For all the endless bitching I’ve done over the years about the lack of a proper manual gearbox with a wide spread of ratios, why do I keep forgetting about the ’63-’65 Ramblers with the Twin-Stick? Five nicely spaced gears, including a long-legged overdrive for relaxed and economical cruising. Sure, it’s just a three-speed manual with overdrive on 2nd and 3rd, but there’s a very important difference: the Twin-Stick made it super easy to actually use all five of those gears. Unfortunately, that’s not really the case with the typical 3/OD combo in American cars, at least not without some contortions.
And it was available on the all-new ’63 Rambler Classic and Ambassador, which is also right up my alley: smaller, lighter and more space efficient than all the standard sized American cars. Car Life called their 270 hp 327 V8 equipped tester a “luxury compact with a big kick”; true that. Now if only the clutch hadn’t blown up…
This was a very well equipped Rambler, the top of the line 990 and with a number of options, including bucket seats, the 270 hp 327 V8, air conditioning, power steering, brakes and windows, and a slew of other convenience items. The total was $3355, not exactly what the old flintskin bachelor down the street drove.
Car Life pointed out that the new ’63 Classic and Ambassador was a significantly better package than its predecessor, which dated back to 1956. Even though wheelbase was up 4″, to 112″, overall length was actually one inch less, and interior width was up thanks to the curved glass thin doors, definitely an industry first. In size it competed against the Buick Special, Old F-85, Tempest, Studebaker Lark, Dodge Dart and Mercury Comet. But none offered such a spacious interior, essentially the equivalent of a full-size car. And with the exception of the Tempest/LeMans, none were available with such a wide range of engine choices, up to the 327 V8. Yet the new ’63 Ambassador was a full 270lbs lighter than its predecessor.
The simple reality was that the downsized 1962 Plymouth and Dodge and the 1963 Rambler Classic/Ambassador were in a league of their own, in terms of packaging, space efficiency, weight, and the numerous resulting benefits. They were the prophets of what would come to be the norm in the late ’70s and ’80s.
Overall fuel economy was 16-18 mpg; with the automatic-equipped car averaging 16-17, and the Twin-Stick yielding 17-18. performance was brisk, with the Twin-Stick car timed at 17 seconds in the quarter in its first run, when the clutch blew up. Car Life estimated that it would have done it in 16 seconds with a couple more passes.
So now we get to the meat of the matter: the Twin-Stick, which is of course just the venerable B/W three speed with a planetary overdrive. But the key difference is that the Twin-Stick made it very easy to split gears, which is not at all so easy in the typical overdrive setup, where once O/D is enabled, then it engages automatically above a certain speed when the throttle is momentarily let up. The problem with that is that once in 2-OD, it’s not so easy to shift into 3-Direct; that would require un-enabling OD by pushing in the OD handle on the dash, letting up on the throttle to disengage OD, then shifting into 3-Direct and then pulling the OD handle again to enable it, and then letting up on the throttle to engage 3-OD.
With Twin-Stick, the shifter on the left is for the three speed transmission, and the stick on the right enables overdrive. But the little button on the main shifter is what engages or disengages OD (if enabled). That makes splitting gears essentially manual, just the same as it is in my truck. One puts the right stick in OD (enabled), shifts the left stick from 1st to 2nd, pushes the button to engage 2-OD, then pushes the button again to disengage OD while shifting to 3-D, and then pushes it again to engage 3-OD.
It’s actually better than my truck, in that the button right on the shifter knob is more convenient than the toggle switch I have on the dash.
Car Life points pout that although four speeds (like the T-10) were the hot new thing, the Twin-Stick has pretty much all the same gear ratios through fourth, but the an overdrive 5th. They included this comparison of the gear ratios, but there’s a typo: 2nd gear on the B/W T85-89 is on the Twin-Stick is really 1.59.
Related reading:
Automotive History: The Mysteries Of Automotive Epicyclic Or Planetary Overdrive Revealed – The Predecessor To Modern Overdrive
Given the low curb weight and the ooompppph of the V8 engine; the zero to sixty times should had been quicker?
