(EXPANDED FROM 7/10/2023)
Last Friday the Public Broadcasting Service aired the second of Joe Ligo’s six half-hour episodes about American Motors, which focused on how the automaker navigated the 1960s (go here). In sync with that episode, let’s expand on a topic that I think deserves more attention — the new-for-1963 senior Ramblers. They included the Ambassador and Classic nameplates, but the latter was most important sales-wise, so I will primarily refer to it.
This was arguably the most important new car developed during George Romney’s tenure as CEO of American Motors. The decisions he made would have long-term consequences because this platform would stay in production through 1978, making it one of the automaker’s longest-running platforms. This was of heightened importance to AMC because it was so small that it couldn’t afford to redesign its cars and trucks nearly as frequently as the Big Three.
Even more importantly, this platform would generate the highest production in American Motors history through 1980. Between 1963-66 roughly 1.06 million Classics, Ambassadors and Marlins left the factory. A reskinned body would more than double that amount between 1967-78. That totaled around 2.16 million. This was even ahead of the 1970-80 compact platform, which was used on a wide range of cars such as the Hornet, Gremlin and Eagle.
So in the grand scheme of things the 1963 Classic could be considered a reasonably successful design. However, it had a few weaknesses that would undercut its competitiveness — and in later years Romney’s successors would abandon the greatest strength of the platform.
Classic straddled compact and mid-sized fields
The 1963 Classic’s basic body would morph into much bigger cars such as the 1974 Ambassador, so it is easy to forget that the senior Rambler initially straddled the compact and intermediate classes in size, weight and entry-level prices.
During the postwar era American-made cars tended to grow when they were redesigned, but Romney was reportedly determined to keep the Rambler compact (Foster, 1993). In fact, the 1963 Classic was slightly downsized, with length and width cut by around an inch and weight dropped by roughly 146 pounds. However, the base price went up $55 despite relatively stable prices by most of its competitors.
At only 189.3 inches in length, the Classic was from three to six inches shorter than its closest competitors, which in 1963 were the Buick Special, Dodge Dart, Mercury Comet, Oldsmobile F-85 and Pontiac Tempest. Meanwhile, the Rambler was longer than a Plymouth Valiant, but only by three inches.
Just as significantly, the Classic was 71.3 inches wide, which was close to most other compacts. For example, the Comet was 70.4 inches, the Chevrolet Chevy II 70.8 inches, and Buick Special 70.2 inches. The Dart and Valiant were a bit narrower at 68.7-68.8 inches.
As a point of comparison, the intermediate Ford Fairlane had the same width as the Classic (71.3 inches) but the Plymouth Savoy was 75.6 inches wide, which was closer to where the field would gravitate to over the next four years.
Unusually efficient packaging made Classic roomier
The Classic’s interior room was closer to intermediates than compacts because of the new body’s exceptionally short front and rear overhangs and thin-wall door design. For example, front hip room was 60 inches, which was almost identical to the Chevelle, one inch less than the Savoy, an inch more than the Fairlane, and three inches more than any Ford or Chrysler compact.
The Rambler’s shipping weight also straddled the compact and intermediate classes. A base Classic 550 two-door sedan with a six-cylinder engine weighed 2,720 pounds. That was more than the equivalent 1963 Comet (2,462 pounds) Dart (2,614 pounds) and Special (2,661 pounds) but lower than the Fairlane (2,815 pounds), Savoy (2,980 pounds) or a 1964 Chevelle (2,825 pounds).
Also see ‘Did 1964 Ramblers share more parts between size classes than competitors?’
The Classic’s list price for a base two-door sedan with a six ($2,055) was a step above the likes of the 1963 Valiant ($1,910) and Dart ($1,983) but below the equivalent Chevy II ($2,062), Comet ($2,084), Fairlane ($2,154), Savoy ($2,206) and Special ($2,309).
