So why did Road & Track test a stripper Rambler American? That’s sure different than the endless “Fastest Cars Of The World” tests that dominated its covers in the eighties and on. It was a reflection of its publisher and founder, John Bond, who had a very…sensible side, as well as a bit eccentric. Bond was nerdy, and what could be more nerdy in 1967 than a Rambler 220?
Maybe I’m reading too much into that, as R&T rightfully pointed out that a lot of folks just wanted practical, low-cost basic transportation from their cars, and the American was very much a relevant player in that field, especially since AMC had just dropped its price to $1,839, aiming it at the heart of the sub-$2,000 import market, meaning VW and friends. The problem was that even folks who wanted basic low-cost transportation were still mostly conscious of their image, and ironically, a Beetle or Corona, with their nicely-trimmed exteriors and interiors, conveyed a distinctly different image than a stripper Rambler. But don’t try to explain that to John Bond.
AMC’s move with the American, lowering its price to $1839 by eliminating any unnecessary annual changes, was of course an act of desperation. AMC’s market share had been dropping precipitously, down to 3.4% in 1967 from its peak of 7% in 1960. The American was in free-fall too, down to 63k units in ’67 from 164k just three years earlier. All of the domestic compacts suffered after the Mustang arrived in 1964, as it hoovered up what had been their core market. Meanwhile, the imports were on a roll. It was dark days for domestic compacts, and for the the company that had pinned its image that segment.
There’s no argument that in a number of objective criteria, the American offered a lot more for the money than the little imports, starting with its size, which obviously afforded more spacious accommodations. But that does not mean more comfortable; the Rambler’s bench seat came in for criticism in that department. And although R&T didn’t make a point of it, the very basic (cheap) upholstery and trim in these strippers lacked the more pleasant surroundings of the imports of the time, never mind their bucket seats.
The relatively new AMC 199 cubic inch six came in for praise, both for its smooth and quiet running and decent performance. With a 0-60 time of a fairly brisk 13.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile 19.5 seconds @71 mph, the Rambler was quicker than anything in its class, and then some. But then its fuel consumption of 18-20 mpg was in a different league too. It allowed relaxed cruising in the 65-75 mph range, whereas most of the imports were breathing hard by then.
The column-mounted three speed manual had a good linkage, but the non-syncro first gear was old-school. The six’ healthy low end torque meant that anything but a full stop could be readily chugged away in second gear, and third could easily handle all speeds above 20 mph.
Handling? Did someone say handling? There wasn’t any, in terms of how the term is associated with sports/sporty cars. The very slow manual steering with six turns lock-to-lock was a damper on that to start with. The ride in normal driving was quite adequate, but outside of that envelope, the Rambler lost its poise, with terminal understeer as well as lifting up its inside rear wheel.
The 9″ drum brakes were no better, and exhibited the near universal trait of having the rear wheel lock up prematurely under strong braking. This could of course have been readily remedied by a proper proportioning valve, such as used by most European cars. And of course discs on the front wheels; together, these two quite low-cost changes could have made a big difference. As R&T pointed out, even low end cars can readily attain the kind of speeds that high performance cars can (such as 70-80 mph), but the braking performance are typically very disparate.
Quality was also weak, with poor assembly fit and finish; the doors were hard to open and close. But the unibody structure was tight, although noisy from the lack of adequate sound insulation.
All in all, R&T felt that the American offered good value for the dollar; certainly in terms of pounds per dollar. But for many drivers, that was not the criteria that counted.
What an absolute hair shirt of an automobile! According to the brochure, front disc brakes were available, but only if you got the V-8. Shame. I can’t imagine too many were sold in this configuration, possibly only to those folks who wanted the cheapest car possible and lived in the (big) parts of the US where foreign cars were still frowned upon.
An interesting size comparison in my head is the new-for-67 Volvo 144S.