Perhaps the clumsy shifting action Paul described affected the acceleration runs?
My reading of it is that they used the automatic-equipped car for all of the performance tests and results, since the clutch gave out very early on on the Twin-Stick car.
Ahhhh, that would also explain the disappointing acceleration numbers.
The Borg Warner based automatic transmission was not bad when it debuted in the early 1950’s; but out of date by 1963 and no match for a Mopar Torqueflite or even a FoMoCo 3 speed Cruise-o-matic automatic.
Motor Trend also complained during this period that getting a good launch was made difficult by the torque tube drivetrain. In their road test of a ’65 Ambassador with Twin Stick, editor Bob McVay said:
Oops, the blockquote was supposed to end after “acceleration figures.”
At any rate, the launch woes meant the MT Ambassador needed 12 seconds to reach 60 mph and 19 seconds for the quarter mile. That car was a convertible and 330 lb heavier than this ’63 club sedan, but had manual transmission and a 3.54 axle, so that it was so much slower than the Car Life automatic suggests the Twin Stick transmission was NOT a boon to acceleration times.
If…IF…only I had stumbled across this car on the New Orleans used car lots that I walked thru in the early/mid 1970’s!
The only Ramblers I found were entry level 4 doors, optioned with the base six cylinder and the ancient, sloppy shifting, starting in second gear unless you floored it “Flash-o-Matic” automatic transmission.
These unhappy used cars resisted moving from a stop sign with a noisy sigh and leisurely (at best) acceleration.
The Flash-o-Matic was a decent 3-speed automatic when many comparable cars: (Chevy and Ford in particular, but also Buick Special, Pontiac Tempest, etc.) used 2-speed trannies. The Flash-o-Matic definitely had 1st gear start, unless you selected D2 which was to give the driver a choice of starting in 2nd on slippery surfaces. And the Borg Warner tranny was essentially the same as a Ford FMX which was used widely until 1979! (The BW unit was also used by Jaguar, Volvo and some other foreign makes.) It wasn’t a great tranny, but it wasn’t bad either.
I spent time in several high mileage1960’s Ramblers with the Flash-O-Matic automatic transmission. The only way I got an automatic first gear start was to bury my gas pedal foot on the front bumper.
“Normal” around town putt-putt driving gave an automatic second gear start with an automatic shift into high (third) gear.
Perhaps the ones I drove needed transmission work?
Huh! This sounds like quite a de luxe, competent car. Is that the handbrake I see, outboard of the driver’s seat where Volvo put it until 1972ish?
What was the general build quality like in Ramblers of the era? AMC started doing a quality push in ’72, which I understand might’ve been for the same reason as Chrysler’s in ’63 (“We’re doing a better job now; please try us again”, backed with a better warranty), but I don’t know how bad AM’s quality got before, or when.
The clutch failure is a bummer, that it had to happen to that particular car in those hands, but (1) those oarticular feet might very well have caused or contributed, because car journos, and (2) even if not, that sort of mechanical failure happened sometimes.
is that the handbrake I see, outboard of the driver’s seat where Volvo put it until 1972ish?
It appears to be a control lever for the reclining mechanism for the seatback, or some other aspect of the seat. These cars had a foot pedal e-brake.
As to its general build quality, from what I’ve read and picked up over the years, it appears to have been pretty good, for the times. AMC’s unibody construction experience was very deep by then, so the body engineering and build was solid, and had been for some time.
As to other aspects, I’ve not heard or read about sloppy assembly or such. Their engines were pretty well proven (I assume the aluminum block six likely had certain woes of the time), that transmissions were well-proven Borg-Warner units.
I’m guessing quality may well have gone down some in the late ’60s, with a proliferation of new models, which was a common issue in the US.
The handle you see on the bottom outside of the driver’s seat is a rare “Lounge tilt” optional seat mechanism, that used an hydraulic cylinder to ‘raise’ the front of the seat bottom. The recliner mechanism for the seatback was common on Ramblers. This “Lounge Tilt” option was a rare one, offered in ’62-63 only. (I have one for my ’62 American convertible!).
