AMCs never really latched onto me when they were in circulation as wide as it got. Surely I was aware of them, but they were in back at the edge of hearing, as it’s been sung. This ’69 Rebel was front-centre, though, earlier this year in Northern Michigan on a hot late Spring’s day—the kind that makes you forget just when Summer starts (or started?).
From the front, this is an alternate-universe ’68 DeSoto. The opened wing windows go well with the vestigial headfins, don’tchya think? Looks like a probable aluminum radiator behind the grille.
The previous-year Rebel had both headlamps in a single bezel. This ’69 treatment seems less thoughtfully designed; the outboard headlamps look almost like they’re on another car. These are likely the car’s original sealed beams—see the soot-smudges near the top of the reflectors? That’s tungsten boiled off the hot filament, carried upward by the heat plume, and condensed on the cool reflector.
The taillights, on other hand, are the other way round: the ’68s could’ve been that alt-timeline DeSoto, but these ’69s stand on their own by design. I’ll grumble about space for three colours but only two being present, harrumph. At least these have good, wide visibility on account of the wraparound.
The entire rear of the car works well; to my eye it’s better designed than most all the more popular competing models.
The paint is obviously new, and looks like a good, careful job. These colours weren’t amongst the factory-available ones, which were more subdued, but they look good anyhow—even the orange pinstripe separating the blue from the silver.
The new paint contrasts with advanced-age originality—those sealed beams, for instance, and the faded and chipped-up black accent paint and brite-dip anodising on the grille; the old-but-not-bad chrome on the bumper bars, and the paint fade on this SST callout (I point this out not to criticise, just to notice).
Lookit this framed window glass. And I’ve always thought these horizontal-swing/vertical-pivot doorhandles interesting, even when I was a little kid. They’re one of those details that marked out an AMC as different to everything else. I’ve never operated one, so I don’t know how well they work; maybe they’re a damnuisance, or maybe they’re exactly the way all doorhandles should be. But I think they look neat.
And speaking of vertical, this side marker light lasted two years; the requirement was for lights and/or reflectors from 1/1/68, then the “or” was dropped from 1/1/70.
Bunch of interesting stuff to see inside: this car used to have a column shift, but now appears to have some kind of a floor-mounted shifter. The ignition key goes in a bit of an unusual place, not quite on the dash and not quite on the column. There’s that vertical radio, complemented by vertical heat-defog sliders. Great big speedometer, which also contains engine temperature and fuel gauges (the alternate-universe ’68 DeSoto version also has an ammeter, sure). Those infernal air polluters (there is nothing such as a stinkum that “freshens” the air…and what are we meant to imagine ‘black ice’ smells like, anyhow?) are still on the market because we live in a fallen world. And that steering wheel is exceedingly similar to the one in my 1973 Dodge Dart and a zillion other ’70s Mopars:
All in all, it’s a Rebel, it’ll have you know, whether coming…
…or going:
That grille reflects Detroit’s obsession with their ridiculous annual model year change. Make it different, even if it looks completely contrived and worse than the original. This happened constantly.
I’d totally forgotten about that dash and the vertical radio. Another absurd Detroit styling affectation that was quickly jettisoned.
The star of the “Driver’s Ed” and “Baja” TV commercials.
I prefer the original hardtop roofline to the later version. The Rebel was a nice size, but, in profile, it looks a bit pug-nosed. The longer front clip on the Matador and Ambassador looked better to my eye. I can’t tell if this one has vacuum wipers. The control is on the left of the steering column. Every AMC show I go to, (one in Novi this coming Saturday) I look, and seems every surviving car from the late 60s on has the optional electric wipers.
AMC seems to have had two instrument clusters for the senior cars: the one with the rectangular speedo, and one with two round bezels. The two styles of clusters would be swapped around between the Rebel/Matador and Ambassador from time to time.
The three spoke steering wheel was replaced by a two spoke model in 70. They would flip the steering wheel upside down from year to year. My aunt’s 70, had it upside down, so the Ambassador shield on the wheel was upside down compared to the other shields on the car.
Nice driving cars. Had a lighter, better connected to the road, feel to them. Learned to drive in my aunt’s Amby wagon. In 75, I was working in a foundry in Albion that had two company cars, a 74 Amby wagon and a 74 LTD. Each with about 40K on it. Hated the LTD, for it’s loose, wallowing, manner. The Amby was great, nice solid feel on the road. Drove that Amby all over northern Ohio, Indiana, and one long trip to a Dana axle plant in Edgerton, Wisconsin.
The driver’s ed ad.
Very nice, count me as a fan of these. I almost bought a black one with 290 V8 for a couple of hundred dollars when I was in university. It was in quite good shape, but by the time I had a place to park it lined up it was gone.
