This review forced me to change my long-held feeling about the pudgy little 1958-1961 Rambler American, a revival of the original 1950 Rambler. Whereas I have always had a soft spot for the original, with its hidden wheels and very nicely trimmed interior, the revival looked decidedly out of date by the time I arrived in the US in 1960. Among other things, that big rear wheel cutout, which didn’t match the front one in the slightest, made the rear wheel look like it wasn’t centered in it. It just looked…dorky.
But looks can be deceiving, as this R&T test makes rather clear. The American’s bones may have dated back to 1950, but they were quite advanced bones back then, and that made the American still competitive and appealing in 1959; rather more so than the 1959 Lark, whose bones only dated back to 1953.
To start with, R&T notes that the American’s 3.2 L (195.6 CI) side valve six results in a quite nicely-powered compact car, certainly much better than any imports for anything near the money, and better than the Lark. Although the Lark’s somewhat smaller 169.6 CI six was rated at the same 90 hp as the American’s mill, the American’s engine made more torque , which combined with its lower weight—thanks to its unibody—resulted in quicker acceleration and just all-round better performance. The result “is a very satisfying automobile”, one which few imports would be able to match in terms of its roominess, performance and price.
The first impression was of its “extraordinary easy of driving it. All the controls are light and well placed, the clutch is innocuous, the shift lever (nicely integrated visually into the dash) neat and convenient, the brakes smooth and effective”. Performance was even deemed “brisk” (0-60 in 16 sec), and fuel economy averaged to 22.9 mpg.
Top speed was a corrected 88.3 mph, a “most respectable figure”. The tested curb weight of exactly 2600 wasn’t all that light, but then the American’s body structure “is extremely rigid and durable”.
The ride was on the firm side, compared to typical larger American cars. R&T liked that very much, as roll in turns was negligible and “the general handling qualities are excellent”. And there was really no understeer; it was essentially neutral. Only the most vigorous cornering brought out some “ploughing”.
The tight body was free from rattles or drumming. Overall quality was “good, even excellent in comparison to most of the sculptured ’59 models (from other makers) we have examined”. Doors fit well; the interior was “well done”; neither plain or “chintzy”. The simple round instrument panel is functional, the dash well designed.
The front bench could seat three, but the narrower rear seat between the wheel wells only had room for two.
More praise was heaped on the very rigid Rambler unibody, which has proven itself well over the years. And once again, the American’s large engine not only has that performance benefit, but also promises to have a long life thanks to its low stresses. But R&T wondered why the 127 hp ohv version of the Rambler six wasn’t optional, as that “would make an interesting high-performance package”.
Wow; who would have though that the dumpy little flathead American would come in for such praise from Road and Track? I’m going to update my opinion right now.
I had quite a bit of seat time in one of these, as I used to ride to orchestra practice in one just like this driven by my friend Dean Harless’ dad every other Tuesday. I vividly remember hopping into that back seat, and watching his Dad move that curiously-located shift lever as we rolled down Park Avenue. In 1964, it was traded in for a ’64 Biscayne six, still with a manual. It seemed so wide inside. And it had carpeting. The Chevy was such an upgrade, and I was glad for Dean that they had such a nice new car.
But today? I’d take this American over the Biscayne. I’ve come to appreciate Ramblers more over these past few years, especially the 1950s models. They were something quite unique. Now if they had just offered that 127 hp ohv six…
Related CC reading:
I have a soft spot for the styling, which I think looks sort of Italianate in detail. It suffers from trying to dress up an almost-decade old unit body shell, which does some awkward things to the proportions in spots, but it’s not bad, and I prefer it to the subsequent 1961–1963 iteration.
The curb weight makes for an interesting contrast with the GM Y-body compacts, which while obviously bigger (12 inches in wheelbase, roughly the same in overall length) were at least 200 lb heavier despite their newer engineering and lightweight powertrain components. (Excepting of course the Tempest, which outweighed the American by around 350 lb with the four-cylinder engine.)
Yes, it is better than its successor. Which is damning it with faint praise.
For an insight into just how these were perceived by kids/younger adults at the time, check out Rob’s comment further down. He nails it; these were seen at the time as having negative sex appeal, and then some. I remember that perception very well, even as a young kid.
I know opinions are like, well, you know, but the styling of these, yeesh. And I’m a Studebaker guy! That instrument panel looks like from the forties. I’ll take the same year Lark with V8, in a hardtop or two-door wagon.
That was an interesting read – this may be the first time I can ever remember a praiseworthy comment about the handling of a Nash/Rambler/AMC product. I have never even been inside of one, and would love to experience how it feels from behind the wheel.
I owned one of these, back in the late 1970s…The car handled OK, nothing special. BTW, in 1960 Rambler could be had with that 127hp OHV six. My car, a 59 model, had the venerable flat six. It was adequate, ran very smoothly. These cars were built to a low price point…and after 100,000 miles or so, they would wear out/fall apart. But I loved the retro styling, and it was fun to have people notice the car, as even back in the late 1970s, few were actually on the road in the Seattle area. These cars now, in collector quality, are fetching $20-30 thousand bucks! If I could find one at a reasonable price, I woud buy it now!