Neat!
I guess that is the handbrake, where Rootes put it until 1979 on the Hillman Hunter/Sunbeam Arrow family
Roger, I already pointed out that it’s not the handbrake. No American cars had handbrakes in that location. It’s a seat back recliner handle.
Here’s an image of the Ambassador seat off the web.
It appears there’s a recline lever for the seatback, and a second lever to adjust the seat bottom angle (or fore-aft adjustment). But the second lever definitely attaches to the seat mechanism.
If we want to be pedantic, the C4 Corvette had its handbrake to the left of the driver’s seat. But that was after the Ambassador’s time…
Judging by the aforementioned Motor Trend review (which was of a ’65 Ambassador), I’m tending to think the clutch failure was less an isolated fluke of a road test fleet car (although one can never wholly dismiss that) than a sign of a powertrain and suspension that was not designed for and didn’t tolerate aggressive driving. McVay also noted that the three-speed would not allow anything resembling fast shifts, and there was a lengthy, deliberate pause in the engagement or disengagement of the overdrive.
Obviously, real-world drivers, especially Rambler drivers, don’t necessarily drive aggressively most of the time, but it sounds like the Rambler drivetrain was not willing to cooperate with even occasional bursts of jackrabbit acceleration. Driving gently by habit is one thing; HAVING to drive gently to avoid mechanical meltdown is another.
I would be inclined to agree with you on the powertrain. Nash/AMC never seemed interested in the performance market, with the brief and limited exception of the 1957 Rebel, so I doubt that those components were ever designed for anything other than normal use.
The bigger Ramblers had torque tube drive with two diagonal rods to triangulate the axle relative to the torque tube, plus a Panhard rod to locate the whole thing laterally and coil springs on top of the rear axle tubes. So, there was lots of unsprung weight that was not very positively located, and that, judging by the Motor Trend description, resulted in a lot of twist and hop on hard acceleration. With automatic, I assume the torque converted absorbed some of those contortions, but with manual shift, it sounds like the clutch had to handle the rear suspension loads as well as engine torque, something it did not do happily. Motor Trend advised ordering the heavy-duty clutch with the 327.
Good morning…re: ‘The simple reality was that the downsized 1952 Plymouth and Dodge…’.
Was that intended to be 1962 instead of 1952…?
Yes. And it appears someone has already corrected that typo.
You mentioned the Mercury Comet among several competitors, as well as the newly down-sized 1962 Plymouth and Dodge. What about the new for 1962 mid-sized Ford Fairlane and Mercury Meteor?
One slight-at-a tangent observation – the spare wheel stowage seems a bit obtrusive and perhaps not fully thought through. I’d have expected to see it under the boot/trunk floor or under the rear of the car, or perhaps standing to one with a well.
American cars of this vintage often put the fuel tank directly under the trunk floor, usually shaped fairly large and flat for ground clearance. On some cars, they scooched the tank a bit to one side to make room for the tire to be upright in a well on the other side, but this Amby looks to have too shallow a trunk to be able to do that. Also not enough space to mount it horizontally or vertically in the trunk over the rear axle.
My similarly sized 1962 Studebaker Lark has the tire in exactly the same location, and yep, it’s kind of in the way.
From my Volvo days, I knew folks who disabled the 4th gear interlock for the Laycock overdrive and drove them like 6-speed manuals. 2+OD wasn’t used because it was almost exactly the same as 3rd without OD. I also seem to recall that some of the British cars with Laycock didn’t even have lockouts, so they were intended to be operated in this manner.
Yes, a lot of Triumph applications allowed using overdrive in second and third, which rally drivers appreciated because it filled in some gaps in the normal four-speed gearing.
Excuse my ignorance, but how do you shift the main transmission? It does not look it has a standard H shift pattern but just goes back and forth? Where is R, at the top, followed by N? Or? No experience with this kind of shifting so am clueless.
It does have a traditional H pattern.
I want that shift plate for wall art! I love the owl.
Thanks Paul, that makes it much clearer than the more side on photo that was confusing me.
