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 at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

The only "problem" with the 56-62 Rambler/Classic Six is the six. The 196 is adequate power for an American, and IMHO isn't really enough for the bigger car. It's geared a little lower and has a couple more hp due to a different carb, but it's just not enough for modern traffic. Unfortunately the V-8s aren't that economical, even the little 250 used from 57-61. I suppose they are reasonably economical, but only when compared to other V-8s of the era. The 327 gets in the mid teens, the 250 in the high teens (maybe low 20s with OD and careful driving). The six can get in the mid 20s IF you don't mind traveling at 45-50 mph. At highway speeds you're looking at high teens, maybe low 20s if you keep it around 60. Those cars fared well in the old economy runs, but average speeds were in the 40-45 range for cross country trips.

Luckily the bigger, later six will fit (up to a 4.0L), but you have to fab engine mounts and swap transmissions too, which also means the torque tube and rear axle has to be swapped out. So it's a lot of work.

I like the older Ramblers too, but you have to know the limitations of the original drivetrain and/or the amount of work needed to update them. Not for the faint of heart!

----------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:06:05 -0400
From: "Bruce Griffis"

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 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.

Good thing my wallet is empty, or I'd be looking (and my wife would be
none-too happy!).

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
(free download available!)

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

" From: Frank Swygert
"
" []
"
" Luckily the bigger, later six will fit (up to a 4.0L), but you have to
" fab engine mounts and swap transmissions too, which also means the
" torque tube and rear axle has to be swapped out. So it's a lot of work.

you could use an iron warner with a de-unbalanced '67-'71 v8 flexplate
and converter housing! and a '91-5 wrangler ecm for 4.0 with
tf999/32rh [no tranny connection].
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay the genius nature
internet rambler is to see what all have seen
adh at an dot bradford dot ma dot us and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

my baby is a 62 10 car. classic custom to be exact. when i was still in oklahoma, i got ahold of a 65 classic. the wheel base wasnt much longer. but a little. the fenders were WAY longer. my 62 would fit in my garage and could still open the dryer door. (dryer was right at the right front tire) with the 65 in there, i could BARELY fit it in. had to park all but against the wall. and then the dryer door would open. as far as front and rear, garage door barely closed, and barely off the steps going into the house.

as for inside, i didnt notice the 65 being a whole lot roomier. seemed wider. alot more head room in my 62 i thought. (maybe that was because the headliner was fallen down and would rest on my head when i was in??)

i love the body lines of the 63-66 big cars. but i still prefer my 62.

now i have a 62 classic, 63 american. my next rambler that i have always wanted since i got my 62 and started learning about these cars... a 65-66 ambo ragtop. they just look so classy and luxiurious to me.

all 3 ramblers are 2 doors. the 65 and 63 are hardtops. my 62 is just 2 door with the posts. when i weighed it at the truck scales half way to town, it tipped them at 2950 with 3/4 tank of fuel and me out. full interior and everything. as it sits now. i have a 03 dodge peon as my daily driver. it tips the scales at 3000 with full tank of fuel and me not in it. *scrating head motion* interesting how 62 could be so tough, and ALL STEEL and weigh less than a newer PLASTIC TOY that falls apart when it hits a tall grass shoot??? well, i shouldnt say that. my neon has jumped over 3' tall snow burm, jumped the median on a texas freeway at 60mph dodging other cars, done a nice Z spin on the highway at 70 mph and the list goes on, but it sitll cruises. no problems what so ever. 32 mpg @ 70 mph. my 62 classic gets 26 mpg at 55-60 mph. have to see what my new american does with 2bbl power pack (i assume thats the power pack option??) and auto on a new rebuild. i
expect no less than 25 after breakin is up.

dave stohler
my rambler pics@
http://picasaweb.google.com/das24rules

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

d stohler wrote:

> all 3 ramblers are 2 doors. the 65 and 63 are hardtops. my 62 is just 2 door with the posts. when i weighed it at the truck scales half way to town, it tipped them at 2950 with 3/4 tank of fuel and me out. full interior and everything. as it sits now. i have a 03 dodge peon as my daily driver. it tips the scales at 3000 with full tank of fuel and me not in it. *scrating head motion* interesting how 62 could be so tough, and ALL STEEL and weigh less than a newer PLASTIC TOY that falls apart when it hits a tall grass shoot??? well, i shouldnt say that. my neon has jumped over 3' tall snow burm, jumped the median on a texas freeway at 60mph dodging other cars, done a nice Z spin on the highway at 70 mph and the list goes on, but it sitll cruises. no problems what so ever. 32 mpg @ 70 mph. my 62 classic gets 26 mpg at 55-60 mph. have to see what my new american does with 2bbl power pack (i assume thats the power pack option??) and auto on a new rebuild. i
> expect no less than 25 after breakin is up.

THat's good to know -- 2950 for the '62 6cyl classic? I keep meaning to
weigh my 63 American.

The Dodge Peon has foolish things like reinforced doors and a better
cage around you. The '70 Hornet has doors like the early 60's, WYSIWYG
-- but in 72 the car weighs more and has bars in the door and other things.

I loved my 62 Ambo. Four vent windows! wraparound glass! Fold down
seats! 327 got 18mpg on the highway. It suuuure looked like the Mercedes
for that year, coincidence, huh... :-)

And I miss that pushbutton shifter. Now that was a cool feature. I never
had any trouble with it.

Took a long time to close all the windows when it started raining --
eight opening windows!

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

-Four vent windows!

i saw one with the rear vent windows... wish mine had them. wonder how hard it would be to fit them in if i could find a scrapper with them....

-Took a long time to close all the windows when it started raining --
eight opening windows!

TONS OF AIR FLOW DOWN THE HIGHWAY im sure. who needs a/c??

dave stohler
my rambler pics@
http://picasaweb.google.com/das24rules

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

I remember having one of those cars with 4 vents when I was very young, could not have been 10 yet.
I was mad when dad did not keep it.
Those vent windows where the only thing I wanted, but we never had another car with them at all four corners.

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrc II
" Chronic Pain Hurts"

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: d stohler
> -Four vent windows!
>
> i saw one with the rear vent windows... wish mine had them. wonder how hard it
> would be to fit them in if i could find a scrapper with them....
>
> -Took a long time to close all the windows when it started raining --
> eight opening windows!
>
> TONS OF AIR FLOW DOWN THE HIGHWAY im sure. who needs a/c??
>
> dave stohler
> my rambler pics@
> http://picasaweb.google.com/das24rules
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list at amc-list dot com
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

d stohler wrote:
> -Four vent windows!

Didn't all the 62 Ambassadors have them?
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

I believe they did, which is surprising to me since dad never had another!
He always had an Ambassador when he could convince mom to drive one.
She always wanted the little Americans, but as soon as he could get her to forget or relent he would have here back in an Ambo!
Dad worked at the dealer and wen thru cars like crap shot out of a canon. He would constantly be wheeling and dealing, this one for that.
He once told me the story of buying a big old 50's Cadillac for $500, mint and like new or so he said. Called mom to warn her. When he arrived home that night he was still driving his then current Ambassador. She asked what happened.
The dealer had sold the Cadillac for $1200 after selling it to Dad for $500! They split the profit.
dad never actually even paid for the Cadillac...

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrc II
" Chronic Pain Hurts"

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Tom Jennings
> d stohler wrote:
> > -Four vent windows!
>
> Didn't all the 62 Ambassadors have them?
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list at amc-list dot com
> http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list at amc-list dot com
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list