My aunt and uncle had a 1958 model. My brother loved driving it because it handled well on curves. Six of us packed into it one day when my aunt and uncle took us for a trip from The Bronx into Westchester County. I was recuperating from a violent motor vehicle accident. I climbed into the back seat despite my infirmities. I still remember the day with pleasure. No, we did not get up to speed very quickly!
Did anyone ever do a comparison test with a VW Beetle in period? The American seems superior in every way that matters, and not by any small margins. Sure, the Beetle returned somewhat better fuel economy in its 62 mph top speed days, but using a bit more fuel is a small price to pay for decent handling, leagues faster acceleration and top speed, half again as much useful space, and a heater that didn’t require finesse to extract heat from.
Well, American Motors did so through their annual X-Ray brochures, and you are right – based on some of your criteria the VW came off as a dud in comparison to the more “modern” American. I used to pore over these things that I collected as a kid. Good times.
I did, on occasion, drag race VWs off a red light! I would win, though not by much. The thing is, an American sold new in 1959 for around $1800 dollars, making it the lowest-cost USA car available at the time. You got a lot more car for the money than when buying a Beetle. My used car, in 1979 or so, would cruise at 60-65 on the freeway but did not sound too happy at 70+….my car did not have the optional Overdrive, which I would have enjoyed. Old guys back then would tell me that with the OD, 30+mpg was easily obtained. Also, the heater control was very logical, easy to use, and worked well. But the driver’s seat on my car became uncomfortable for me, the back of the seat began to sag , and I eventually had to stuff a small pillow behind my back!..I never could find a way to fix that problem, so eventually I sold the car to a guy who was a real gearhead, and told me he could fix any problem with the car. I remember feeling very sad, watching someone drive away with my beloved old Rambler!
The Russian Orthodox priest in my town when I was growing up drove one of these, in black to match his robes. Around 1970 he replaced it, following the general trend in California, with a yellow Corolla. His robes remained black.
Sherman, set the wayback machine for 1968. Place – a small farming town in Wisconsin where a young high schooler with ink still wet in his driver license is about to summon the courage to ask a popular girl to accompany him to the game. He has been given the keys to the family Rambler for the first time on a Friday night and has permission to drive the 22 miles to an away game in a neighboring town.
Oh look, she’s turned him down flat. She tells him she’s already going with another boy – and he has the keys to his parents’ far cooler 1966 Chevy wagon.
Crushed, the boy decides to ask a few friends to ride along. The Rambler is a better ride than the high school bus right? What! His friends decline one-by-one in favor of the bus. The boy decides what the heck, I’ll drive the Rambler alone. Arriving at the parking lot, he expects snarky comment from the popular kids with better cars. What really cuts though is that even geeky underclassmen who had to ride the bus are making fun of the Rambler as they gather in the parking lot for a smoke during half time.
After the game, the boy is angry and takes his frustration out on the Rambler. He wonders if he can kill it. Alas, the rugged little car takes every bit of abuse a teenage boy can give it.
There you have my time capsule memory of that Rambler. It may have been a good car. Ours certainly was well built. I owned and drove far worse cars once I left home at 18, but I don’t think I’ve ever known a car with a more negative image among driving age teens than this generation of Rambler American.
The car probably deserved better, but good grief. Cruising the high school hangouts in our blue 1959 American was a soul crushing experience.
Rob, Thanks for this great reminiscence. And yes, I totally feel your pain. These truly were the very bottom of the automotive status pecking order. Well, that and their boxy successors. But you’ve described this reality more succinctly than I’ve ever read before. Thanks for sharing. And I feel your (old) pain.
The acceleration was adequate for the period with the 3-speed, they say. Since the overdrive upgrade came with a steeper rear axle ratio, it seems like it might have given “better than adequate” performance.
But as Rob said, this is not a car for people who need the approval of others.
Interesting as it may be, I cannot get past the styling. Front and rear are okay, a bit bland maybe. From the front to the B post it is a little too high on its feet, but then! From the B post to the rear, almost like a cheap Russian, or east German car. Or a Glas or Borgward. Whatever, I could not live with that.
Just remember it was “bringing a bit of 1953”, into the new decade.
After reading all this I want to drive one and see how good it is .
-Nate
I seem to recall the defroster only “defrosted” the windshield.
Me too, although I’d be in no position to judge accurately since it would be the oldest car I’d ever driven by at least 20 years.
Interestingly ;
Many older vehicles are better drivers than modern cars .
I’m lucky (?) in that I was able to own and drive daily cars from the 1920’s onwards .
Mostly basic plebeian transports or trucks but I still love them .
-Nate
As mentioned above, from the front and the rear they look o.k., they have kinda a Volvo Amazon feel to them.
