The editors of Car Life hadn’t been very impressed with AMC’s previous stab at the sporty car market, the fastback Marlin, but the exciting new AMC Javelin promised to be a better effort. In the magazine’s December 1967 issue, Car Life tested the Javelin in SST form with the 343 engine and four-speed. Here’s what they had to say about it.
When the Javelin debuted in September 1967, American Motors Corporation was a company in desperate need of a bright spot. The niche in which the Rambler had previously done so well was now heavily populated with domestic compacts and intermediates, and AMC sales were in freefall. The company lost over $12 million in 1966 and $75.8 million in a painful financial restructuring for fiscal 1967.
AMC changed its ad agency in June 1967 — this Javelin ad was a product of new agency Wells, Rich, Greene, founded a year earlier by the dynamic ad exec Mary Wells.
Strictly from the standpoint of numbers, the Javelin was not AMC’s most important product, and the initial sales target was a mere 35,000 units, roughly one month’s worth of Mustang production. However, the Javelin was vital in another way, because it was AMC’s best chance of rehabilitating the company’s frumpy, schoolmarmish image. This wasn’t a minor concern: In 1966, the Ford Mustang — and just the Mustang, not any other sporty car — outsold the entire AMC line by margin of 2 to 1. The Javelin had been in the works since mid-1965, and its styling had been previewed in the “Project IV” cars AMC had shown throughout 1966. Now, the question was whether the production version would get the right kind of reaction from the public and the press.
Initial reactions were positive: The Car Life editors found that when they pulled up in the SST, “small boys stopped their bicycles and stared, and grown-up boys stopped their cars and asked questions.” Unlike the hapless Marlin, the Javelin had the right proportions and “a pleasing coherence” of body design. The editors even liked the optional “Turbo-cast” wheel covers, although they found them hard to remove for tire changes.
1968 AMC Javelin SST with the base six, automatic, and Turbo-cast wheel covers / RM Sotheby’s
Car Life‘s test car had the 343 cu. in. (5,624 cc) Typhoon V-8, with a four-barrel Carter AFB carburetor and a gross output of 280 hp and 365 lb-ft of torque. This engine had been introduced for 1967, but the text is wrong about it having “larger intake and exhaust valves” for 1968. (I think whoever wrote the text confused the specifications of the 343 with the 290 cu. in. (4,751 cc) version, which had smaller valves than the 343; the ’68 343 had 2.025-inch intake and 1.625-inch exhaust valves, the same size as in 1967.) Nonetheless, the 343 was a flexible engine, enough so that the editors thought it would have performed as well or better with a taller (lower numerical) axle ratio than the test car’s 3.54 axle.
343 badge on a 1968 Javelin SST / Mecum Auctions
The text’s complaints that the four-speed’s ratios were “too close together” may be confusing unless you look at the ratios in the spec table. Low gear in the four-speed transmission was 2.64:1, which would make this a wide-ratio gearset by ’60s standards. The problem was the intermediate ratios: 2.10:1 in second and 1.60:1 in third, which put second much too close to first and left a big gap between second and third.
With the narrow spacing between first and second, second gear wasn’t very useful: Shifting at 5,300 rpm, you were in second gear at 43 mph and had to make another shift into third at 54 mph. Car Life found that the Javelin was almost as quick through the quarter mile starting in second rather than first! They liked the fully synchronized four-speed gearbox itself, but these ratios just didn’t suit the 343 engine.
AMC 343 engine / Mecum Auctions
My guess is that taller second and third gears — say, around 1.80 in second and 1.40 in third — would have helped the Javelin’s acceleration noticeably, probably cutting about a half-second off the 0 to 60 mph times. AMC apparently decided the same thing: For 1969, the four-speed used behind Javelin and AMX V-8s got a close-ratio gearset with a 2.23:1 low, 1.77:1 second, and 1.35:1 third.