I wouldn’t have painted it like that buy hey it’s not my car. Great job all around.
As for that door handle… AMC used it on darn near everything, and they were (almost) perfectly functional and (not that it really mattered) probably more aerodynamic than anything else. Until there was a layer of ice on them, and then you wished you had any other sort of door handle.
Yeah, that radio. I can’t remember what other cars I’ve seen with a vertical one like that, but not many. Kind of a nasty move on the part of the designers in that it pretty much guarantees that future owners would either spend a relative fortune fixing the thing or will wind up drilling holes under the dash to install a JC Whitney/Radio Shack aftermarket thing.
Nice sharp pictures Daniel! And I actually kind of like the paint job, so far as custom paint jobs go.
” I can’t remember what other cars I’ve seen with a vertical one like that, but not many.”
The highest volume example may have been the Chevy Citation. The rest of the X-bodies avoided this particular mistake. As you say, it was a challenge to switch over to an aftermarket radio.
Attractive cars from any angle. And I’m a big fan of the “Kelvinator handles”. Such a clean door handle design that predicted the flush look that would become popular in the ’80s.
Good looking car and pretty tastefully customized. The 67 Rebel was on point with the styling, Ford Fairlanes and Plymouth Belvederes were still very square edged and boxy that year, but these have the curves and coke bottle profile the GMs did, and even by 69 these still look curvier than the Torino. I like the 69 tailights too, they really do scream for ambers in the stack but that’s testament to them looking that ahead of their time with that wraparound look, the 70 redesign was very retrograde, putting them into the bumper like GM A bodies.
From past experience, Black Ice smells like Drakkar Noir
Now I know whar “DN” smells like. Thanks.
I always found these attractive cars that should have sold better than they did.
I will be the guy to give those door handles the thumbs down. They were a the poorest ergonomics of any door handle I have ever used on anything. Driver’s side: I usually open a car door with my left hand. These handles either required me to use just my L thumb to pull the heavy door open, or to twist the wrist inward to use the next 2 fingers. Or else, use the right hand (index and middle finger) then have to pull out across your body with another awkward wrist bend. Passenger side: I usually open with my right hand. Just reverse everything above. They look great but were awful in operation.
The dash layout isn’t really stellar either. AMC always seemed to do slightly odd things like these just because.
»zonk« You’re absolutely right. Those doorhandles are installed wrong way round for the hand one naturally wants to use to open whichever door one is standing at. That’s terrible ergonomics!
I had a car with those door handles for 20 years and I can’t remember ever having trouble opening the doors. I think I just used my left thumb.
I do recall that ladies with long nails didn’t like AMC door handles.
My family owned a ’74 Matador with those handles. They were fine. Not great, not terrible, just fine. I only ever personally opened the passenger-side one as I always sat passenger side rear. I suppose that handle might be a little awkward for right-hand operation on the driver’s side. Switching to the left hand would solve that though.
The handles were not unique. The 1970s epitome of borrowed technology, the Austin/Morris Marina, had the same style door handles.
Oh those handles. In the 70s as I child I thought they were the coolest thing in that they were flush and a textured silver color. I thought, as a boy who loved cars, that it was neat that I could identify any AMC by noticing the handles. So different from anything else. I still love them. Had a college suite mate who had a sweet Pacer wagon in the late 80s, so I did get to use them on beer runs. They worked great. So funny – the kid was so pleased that his grandparents were buying him a car. He did not know cars and did not know what a Pacer was when they told him what he was getting. Oh the rest of us laughed. But man, that was the coolest car! Huge windows. So spacious, and outfitted with late 60s style interior of metal parts. Loved riding in it.
As see from this vantage point more than 50 years on, this car overall looks quite pleasing to the eye. I also like the custom 2-tone paint job, but Paul is right about the contrived headlight treatment. It’s good the obligatory annual facelift has long been consigned to the dust bin of history.
I detest those Christmas tree chemical emitters that seem to be so trendy now. I don’t like anything hanging from the rear view mirror, a distraction and a vision blocker.
I think that ignition key is in a most convenient position, you should be able to get to it more easily than trying to find it on the steering column.
I wouldn’t have given an AMC car a second look back then, probably due to the heritage of Rambler pointing to staid, boring cars. As wrong as that may have been, that may well have been the general impression. In retrospect, this is a good looking car. Simple yet well stated grille up front. It reminds me either of a Ford product, or a Dodge Coronet. Not a bad looking rear end, and it all goes together pretty well. Just not a fan of the two tone paint job, but this one pulls it off ok.
My right knee shudders to think what that ignition switch location would do in a crash.