(CC reprint of the R&T road test here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/1960s-vintage-reviews/european-brands-1960s-vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-road-test-1967-volvo-144s-a-traditional-volvo-in-a-stylish-new-wrapper/ )
Same size, give or take, but the Volvo cost 60%(!) more. But you got a dual-carb 4 with more power than the AMC 6, 4-wheel disc brakes, bucket seats, 4 forward gears and lots more. I doubt anyone was cross-shopping a Volvo with a Rambler
Things haven’t changed. Those who want to suffer every drive have the Dacia, basically old Renault bits in dreary shapes. Cheap but not that cheerful as they don’t bother putting in much safety gear as apparently their buyers don’t need it. Lucky them.
A good car to go from a to b 4 wheel drums were std at the time and worked OK I’ve driven many 57 Chev 66 Chevy 2 even in early 70s Chryslers had onvaliants etc car was made in my hometown acroo from my hischool many friends parent worked there as a basic car was good you want luxury buy an ambassador sporty get a javelin and bench seat is superior to buckets when you need to seat 6 the imports won’t
I remember seeing the exact same car sitting in the Johnstown AMC dealer when new. You’re being too kind to call it a “hair shirt of an automobile”. This was a car for someone who pointedly considered cars an expensive but necessary nuisance, wouldn’t buy used (someone else’s problems, of course), but wasn’t willing to spend on more cent than necessary. For some reason I think I saw the 68 or 69 model, because I do remember a sticker of $1999.00 in the window.
(There are moments it surprises me what memories stick in my mind.)
You hit the neil on the head. The Volvo was 60% more.You get what you pay for. 128hp wasnt bad . Ten years latter V8s were producing matching numbers. Rambler gave the buyer mid size comfort with long distance comfort unlike the compact high revving imports . Later buyers in this market would go for a Vega ,Gremlin or Pinto. ..Then Datsun,Toyota.
“Ow! Hey!” –Neil
Note the “driver comfort ratings” for drivers 69, 72, and 75 inches tall. Starting above median and going only up, not down.
Car writers are tall, and assume the reader is also tall.
My parents bought a Rambler in 1960, partly because it had the best driving position for my 60-inch mother.
Damning with faint praise indeed, but our family had twin Ramber Americans when I was a child. I think they were a Blue 1966 and a Brown 1969 Model. We called them Brownie and Bluey, and they were perfect for the mission. They did exactly what they needed to do.
Both my parents were tall, and with three children we needed the room. A Beetle or Simca 1000 would have been torture for our family, and would have performed poorly on the highway road trips we did in the summers. Feeding a family of 5 on a teacher’s salary meant ever dollar counted.
I don’t recall a bit of trouble with the two Ramblers, other than body rust. The 66 was replaced by our 1972 Matador which was also reliable, and the 69 was replaced by a 1975 Vega which was, well, a Vega. It made us miss the Rambler.
Our family of 5 only had one Rambler American. I thought it was one too many. The car did what a car was supposed to do in every mechanical sense. In the things important to a high schooler of the 60s, the Rambler American was cursed with a “loser” image.
My memories are colored by coming of driving age when our family car was a Rambler American. That car accomplished the seemingly impossible task of being unliked by both your date and your date’s parents.
In a Rambler, you got a date despite your wheels. Quite unlike the lucky guys with access to a Mustang – or almost anything else for that matter.
Parents of dates had been exposed to years of Nash & Rambler bedable seat ads. The risk of combining natural teenage lust with the Rambler’s reclining seats was probably never too far from a parent’s mind. Even Rambler-owning parents seemed reluctant to see their daughters off to a dance in a Rambler.
It seems laughable to today, but at the time I really did consider our Rambler American to be a high school curse. It retrospect, I should be happy my parents let me use the car at all. I sure did my best to beat that miserable thing. I guess it is kind of a tribute to the car that it survived 3 teenagers.
You’ve got it…people of a “certain age” and beyond remember the Nash/Rambler ads touting the fold down seats. That those seats were installed in a vehicle with reputation as being staid and frumpy didn’t matter.
