(EXPANDED FROM 7/7/2021)
A few years ago Stéphane Dumas quite rightly noted that another alternative to the 1964 Rambler Tarpon concept car was the XR-400. This was a 2+2 convertible proposed to American Motors in 1962 by the Budd Company.
My sense is that there was zero chance AMC was going to produce the vaguely Mustang-like sporty car, albeit for somewhat different reasons than what the car buff media have usually assumed. Nor do I think that the car would have been a big hit if it had gone into production in a form similar to the prototype.
Even so, the XR-400 did hint at a promising direction American Motors could have taken when significantly redesigning its lineup in 1963-64.
Why did American Motors pass on the XR-400?
Budd, which was a major supplier to automakers, came up with a sporty convertible prototype that it first pitched to Ford and, after being rejected, American Motors. The XR-400 was presented as being ready for production by October 1963. That would have been a good six months ahead of the Ford Mustang (Wikipedia, 2019).
A prime goal of Budd’s proposal was to supply bodies and subassemblies for the car (McGuire, 2019). Part of the appeal of the car was that it would cost an unusually low $4.1 million to develop (Poole, 1993).
Also see ‘Would AMC have done better if George Romney had stayed longer?’
Chris Poole speculated that AMC management decided it couldn’t afford the car “no matter how cheap the tooling” because the automaker was already spending lots of money on the redesign of its core lineup in 1963-64 (1993, p. 51). That sounds plausible, although AMC could have added a sporty 2+2 model to its planned redesign of the Rambler American in 1964.
Matt Anderson (2019) wondered whether American Motors rejected the Budd proposal partly because CEO George Romney had just left the company to successfully run for governor of Michigan. Might Romney have been more inclined to take a chance on the car than his successor, Anderson wondered? I doubt it given Romney’s relentless focus on maximizing economies of scale by focusing on an unusually narrow lineup of higher-volume family and economy cars. From 1958-62 AMC didn’t even offer a single two-door hardtop.
Could the XR-400 have been a Mustang-like hit?
The XR-400 has been pointed to as a car that could have “saved” AMC. “Just think of where American Motors would be today had they beat Ford to the punch with a sporty compact car,” lamented Hemming’s Daniel Strohl (2008). And Graham Kozak (2014) wrote that the XR-400 “might not have been enough to prevent the company’s eventual absorption by Chrysler, but the scenario does prompt speculation. . . .”
On the other side of the coin, Anderson (2019) wondered whether tiny AMC would have “had the capacity to keep up with demands” if the XR-400 had been a “runaway success.” Thus, he concluded that “maybe AMC made the right choice after all.”
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
Such breathless takes may play well in the car buff media, but they paper over the XR-400’s obvious limitations. For one thing, the car was roughly the same size as the Mustang but had more extreme long-hood, short-deck proportions (The Henry Ford, 2021). This resulted in a smaller trunk and a back seat so tiny that it would have been a much less practical daily driver than a Mustang.
In addition, the XR-400 was only presented as a convertible. Even the Mustang’s soft-top body style peaked at only 73,000 in units in 1965, less than a fifth of the notchback’s output.
Perhaps most importantly, the XR-400 was expected to be priced around $4,100 (Kozak, 2014). That was in a whole different market than the Mustang, whose convertible listed for $2,614 in 1965. Indeed, an XR-400 would have been only around $300 less than a base Ford Thunderbird coupe.
Although the Thunderbird sold pretty well given its premium price, its output for 1965 was under 75,000 units. So even if a fixed-roof version of the XR-400 had been added, I doubt the nameplate would have sold any better than the T-Bird — and more likely at the lower level of the Chevrolet Corvette . . . if that.
AMC could have developed a better in-house design
In assessing the XR-400’s limitations, we haven’t even talked about its unsporty Rambler underpinnings. Nor have we yet mentioned the styling, which had the amateurish look of a kit car. Car Styling 2.0 (2023) has the most extensive range of photos, including with the top up, and they suggest a design that looks surprisingly frumpy — and oddly proportioned — for a 2+2 convertible.
