Re: [Amc-list] Hemmings short article on the '61 Custom Six

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

Bruce Griffis wrote:

> But I picked the magazine up for the short blurb on the '61 Rambler
> Custom 6. What a nice little car. I can definately see tooling around
> in an early '60's Rambler. Still small enough to fit in my garage.
> Still small and light enough to get decent mileage. Still an easy to
> work on 6.

(I have a sub to HEMMINGS CLASSIC CAR. One of my friends calls it, 
jokingly, 'that Rambler magazine'. THere's always at least a mention of 
AMC stuff in every issue!)

It's funny how little the pre-63 AMC products show up, are ever seen, or 
ever talked about, except the Americans, and even that is slight.

I know pretty much nothing about the 58-62 non-01-chassis AMCs. I owned 
a 62 Ambassador 400 in my 20's (paid $125 for it, drove it for two or 
three years), I rebuilt the front end, interior, paint, had AAMCO do the 
trans (I was young, it was long ago... :-). Did my first cross-country 
(Mass. to Wash.) trip in it.

But that was right on the cusp of "modern". The 1963 is a "modern" car; 
the 1960 is "old", in some essential and some vague ways.

63-up got a modern restyle (the designer of those, not Teague, is an 
unsung AMC hero, his designs have really held up) but also dual circuit 
brakes, the modern six (in 64), and they handle differently, somehow.

A surprising amount of "new" AMC parts, up through the 70's and 80's, 
bolt right on to the 63-up cars. The older stuff wants Nash parts (eg. 
suspension). My 63 uses 70-up type inner suspension arm bushings, for 
example.

The interiors of 63-up are much roomier, and a lot less "Nash". I 
increasingly appreciate Nash quality and design, but they got a bit 
stuffy and old-fashioned and grandfather-y. Ramblers were "lighter" and 
roomier. The wagon seems especially roomier than the older (pre-63) models.

Even compare 62 classic wagon to 63 classic wagon. Clearly it's just 
evolutionary, but a leap in small but important ways.

Frank probably knows off the top of his head, how many were made per 
year. I know 63, 64 were good sales years, but I can count on one hand 
the number of pre-62 10 and 80 chassis I've seen on the road  -- in my 
life. Relatively-speaking, there are lots of 1963-up 10's and 80's on 
the road today. Why is that?

> I like my American, and can't wait to get it sorted out - but the
> early Custom and Classic line is pretty cool, too. Hmmmmmmm - a Cross
> Country would be pretty styling for cruising, toting the kayak to the
> river or camping.While I like the '63 (and '64) Classics, the earlier
> models would probably fit in the garage a little better.

I really like those early AMC bodies, and the Nash "Rambler" cars, but 
it's almost like they're from another era. They look (then contemporary) 
European, and fairly old-fashioned. I really like the rounded curves! 
[Don't they also have problematic engine compartments like the early 
Americans? Fits only the old six etc?]


That's the thing -- the 63, 64 classics (ambos) look big, but simply are 
not. It's really not THAT much larger than an Accord wagon, really. 108" 
wheelbase. It's got more front and rear overhang, and the fenders 
contain more air. But side by side, they're simply not crazy-different. 
It doesn't even weigh much more, if any! Mine weighs 3150 lbs(measured 
on a scale).


I'm not nostalgic, and I'm not one to cling to things for a long time, 
but I've had this 63 Classic Wagon for 20 years this Sept because it's 
continuously met my needs and desires, and it's been easily maintainable 
the whole time, even when I was broke.
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list