Challenge: AMC not only survives, but thrives

Inspired by the "Oldsmobile survives" thread I just came across, I began to wonder what it would take for the much-maligned American Motors Corporation to not only survive until the present day [with their own brand intact] but to thrive in the domestic -or even export- marketplace, be it in name only or in actual fact. Here are a few basic scenarios I can think of, with time I may choose one to expand upon, otherwise pick one or present an original one:

-Shortly after the merger of Nash and Hudson that creates the company, Studebaker-Packard merge into it as well, as was the original intent; this puts the new company on firmer financial ground with greater market share

-Perhaps an earlier oil crisis that deepens the late-50s recession, when the Rambler brand experienced its first boomlet

-George Romney elects not to leave AMC to run for Governor of Michigan

-Controversial, money-losing models such as the '74-78 Matador Coupe [my favorite] or the Pacer are not produced

-Rather than bailing out Chrysler, the US Gov't pushes for a merger-of-equals between Chrysler Corp and AMC, rather than allow AMC to fall under majority control of Renault

-Chrysler acquires AMC but keeps the marque rather than renaming it Eagle
 
Hmm. If they have a stable of low petrol consumption compact and sub-compact cars going into the oil shocks of the 1970s, might that help a lot? Especially since the other three (GM, Chrysler and Ford) would be caught out still producing their giant land yachts!
 
'73 was AMC's last real good year. The next year they started developing the Pacer and because of several delays and drastic changes to the original concept you got the product of OTL at much higher budget than initially intended.

The Pacer itself was a good concept at the right time, but the company tried to push too far with technology that was not quite as up to snuff(the Wankel). AMC was reliant upon GM to build the engine that would be used in the Pacer and when GM dropped that product the car was left without an efficient modern engine. Though it is likely GM's Wankel would have been too inefficient anyways. A big problem with the car was the wieght added on by the huge amount of glass used in the car.

So, a lighter Pacer with a different engine(In TheMann's TL about a successful Corvair AMC starts using Offenhauser engines, an idea I really like) would make that car more successful and a proper replacement for the Hornet would leave American Motors in a much better position going into the '80's. Now, after that it's still up in the air as to what happens next but now AMC has a much better chance of not kicking the bucket.
 
Well, I have to say that we really liked our Rambler when I was a kid.

If you have high oil prices, what does that do to Jeep, the other big marque in the company?

Hmm... Maybe they could merge technologies and have something like a RangeRover or some of the Suzukis - a car-like vehicle with off-road capacity. (Heh. Dad would have bought one in a shot!)
 
Hmm... Maybe they could merge technologies and have something like a RangeRover or some of the Suzukis - a car-like vehicle with off-road capacity. (Heh. Dad would have bought one in a shot!)

AMC did have something to what you are describing. Look up the AMC Eagle. In fact, the Eagle was everything the Subaru Legacy/Outback is now, but in the early '80's.

Jeep always was pretty good about weathering high oil prices. And the Grand Wagoneer was in it's day was considered luxury.
 
There's a theory mentioned on Wikipedia that claims that AMC's decision to eliminate the Rambler marque was likely a mistake, because Rambler had a reputation for smaller economy cars... does this make sense?

Though, the issue is that the Rambler marque also (because of the same reputation) would have trouble cementing itself as having a full line of products.
 
There's a theory mentioned on Wikipedia that claims that AMC's decision to eliminate the Rambler marque was likely a mistake, because Rambler had a reputation for smaller economy cars... does this make sense?

Though, the issue is that the Rambler marque also (because of the same reputation) would have trouble cementing itself as having a full line of products.

OTOH, this gives them an obvious marque setup...obviously, they can't copy GM, since they're a much smaller brand, but they could probably get by on two or three overall nameplates, with a few marques per nameplate. You know, something like "Rambler for price, *insert name here* as your regular, Jeep for off-road performance!"
 
Rambler did have something of an image problem, as it was seen as stodgy, boring, and old-fashiond, which was something of a hinderance to AMC's efforts to reposition itself as a full-line maker, especially in the late 1960s, so I think that a decision to either keep or kill the name is going to help some areas & hurt others.

Acquiring Studebaker & Packard could help expand the customer base- Packard was still a prestigious luxury name while it was around, although having some real crap for slushboxes in the 1950s really did a number on its reputation. Studebaker had some unique ideas- in the early 1960s, they had some really hot small-displacement supercharged V-8s developed for the Avanti, which could have been an interesting alternative to the traditional musclecar formula, along with a sports car to play with.

