After years of producing unconventional products, in 1967 AMC offered a new mid-sized car that was conventional in every way: the Rebel.
Almost from its founding in 1954, American Motors took a heading 180 degrees from the rest of the Motor City. When Detroit was going for ever longer and lower, CEO George Romney was preaching that smaller is better and styling isn’t everything. It was a successful strategy until the early ’60s, when the big three erased AMC’s near-monopoly on the domestic compact market with their own small cars.
After Romney departed the company in 1962 to become governor of Michigan, new CEO Roy Abernethy ultimately decided that AMC’s path forward was to shed its image as the producer of small cars with quirky styling. Now it would become a mainstream, full-line automaker like GM, Ford, or Chrysler with their greater volume potential. AMC invested $60 million in new products, including a much-needed redesign of the original 1956 Rambler V8. Among the program’s notable results was the 1967 Rebel, AMC’s entry in the competitive mid-sized category, going head-to-head against the Ford Fairlane, Chevrolet Chevelle, and the rest.
Underneath, the ’67 Rebel was some old, some new. The Rambler Classic’s unit-construction body shell and floor pan were redesigned, and while the dated trunnion-style front suspension remained, at the rear the old torque tube was ditched in favor of an open driveline and a four-link coil system. Powertrain choices included the 232 cubic-inch six introduced in 1964, the new 290 and 343 CID V8s, and automatic and manual transmissions supplied by Borg-Warner. The full line of body styles—coupe, hardtop, sedan, convertible, wagon—was offered in straightforward trim levels: 550, 770, and the sport-luxury SST.
The Rebel’s biggest departure was in its styling: straight Detroit orthodox. Designed by studio chief Vince Geraci and staff under the direction of styling VP RIchard Teague, the Rebel’s exterior shared none of the quirky eccentricities of the Rambler era at AMC. Popular Mechanics wrote that the Rebel was virtually indistinguishable from the Ford, GM, and Chrysler intermediates—-almost a compliment, really, but also a little harsh. We think the Rebel most closely resembles the handsome ’68 Plymouth Satellite introduced one year later. They could nearly be brothers.
Media reactions were mixed. Car Life, for one, was not totally impressed. The writers declared the six-cylinder version a slug, even for a six, while the SST with its 343 CID V8 was decent enough. They did say the Rebels were “good-looking cars.” But over at Mechanix Illustrated, Tom McCahill gave special praise to the handling and wrote, “There isn’t a better intermediate-size car sold in the United States.”
Unfortunately for AMC and Abernethy, the new Rebel did not spark up the showrooms. Sales actually dropped 20 percent, but to be fair, forces were at work far greater than American Motors, Detroit’s tiniest automaker. AMC’s volume in the mid-sized field had been falling for several years, and the new car simply failed to reverse the trend. The Rebel carried on through 1970, even spawning a muscle-car spinoff called the AMC Machine, and then it was restyled and rebadged in 1971 as the Matador.
Roy’s eyes were bigger than his mouth. The Detroit 3 had the size to amortize the cost of a full line, AMC did not. Failure was virtually built in. In the 70s, they pulled back from the brink with new compacts, but by that time, the market was loaded with foreign as well as Big 3 entries, and they fell into the hands of the French, then Chrysler. A sad ending and a lesson on sticking to your knitting or you’ll end up frozen out in the cold.
I have more sympathy than most for Abernethy’s position. Small cars have tiny profit margins while big cars enjoy bigger margins. When the big three with their enormous economies of scale entered the compact market, AMC was in a tough spot. Moving into more profitable markets was one solution.
That said, in an interview years later Romney said it was a mistake for AMC to go full-line. It’s hard to argue with his expertise.
Hindsight of course tells us that even by the time of the Hudson/Nash merger the big three were simply going to beat them over time based on the economies of scale. The intense sales battle between Ford & GM in the ’50s helped take down Kaiser/Frazer, Packard, Studebaker, & technically Nash & Hudson, as like Packard & Studebaker, they had to merge in an attempt to survive.
I don’t even think the proposed merger of Nash, Hudson, Studebaker & Packard would have worked; both because the different philosophies would have clashed, & also because the sales war between GM & Ford helped cripple Chrysler as they tried to compete. And, if Chrysler had trouble competing, there’s no way that combo could have.
Quite so. Imagine Nash and Hudson never existed and you are writing a business plan to create American Motors from scratch in 1954. It doesn’t add up. The merger was a marriage of necessity to stay in business.
really a nice model and a good looking car with desirable engines that deserved a better fate. it’s only sin was to enter a market of competitors with more models of the same wheelbases and performance options.
Oh, I agree. In fact, I just scored a mint in the box, vintage, unbuilt Jo-Han 1970 Rebel Machine model kit this Saturday. Not cheap, but amazingly cheap in comparison to most I see for sale.
One simply can’t forget the AMC commercials of the late 60s. The Rebel was featured in this 1969 commercial. The Javelin commercials were the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIhPxQ9Paso
Agreed. They were the work of Mary Wells Lawrence of Wells, RIch, Greene. She was supremely talented. We should do a feature on her.