For 1964 the base Classic price would increase only slightly to $2,066. This was well below the new Chevelle ($2,231) and Special ($2,343). If Romney had still headed American Motors, he would have faced the question of how to respond to GM shifting its attention from compacts to mid-sized cars. Instead, he left in 1962 to run for governor and was replaced by Roy Abernethy.
1963 Rambler’s slight downsizing had a big weakness
Abernethy arguably faced a more difficult competitive environment than Romney had only a few years earlier. As we discuss further here, the Big Three had flooded the zone with an unprecedented number of new entries, and they often had more body styles, bigger engines and snazzier styling than the Rambler.
In addition, decisions made when Romney was still around impacted the competitiveness of the senior Rambler. Even though the new-for-1963 body was lower by roughly three inches, passenger volume declined only slightly from 99.7 to 99.6 cubic feet. This was because of a four-inch-longer wheelbase, a cow-belly chassis and thin-wall doors with curved side glass.
Also see ‘Would AMC have done better if George Romney had stayed longer?’
From a practical standpoint the Classic’s biggest problem was its teardrop styling. It looked sleek but resulted in a much smaller trunk. Whereas the previous-generation models had as much as 22.5 cubic feet of cargo capacity, the 1963 model had only 13.7 cubic feet — which was less than the Valiant’s 14.1 cubic feet.
The small trunk arguably undercut the Classic’s practicality as a family car. Thus, it wasn’t surprising that a 1965 reskinning included a boxier rear end that upped cargo capacity to 15.2 cubic feet. However, that was still less than that of the intermediate Chevrolet Chevelle — 16.9 cubic feet. The problem wasn’t fully fixed until a bigger redesign in 1967, when trunk space grew to 18.2 cubic feet.
Should the American have shared the Classic platform?
The relatively compact size of the Classic’s body raises an intriguing question: Could American Motors have been more successful through the rest of the decade by basing all of its passenger cars on this platform? The new-for-1964 American shared “uniside” door sheetmetal but its platform was around three inches narrower than the senior Rambler’s.
Putting the American on the senior Rambler’s platform would have precluded it from being a truly entry-level compact like previous-generation models, which were around 250 pounds lighter than the 1963 Classic. However, the senior Rambler body could have been shortened to create a Valiant-sized American.
Even the rear doors could have been shared because they had already been designed to work on a shorter-wheelbase junior model. The 1964 American had a 106-inch wheelbase, six less than the 1963-66 Classic’s 112-inch wheelbase.
The senior Rambler’s 1967 redesign pointed to a next potential step — increase the wheelbase by two inches behind the B-pillar for extra rear legroom and ditch the teardrop deck to increase trunk space. That would have allowed AMC to better compete in both the intermediate and compact markets. Even if the automaker had given each line unique sheetmetal, they would still have benefitted cost-wise by sharing the same underpinnings.
Also see ‘Collectible Automobile’s 1967 Rambler Rebel SST feature is pretty but vapid’
I assume this didn’t happen partly because Romney wanted an entry-level compact that could compete more directly with the imports. While that was a laudable goal, the 1964 American arguably ended up being too heavy to perform that role anyway. At 2,506 pounds, the base American two-door sedan was still roughly 140 pounds heavier than an equivalent Ford Falcon (go here for further discussion).
The biggest tragedy was that AMC didn’t stay the course
The 1963 senior Rambler platform may have been relatively successful over its lifetime, but it still had a tragic quality. That’s because Abernethy and his successor, Roy D. Chapin Jr., effectively abandoned the niche that Romney initially carved out for the platform.
I’m not sure what to call that niche because the Classic and Ambassador straddled the compact and mid-sized fields, so let’s just go with “high-end compact.” When GM upsized its Y-body compacts in 1964, the senior Ramblers no longer had much direct competition. The Dart and Comet were similarly sized but neither had the breadth of trim levels. In 1966 the Comet would be upsized, leaving only the Dart. And even Chrysler would soon prune its compact lineup by ditching wagons.