The editors also thought performance would have benefited from “larger, fatter tires.” However, with its E70-14 tires (roughly equivalent to a modern 205/70R14), the Javelin SST actually had a decent amount of rubber for this time; Car Life‘s 1967 Pontiac Firebird 400, which had Firestone Wide Ovals in this size, didn’t have nearly the traction problems of the Javelin. A slightly wider F70-14 size on wider wheels would probably have helped, but I wonder if the Javelin might have done better with a different brand of tire than the Goodyear Speedway Wide Tread, even in the stock size.
This 1968 Javelin is an SST, but lacks the Car Life car’s GO pack — it has front drum brakes / Mecum Auctions
Car Life had been underwhelmed with the disc/drum brakes on their ’67 Marlin, which had suffered early rear-wheel lockup and faded its front discs readily. The Javelin had two big advantages over the Marlin: a proportioning valve to delay pressure to the rear brakes, and over 400 lb less weight to stop. However, while the text of this road test praises the “smooth, progressive and consistent” stopping and minimal fade, the data panel isn’t quite so favorable: The panel notes “moderate” control loss in a panic stop, and the rate of deceleration (24 feet per second per second) was actually only about 10 percent better than the Marlin. Also, you couldn’t get disc brakes on a six-cylinder Javelin.
The test car didn’t have power steering, but it had the “quick ratio” manual option. With 4.2 turns lock to lock, this was slow as well as heavy, although the power steering was only a bit quicker (3.8 turns). The standard non-power ratio was lighter, but slower still: 5.1 turns lock to lock.
The Javelin SST was not a performance option, but a trim series, costing $105 more than a basic Javelin and providing amenities such as reclining bucket seats, woodgrain trim, and a simulated wood sports steering wheel. Car Life‘s test car, which was an early-build example, also had the $266 GO package, which included the 280 hp 343, dual exhausts, front discs, and the disappointing E70-14 tires. The GO pack also included the handling package, which had firmer springs and shocks and a larger front anti-roll bar, along with wider 5.5-14 wheels; this H-D suspension package could be ordered separately for $17.
SST identification / Mecum Auctions
(As a side note, I think the Car Life crew might have misread the AMA specifications, as the spring rates listed in the data panel look to be from the H-D package for six-cylinder Javelins, which had softer springs and a smaller anti-roll bar than the V-8 H-D suspension. I couldn’t find 1968 AMA specs, but the 1969 specs list the V-8 Javelin heavy-duty suspension as having spring rates of 115 lb/inch front and 136 lb/inch rear, with an 0.94-inch anti-roll bar.)
All V-8 Javelins had five-leaf semi-elliptical rear springs; the handling package springs were stiffer, and the AMX added torque links / American Muscle Carz
Surprisingly, there’s almost no discussion of the Javelin’s handling, except that the Car Life editors felt the handling package wasn’t worth having. They said:
We ordinarily find that performance and handling benefits from the installation of heavier, stiffer springs and shocks, but in view of the Javelin’s problematical road adhesion under full power we believe the buyer would do well to pass up this option and stay with the softer stock components. This will add a bit to the car’s corner lean and dipping over heavy bumps, but should help keep the rubber on the road.
I find this recommendation very questionable: If the Goodyear E70-14 tires were the weak link, softer springs wasn’t going to make them bite any better, so all the standard suspension was likely to accomplish was discouraging drivers from discovering the tires’ limited grip. Since the standard suspension also came with narrower 5.0-14 wheels (and standard 6.95-14 tires, which were over an inch narrower than the E70-14 rubber), it might have had even less grip.
The first-generation Javelin had a lot of front overhang for the trendy long-hood/short-deck stance / Mecum Auctions
Considering the traction problems and less-than-ideal gearing, the Javelin’s straight-line performance was still quite good:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.5 seconds
- 0 to 60 mph: 8.1 seconds
- 0 to 100 mph: 17.7 seconds
- Standing quarter mile: 15.4 seconds at 93.0 mph
The quarter mile elapsed time wasn’t in the first rank for 1967, but better tires and different gearing would have put the Javelin in a more competitive position without much tinkering, and AMC would soon add a bigger 390 cu. in. (6,384 cc) engine option, with 315 gross horsepower.
