By the late 1960s, the demand for small, compact imports, temporarily sated by Detroit compacts like the Ford Falcon, was on the rise again and Detroit was getting scared. Each American automaker fielded its own response, but American Motors, which had built its market position with economy cars, came up with two. The first was a clever improvisation, the second was a brave attempt to do something genuinely new. Some people call them the ugliest cars of the 1970s — a title for which there are many contenders — but nobody would ever mistake them for anything else. We’re referring of course, to the Gremlin and Pacer.
We begin with the 1970-1978 AMC Gremlin.
THE THREAT
For the longest time, nobody in Detroit took Volkswagen seriously. Who could blame them? The Beetle was an anachronism, no matter how much steady but glacier-like evolution it underwent, no matter how conscientious its assembly or clever its ads. By the end of the 1960s, however, it was selling more than half a million copies a year in the U.S. and actually topped the overall sale charts in some important West Coast markets, like Los Angeles.
This was bad news for all of the U.S. automakers, but it was particularly threatening for American Motors Corporation. AMC had made its mark in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a purveyor of economy cars, alternatives to what George Romney called “Detroit dinosaurs,” but by the late sixties, its compact Rambler American was moribund, stigmatized as a car for little old ladies. AMC’s total sales for 1968 were 272,696, climbing a bit to 281,297 for 1969; Volkswagen’s sales for the same model years were 582,009 and 548,904 respectively. The Volkswagen was certainly problematic for Chevrolet and Ford, but for AMC, it was a deadly threat. Beyond that, Toyota and Datsun were beginning to emerge as real contenders. Something had to be done.
American Motors was already preparing a new compact, the AMC Hornet, to replace the aging Rambler American for 1970, but American management realized that, like the contemporary Ford Maverick, the Hornet was basically a new bottle for the same old wine. Despite new styling, a longer wheelbase, and the revival of the storied Hornet name (which had been dropped when AMC abandoned the Hudson nameplate in 1957), the new car was not that different from the Rambler American underneath. To compete with the imports, AMC needed something different, something smaller: a genuine subcompact to take on the Beetle and its foreign brethren.
Even the shape of the rear sheet metal suggests that the AMC Gremlin is a hatchback, but it’s not; only the rear window lifts up for loading cargo. (On some early base cars, even that was fixed in place.)
THE CUT-DOWN HORNET
The ever-resourceful Dick Teague, AMC styling VP, was already working on it. Back in 1966, Teague and stylist Bob Nixon had discussed the possibility of a shortened version of the Hornet, which was then in development. Its engineering would also be reminiscent of the production AMX: just as the AMX was a cut-down Javelin, the new subcompact would be a cut-down version of the Hornet. Nixon created a series of sketches along those lines, which Teague liked.
On an airline flight that fall, Teague presented the idea to Gerry Meyers, AMC’s VP of product development. Lacking any of Nixon’s design studies, Teague sketched the design on the only thing he had at hand — the back of an air-sickness bag. Meyers liked the idea, in large part because its tooling costs would be very low.
AMC showed a concept version of the new design at the New York auto show in April 1968 under the name AMX-GT. The AMX-GT was a trial balloon and AMC did not suggest any plans to build it. Nonetheless, public response was generally favorable and plans for the production model went forward. Perhaps mindful of Chrysler’s success with the Plymouth Road Runner, American came up with a cute name for its subcompact, with a cute, cartoon mascot to go with it: AMC Gremlin.
Charlie’s 1975 AMC Gremlin X, known as “Cool Factor X,” shows off a stylized version of the Gremlin mascot. (Photo: “cool2” © 2006 Gremmie; used with permission)
Structurally, the AMC Gremlin was a Hornet shorn of 12 inches (305 mm) of wheelbase, trimming its overall length by 18 inches (457 mm). At 161.3 inches (4,097 mm), the Gremlin was only 3 inches (76 mm) longer than a Beetle, although the AMC looked significantly bigger. It was only fractionally narrower than the Hornet, although it was around 200 pounds (90 kg) lighter. The similarity allowed a great deal of commonality: The Gremlin shared its big brother’s front suspension, steering, brakes, although the rear leaf springs were shortened, most of the rear legroom was extracted, a fold-down rear seat was added to increase its cargo space.