Of course, American Motors could have at least somewhat beefed up the car’s handling, braking and steering, in much the same manner as Studebaker did when it souped-up the Lark chassis for the Avanti. Meanwhile, AMC head designer Richard Teague could have cleaned up the XR-400’s styling and given it a more usable back seat and trunk.
Also see ‘Rambler pays price for not listening to Car and Driver magazine’
From a cost standpoint, the most important issue may have been that the XR-400 prototype was completed before AMC’s new-generation designs went into production. Budd thus used a 1962 Ambassador two-door sedan as the donor car, although Poole stated that the XR-400’s design “assumed the use of the approved ’63 Uniside design” (1993, p. 48).
To bring the XR-400’s list price down to a more reasonable level, the car may have needed to share major body parts such as a cowl with the compact Rambler, which was completely redesigned in 1964. And if AMC was going to go through the trouble of retrofitting the XR-400, why not redo the whole car so it better fit what they needed?
Was there room in AMC’s lineup for the XR-400?
One other factor in whether to give the XR-400 the green light for production was how it would have fit into AMC’s lineup.
For example, should the car have augmented or replaced the American convertible? And would it have also been the most appropriate recipient of a fastback body style akin to the American-based Tarpon proposal?
What’s ironic about the XR-400 prototype having a V8 engine is that it supposedly did not fit in the new-for-1964 compact platform. This was reportedly a key reason why AMC management ditched the Tarpon proposal in favor of a mid-sized Marlin fastback (Wikipedia, 2023).
Also see ‘1965-66 AMC Marlin: How to fix beginner’s mistakes’
If the XR-400 had been retrofitted onto the new compact platform, it would have initially offered only a six unless AMC made the engineering adjustments necessary to shoehorn in a V8. That could have also made the Tarpon more compelling, but AMC chose to wait until the 1966 model year to give its compacts a new-generation V8.
Budd hints at a road American Motors could have taken
All and all, I don’t get why the car buff media have made such a big deal about the XR-400. It strikes me as wishful thinking to suggest that the car in anything like its prototype form could have been a hit on par with the Mustang.
The XR-400’s styling, roadworthiness and versatility would appear to have been mediocre — even if the price had been closer to the Mustang’s. I wouldn’t be surprised if the car sold as poorly as the two-seater 1968-70 AMX.
What is most important about Budd’s proposal is that it hinted at what AMC could have done with a modular compact platform. The money saved by not fielding two platforms — compact and mid-sized — could have been used to offer more variation in its product line.
For example, the Tarpon could have been given long-hood, short-deck proportions somewhat akin to the Mustang by extending the wheelbase ahead of the cowl by around four inches, cutting it a bit more behind the B-pillar, and shrinking the deck by roughly two inches. That’s what we did to the fake Tarpon shown above. Add a convertible body style and you have a reasonably close — and lower-priced — approximation of the XR-400.
That being said, we shouldn’t lose sight of the bigger picture: Even if AMC had made all of the right moves, coming out with the first “pony car” would likely have not made much of a long-term difference to the automaker.
Also see ‘Collectible Automobile puffs up the 1971-74 AMC Javelin’
For one thing, this market niche collapsed with remarkable speed. In addition, if being first in a field was so important, why did the Gremlin prove to be a footnote among early-70s subcompacts even though it beat the Chevrolet Vega and Ford Pinto to market by six months (go here for further discussion)?
The XR-400 was a half-baked prototype that wasn’t close to production ready. American Motors was right to take a pass on it. What’s unfortunate is that the automaker didn’t come up with a more capable compact sporty car.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted July 7, 2021 and expanded on July 7, 2021. Production figures, prices and specifications are from Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Anderson, Matt; 2019. “Test Driving a One-of-a-Kind ’60s Concept Car.” The Henry Ford. Posted June 14.
- Car Styling 2.0; 2023. “1962 Rambler (Budd) XR-400.” Accessed July 7.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Kozak, Graham; 2014. “Budd XR-400: The AMC Mustang that wasn’t.” Autoweek. Posted Feb. 23.