Around this time, AMC was actually beginning a concerted effort to establish the Javelin in competition, something that would have been unthinkable for America Motors even a year or two earlier. Just weeks before this issue of Car Life appeared on newsstands, Jim Jeffords and Ron Kaplan had founded Javelin Racing Team, which would prepare the Javelin for the SCCA Trans Am series, and later AMC ads would actually invite potential customers to “Test Drag a Javelin.” By the summer of 1968, the buff books would be reporting on the new array of over-the-counter performance parts available for AMC V-8 engines — things were changing in Kenosha.
Exhaust emissions control had been required on most new California cars since 1966, and starting with the 1968 model year, federal regulations limited the exhaust emissions of engines over 140 cubic inches to no more than 275 parts per million hydrocarbons and 1.5 percent carbon monoxide by volume. With the six-cylinder Javelin and V-8/automatic cars, AMC was able to get by with the cheaper “Engine-Mod” package, which was basically the same as the Chrysler “Cleaner Air Package”, involving modifications to the mixture settings and distributor, plus a thicker head gasket that slightly reduced the compression ratio. This wasn’t enough for manual-shift V-8 cars, so they used the “Air-Guard” air injection system (basically similar to the GM Air Injection Reactor system), with a Saginaw air pump that injected fresh air through special ports in the exhaust manifold. Running the 19 cu. in. (316 cc) air pump cost some power (which wasn’t reflected in the gross power rating), and as the text notes, air injection made the engine prone to backfiring.
The Javelin cabin wasn’t badly laid out, but the broad expanses of flat plastic left something to be desired aesthetically / American Muscle Carz
The text contains no mention of rear seat comfort, not really a priority for this class of car, but the Car Life editors liked the front seats and thought the controls and instrument layout were generally good. Unfortunately, the “Rally-Pak,” which included a tachometer, oil pressure gauge, ammeter, and clock, had to be dealer-installed, and the editors noted that “part of the tachometer is often hidden by the steering wheel.”
No more cramped than average for the class, although the perforated vinyl upholstery isn’t terribly attractive / American Muscle Carz
Car Life‘s biggest complaint about the interior, other than some minor early-production assembly flaws, was the door handles, which used a pull-down lever ahead of each door armrest to ensure that the door would automatically lock when pulled closed. This was handy if you understood how it works, but if you didn’t, it made it “possible to be embarrassingly outside wanting to get in—or inside not knowing how to get out quickly.”
The arrow-shaped door trim is one of the Javelin’s more pleasing interior features / Mecum Auctions
Overall, Car Life was impressed by the Javelin, concluding:
With its extremely attractive body design, a range of engines and transmissions from economical to dynamic, optional appearance and performance packages of every kind, plus American Motors’ hard-won reputation for solid durability, the Javelin has a lot of things going for it … Further, this dramatic and successful design turnabout shows a welcome strength and purpose … May AMC’s reward be in direct proportion to its decisiveness and courage.
Unfortunately for AMC fans, such reward was not really forthcoming. Here’s how to production figures for the first-generation Javelin and related AMX shaped up:
| Model Year | Javelin | AMX | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1968 | 55,124 | 6,725 | 61,849 |
| 1969 | 40,675 | 8,293 | 48,968 |
| 1970 | 28,210 | 4,116 | 32,326 |
| Total | 124,009 | 19,134 | 143,143 |
The vinyl top, an $85 option, serves to make the Javelin’s rear end look less bulbous while also emphasizing the slight flying buttress effect of the sail panels / Mecum Auctions
There was nothing terribly wrong with the first-generation Javelin — the performance of the test car was quite competitive with the Camaro SS350 Car Life had tested earlier in the year — but it wasn’t a standout either, a solid “B” effort in a crowded field, from a brand whose uncoolness was rapidly becoming terminal.
AMC was trying desperately to change that, which was the whole point of the Javelin; almost every sale was a conquest sale. However, based on its underwhelming volume and limited market share, the Javelin seems like too little and too late, despite its good first impressions.
