Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Rambler American With OHV Six – Why Don’t Cars Of “Great Merit” Sell As Well As They Should?

For the second time, I’m being forced to rethink my long-held disdain low-opinion of the lowly Rambler American. The first time was Road and Track’s test of a 1959; they quite liked it, and for good reasons. Even though it was little changed since the original Rambler of 1950, that car was quite ahead of its time and was still highly competitive in 1959, given that the only real domestic competition was the Studebaker Lark.

Jump forward two years, and Car Life (owned by the Bonds, who also owned R&T) waxes eloquently  about the restyled ’61 version, including the styling, which I have always deemed to be quite atrocious. Admittedly, it was very practical, with excellent visibility, high seating, and short overhangs (it lost 5″ in length), it had AMC’s excellent heating and ventilation system, and saving perhaps the best for last, it was now available with the ohv version of the Rambler six.

I promise to never say anything negative about these ever again!

CL starts off wondering why the 100″ wb American doesn’t sell any better compared to the 108″ wb Ramblers, since “the American is a perfect example of a very desirable automobile…we were mightily impressed with the latest…American Custom 4-door sedan.” CL also mentions that the venerable 90 hp flathead six, still standard on the base versions of the American, “gives brisk acceleration and more top speed than you’ll ever need…and remarkably low fuel consumption”. It’s a Rambler love fest!

Note: R&T mistook the installed ohv six as one of the aluminum block versions not. The 195.6 cubic inch six offered both more performance as well greater economy, but due to a significantly higher (2.87) rear axle ratio compared to the flathead’s 3.31:1 ratio, the improved acceleration evaporated (same as the flathead’s), but the economy improvement was very much in evidence (2-3 more mpg).  Obviously a more aggressive axle ratio (3.31) or even the 4.11 with the available overdrive could result in “rubber-burning performance”. Or something like that.  It should be pointed out that this ’61 had the B/W automatic, and the ’59 had a manual transmission; that would likely also account for the muted acceleration test times.

 

CL admits that the first impression of the restyle “isn’t all favorable”; one staff member said it was a big mistake. It was invariably going to be challenging to put a fashionable new dress over the body of the pudgy original, given that the modest budget didn’t allow for any significant changes of the unibody hardpoints. But it just doesn’t work for me; I much prefer pudgy over this “two-box” styling: one smaller and narrower box (the greenhouse) sitting on a larger/wider box.

 

But there were practical benefits! The upright seating position allows for excellent visibility and makes it easy to see where the corners of the car are and just pleasant to operate. You can’t see how your car looks from the inside anyway!

And once again, “The steering, in particular, merits high praise; it is quick and accurate, light enough for easy parking.” The somewhat firm ride “gives a good feel to the car when driving over winding mountain roads.”  Even the brakes were good! America’s own boxy Alfa Giulia sedan? Who would have thunk?

Top speed was “a slightly disappointing 89.3 mph“, about the same as the flathead, and also the result of the the high axle gearing, which kept the engine from reaching its power peak.

 

 

Rambler’s excellent “Weather Eye” heating and ventilation system also allows for fully integrated air conditioning  for only $350, a bargain. Given the the great benefits of a/c, better to buy a Rambler American six with it than a Chevy without it.

And there’s more, the icing on the cake: fit and finish was “immaculate“, and general quality was deemed better than many higher-priced makes.

The summation: “If you can do without a stylish carriage, but won’t trade for anything less than a quality job of assembling and a well-designed package, then the Rambler is for you. Here, indeed, is a car where form did follow function.” I can now see myself in 1961 and buying one of these; it’s something of an analogue to my xB:  ugly, tall, boxy, comfortable, fun to drive, economical and well built. How could that not have been obvious all these decades?

 

Related CC reading:
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1959 Rambler American – Dorkiness Is Only Skin Deep

Curbside Classic: 1961 Rambler American – The Hip Ugly American