Re: [Amc-list] NO proto & other things

["Larry R. Daum" <mramc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

RE:NO proto & other things
Ok I've snipped some of the previous reply Frank made to try keep this reply
from becoming the length of War and Peace.
Romney,Abernathy & the Marlin

Romney's idea was to use the same basic parts in as many cars at AMC 
as you could.
The doors were the same on his American, Classic& Ambassador as was 
the sheet metal around
it, the uniside. The difference was in the length of the front and 
rear ends , along with grilles , trim ,etal.
There is a question of how long you could get away with this in 
American market. Mercedes did  it in Europe, but
Europe was at that time , a less style driven, we gotta have a new 
design every year market  then the US was.

Abernathy, was a former Packard man, liked big cars, hated little 
cars, ie Americans and was one of many in AMC
saying these Ramblers are killing us, we got to make big cars like GM 
and get rid of the little cars.So, as soon as he could
you got the different 65/66 Classic /Ambassadors that shared little 
sheet metal in common along with low production convertibles.
Abernathy then compounded the problem by opening a 3rd body plant, 
assuming AMC would keep increasing sales over the 400,000
they had in 1963 & 1964. This raised AMCs break even point from 
175,000 cars to 275,000 by adding the 3rd Lakefront body plant at the 
same time as destroying the interchangeability of common parts.

Tarpon/Marlin It's probably only natural that Abernathy being a big 
car man would not see the Tarpon as a viable car.He , was a big car 
guy. But the decision would have been made in 1962 , before the 
Mustang even came out except as an early design prototype and it was 
nothing like what the production Mustang would become. It took 3 
years to get a car from concept to market in those days. Mopar had 
the glass back ,fast back Barracuda out almost 2 months ahead of 
Mustang to a luke warm response. Still largely unloved my the Mopar 
people in it's early form.No, I think the Marlin was not a response 
to the Mustang but more targeted at the Pontiac Grand Prix which was 
out in 1962 and selling very well. More of attempt at more up market 
luxury sporty car, but not necessarily a Pony sports type car.

The Tarpon would have probably sold better in any form then the 
Marlin, but hind site is 20/20. I once told Dick Teaque he could have 
more then likely run AMC better then a lot of the people that were in 
charge of AMC. He thanked and said he did not want that particular job.

Enough for now , LRDaum

From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Amc-list] No proto
To: <jmahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	<amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A343DBAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Hmm... I suppose the Tarpon *could* be seen by some as the prototype,
but I agree that it really isn't, and understand exactly what you're
saying about no full scale model being a bad idea! The Marlin needed the
extra length it got in 67 to look properly proportioned and still have
plenty of back seat head room, which as I recall Abernathy insisted on.
That the Marlin was styled *without* the presence of Teague may be
significant -- the less than perfect proportions may have been caught by
the one-eyed designer when others with less perfect depth perception
missed it! Or maybe his "underlings" (no offense to them!) just wanted
to please the big boss in Teague's absence? Teague was away in Europe
when the change from American to Classic body was made -- maybe
intentionally? Marketing for the Marlin was all wrong too. If it had
been marketed as a sporty personal car instead of a Mustang competitor
it may have been more successful. By 67, when it actually was marketed
as such, it was too late. I have noticed that many dealers thought the
same -- try finding a stripped 66. I've noticed quite a few six
cylinder, column shift three speed, basic trim 65s, but most 66 models
I've seen are loaded. I'm sure some of the reason is the old "survival
of the plushest/prettiest" which is prominent in the old car hobby, but
that doesn't explain the unequal survival of more basic 65s -- has to be
the unusual styling saving Marlins more than equipment.

Teague's eye sight never fails to amaze me -- with only one eye depth
perception is supposedly much harder to perceive (couldn't help the
pun!!). I've had to drive with a patch over an eye for a few days --
more than once!  I did notice it was harder a little harder to judge the
speed of other vehicles, but only far away -- as in more than a couple
hundred feet or so. Closer I had no problem. maybe it was the
fore-knowledge that it might affect my vision. Maybe I was
subconsciously allowing for the fault because I knew about it? And maybe
Teague paid more attention to such things because he was aware that it
could be a limiting factor. An intriguing idea, no? Once can only wonder
if he'd been as successful as he was if his eyesight was normal! Or if
he'd stayed somewhere else and never went to AMC. I'm pretty sure he
stayed because it was better to be the big dog in a small company than
just another dog somewhere else. Lucky for us AMC fans he stayed at AMC
though!
-snip


John Mahoney wrote:
 >>

hazard a guess -- 78 Concord? Even a prototype wouldn't have really been
hand built, "hand trimmed" or "hand modified" maybe, but the shell was
really already "built", even though it was called "Hornet" instead. I
can't recall exact month/year it was unveiled, but would have been
sometime in 77, I assume.
<<

No, but Frank (I love it when someone "answers" here; reading is -far-
more fun than "lecturing" --- plus, like my father said, "You won't
LEARN anything with your mouth open.") had the right approach.  The car
in my question was the 1965.5 Marlin --- which, of course, was the 1965
Classic with a few new parts.
It went from full-size model to full-on manufacture without any
full-size steel running version ever being hand built.  It was one of
the reasons, maybe, that it looked like it did, as no car ever looks
-exactly- like it will off the assembly line and under the sun if it
isn't first built -exactly- as it will be built when it enters
production.

There's just something about models, concepts, and prototypes that auto
stylists see as "different" --- they're the same, but they're different
-snip
hand-built.  Computers
to create cars from start to finish?  Yes, that's the fast way to
tomorrow, but they still need help from -human- eyes.  And human eyes
need to have seen yesterday and today before they can see clearly to
tomorrow.  That's why ugly cars are still being put on the road.


_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list