The Big Three rediscovered high-end compacts in the mid-70s, when Ford introduced the Granada/Monarch twins and Chrysler the Volare/Aspen. This proved to be a lucrative market — particularly for Ford, whose lineup wasn’t tainted by quality-control issues like Chrysler’s. The great irony is that AMC would have already had a solid hold on that niche if Romney’s successors had maintained his vision of offering a compact but roomy family car.
NOTES:
Specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2023), Consumer Reports (1963), Flory (2004) and Gunnell (2002).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed July 10.
- Consumer Reports; 1963. “Basic Body Dimensions.” April issue: pp. 164-165.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Chevelle (1964); Dodge Dart (1963); Ford Granada (1976); Plymouth Valiant (1963); Plymouth Volare (1976); Rambler American (1964); Rambler (1956, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1967)
What to call it (the niche)? Studebaker solved that in 1963. Its advertising of its model that mirrored many of the dimensions of the ’63 Rambler was summarised thusly: Is it a compact? It’s far too roomy!
Is it a big car? It’s far too convenient!
It can only be called the Lark – by Studebaker!
Studebaker Lark had the “breadth of trim levels” in ’63 and ’64 – even a convertible and a sliding-roof station wagon – and luxury models like the Cruiser (“Limosette”) and the sporty Daytonas. And any model of Lark could be outfitted with disc brakes – or performance options like a supercharged V8 and T10 4 speed transmission. But did it help in the end?
l admired the ’63 Rambler when it appeared, but the styling of the ’65 Classics made them look soooo bland and “everycar” that l dismissed them – and now understand many car buyers did too.
In those days of the high-flying auto industry, the popular admiration of George Romney was lost from AMC when he went into government and when his fame and “fervour” was a recognised force for the good of the company. Soon, fame and fortune came to Lee Iacocca at Ford and John DeLorean at GM for their brilliant marketing efforts. Studebaker sure could have used just such a lionized executive spokesman. Oh well.
l think that the ’65 Classic was an unfortunate step backwards at a time when styling and performance, as successfully brought forward in the mid-’60s by mainly GM, was so important to up-and-coming boomers.
I added your edit so deleted the second comment. I agree that the Studebaker lineup was similar in size and price to the senior Ramblers.
I also agree that the 1965 Rambler redesign was a step backwards. That was apparently Dick Teague’s first opportunity to fully reskin an AMC and it wasn’t a very good effort — nor was the Marlin. Histories typically blame Abenethy for the Marlin’s failure, but did he insist on the weird fishtail back end? I get that Abernethy wanted to distance AMC from Romney’s Rambler look, but there were more attractive ways to do that than what Teague came up with in 1965.
I love the 63-64 Ramblers (I have a 63 Classic wagon, resto modded with an AMC/Jeep 4.0L and AW4 trans), not so much the more boxy 65-66. Ed Anderson was the head of design when the 63 was being created. Teague had some role in the design, since he started at AMC in late 1959, but it was mostly Anderson’s baby. As noted, Teague did supervise the 65 re-style. Part of the issue is management wanted the car to look different while still maintaining the basic unit body. Outer sheetmetal was changed, but the unit body remained essentially the same — even the major door structure, just panels added to match the new skins.
Studebaker really didn’t have a direct competitor to the Classic/Ambassador. The Lark and Cruiser were based on the same body, which was closer to the rambler American — at least that’s what it’s always compared to. The Lark may be a little bigger than the American, but from what I recall it’s close to the same size. The two door 63 Lark rode a 109″ wheelbase, the four doors and wagons a 113″. It’s really sort of between the American and Classic (American 106″ wheelbase, Classic 112″), which is suitable since everything Studebaker made in 63 was based on the Lark — with the possible exception of the older Hawk. I know the Avanti was built on a Lark convertible frame, I don’t know much about the Hawk though. I would assume it was still the older frame, but that may have changed with the GT Hawk. It certainly would have been more efficient for Studebaker if it had been based on the same frame and suspension as everything else.