Related Reading
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1968 American Motors AMX – The Gremlin’s Predecessor (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1970 American Motors Javelin SST – Wrangling A Non-Average Pony Car (by Eric703)
Vintage Snapshots: Javelins In The ’70s – A Gallery of Owners, Riders & Families (by Rich Baron)
The Sporting American: The AMC Javelin (at Ate Up With Motor)
Handsome then and handsome now.. I remember looking at the 70 AMC cars at my local retailer.. But after a stint with a AH sprite I ended up buying my first new car, a 71 pinto with a 4 speed.. Always known for not keeping a car too long. I’ve probably owned 200 + cars in my lifetime.. Any way, a friend has a sweet similar javelin in my neighborhood.. just had to share..
Agree….I wouldn’t mind having a restored one today!
Friends car
“A dramatic and successful design turnabout”. Indeed it was, particularly compared to the Marlin.
Can we imagine an alternate universe where Dick Teague continued in the direction of successful design through the 70’s, and did not veer into the weeds with the subsequent Javelin restyle, Matador coupe, and Pacer? They probably wouldn’t have had the resources to survive on their own but could a stronger AMC have contributed even more to Chrysler and staved off DCX and Stellantis?
Pic not wanting to upload
Try reducing the size to under 1200 pixels wide
Max at 1600 width.
Roy Abernethy gets a lot of vitriol for trying to compete model-for-model with the Big 3, which is generally regarded as a failure. But it’s worth nothing that the relatively competent Javelin was conceived and produced during his five year reign at AMC. That, alone, should count for something in his favor.
To that end, a favorite tidbit is that the, save for one year (1970), the Javelin actually outsold the Plymouth Barracuda, which is something of a feat considering that the Javelin only offered one model, whereas the Barracuda had at least two for most of that time (and three in 1968-69). Of course, there were two Mopar ponycars from 1970-74, and if the Challenger is added to the sales numbers, the combined E-bodies outsold the Javelin. I don’t know if those numbers include the separate, two-seater 1968-70 AMX, either.
The bottom line is that, overall, in the big field of ponycars at the time, the Javelin was okay, especially coming from tiny AMC, previously known as the producer of the sang-froid Rambler. It’s just too bad they couldn’t get the Javelin into production sooner (instead of the lackluster, Ramlber-like Marlin). By 1968, well, the whole ponycar field was saturated and, with the sixties’ performance/muscle period nearing the end, there wasn’t a lot of room for growth for an outlier like AMC.
One thing I find interesting about the Javelin’s 343 V8 is the horsepower listed as 280, which is five more than what Chrysler claimed for their smoking 340. That goes a long way to verifying that Chrysler underrated the way faster 340 by a wide margin.
Barracuda production for 1968 to 1970 was:
So, the Javelin did outsell the Barracuda in 1968 and 1969, even discounting the AMX … but, they were both bringing up the back of the pack in the pony car field, even if it was for different reasons. In the case of the Barracuda, I think it was a matter of really misjudging the tastes of the market, whereas with the AMC, it was I think first and foremost the very poor image AMC had with buyers in this league. AMC did a LOT of work to try to combat that perception, but it had become so uncool by 1967 that it was not an easy task.
As with later Challenger sales, I wonder if it’s fair to add in the Dart hardtop sales from 1968-69 to the Barracuda since it was the de facto Dodge ponycar of the time, particularly the racier GTS/Swinger versions that got the 340 and big-block V8 engine options, the same as the Barracuda. If that’s done, well, combined Barracuda/Dart hardtop sales would easily eclipse Javelin sales from the same period.
But, yeah, as good as the Javelin might have been, it was an uphill by 1968, particularly when the ponycar was from the same company that built Ramblers.
I have a hard time with the idea of counting a Dart hardtop as a ponycar. I just don’t think most people of the time would have seen it that way, any more than they would have counted a Falcon Sport Coupe.
The more complicated question in that regard is the Plymouth Duster, which was arguably the first really successful application of the A-body Barracuda concept and ended up really eating the lunch of the E-body Barracuda.
Seemed like something of an emulation of the pre-Camaro Nova hardtop and Corvair, which was itself a copy of the pre-Mustang Falcon Futura hardtop. By 1966, the Falcon was changed to a very stodgy 2- or 4-door sedan with zero pretense of performance for fear of cannibalizing Mustang sales (which is exactly what the Duster would later do to the E-body).