However, AMC was really undersized when it came to competing to the big three on a full-line basis, and plagued by inefficiencies- for example, one production line had partially completed cars being trucked several blocks to another facility for the next phase of the process. IMO, for AMC to survive, either it would have had to have found a niche or two of sufficient size that it could control to a degree that would allow it to survive, or get really close to one of the Japanese companies in the 70s.
 
However, AMC was really undersized when it came to competing to the big three on a full-line basis, and plagued by inefficiencies- for example, one production line had partially completed cars being trucked several blocks to another facility for the next phase of the process. IMO, for AMC to survive, either it would have had to have found a niche or two of sufficient size that it could control to a degree that would allow it to survive, or get really close to one of the Japanese companies in the 70s.
Well, they did have Jeep, which has always been a nice niche- but I suppose that's not enough to sustain the rest of the company on its own.
Could AMC have avoided the merger with Renault? That could probably have helped in some ways.
The issue is, avoiding the merger with Renault seems most likely to mean the failure of AMC, unless you can find some other source of money... I do think that the Renault cars failure to catch on was a big problem for AMC and probably sealed its doom.
 
Having worked for both AMC and Chrysler from the 70s thru 2005 I think I am far more qualified to comment on this than just about anyone here. This is what is needed IMO

1) Improvements in the 2.5/4.2/4.0 family on engines. Most will not realize it but the AMC family of 4 and 6 cylinder engines shares a lot of the same basic design architecture as the GM family of small block V-8s. The bore spacing is with in .005". The deck heights are comparable. For bore and stoke arrangements the wrist pin to center distance of the rods is almost the same. The problem is the head design and fuel management systems. To be blunt the non-crossflow head while having a decent combustion chamber shape had lousy flow characteristiscs. The carburated engines prior to the 4.0 for the Jeeps were weak on power. With a decent head design (OHC engines were run on test in the 60s and 4 vlave per cylinder push-rod* heads were designed in the 90s) and possibly an aluminum block keeping the same bore spacing but with a reduced displacement (3.5L?) the power and fuel economy numbers could of been better.

2) Focus on a segment of the market and try not to become a full line company. Too much money was wasted on low volume models.

3) The big what if. Either break the UAW or find a way to declaw them. The UAW, and in particular UAW Local 72 had this notion that since AMC was in the same business as the Big 3 it should be using the Big 3 pattern labor agreements. One possible way out of this would be to move assembly to the South.

4) Explore the conversion of the 4.0 into a 3.0 Turbo Desiel. There was more than enough room in the blocks lower end to allow the main bearings to be beefed up to handle the stresses.

5) Have the Audi 2.0 4 cylinder project in Richmond Indiana succeed.

6) Fire Dick Teague. The original Javelin, AMX and Hornet production models were clean simple unhindered designs. The 71-73 Matador coupe was also a clean design unhindered by styling gimmicks. It also shared it basic body structure with the 4 door model. But starting with the 71 Javelin Teague lost it. Big bulbous curves. Designs that had no sense of balance at all. There is nothing really wrong with conservative design as long as it is not out of proportion. BMW, Audi and Mercedes were not exactly avant garde in the 70s and 80s and it worked for them

But in the end I suspect they would not of been able to survive as an independent simply because the cost of model development is just too costly.

Now something that would not have worked

1) The Offy that others have mentioned. The Offy 4 cylinder was an extremely expensive motor to manufacture. The Offy has no seperate cylinder head. The block and head are one piece. Modifying the design to lower costs would of killed a lot of its potential.

* If OHC engines are the answer why is the Corvette still powered by a push-rod V-8
 

NothingNow

Banned
4) Explore the conversion of the 4.0 into a 3.0 Turbo Desiel. There was more than enough room in the blocks lower end to allow the main bearings to be beefed up to handle the stresses.

...

But in the end I suspect they would not of been able to survive as an independent simply because the cost of model development is just too costly.

4) The AMC straight 6 should be adapted to diesel power. It already is a strong high Torque engine. Reducing Displacement might Make the Excess Torque issue even worse.

How would the Cost of Model development be too much. Share basic Components across the Line and it should keep costs down. Also Continuing Captive Import programs might help in that regard.
 
-Perhaps an earlier oil crisis that deepens the late-50s recession, when the Rambler brand experienced its first boomlet

Non-starter. The US was not that dependent on overseas oil sources until US domestic production peaked in the early 1970s and went into decline. IIRC 1972 was the first year the US imported more than half its total oil consumption.

Kevin Renner has covered a lot of the company's weaknesses. I'm intrigued by the idea that AMC could have moved into the turbo-diesel market. That would have positioned the company nicely when the oil crisis of 1973/74 hit to put a high performance, (relatively) high-mpg vehicle on the market at a time when diesel fuel routinely underpriced regular gasoline by at least 20 percent.
 
Top