My Parents owned 2 Rambler wagons (Classics, not Americans though) in a row, a ’61 and ’63…and guess they were part of the marketing target for them…not that they were stogy, at least I don’t think of them that way, but they were “settled” and no longer teenagers, but young adults with a family (which I was an early part of). My Dad had been a scout, and though we hadn’t quite gotten into camping as a family (yet) the fold down seats could be used as beds was a practical advantage. Our first camping equipment was in the form of a car-top camper (made by Camp ‘O Tel) and though it slept 4 persons (on paper) the headroom of the outer bunks was pretty low, we’d all vie for time in the middle one where you couldn’t stand up but you could at least sit up and get changed. So I’d often get relegated to the car (until I got my own pup tent which sometimes still found me seeking refuge in the car if it got flooded out due to poor placement in a rainstorm).
He also owned some oddballs in his day…though his 1st “2nd” car was a ’59 Beetle, he replaced it with a new ’68 Renault R10. He also bought a new ’76 Subaru DL, back when most of them were still FWD (they did have one AWD), mostly so he could have a reasonably priced FWD car…Honda and VW were pretty expensive, and he didn’t like the Datsun F10, not due to appearance per se, but something on the hood that looked like a last minute engineering change, a vent near the carburator, that queered him on buying it….so he wasn’t always a “conventional” buyer.
Those Ramblers were gone by the time I started driving, but of course our family cars weren’t exactly sporty….only exception was (after I was off on my own) my Dad bought a new ’80 Omni Coupe, which was his mid-life crisis car (I guess, never having had one myself…never felt the need). But in retrospect I look at the Ramblers with admiration, they didn’t pretend to be anything that they weren’t, they just didn’t change quickly enough with the times. I think my Dad bought his ’65 Olds F85 wagon as replacement for the totalled ’63 Rambler mostly because he was changing, making a bit more money in the prosperous 60’s, and his family growing (we added my middle sister in ’64…and another in ’70) and he needed the space.
My Uncles (younger than my parents), who weren’t really that much older than I would have been just starting driving around this time, but they didn’t have anything much fancier to drive in….my Mother’s brother inherited my Grandfather’s ’51 Chrysler Windsor after Grandfather died in ’66, and only recall one “flashy” Chevy coupe that the other uncle briefly owned….a couple of the cars he got were “hand me downs” from my great Aunts (2 spinsters)…one of which wasn’t exactly fancy, early 60’s F85, but came with the 330V8 which he felt was way too much power for their needs…he felt the local dealer took advantage selling them a car with a bigger engine than they needed. My own car though college was a 1974 Datsun 710, which would be unlikely to impress anyone (except if practicality and cheapness are attractive traits).
A frozen design with no expensive annual model changes – was there ever anything besides the Model T or the Beetle that ever made this work over the long haul in the US market? Studebaker made the same claim starting in 1965, and we know how long that lasted. This one lasted a little longer – 2 more years, and then came the new 1970 Hornet.
I find these cars maddening. The styling is nearly perfect (in a conservative way) and they were reliable as can be, but the driving experience seems aimed at fans of a 1950 Nash or maybe a 1960 Chevrolet. Really, a nice torquey 6 and a 3 speed (with a non-synchro first) and we had a typical US car from around 1939. Of course, the typical US car of 1939 was pretty good, but even the Falcon was a far more engaging driving machine by 1967.
“…was there ever anything besides the Model T or the Beetle that ever made this work over the long haul in the US market?”
Passenger cars, not really, at least not in the retail sense. The departed 1998 to 2011 Ford Crown Victoria / Grand Marquis might be in the running but a disproportionate number were fleet sales. Checker would certainly qualify but, fleet sales.
Full-sized vans also come to mind but, again, fleet sales for commercial or vocational purposes. But if a cab/chassis of an Econoline that was introduced for 1992 counts and is still being produced, the Model T and Beetle may have some competition. Even the Chevrolet Express has been around since, what, 1995? And these are now in the same longevity ballpark as the Dodge Van of 1971 or 1972 to 2004ish.
The Volvo 140-160-240-260, 1967 to 1993. That’s a 26-year run. The Checker Marathon and taxi went 23 years. The revised box Caprice had an 11-year go at it.
I feel like saying the Volvo was an exception, but it was just a good, honest, basic design in the first place. A Scandinavian thing, I guess. 🙂 Volvo ignored several non-functional design trends through the late sixties and seventies (curvy bodies, rising rear-door hiplines, vertical pseudo-Rolls grilles, squarer bodies again…..) and wound up with a car that didn’t look dated so much as perhaps over-familiar.