Nice Rebel. The Ultramarine blue, low profile tires and aggressive wheel design, quite graphically modernize an otherwise very conservative exterior. Even the widely-kerned slab-serif ‘R E B E L’ badging is up-to-date graphic design, and a nice detail. I may have used a bolder pinstripe to separate the two tones. In applying these subtle tweaks to the looks, the owner shows they know what they are doing stylistically.
A thousand times yes in re the typeface; a few years after this car was built, the ’70s brought a toxic rain of severely overcooked cursive curlicues.
And isn’t it a nice bit of serendipity how the textured finish on the face of the decklid letters comports so well with the argent silver paint?
Every detail works wonderfully! Except one (for me). I’ve never been a fan of the AMC ‘paddle’ door handles. I’ve found them gimmicky, when standard grab handles with a push button, would have sufficed quite tastefully. Door handles are not an element that need to draw attention to themselves IMO.
Very nice work Daniel!
The goofy 1969 headlight treatment notwithstanding, these late sixties Rebels always remind me of how AMC could have beaten Chrysler to the budget musclecar market.
In June, 1967, AMC actually had a Rebel musclecar prototype called ‘The Machine’. Using proposed 1969 sheetmetal, it was even ‘more’ basic than the 1968 Road Runner, coming with a full, flat-black paint job, steelies with chrome lugnuts, and decals instead of emblems.
Strangely, after the Road Runner became a surprise hit, it took AMC two more years to bring ‘The Machine’ to market for 1970, which was effectively when high insurance surcharges had made big-block musclecars all but dead. It was a slow-selling, one-year-wonder.
I can only guess that the reason AMC delayed The Machine was they were afraid of taking sales away from the 1968 Javelin and AMX. Then, they hedged their bets further with the compact 1969 SC/Rambler before, finally, offering a substantially more flamboyantly painted Machine in 1970 but, by then, it was too late.
I’m kind of shocked nobody has recreated this, or at least publicly. That would be a pretty easy build, Rebels, if you can find, them are bargain classics, matte paint matching magnum 500s a recreation of the decals and a 390(or 401) and you have a DIY phantom muscle car and a real conversation piece, could probably even get featured in various media.
I truly think AMC should have done the Machine closer to this execution than the 70 version with its novel patriotic paint scheme, but I think this suffers in its own right if the matte black everything was mandatory too, offer it in the same color pallet AMXs were offered, add those cute machine gear decals and and I think it could have been a legitimate contender in the budget muscle car market and credibly boosted AMCs image with the youth market, which was the primary goal at the time. I’m not sure they would have poached Javelin/AMX buyers, the ponycar and muscle car still seemed like distinct markets, and even if that were a concern they about faced it with the Scrambler, 70 Machine and SC360, the latter could have done better with a predecessor
It might have been a tough call on an earlier bargain-basement Machine. It’s worth noting that there wasn’t a lot of profit margin on these so-called ‘kid-cars’ (as the industry called them) unless they were optioned up. For example, both Ford and GM offered Road Runner competitors in the 1969 Fairlane Cobra and Deluxe 300 SS396, but they didn’t sell all that well.
Even Chrysler’s own Dodge version of the Road Runner, the Super Bee, didn’t do so good. Hell, Dodge management actually turned down the initial computer cards to create the Super Bee and had to scramble for a mid-year introduction when it became apparent the Road Runner was a hit.
My guess is that AMC figured that a strippo musclecar that lacked any of the type of high-performance stuff that was de rigor on the others (fake hood scoops, bucket seats, mag-wheels, etc.) just wouldn’t sell and they hadn’t geared-up for all that stuff. The SC/Rambler had some last-minute, cobbled together stuff (like a Sun tachometer hose-clamped, racecar style, to the steering column).
Still, you’d think it wouldn’t have been that expensive for AMC to offer the earlier strippo Machine (even if it was truly just a base matte-black Rebel with a big engine and tires), just to test the waters. Clearly, they gave it some thought with the 1968 Road Runner coming, but must have gotten cold feet.
Maybe AMC had heard that Chrysler’s initial projections for the Road Runner was only for 4,000 cars. It was as much a surprise to Chrysler management as anyone when they ended up selling 10x that amount (and likely could have sold a lot more if they had the capacity since Chrysler sold twice as many Road Runners the following year).
We’ll never truly know.