As mentioned by someone else, this reminds me somewhat of the “button enabled” overdrive on 1980’s (maybe 1970’s) Volvos, which was great, especially since the button was on the gearshift. Weird that the “enable” was a lever and the “engage” was a button? I would have thought the reverse would have made more sense. When did 10/18-speed Fuller truck transmissions with the splitter select on the gearshift become a thing? Wonder if Rambler thought of doing things that way.
It’s possible that I have the terms backwards. The Lever on the right for the OD has two positions: In and Out. That determines whether OD is available (enabled). But the button on the left shifter controls the solenoid, which is what actually engages the OD (if it’s been enabled/IN).
So pushing the button on the left shifter allows quick engagement/disengagement, but it needs to be enabled first (IN).
Ok that makes thanks!
A pre 1974 International CO 4070A had a Fuller Roadranger 913. The low/high range had an up and down air slide on the lever and the splitter (high range only) had a side to side valve on the “knob” (actually an assembly).
The trans is a 5-speed but you shift it (and it is numbered) as a 4-speed with a low gear. 1-2-3-4 (H pattern) low range, then 5-6-7-8 in the high range. You split each high-range gear in order, 5 low (usually direct), 5 high (usually overdrive), 6 low… 4 speeds in the low range, eight in the high range, and a low = 13-speeds.
I believe an 18-speed also splits the low range and has two low gears, 4×2 + 4×2 + 2 = 18.
oops: ( https://www.eaton.com/us/en-us/products/transmissions/commercial-vehicle-transmissions.html )
Here’s what that lever goes to on the bottom, outside edge of the driver’s seat: It’s the rare and optional “Lounge Tilt” seat option, available only in 62-63 Ramblers.
Looking at the ’65 Motor Trend review, I’m not sure the listed gear ratio is a typo. Motor Trend notes that cars with overdrive had a different second-gear ratio than the standard three-speed, although they quote its ratio as 1.86:1 rather than 1.89:1.
They also note (as does the ’63 brochure) that you could also have overdrive without the Twin-Stick setup, in which case it was controlled by a pull-out knob on the dash and cost $32.50 less.
The Car Life test of a 1964 American with Twin-Stick shows different internal ratios: 2.61/1.91/1.00. So, it seems like there were multiple ratio sets on hand.
I had an on demand overdrive on a A90 six Austin Werstminster a simple push button over rode the centrifugal arrangement giving overdrive on demand effectively 8 forward gears, it worked great untill it didnt and jammed the gearbox solid, I yanked it out and fitted a standard 4 speed from my rusted out Morris Isis and just drove it normally
These twin-stick transmissions always fascinated me. I don’t think there was ever anything else like them in the US market. But then I am a geek about oddball things like this. The mystery is what market AMC was going for with this feature. It doesn’t seem like the rest of the car was engineered for performance, so maybe some combination of economy with the appearance of sportiness?
I think sportiness, in the sense that a Ford Galaxie 500/XL or Corvair Monza was sporty, particularly since you could also order overdrive with a conventional column shift and dashboard knob if you didn’t want the console.
I seem to remember that Mitsubishi offered was twin-stick manual transmission on a variety of models imported into the U.S. in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the 1979-84 models of the Dodge Colt and Plymouth Champ and versions of the Dodge Colt Vista and Plymouth Colt Vista and the Mitsubishi Tredia and Cordia.
Yes, but they were mechanically very different than the AMC Twin-Stick except for having the two levers.
This article has a good explanation: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/the-mitsubishi-twin-stick-super-shift-gave-manual-transmission-buyers-two-shifters-and-doubled-performance-potential/
Always wondered what that ‘twin stick” was all about.
Always pleasantly surprised by the coverage of American Independent car companies.1963 was American Motors hi point. A slow downhill afterwards. The 1963 styling, Euro like,never worked well with later face-lifts. The 1963 sedans, while Euro modern, then the 1965 face-lift. The 1965 look so awkward, especially compared to the Chevy Chevelle among others. No doubt way above budget for much else.