(EXPANDED FROM 12/31/2023)
A few years ago FS complained that our article on the 1963 Rambler Classic was “poorly researched.” This strikes me as an important — if nerdy — debate, so let’s drill down. He argued that:
“The new for 64 Americans shared a lot with the 63-64 Classic. The uniside was made to serve both platforms. Front and rear doors were shared as were about half the front suspension components. Basically the American is a shorter, narrower Classic. More components were shared between the two than any two different size class models from any other maker – by design. The author hinted at this, but missed the mark. The whole idea was to be efficient and still have two obviously different size cars. The outer sheet metal skins are different on the doors, and the window frames are different, but the door assembly and internals are the same.”
I agree with FS that for a few years AMC was unusually clever about sharing parts between its compact and mid-sized platforms. However, he apparently did not want to entertain the idea that this was an inadequate response to a changing marketplace.
As a tiny automaker, American Motors faced lopsided odds when competing against the Big Three. For example, in 1966 General Motors produced almost 1.2 million mid-sized cars, while Ford and Chrysler pumped out around 480,000 each. In contrast, AMC built less than 200,000 mid-sized cars.
In addition, the Chevrolet Chevelle outsold AMC’s entire lineup in 1966. So did the Ford Fairlane. And Pontiac’s mid-sized cars. Even Dodge came close with its Coronet and Charger.
American Motors shared fewer body parts than Ford
How could American Motors have stayed competitive with the Big Three when it was dividing its meager resources between two platforms? In lauding the part sharing between compact and mid-sized cars, FS didn’t acknowledge that producing bodies with different widths was more expensive than if AMC had used a modular platform across its entire lineup.
Ford offers a useful point of comparison. For 1966 the compact Falcon was moved to the automaker’s mid-sized platform. Falcon coupes and sedans had five inches chopped from the Fairlane’s wheelbase and 13 inches from its length. This allowed the Falcon and Fairlane to cover almost as broad of a market as AMC’s entire range but with the cost savings of sharing a cowl, windshield and other costly parts relating to a platform’s width.
For 1966 Ford also moved the Mercury Comet onto its mid-sized platform. This allowed the automaker to generate almost 700,000 units from one platform. Ford got more than twice the output from half as many platforms as American Motors. Which automaker had the better idea?
Part sharing contributed to American’s weight problem
Another thing FS didn’t address was that sharing so many body parts from a bigger car may have contributed to the American’s weight problem. Even though the Rambler was among the shortest and narrowest compacts, a 1964 American two-door sedan in base 220 trim had a shipping weight of 2,506 pounds. That was 141 pounds more than an equivalent Falcon or Chevrolet Corvair and only 34 pounds under a Plymouth Valiant despite being 11 inches shorter (go here for further discussion).
The American’s extra weight couldn’t have helped gas mileage or AMC’s ability to profitably underprice other compacts. Extra mass tends to translate into higher manufacturing costs, yet the American was positioned as the lowest-priced domestically produced car (see the 1966 ad below for an example of AMC’s marketing pitch).
To be fair, the previous-generation American was also on the heavy side. However, the basic body had been in production for so long — from 1950 to 1963 — that AMC presumably had more pricing flexibility than with an expensive new platform. The 1963 American 220 two-door sedan listed for $1,846.
The American gained a relatively modest amount of weight with the 1964 redesign and then added some more when a 1966 facelift stretched the car’s length four inches. Even though the Falcon was now on a mid-sized body that was four inches wider and had a five-inch-longer wheelbase, it still weighed less than the American. This suggests that AMC could have fielded a competitive compact entry from a mid-sized platform if it had been put on a diet.
Fielding two platforms almost killed American Motors
FS was right that the 1964 Ramblers shared more parts between size classes than any of their competitors, but the data suggests that this was not nearly enough. By 1967 AMC’s mid-sized platform saw production fall by more than 54 percent from its introductory year of 1963. Meanwhile, the compact platform’s output dropped by an even larger 62 percent from its 1964 debut.
Patrick Foster noted that by early 1967 AMC’s financial situation was so dismal that “there was some doubt about the company’s ability to last to the end of the model run in summer” (1993, p. 121).
One could point to a variety of factors that contributed to AMC’s collapse, but the automaker clearly couldn’t afford to keep both of its platforms up to date. For example, in 1966 the American was only given new front and rear styling when it needed a full reskinning. Management instead invested in a desperate, one-year-only redesign of the mid-sized wagon and two-door hardtop.
Was this George Romney’s biggest mistake?
As mentioned above, the most-plausible response to AMC’s lack of scale was to concentrate on a modular platform. Our article on the 1963 Rambler Classic suggested that its body was compact enough to also be used for the American. An alternative option would have been to use the narrower American platform as the basis for the entire lineup.
Given company head George Romney’s unusually dogged emphasis on economies of scale, I am surprised that he instead chose to maintain two separate platforms when the lineup was substantially redesigned in 1963-64. This was one of his last major decisions before leaving AMC to enter politics.
Also see ‘AMC’s Roy Abernethy was confronted with three big threats in 1960s’
Each of the above options would have had strengths and weaknesses. For example, a top-end Ambassador based upon the American platform would not have had the interior widths typical of mid-sized cars — although it could have anticipated the luxury compacts of the mid-70s such as the Plymouth Volare. However, a modular platform would have resulted in far better economies of scale. That could have been increasingly important in the second half of the 1960s as American Motors faced brutal competition from the Big Three and foreign automakers.
I grant you that this data dive may not be any more satisfying to FS than our 1963 Rambler piece, but perhaps we might at least agree that in subsequent years AMC should not have deemphasized what parts sharing it did have between platforms. Economies of scale may be a nerdy topic, but they played a critical role in the longevity of independent automakers.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on Dec. 31, 2023 and expanded on May 26, 2026. Specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2023), Consumer Reports (1963), Flory (2004) and Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
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.
- Flory, J. “Kelly”; 2004. American Cars, 1960 to 1972. McFarland & Co., Jefferson, NC.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Rambler American (1966); Rambler Classic (1966)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge Dart (1968); Ford Falcon (1966); Ford Fairlane (1966); Plymouth Valiant (1968); Rambler American (1964); Rambler Classic/Ambassador (1964, 1965)
Be the first to comment