Ahem…
Only car I can think of where “no annual styling changes” was truly considered an advantage by buyers is the Checker cab.
As for no significant styling changes, the Jeep (Grand) Wagoneer lasted almost three decades.
One of my aunts worked for New England Telephone and its’ successor companies for her entire career from the ’50s to around 1990. They had a whole fleet of these and later Hornets which FWIU had automatics and nothing else, certainly from how she spoke of their steering they didn’t have PS; at least the Chevettes that replaced them were better in that respect being overall much smaller and lighter.
I never drove one of these, but the first car I ever drove was a 3 on the tree ’59 Rambler American. Even then it was UNDER whelming. However, in the context of the late 60s these were sort of acceptable.
My first car upon returning from my 13 month “VACATION” in Viet Nam was what turned out to be a quite used ’64 Pontiac Tempest Custom 4 door AT/6. Given I owned that car @ 13 months and rolled 47,000 miles on it…..pretty good BASIC transportation! Realistically not really much, if any, better than the Rambler American; just cheaper at $600 purchase price with 25K+ miles. OTOH, I had to have the lil 6 banger completely redone at Community Pontiac in Whittier, CA. That CO$T $433+ change, which was more $$$ than I had. Therefore they held my “pink slip” until I paid off the engine rebuild.
Sometimes I have wondered over the years if I should have $queezed out the @ $1900 for a nu American, but????
Relative to the comments about import quality then, my 2nd car was a nu ’69 Nova 250 ci 6/AT. PO$! Third car n 4th: VW Super Beetles. GR8 cars at the time, even going all over LA and S. California. IMO, about the BEST seats in just about any-of many-cars I’ve now owned……at least from old memories! 🙂 DFO
Of course the AMC execs weren’t sitting on their bench seats waiting for the inevitable; the seats were way too uncomfortable. That was one of my strongest impressions of the low end domestics I rode in as a kid, how different the seating experience was from our family Volvo. Speaking of Volvo’s, I think a comparison test between the ‘67 Volvo 144S, which I recall was big hit at R&T, and a fully optioned Rambler American would have been interesting.
Isn’t that the issue that also tested the New MGC?
The Volvo tested better in every way.
With a front disc brake upgrade, at least a front anti sway bar, modern shocks and tires this could be a cheap classic car whose safety and fun to drive quotient goes up and have something reliable and different to cruise around in or maybe daily drive if you’re not in the salt belt. Uncle Tony’s Garage on You Tube sang the praises of one of these cars as being reliable and easy to maintain. The featured car is slightly older, but you get the idea. I seem to recall a video he did of one like the featured car but I can’t find it.
I still wonder why to this day it took so long for disc brakes to catch on. They have GOT to be cheaper to make than drum brakes with all those itty bitty pieces.
The were significantly more expensive back then. Over the decades massive volume production and a rationalization of the design changed that. They were not quite as simple then as they are now.
Especially before the invention of single piston floating calipers. A lot of machine work was involved.
My 67 Lincoln had fixed- mount 4 piston caliper disc brakes, quite intricate. My 68 T – bird has modern single piston caliper brakes, far cheaper but slightly less effective. So the ability to make simple disc brakes existed at the time.
I suspect, despite this simple design, manufacturing tooling and existing supply chains made drum brakes cheaper to produce, despite their relative complexity.
I wonder if part of the drum brakes as base model, along with front discs as an optional extra, was simply the Detroit mentality. Get something “cheap” out there, but give the buyer lots of room and many reasons to “trade up” to a better specification. If the buyer is too cheap or unable to trade up, well then, “here you go”.
I had and daily drove a 67 American for a few years in the early 2000s. It was a genuine old lady car. Metallic green 2 door with the 232 2v and automatic. No other options. Once the choked off by a too small muffler outlet was solved it was rather sprightly. Great car that served me well.
If cars reflect owners’ personalities . . .
