J P Cavanaugh once wrote that he appreciated the two-seater AMX more in concept than real life.
“I really want to like AMC cars of this era. I guess my problem is that they are too quirky to be normal cars and too normal to be quirky cars,” he commented at Curbside Classic (2019). “Chrysler made better normal cars and Studebaker made better quirky cars. So there is my sad problem.”
That’s a good point. A new American Motors management team headed by Roy D. Chapin Jr. was so intent on obliterating the utilitarian Rambler image that it overcompensated with a series of outrageous performance coupes such as the 1968-70 AMX, the 1969 SC/Rambler and the 1970 Rebel Machine.
Historian Foster Patrick described Chapin as “especially proud” of the AMX, “feeling that it embodied all the renewed strength and dynamism of American Motors.” Foster seemed to be on the same page because he lauded the car as a “true Grand Touring machine” with “impeccable” styling and “incredible” performance. Foster concluded that the “AMX became the preeminent symbol of AMC’s new vitality” (2013, p. 100).
I would counter that the AMX was an evolutionary wrong turn. It wasn’t a very good high-performance coupe despite its relatively high price. So — not surprisingly — the car sold so poorly that AMC likely lost money on it.
This was a problem because of the company’s small size and shaky financial condition. And despite the AMX’s current appeal to collectors, back in the day it took scarce resources away from other potential cars that could have helped AMC claw its way back from near-bankruptcy in 1967.
AMX doesn’t hit modest sales target despite good press
To be fair, the AMX was clearly intended to be a “halo” car, so it wasn’t expected to generate high volume. When the car was introduced in the middle of the 1968 model year, AMC set what Karl E. Ludvigsen called a “modest sales target” — 10,000 units (1968, p. 21). “This is less than half of a typical year’s production of Corvettes,” he wrote, but added, “In sheer product appeal they will have no difficulty selling that number.”
The AMX was met with generally positive press. For example, Car and Driver gushed, “If AMC had done something as bright as the AMX five years ago, they’d be in a lot better shape today.” The magazine described the car as possessing “American-style acceleration and European-style handling” (1968, p. 15, 17).
Also see ‘Collectible Automobile puffs up the 1971-74 AMC Javelin’
Despite the encouraging words, only 19,134 AMXs left the factory in the two-and-a-half years the two-seater was offered. Even in its peak model year of 1969, output failed to reach 8,300 units. Then, in 1970, production fell to under 4,200 units. That was a 50-percent drop — twice as much as its five-seater sibling, the Javelin.
The AMX sold better than the ill-fated Marlin, but only by a few thousand units. So management quite rightly pulled the plug after the 1970 model year. This was done over protestations from design chief Richard Teague (Wikipedia, 2022).
AMX comes off as a gimmick rather than a contender
The fundamental problem with the AMX was that it didn’t do anything well. When it came to straight-line acceleration, the AMC wasn’t king of the hill compared to the Big Three’s muscle or pony cars. The 12-inch-shorter wheelbase resulted in a lopsided weight distribution that contributed to twitchy handling and braking. The lack of even a marginal rear seat limited the car’s use as a daily driver, and you could neither enjoy the open-air experience of a convertible nor the extra versatility of a cargo pass-through to the trunk.
The AMX’s underpinnings may have been typical for an American sedan, but that wasn’t impressive compared to sports cars with independent rear suspension. Perhaps most importantly, the styling lacked the panache of a typical two seater. The body was too tall and boxy for AMC to call it a “sports car.”
Also see ‘Richard Teague’s styling helped to kill American Motors’
Despite all of these weaknesses, the AMX had a fairly steep price tag: $3,297 for the 1969 model year. That was more than hardtop or coupe versions of the Ford Mustang Mach 1 ($3,122), Dodge Dart GTS ($3,226), Ford Torino Cobra GT ($3,209), Plymouth Road Runner ($3,083) or Pontiac GTO Judge ($3,161). However, the AMX was not as pricey as a Pontiac Firebird Trans Am ($3,556).
Instead of exuding the gravitas of a serious contender, the AMX came off as a gimmick. And that reinforced the impression that American Motors was too small to meaningfully compete against the Big Three. The AMX didn’t have as much of a “joke” quality as the Rebel Machine, but it was an asterisk in Detroit’s high-performance wars of the late-60s.
Cutting a foot from the Javelin proved to be a mistake
A major fad of the second half of the 1960s was giving sporty coupes a long-hood, short-deck look. The Javelin partially reflected that trend, although AMC did it on the cheap by giving the car a fairly long snout rather than significantly extending the car’s wheelbase ahead of the cowl, as Ford did with the Mustang. It looked a little half-baked and hurt weight distribution.