I think I think in Ford’s case the Torino Cobra was a weak seller because Ford still had a lingering reputation for being weak chested on the street after years of 390 power, and the Torino was arguably the least stylish, with its boxy lines largely carried over from 1966 and a Ho hum hardtop and an ungainly fastback. The Mustang was the stylish sporty car, logic would dictate the boss 429 engine would go into the Torino since those were what actually used it on the track, but Ford chose to wedge it into the Mustang. The SS396 in full strippo deluxe form may have lagged but the Chevelle SS396 was still a bargain relative to GTOs and the like, and dethroned it in sales. The Superbee probably just got lost in the shuffle, anyone who’d be interested in one could order a base Charger with a 383 Magnum and have a Superbee with much better looks. Plus in 1969 the Dart Swinger was nipping at the Bee from the other end
I think the Machine could have been a contender if the performance was there, and if the performance figures of the 1970 are anything to go by its 390 may well have given the Roadrunner 383 some stiff competition. AMC easily could have duplicated the Roadrunner formula of it being an entry level stripper that can be optioned up to civilized. Bucket seats, console, magnum 500s were all there on the lines for AMC to use.
The problem with the matte black Machine is it’s too much of a limited edition novelty in its limited exterior presentation just like the 70 Machine, which I doubt made much of a profit for the company itself. Had they treated a 68 or 69 Machine like a legitimate submodel they could have potentially captured some of the youth market they were after, beyond just ponycars. It would have been short lived since the bottom dropped out on intermediate muscle cars in 1970, but if The Machine were a success it could have been profitable in volume, brought positive attention to the company, and served as a bumper for the Hornet SC360. They’d have actually had the attention of the press and buyers to actually consider it an option, similar to the Duster 340 spiritually taking the place of the Roadrunner.
The Duster/Road Runner analogy makes me think that, in a perverse sort of way, AMC’s tight purse strings may have actually benefitted them in the long run. Yeah, they pretty much missed out on the lucrative ponycar market but I’m not sure any of the Big 3 really made out all that well with their musclecars, all things considered. There was a lot of R&D money going into musclecar engineering (particularly at Chrysler and Ford), and I just don’t know if it was all ever truly worth the effort to those companys’ bottom lines. It’s been written that money was lost on every Superbird/Daytona/Street Hemi/Boss 429 sold.
So, AMC’s inability to ever come up with competitive muscle drivetrains of serious ability, prohibiting them from really doing anything other than just dabbling, might have worked out for the best in the end.
Of course, anything they saved they ended up blowing on stuff like the Pacer and Matador coupe, so I guess the whole thing was just a wash, anyway.
My father had a 68 Rebel so I remember that interior very well. Interesting thing about the door handles is that Toyota used a very similar design rendered in plastic on their 82/83 Celica/Supra models.
Those door handles work just fine. Until your door freezes shut. With the handle pulled out you have no leverage to pull the frozen door seals loose.
We just had the “AMC Homecoming” car show here in Kenosha last week. I haven’t seen so many cars with the same door handles in one place since the ’70s.
Another issue is that once the door opens the little tab is hard to grip and you may need to grab the door frame to control the door opening.
1969 was the year steering wheel locks were mandated which explain the odd position of the ignition key in this year. In 1968 the key was in the panel above as shown here.
AMC didn’t so the “steering wheel locks” till 1970 models.
My bad. You are correct. FMVSS 214 was applicable to the 1970 model year. The 1969 brochures do not list a steering lock safety feature. Which makes it all the more puzzling why they moved the ignition switch from the panel to the side of the column like that. It sure looks like an early attempt to make a column lock though.
The 1970 switch was on the column like everyone else and the brochures start calling it out as a safety feature.
.
This is a nice car, right up there with my favourites , the 68/69 Plymouth Satellites. The paint is not what I would choose, but it’s not up to me. I would like a lime gold metallic on this actually.
I have to admit, coming from a land of the tri color taillamp , that I much prefer the red and white units, but I have always preferred style over practicality, most of the time.
As I said earlier, nice looking car, but it’s easy to see from where the styling was borrowed.
The “Rebel/Matador” was basically that same “67 body” until it’s demise.
That “mid 70’s” fastback model , not included, of course.
While it’s undoubtedly borrowing from GM designs(as were two of the big three) I think there was a good degree of parallel thinking there since the is Rebel body came out in 1967 with that Chevelle design. The 68 Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite and Coronet resemble the Rebel even more than the Rebel resembles the Chevelle.
Our new car (sort a) purchase in 1971 was a “70 Rebel SST” sedan. Think the glass may have been tinted.(at least the windshield)
An “after market/ hang on the dash a/c” unit had been installed.
I recall it had about 11-12K, on the odometer;color was cool. “Golden Lime”
Was purchased from the AMC dealer in Butler PA.
Those door handles worked “ok”. They could be troublesome in “freezing conditions”. The “vacuum wipers” were cataclysmic! Who even knew such things were still in use in 1971.Took about two years to figure them out.lol
We owned it till 1976 I believe;became second car in 1974.
Who was behind the design of the beautiful car ?
Probably Dick Teague and his underlings, who they were is somewhat obscure.