senior in ’71, so neither car would have appealed to me, more like a VW bus. If the choice was only the two cars listed, the Poncho wins hands down.
When we had the 70 and 72 Ambassadors as Dad’s company car, my Mom was still driving her 63 Grand Prix, and That was still the cooler choice for Saturday night out on the town.
Boy, are we ever spoiled today. We can drive a car well over 200k miles with relatively few issues and spend some money on upkeep – most cars need simple, normal maintenance. A brand new car in 1971 suffers from hard starting in cold weather and dieseling once turned off. Really?
I never was a true fan of American Motors vehicles. I knew folks that either loved them or hated them. In 1979 my family went to Disney World, and ended up having three different brand new Concord D/L’s given to us for rentals. What horrible cars they were! I know rentals get beat up, but we actually had to bring them back three times before getting a Chevy Nova that ran great. The first one made such loud bangs going over bumps that my mother didn’t feel safe in it. The second one had an issue with the A/C – it was cold and then hot and then cold and then hot again – so that one went back. The third one shook so badly on the highway that by this point my Dad was so pissed off he demanded a different kind of car. They gave us a Chevy Nova and everything was fine.
AMC quality control was hit and miss in the 70s…my grandfather RAVED about his 74 Gremlin…he loved that car. My dad’s 75 Gremlin was so horrible that he traded it in on a 76 Cutlass after less than a year. When the welds holding the radiator support together broke and the radiator fell out, that was it for the Gremlin.
The author was clearly not a good mechanic. He complains about the car dieseling after being shut off.. and can’t understand as the timing is not that retarded. Dieseling has nothing to do with timing, there is no spark once the key is switched off. Dieseling is caused by too much air being available and hot spots in the cylinders (yes premium fuel may stop it, but it is not required). Lower the idle or repair the anti-dieseling solenoid to fix the issue.
I would be interested to know if any Ambassador coupes were ordered with the 401 and
the stick? That would be my, as usual, contrarian choice.
This one was a used car bargain when compared to a Chevy or Ford.
In the service my detachment had one of these. Ah, but in army spec it had plain vinyl seats, vacuum wipers, an inline 6, three on the tree, no A/C, and I don’t remember about PS or PB. You’d call it a penalty box today but it actually worked well. We’d get her up to 100 on the autobahn without issues (who cared about regulations?) and the engine never complained about being fed a diet of questionable quality MoGas. Interestingly, it was the only car I’ve ever driven where the vacuum wipers worked well.
Interestingly, it was the only car I’ve ever driven where the vacuum wipers worked well.
AMC had a vacuum pump piggybacked on the fuel pump, so the wipers might slow down under some conditions, but they would not completely stop.
On the spec sheet, note the # of AMC dealers = 2256. That’s 45 dealers per state. That’s every small town and village.
As a kid, an AMC dealer was rare in the south.,,maybe only one per medium to large city. AMC dealership must of been common as a Chevy dealership in the north and midwest. I would image may of these picked second tier Asian franchises like Mazda, Isuzu, or Suzuki. The wise ones picked up a Hyundai dealership.
AMC dealerships were thick on the ground here in Western New York, no more than twenty miles apart. Some were only five miles apart where they had been either a Nash or Hudson dealership before the merger, each became AMC franchises. With their loyal customer bases, they all stayed in business when Ramblers were selling well. When sales became tough, the numbers started to thin.
Having driven several 70s era cars which liked to diesel, my cure was to turn the ignition off while it was in D and then put it in P. Never saw any hint that it was hurting the engine or transmission.
I nearly bought a SST Ambassador of this era. He wanted $800 for it. Had the 304 under the hood. One of those that got away.
I wouldn’t feel too bad about ‘the one that got away’. My parents had a ’72 Matador with the 304 which was given to me when I was living in automotive poverty. With something like 122 hp it was horribly underpowered and the Autolite 2 barrel suffered all of the quirks mentioned in the above article with some pretty terrible reliability added in. I actually ‘stepped up’ to a Hyundai Excel to get out of it. I’d say that you, more likely, dodged a bullet.
Good enough seems to the motto for this car.
The review doesn’t sound good. The engine kept dieseling after ignition was turned off, the seats were uncomfortable, the paint was poor, the detailing was poor, and the ride was rough.
AMC shouldn’t have made this car unless they were serious about making it good. The review reveals that the car wasn’t going to be a good car. AMC lost money on these cars. They should have discontinued them after 1966 and focused on building the best compact and subcompact cars available. By 1975, it was too late.
I remember Rambler/AMC dealers back then. They were not much more than a garage with a showroom.
They spoke of it as having plenty of power, but a 19.2 quarter mile time? Even with a fantasyland 285 HP gross rating with a 6 liter/360 engine? That wasn’t much faster than a VW Beetle. Check out the 1/4 mile calculators online, they suggest it was over 100HP, crank, but not much. One of those how did they do it, get maybe one third of a HP per cubic inch.
A ’71 VW took 16.4 seconds 0-60, while this Ambo did it in 10.5. Compare the quarter mile time to similar large cars, and you’d find it in the ballpark.
The 360-especially the 4 barrel-was a very capable engine, as good as or better than any GM 350. Lots of torque with one of these, if you’ve never driven one! The 2.87 rear axle was more for economy than performance, but still respectable for a nearly 4,000 lb car.
On the note in the article about the extra $23 for the column automatic, that was because when someone opted for the 360 engine (over the base 304) they got a heavier duty, cast iron automatic (Borg Warner M11B)….which cost $23 more over the base, aluminum case BW.
And fortunately, in 1972, the ancient B-W slushbox went away, in favor of a Chrysler TorqueFlite. (AMC called it “Torque Command.”)
By this time, it was no longer my Father’s AMC, as after his ’63 Rambler Cross Country wagon (which he didn’t take across Country, unlike his ’61 which we drove upon movig from Los Angles to Monroeville, PA in 1961) was totalled outside our motel room in Catonsville, Md. He’d changed jobs again (he had a lot of different ones, though all in the same field, when he was younger) and we were moving to Burlington, Vt. Remember seeing my grandmother (who was staying with us as babysitter) picked pieces of glass from my Father’s skin (didn’t they have safety glass in the ’63?).
He was moving up size, through intermediate, by 1971 he had a Ford Country Squire. Maybe because we still equated size with luxury, AMC was likewise offering bigger cars with more features in the late 60’s, but one can wonder if they had stayed with the Classic size and made them more luxurious whether that would have worked for them long term…probably not, as it took another decade (1975?) before luxury cars started to be made smaller, probably as a result of the first gas shortage…but AMC still had to get through that decade, not sure if a luxury version of the Classic would have caught on…and they hadn’t yet bought Jeep, so 4WD wasn’t likely yet, so probably too early to go that route (plus maybe most people weren’t yet for 4WD cars outside the Jeep contingent).