What Abernthey did to the Marlin was raise the rear roof while Teague was on a “idea/fact finding” tour of European auto makers (scoping out competition). If you look at the prototype Tarpon you can see the roofline is much sleeker. Would the sleeker look (more like the 66-67 Charger). Would that have made a big difference? Probably not. The 67 Marlin is the sleekest, but didn’t sell well at all. Marketing missed the mark! The “adults sports car” idea just fell flat. If the original American based Tarpon had been released instead it would have been a Mustang competitor, but alas, AMC didn’t want to stuff their big and heavy V-8 in the American (yes, it could have been done and was by a few racers, but wouldn’t have been that good in handling on the road). Ironically the 290 V-8 came out in late 1966. If they had just delayed introducing the Marlin until then, and based it on the American like the Tarpon, it would have made a bigger splash. Maybe not if Abernethey raised the rear roof though. The shorter Tarpon would have looked dumpier than the Marlin with that humped roof…
You find a good many basic six cylinder 65 Marlins, but most 66s are V-8s and have more options. I think the dealers figured out that it was more like a personal luxury/sporty car, more like the 69 Pontiac Grand Prix and 70 Chevy Monte Carlo.
Frank, take a look at our story about the proposed 1965 Lark. It includes a table with the dimensions of the 1964 Lark and a graph on prices (go here). While the Studebaker was slightly narrower than a Classic/Ambassador, it was also longer. In addition, the Studebaker was relatively heavy for a compact — much like the senior Ramblers. By the same token, the upper end of the Studebaker lineup competed price-wise with the Classic and the lower-end of the Ambassador line.
Regarding the Marlin, I don’t think that a lower roofline would have helped the Marlin because it would have accentuated the stretched toffee look of the fishtail roofline. Note that we have a number of stories about the Marlin, such as here and here.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Valiant/Dart were the right size package to cover the compact and intermediate segments with one platform. While the Classic was close in external dimensions to the Dart, I suspect unlike the Valiant the extra width would have made a shortened version look ill-proportioned, rather as the ’66-’70 Falcon did.
I think the ’65-’66 restyle looks pretty good in Ambassador form, but agree that the Classic was uncompelling. I suspect Teague’s heart was in the Ambassador. In my own alternate reality, AMC would have gone back to Pininfarina when Anderson left and the ’65 restyle would have resembled a larger Nissan Cedric P130: https://global.nissannews.com/en/channels/1965-nissan-cedric?sortOrder=PublishedAscending&selectedTabId=1965-nissan-cedric-photos. With that kind of styling they could have gotten the same kind of life out of the tooling as Chrysler did with the ’67-’75 Dart.
I agree that the Valiant/Dart were “right sized” — as Chrysler pretty much continued the platform with the Aspen/Volare and Diplomat/LeBaron/Gran Fury/Fifth Avenue (A, F and M body — all very close to same wheelbase and width). After living with my 63 Classic I’d have to say the same about it. It’s about the same size inside as my old 96 “jelly bean” Ford Taurus. The only thing it could use is about 2 inches more wheelbase so there is a little more leg room. At 6′ I have just enough in front. Another inch there and in the back seat would be nice! Dimensions are pretty much the same as the Chrysler cars — 112″ wheelbase and 71.3″ wide instead of ~73″ wide. Round the corners instead of sharpen them like the 65-66 (or concave 63-64) and it would have presented nicely. That is just a good “right size” — a compact in the early 60s but a full size in the 80s and today. I could update the grille and maybe tail lights, update the door handles, shave the gutters, and lose the vent windows (though I like them!)… the 63-64 Classic would be presentable even in the 80s. My goal when I installed a 4.0L EFI and AW4 trans was to update the car to a nice everyday driver. Along with changing the seats (1990 Eagle Premier power seats) I accomplished my goal. The only thing objectionable is the wind noise, which was noted in 63-64 magazine reviews. The gutters are partially responsible, but most US cars in the 60s and 70s had some wind noise.