Or at least that’s what Chrysler execs tried to tell Dodge management was the reason they got the Charger and not a Dodge A-body version of the Barracuda. IOW, the Dart hardtop/convertible with the same engine options and performance as the Barracuda would have to do. Places like Mr. Norm’s Grand Spaulding Dodge in Chicago and their 1968 Dart GSS (with its shoehorned into the engine bay 440) certainly didn’t hurt in that regard.
I guess AMC kind of gave it a similar, half-hearted try with the 1969 Rambler American SC/Rambler, too, followed by the 1971 Hornet SC/360. It had never occurred to me before, but maybe the chance of cutting into Javelin sales was exactly the reason of those one-year-only AMC compact musclecars.
Sales of the Dart GT and GTS were really quite grim, not even on the level of the Barracuda. (Dodge only built about 6,700 of the Dart GTS for 1969.) There’s nothing to suggest anyone at the time was looking at them as pony car alternatives, and the number of Dart buyers interested in the 340 or 383 seems to have been small. People were buying pony cars for image more than actual performance, and the Dart was way too crew-cut-and-pocket-protector for that, even with Bumblebee stripes. It was the quintessential high school shop teacher car.
There are a lot of adjectives one could apply to the SC/Rambler, but “half-hearted” was not one of them, and since it was an extremely gaudy limited edition of a model that was about to be discontinued, AMC was plainly not concerned with selling a lot of them. The point of the SC/Rambler was to signal the end of the stodgy old Rambler era.
Well, the interior of the SC/Rambler was quite spartan. IIRC, it was nothing more than a couple of red, white, and blue headrests for the base Rambler front bench seat and an aftermarket Sun tachometer hose-clamped to the steering column. And that’s it.
The whole compact musclecar/ponycar dynamic was interesting throughout the late sixties/early seventies. I think most would agree it began with the pre-Camaro 1966 Nova SS with the optional L79 Corvette engine.
Ford abandoned the concept entirely, but Chrysler and AMC would stick with it with varying degrees of success. Chrysler likely reached the pinnacle with the fastest, small-block A-body in the 1971 Duster/Demon 340, which was an incredible bang-for-the-buck. The inaugural 1970 Duster 340 was a bit cheaper, but the 1971 was the last for high-compression and the first for the Thermoquad carburetor.
The E70x14 tire was pretty common for pony cars in 1968 if I recall correctly. I know the Goodyear Speedway was used a lot by Ford. The Polyglas started to show up in 1970, I believe, at least that was when I saw it appear on the Z28. I took notice since 1970 was my first full year with my Cougar and wanted to go from WW to RWL.
A Goodyear E70 is 6.25″ tread width while the F70 is 6.55″. Can’t imagine the 0.30″ would make that big of a difference being bias ply. Speedway or Polyglas both were bad with traction and crap in the rain. Luckily little rain in San Diego. Imagine an F70 radial on these test cars back then? Below an actually Speedway as it is one of my Cougar’s original factory tires that I kept. It is an E70.
Great feature! The olive-colored SST from the Mecum auctions was my dream car in exactly that form… still is. About the rear seat, I recall having read elsewhere that there was actually a decent amount of space back there relative to other pony cars, a benefit of a slightly longer-than-average rear body section.
These cars are aesthetically perfect to me. I’ll even forgive the Rubbermaid dashboard.
Yes, anyone who had ridden in the rear seat of a Camaro, Firebird, or Mustang of that vintage (or a ’70 Cuda or Challenger) would be thrilled with the leg room and head room in the rear of the Javelin…plus, there was a good bit more space in the trunk to boot!
“trunk to boot” – I see what you did there. 😉
believe it’s called “golden lime”.
Whereas the basic styling theme of the Javelin has much to commend, from the first time I laid eye on it I thought it was too long, in the rear. Meaning that the gap between the rear end of the door to the rear axle was too long. In profile, it lacks the distinctive long-hood, short-trunk pony car proportions that the Mustang pioneered.