When I was real little (like 4-7 years old), the next-door neighbors were a childless couple in their late 50s. The husband (thin, very no-nonsense) had an engineering-type job at a military base and drove one of these Ramblers. The wife was a large voluptuous woman (whom I loved–she gave me little gifts all the time). She had a purring, honey voice mellowed by thousands of packs of Kent cigarettes. She drove what I later identified as– a 1969 Buick Electra 225 4-door hardtop. They moved away when I was about 7.
Talk about contrasts/polar opposites!
One suspects Chapin viewed this as only a stopgap until the Gremlin arrived. But with hindsight I imagine AMC would have been better off keeping the American going as a subcompact competitor and replacing the Rebel with something Dodge Dart sized instead of bringing out the Hornet.
This was exactly my first car (only a ’68), bought with 50K miles on it in 1977. I remember the six turns lock to lock, the rubber floor, the non synchromesh first and the vacuum wipers…..but also the silky smooth six.
Handling? Nope. Braking? Nope. Relative to today, this was a car pretty much unsafe at any speed, not the Corvair. But it was a solid, reliable car. I put another 55K miles on it in 3 years, taking it to Yukon/Alaska and to Death Valley and all sorts of dirt/gravel roads in between…..and we managed to live through all these adventures together.
My 2018 Civic hatch is very close dimensionally to the Rambler, but fifty years of progress makes it seem like it was designed by an advanced alien race. But oh, to have the old Rambler parked in the garage to take out on weekends and revel in the nostalgia. It was my first, and I of course loved it.
Nothing in the review about HVAC which was a big selling point in cold climate states. Any Rambler of this vintage would roast you out of the car and keep the windshield clear of ice and snow.
Re: disc brakes, corrosion was a factor in those same states. Type 3 Volkswagens got them standard about that time and pistons seizing in the calipers for those cars wasn’t uncommon in the rust belt. My first “real” job in the mid-70s was at an indie VW repair shop and we had to remove the caliper, put in in a vise, and use 120psi air to pop the stubborn caliper out. Also, people were used to the limitations of drums plus the flatlands of the Midwest don’t tax brakes as the more hilly states do. Buyers probably didn’t consider drums a major drawback for a light compact car like this Rambler.
Bit of a chicken-versus-egg deal here, though. Is it that people were accustomed to the limitations of drum brakes and therefore satisfied with them? Or is it that drum brakes were what was available and therefore people made do with them?
Routine maintenance of disc brakes, even those early setups, was much easier and cheaper than a drum brake job—no shoes to cam-grind, no springs to fight with. But repairs could be more difficult; you’re certainly right about corrosion issues. The Kelsey-Hayes 4-piston disc brakes used on ’65-’67 Mustangs and ’66-’72 Chrysler A-bodies were prone to the same problem: chromed steel pistons seizing in the cast iron calipers when water would get past the balloon seal. It didn’t take too long for single-piston floating calipers, noncorroding phenolic pistons, and better seals significantly reduced the corrosion issue while also cost-reducing the hardware.
Probably both, Daniel. The lack of rear proportioning valve notwithstanding, buyers of a 220 Rambler American were probably perfectly happy with their drum brakes. The vast majority rarely exceeded 65mph and drove on 2% or 3% grades at the most. My dad pulled a 500lb boat with his ’64 drum-brake American 440 through the Ozarks w/o issue.
Respectfully disagree on routine brake service. It takes me about the same time to replace either. Drums have hold-down hardware and the e-brake cable and the initial adjustment to deal with but discs have shims to install and caliper slides to clean and lube. For me, it’s a wash.
I agree though that I’d much rather have discs, front and back, now that they’ve been perfected over the past 60 years. And I don’t think I’d ever be comfortable driving a car w/o 4-wheel ABS in the Winter again.
When I had the brakes on my ’70 Karmann Ghia repaired, the mechanic asked if I was parking it on a hill. I can’t imagine any other factor than accumulated water causing rust corrosion being why he asked me that. And yes, it was parked on a hill, with the right side usually more downhill-ish than the left.
The business strategy outlined in this article makes tremendous sense. Had AMC stuck to it, they may have survived longer.
We may dislike inexpensive, practical , basic, high value cars because they are too austere. But it made good sense for an automaker to specialize in that niche and build a superior competitive position. The success of VW and Hyundai demonstrates the success of that strategy. Indeed millions of Dodge Darts, Beetles , K- cars, Accents, and yes, even the Yugo were eagerly snapped up by people who didn’t care to pay for luxury or personal expression.