From the side it’s weird. It’s like every choice they could make, they made wrong. The weird B-pillar. The weird cutout for the rear wheel. It’s like they had a choice – either bland (stolid) or weird (ugly), and they chose the latter. One might think they had other choices? The same could be said of all non-Hawk/non-Avanti Studebakers until Brooks Stevens fixed the most egregious errors after it was too late. I don’t know what college they were getting their designers from, but I would not imagine their alma maters are very proud.
The interior is plain, but at least understandable given the desire to maintain the original stampings. It’s no worse than the Beetle.
One wonders whether if the OHV six had been available, one might have been able to get even better gas mileage, especially with the O.D., if driven “sensibly”, given the fact that the OHV engine should be fewer breathing losses. One wishes that C&D had compared the version with the O.D.
The OHV 196 motor was available in 1960 (same body), and it did bump up horsepower by 35-37. But that little flathead served pretty well in Americans, right up to 1965…when it was truly an antique engine-long stroke/small bore.
Always got/get a kick out of the dashboard.. It hollers “toy car”.
I always liked the station wagon version. Just a cool no frills little car that really looked good with the ‘continental’ spare tire mounted on the rear bumper.Ill take one in black with a white roof and black and white interior ,thank you.
They should have left the rear wheel opening semi-skirted, the 55 Rambler looked just right with this basic body, cutting the rear wheel opening open with a teardrop shape was a terrible terrible design choice. I wonder, was the off center wheel placement an engineering concession based on the inner unibody structure or did the designer just forget the wheelbase?
But beyond that I could totally see the bones being good, other than the trunnions for upper joints on the front suspension the basic unibody design and suspension layout was essentially the prototype for the Ford Falcon and Chevy II. Conventional and utilitarian but very effective for the mission. The only drawback is the styling somehow makes the 60 Falcon look like a lavish beauty Queen!
I strongly suspect a lot of the oddness of proportions is being stuck with specific hardpoints from the parts of the carryover tooling, plus being directed that it had to look Different, which precluded continuing the skirted wheels. (That had been something George Mason was particular about — he thought it provided good family identification for Nash — that apparently no one else much liked and was stuck with.)
The teardrop shape for the rear wheelhouse may also have been an attempt to create a great family resemblance to the bigger Rambler models, although their rear wheels aren’t off-center like that.
I have a vague sense that the shape of the leading edge of the rear wheelhouse may have been dictated by the shape of the inner wheelhouse and how it’s integrated into the body structure, but I’d need to look at a shop manual to see if I’m right. The off-center wheel is even more apparent on the 1960–61 four-door, where the trailing edge of the rear door goes basically all the way into the rear wheel arch.
(Hilariously, in the 1960 X-Ray brochure (http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/AMC/1960_AMC/1960-X-Ray-AMC-Economy-Cars-Brochure/slides/1960_X-Ray_AMC_Economy_Cars-06-07.html), AMC had the sheer gall to brag about the four-door American’s “sensibly-sized doors,” while comparing the slot-like rear door opening to the plainly wider rear doors of its major competitors. That is what I call a lotta nerve.)
(Er, 1960 four-door, the 1961 was a new body.)
(Actually, looking at the 1961, I’m not sure how new it actually was — it seems to be a more extensive facelift on the same hardpoints.)
It was indeed, although it was a full 3″ narrower because they finally had the opportunity to trim away the “fat” built into the sheetmetal to allow the pre-1954 skirted front wheels to turn. Must be some kind of record.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12458821@N08/51842278270/in/dateposted-public/
I just can’t get past the styling. The roof looks like a poorly-designed aftermarket hardtop. If the B-pillar was vertical, and the rear screen sloped a bit more – but no, then the rear axle placement would look even worse. Then you’ve got that awful rear wheel arch shape which really doesn’t work. And it looks like whoever made the press tools put the arch in the wrong place relative to the wheel. And the wheels are too far inboard, which accents that. And……
Pass.
The side windows are continued almost directly from the 1950 Nash Rambler, albeit with the roof lowered a bit. The earlier version’s skirted wheels are also why the American still had its wheels buried deep in the wheel wells. (The American had a wider track than the earlier Rambler, but only by a little over an inch in front and two inches in back, which didn’t save the wheels still looking a bit lost in there.)
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Nash/1950_Nash/1950%20Nash%20Rambler%20Foldout/index.html
The original Nash Rambler was offered as an actual hardtop, although I don’t know that it would have been an improvement in this restyled version.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Nash/1951%20Nash/1951%20Nash%20Rambler%20Country%20Club%20Foldout/index.html
Interesting to note then the hardtop returned for the 1963 model year.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/AMC/1963-AMC/1963-Rambler-American-Brochure/slides/1963_Rambler_American-04.html Ironic to see it arrived before a bigger restyling for 1964. It could be interesting to see how it would have looked for the 1958-60 Rambler American.
At least they sprang for a new roofline, although translating the GM pseudo-convertible-top-bow theme to the American shell looks a little odd.
In 1960 my roommates dad owned a100″wb Rambler 2Dr SW that he got to borrow and I got to ride along often. I always felt it handled real well on RI backroads with decent acceleration. Felt better than my dad’s ’53 Chevy stick tho 0-60’s were the same per this road test and Tom McCahill.