When the Hornet came out in 1969, I was initially convinced that the two shared the same basic platform and even body hard points, as the similarities in their proportions (including the setback rear axle) was so similar. I’ve come to accept that wasn’t quite the case technically, but the basic proportion/massing similarities are still very much apparent.
Meanwhile the AMX of course had the opposite problem. I’ve long advocated that the Javelin should have split the difference, even at the expense of a few inches of rear leg room. Of course all this was part of the Javelin design brief: to have the roomiest back seat of the pony cars. A typical AMC decision, one that was also applied to the ill-fated Marlin. The Javelin’s proportions did it no favors.
For me, the big stylistic failing of the Javelin is that the semi-fastback look of the sail panels makes the tail look too high/too bulbous. The SST side stripe and the two-tone effect of the black vinyl top de-emphasize that somewhat, but it’s a graphical Band-Aid, and it can’t disguise the fact that it doesn’t look as crisp as the Mustang hardtop or graceful as the Camaro/Firebird in the tail.
Yeah, if Teague had omitted the sail panels that extended all the way to the rear and, instead, stopped the C-pillars at the base of the rear window, the effect would have been much better (photoshop, anyone?).
But, then, I guess it would have come off as too much of a Mustang/Camaro hardtop clone. It looks like AMC was striving to split the difference between a Mustang hardtop and fastback with one car and, like most compromises, it just didn’t come off too well.
What’s perplexing is they also went to the trouble of creating the 2-seater AMX which was a real fastback.
Nice looking car the restored Javlin
Back in the day when Javelin’s where new I really liked the body style. But for some reason, at the time, just thought the interiors were too plastic. Still love the Javelin body style,.
The interior really does have a lot of big unrelieved slabs of plastic, especially the center of the dashboard. AMC got dinged (including by Car Life) for making its mid-’60s interiors too jukebox-y, but having a big field of beige plastic facing you all the time is not great either. I also find the upholstery of the Mecum SST pretty gruesome-looking.
I replied.
I can’t imagine a car with a big V-8 over the front wheels doesn’t have power steering.
Actually, I can imagine it. My dad bought a leftover 1970 Pontiac Strato Chief in 1971. It was no doubt leftover due to the fact it had no power steering. In 1969, GM switched to smaller steering wheels, meaning they felt most of their cars would be ordered with power steering.
The car was a bear to park. It was so hard to steer my mom would get me to help her.
Long time fan of the Javelin here.
While I once had a bias for the second generation since my best friend had one, I’m starting to come around to this first generation more.
Good looking cars these Javelins. This may be a stretch, but the modern day Challenger may’ve been its spiritual successor, as the bigger, more practical pony car that than either the Mustang or Camaro.
Great article on a decent and, imho, one of the best looking pony cars of 1968! One correction would be that the 343 was not introduced in the mid-66 model year. The 290 introduced the Generation 3 AMC V8 in the ’66 Rogue. The 343 first showed up in the 1967 model year.
I like that you included my favorite “comparison ad” that AMC used in ’68.
Consumer Report tested the Javelin and, with just a little hesitation, recommended it over the Mustang, for people shopping for a pony car…one of the reasons being “more room where it counts!”
With those overly close intermediate gearbox ratios, and only 70 MPH in 3rd, you’d wonder if the three-on-the-tree manual with a taller diff might be just as quick?
Attractive car nevertheless.
Seems odd that they were traction-limited at eight seconds to 60 but managed to decelerate at .74g, even accounting for braking being on all four wheels. What made the difference?
That ad says it all: The Javelin was more practical than the Mustang. Except that nobody bought pony cars because they were practical.
This is another one of those AMC products that was *almost* what it needed to be to find some success.
Proportions are not amongst the fortunate. Teague being skilled, one presumes this was an outcome of constraint from platform and budget.
Insofar as it has a long hood, there’s too much of it past the front wheel, making it more Big Nose than neo-classical.
Subaru did it a couple of misguided years later, and did it worse, though at least they could truthfully employ the excuse that an entire motive source lived betwixt front wheel and front bumper.