I think AMC lost their way twice, first with insufficient build quality. VW and the Japanese brands showed austere consumers still valued quality even in a basic vehicle. But in the 70s, AMC seemed synonymous with “poorly made”.
AMC also blew their budget in abandoning their winning practical Rambler formula and building a full range of cars they couldn’t afford to develop. Indeed, had they built the best- possible Rambler in the 70s, they’d likely have done better than the flawed Pacer and uncompetitive Matador.
I always considered the Hornet the best possible Rambler. It was actually quite a reliable car in the 70’s.
This car and specification is a classic example of how the Japanese stole so many car customers in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. The real-world driving experience actually goes beyond the specs printed on the page and the rather wish-washy impressions in the text of the review (damning with faint praise, perhaps?).
The brakes, seating, horsepower, steering, and build quality were not awful. But none of them were very good, either. There was a lot of room for other manufacturers to offer far better, and that’s what the Japanese did. The spec sheet wasn’t a whole lot better, but the imported cars were more nimble, the steering was relatively light and responsive, the seats more comfortable, and the brakes more responsive and powerful for the size of the car. Then overall driving impression was a revelation, after years of driving something “adequate”.
Then there is the matter of features. The base Rambler offered an ash tray, padded sun visors, and an honest-to-god glovebox with a door. Meanwhile, base model Toyotas and Datsuns were including little tool kits, small tins of touch-up paint, and typically radios as standard features on their base models. This all adds up to not only a bit of an unexpected “wow” factor for the car shopper, but also bragging rights when one brings the car home and shows it to the neighbors.
In the meantime, AMC could build a quite nice and much more than “adequate” car for a much higher price, while Toyota and Datsun were happy to sell their better equipped “base” models all day (typically there wasn’t much other than “base” to be had from them). Of all of the elements that made Detroit suffer so hard in the ‘70s, my guess is the practice of essentially disrespecting their customers by offering something “base” but hardly adequate, and then expecting the customers to trade up into more lavishly equipped and profitable versions of the same basic car, is right at the top of the list. Had the Rambler had better handling, steering, brakes, and seats on the base model, they might have sold a ton of them. The parts were right in the parts bin, but they were saved for the Rogues at $3.5k a pop, instead of the American at $2k apiece. Sure, one could carefully construct a better American from the options sheet, but how about a $2.3k car that was a clear class leader? How about putting better seats (a subjective thing, I know), in all of the Americans? Good brakes and steering on all of them?
Honda today has “base” cars and CUVs, devoid of some of the features of the higher priced versions, but the “base” cars handle, brake, and drive as well as the fancy ones. One can be cheap and buy an automotive “appliance”, and get a very good car, as far as all the fundamentals go. We buy and drive those appliances today, and I am a car guy. Detroit totally missed the boat, for years and years.
I’ve got a ’66 American 220 I my garage right now🙂
I went right to the data panel to see what the lateral acceleration figure around the skidpad would be. Apparently R&T hadn’t started measuring this at the time, but I’m sure it would have been mediocre. I assume the tires were crossplies.
From American Cars 1960-1972 (I sure wish he’d finish out the ’70s!) on base prices for least expensive new car. Delivery fees not included.
AMC Rambler American 220: $1839 (the 232 with 2bbl was $51 extra)
Chevrolet Chevy II 100 (with the 153 four): $2,090 (the 250 was $99)
Dodge Dart: $2,187 with the 170 Slant Six (the 225 was a $38 option)
Ford Falcon: $2,118 with the 170 (you paid $26 for 15 extra hp with the 200)
All of these could have a low hp V-8 added for a few extra hundred.
A skinflint would have bought the AMC 220 or a $1999 VW and reasonably expected them to last ten years.
The base USA model 113 VW Deluxe Sedan in 1967 was $1717 (West coast POE), not $1999, as I recall. Heater, adequate for many but not all climates, was standard, as well as two speed electric wipers. With drastically different personalities, I doubt if many cross shopped it and the American.