The AMX’s wheelbase chop accentuated the above problems. The car’s proportions looked unbalanced compared to the Javelin’s. In addition, a 1970 AMX had a more lopsided weight distribution (58/42 percent) than its 1971 successor (53/47 percent), which was demoted to a top-end Javelin model. This didn’t help handling — and contributed to the brakes locking up during panic stops (Clarke, 1994).
In an effort to better distinguish the AMX from the Javelin, designers further undercut the car’s styling. Convex, flying-buttress C-pillars had a tacked-on quality compared to the Javelin’s lovely concave shape. By the same token, the speed streaks on the AMX’s rear wheel cutouts looked juvenile. So too did the grille, which lacked the finesse of the Javelin’s.
Was there a better way to handle the AMX?
In my parallel universe, the AMX’s wheelbase should have been eight inches longer. That would have improved weight distribution, enhanced the car’s visual proportions, and allowed a back seat roughly as roomy as a Mustang’s. In addition, the car should have had the versatility of a folding back seat and either a hatchback or a cargo pass-through to the trunk.
On the mechanical side, the base AMX could have benefitted from a high-performance six with an available four-speed manual. Most buyers would have opted for a V8, but the six might have given the AMX credibility as a more Euro-centric grand touring coupe. These changes would have maintained the car’s capabilities as a high-performance coupe while giving it some practical features more in alignment with its Rambler heritage.
Also see ‘Rambler pays price for not listening to Car and Driver magazine’
The only problem with this scenario is that the AMX would have arguably overlapped too much with the Javelin. That leads me to my biggest question — why did financially troubled American Motors spend scarce dollars on two separate cars when one would have done fine?
Making the Javelin shorter than the likes of the Mustang could have allowed AMC to straddle the pony car and economy coupe markets. A car that could do double duty was more appropriate for AMC, which didn’t possess the economies of scale to field a relatively low-volume halo coupe with a unique body.
AMC doubles down on product proliferation
The AMX was an early indicator of a product blitz by Chapin to match the Big Three model for model. By 1971 American Motors fielded three bodies using five different wheelbases and six nameplates. That was entirely too many for a company whose total passenger-car production was dwarfed by the Ford Torino.
The bottom line is that the two-seater AMX was one of the first hints that the automaker’s new management team didn’t know what it was doing.
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Clarke (1994), Gunnell (2002) and Wikipedia (2020, 2023).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Cavanaugh; J P; 2019. Commentator in “CC Car Show: Compare and Contrast.” Curbside Classic. Posted Aug. 26.
- Car and Driver; 1968. “AMX 390.” March issue. Reprinted in AMX & Javelin Muscle Portfolio, 1968-1974. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey, UK: pp. 15-19.
- Clarke, Clarke; 1994. AMX & Javelin Muscle Portfolio, 1968-1974. Brooklands Books, Surrey, UK.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 2013. American Motors Corporation: The Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Ludvigsen, Karl E.; 1968. “The Sporty American.” Modern Motor. May issue. Reprinted in AMX & Javelin Muscle Portfolio, 1968-1974. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey, UK: pp. 2.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Page last edited Oct. 4.
- ——; 2022. “Richard A. Teague.” Page last edited March 17.
- ——; 2023. “AMC AMX.” Page last edited March 18.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): AMC AMX (1968, 1969)
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC AMX (1969, 1970); AMC Javeline (1969)
I know it’s hard to price compare cars like this. I would like to know what your price comparison was based on. I know the options lists were massive by today’s standards. Also, some of the cars listed were options packages. I would be curious to see each model compared using a small block V-8 and a stick. I don’t recall if AMC had a 4 speed stick then. I had a 74 Hornet hatchback with the Levi’s option, and had a 3 speed stick. This was with the six, though.
I used the prices in the Standard Catalog. Of course, cars are going to vary in their standard-equipment levels, but the listed price can show at least in a general way where the AMX was positioned in the market.
This was a “Design Notes” feature so I didn’t dwell as much in non-styling realms. When I update the story in a year or two I could expand it into a more general “History” piece that includes a more detailed price comparison.
Your question has made me curious about how the prices of high-end pony cars compared to those of mid-sized muscle cars. My general sense from this story was that the high-end pony cars tended to be priced near the lower-end mid-size muscle cars.