- McGuire, Bill; 2019. “Video: Test-Driving the 1962 Budd XR-400 Concept.” Mac’s Motor City Garage. Posted June 22.
- Poole, Chris; 1993. “1962 Budd XR-400 Sports Convertible: AMC’s Knocked Opportunity.” Collectible Automobile. June issue: pp. 44-51.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2008. “Rambler’s Mustang? the Budd XR-400.” Hemmings. Posted Jan. 9.
- The Henry Ford; 2021. “1962 Budd XR-400 Concept Car.”
- Wikipedia; 2019. “Budd XR-400.” Page last edited Sept. 27.
- ——; 2023. “AMC Rambler Tarpon.” Page last edited May 1.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Ford Thunderbird (1965)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Rambler American (1964); Rambler Classic (1962)
- marlinautoclub.com: Rambler Tarpon (1964)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Banner image is a 1962 Budd XR-400 at The Henry Ford museum. Photograph is by John Lloyd via Wikipedia Creative Commons 2.0. Photo has been lightly edited to reduce background shadows.
Okay, what was Budd trying to achieve here? Did they want to coachbuild this on the Ambassador platform? I’m sure AMC would sell Budd all the Ambassador chassis they would want. However, making a convertible from a unit frame is not as easy as cutting off the top and adding an x frame. Obviously Budd could do it but it would cost, as indicated by the 50% price increase over the Mustang. Other than that, there is nothing there AMC could have done on its own if it had a mind. Romney: “Hey Dick, this looks kind of neat. Better than that bathtub Nash Tarpon.” Teague: “I’m on it George. Gimme a few months.”
Well put. The XR-400 might have been a wee bit more viable if AMC had separate body-on-frame construction.
Well, in case of the pre-63 Rambler chassis – making a convertible *was* almost as simple as “cutting off the top and adding an x frame”. That chassis essentially had an integral frame with longitudinal members running all the way from bumper to bumper. The were just welded to the floor instead of being bolted to it – with a plenty of room for an actual X-brace stiffener.
Now, the 1963-onwards Rambler Classic/Ambassador chassis is a completely different affair… it used separate front and rear sub-frame assemblies connected with the body sills via torque boxes, much like the Mustang & Fairlane platforms – and I have serious doubts that it could be economically utilized to create a convertible without a complete redesign of the load-bearing components.
Probably another reason why Budd preferred to use the old chassis, BTW. It was much, much more inclined towards making it into a convertible conversion.
And yes, the thing is f.ugly – no way it could beat the Mustang and its likes, IMO…
Pre-’63 Rambler chassis with full-length longitudinal members akin to the frame:
https://pictures.dealer.com/c/classiccarsite/1494/4eeff6c734c267ccfa0989dac027ddc5x.jpg
’63 chassis:
https://www.connorsmotorcar.com/vehicles/783/1963-rambler-classic-660
Good points about the chassis. My guess had been that Budd used 1962 components because that’s what they had access to (I could be wrong, but my impression was that the XR-400 was an unsolicited pitch).
Another detail about timing: In a Collectible Automobile interview, George Romney mentioned that he had left AMC before the 1964 American’s design was completed — and that the car ended up being bigger than he had wanted.
AMC did develop convertibles for both the new compact and mid-sized platforms. Instead of the compact using standard American sheetmetal, it could have been given a longer hood and shorter deck. To show what I mean, I just added a fake Tarpon image to the story. The design is not as swoopy as the Mustang’s, but it arguably has better proportions than the Barracuda’s.
AMC coming out with a true pony car first would at least put AMC back on the map. the 58-62 full size line progressed from boxy to looking to corner the retured teacher market. AMC needed something to shake the cobwebs out. See if you could do with the American like you did with the Tarpon. Check out IKA Torino online. It was an Argentine made 1964 generation American with a Euro flair and a sportier suspension with a beefed up front frame. This could give you some idea of what could be done. Since you would need a new front clip, give it a more Euro look like the Torino, different taillights (red amber white?) keep the instrument panel but add a full length console running back between two split bench rear seats (folding with a pass thru)and bob’s your uncle!