Thanks for your reply. It got me curious. The AMX was not a pony car as such, and the only other American 2 seat mass production car was well out of its league. Sort of equivalents were the MGB at $3200 and Datsun 240Z at 3600. the 1970 240 Z production was about 16k for the US, and the MGB was selling a good 10k cars per year in the US during its production run. The TR6 msrp was $3275 and they sold 6700 in 1969 and after that about 10k per year. So, you were looking at a good 35k market for these kind of cars sold from a relative handful of storefront dealers. So, I think that AMC thought they had a good chance of grabbing a good share of that market. They probably thought theyh had a built in tailwind with their dealer network and the British reliability reputation.
I sort-of get what you’re saying but do you really think that very many people considered both an AMX and, say, an MGB? For one thing, in the 1968-70 period AMC didn’t have a whole lot of street cred with sporty car drivers. Just getting someone to consider a Javelin over a Mustang was a stretch. So now you’re talking about people who were thinking about an imported two-seater sports car? The Road & Track readers who saw tinkering with a British car as a badge of honor?
But let’s put on the side for a moment both AMC’s reputation and the cultural biases of sports car drivers. I would insist that the AMX was a pony car — except with the back seat removed. It’s not like they even tried to disguise it with a racier front end, like with the Shelby Mustangs. Or by giving the AMX a targa roofline that would have provided at least a little evidence that the car was a poor-man’s Corvette.
Also keep in mind that they needed to produce 10,000 per year to break even . . . and couldn’t pull that off. BTW, I don’t think it is surprising that sales fell sharply in 1970 when the standard V8 was the 360ci. That resulted in low gas mileage, high insurance rates, and nose-heavy handling and braking. Not exactly an alternative to an import.
This is in your reply to the second post. I agree with you completely. I was rather unsure about this conjecture myself, I dug up these figures more to convince myself. Maybe AMC execs figured they could steal more sales from the burled walnut and leather crowd.
First, I have to believe that George Romney would never have approved the AMX for production…maybe the Javelin, but still not likely. Too much was riding on the Hornet and an eventual replacement for the Classic architecture.
I drove a 1968 Javelin and a V-8 AMX in 1968. The Javelin was nicely equipped as was the AMX. The Javelin drove and rode better, likely due to the longer wheelbase. Again, just like Studebaker-Packard, A.M.C.’s dealer network was dwindling. You cannot sell cars when the number viable dealers evaporate to nothing !
I’d like to posit this: How do you change your image, if you don’t change your image?
Clearly, AMC had an image problem at that time and needed something to break out of their “malaise”. They knew that the youth market was exploding (or maybe had actually exploded by the time of the release of the Javelin). Unfortunately, their cars weren’t Volvo enough for the Volvo crowd. And they were increasingly out of date, by offering flathead motors for the folks who never saw the big deal about those complex overhead valve engienes.
Flipping the script in this instance demanded they have the product in place. The Marlin and the Rogue were their first attempts, but hardly muscle cars or pony cars. There was no way anything that AMC had in 1966 was going to compete with the Mustang. Whatever they were going to put out, it was going to need to be perceived as a pony car. While the Javelin was not the perfect pony car, it did what it was supposed to do, compete against the Mustang.
I love the audacity of the idea of the AMX. It was clearly a chopped Javelin, but it was positioned against the “big man” of American sporting cars, the Corvette. How better to change your image than to take on the Corvette?
I wish it had worked out better than it actually did, though.
Perhaps I can fill in some of the blanks for you.
The 2-seat 1966 Vignale AMX concept car garnered much enthusiasm on the show car circuit, suggesting that a market existed for such a car. The production AMX embodied the concept, but not the styling of the 1966 show car. Ford’s 2-seat shortened Mustang prototypes probably encouraged AMC to beat them to the market, but Ford never took them beyond the show car stage.
The 1968 Javelin was based on the old Rambler American platform, just as the Barracuda was a Valient with a bubble and the Mustang was a gussied-up Falcon. That platform was shortened to make the 2-seat AMX. In 1970, the same two platforms formed the basis for the Hornet and Gremlin. A few AMX owners discovered that a Gremlin back seat would bolt right into an AMX. Too bad AMC didn’t think of that in 1968, but then, as you have noted, it would have overlapped even more with the Javelin.
I am a little confused by your comments on the AMX’s performance and handling. Every previous article I have read, from back in the day or retrospective, has had nothing but praise for both. Are you using contemporaries of the AMX or today’s cars that have benefitted from 55 years of technological advancement as your benchmark?
IIRC the AMX was available with a rumble seat option. I don’t know if this was factory or aftermarket. Also, the hit them where they ain’t strategy for the independents just led to them being beta testers for the big three.
The rumble seat was a feature of the 1966 Vignale show car. It was never offered as a factory or aftermarket option for the production models.