Despite the commonality, the Gremlin was not just a cut-down Hornet, although in 1970, Teague told Motor Trend‘s Eric Dahlquist that they’d built a prototype of just such a car, which would’ve been dubbed the Wasp, another old Hudson name. Instead, the Gremlin had a distinctive wedge shape, ending in a sharp “Kammback” tail (an aerodynamic technique named for the German aerodynamicist Wunibald Kamm, who had outlined it back in the 1930s). The Kamm tail was theoretically a drag-reducing measure, but we assume that Teague and Nixon chose it mostly to give a stylistic rationale to the truncated shape.
A battered 1970½ AMC Gremlin. First-year Gremlins were 161.3 inches (4,097 mm) long and weighed about 2,640 lb (1,200 kg). Compare the slimmer bumper with the bulky post-1973 5 mph (8 km/h) bumper on Charlie’s Gremlin X, below. (Photo: “Wiki cars 045” © 2007 Karmann; resized and used under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license)
Although the AMC Gremlin looked like a hatchback, a design becoming popular in Europe for small cars, it had no tailgate, although a flip-up rear window was optional, allowing cargo to be loaded through the rear. Teague explained to Dahlquist that American had avoided the hatchback because it would have reduced structural rigidity. That much was true — hatchbacks are significantly less rigid than coupes or sedans — but the real reason was that there was no money for its development. In fact, the entire development cost of the Gremlin was a modest $12 million, significantly less than Ford spent for its new Pinto subcompact and one-fifth what AMC spent on the Pacer a few years later.
In a surprisingly candid interview with Motor Trend, Teague made no apologies for the Gremlin’s unusual styling, saying he hoped it would be an attention-grabber. It was no beauty, to be sure, but it was certainly distinctive and unlikely to be mistaken for anything else, even its Hornet cousin.
The business end of Charlie’s 1975 AMC Gremlin X, which has the optional V8 engine. AMC’s modern V8 originally appeared in mid-1966, then displacing 290 cu. in. (4,751 cc). In 1970, its deck height was raised and its stroke was increased, bringing it to 304 cu. in. (4,977 cc). In 1975, it cost $154 more than a six, added 258 lb (117 kg) — most of it, sadly, on the nose — and offered 150 net horsepower (112 kW). Charlie’s has been modified to yield approximately 190 net horsepower (142 kW). (Photo: “Gremlin Front” © 2006 Gremmie; used with permission)
ENTER THE AMC GREMLIN
The production AMC Gremlin made its debut a few months after its larger brother. It was introduced to the public, amusingly enough, on April 1, 1970. It carried a starting price of $1,879 FOB Kenosha, although that was for the most basic model, with a fixed rear window and no back seat at all. (Only about 3,000 of these price-leader fixed-window cars were sold and that version was soon dropped.) A four-seat Gremlin with flip-up rear glass started at $1,959, which compared well with the $1,995 starting price of Ford’s Maverick.
All early Gremlins used the same inline sixes found in AMC’s bigger cars, either the 199 cu. in. (3,258 cc) version with 128 gross hp (95 kW) or the 232 cu. in. (3,801 cc) version with 145 hp (108 kW). Standard also were a three-speed manual transmission with a non-synchronized low gear and four-wheel drum brakes.
Dynamically, the Gremlin’s hand-me-down mechanicals produced some decidedly mixed results. The shortened wheelbase made the rear seat basically uninhabitable except for very small children, although cargo room was reasonable, especially with the seat folded down. With the same engines as the Hornet and somewhat less weight, the Gremlin had respectable acceleration; in January 1971, Car and Driver clocked a 1971 AMC Gremlin with the big six and manual shift from 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in a sprightly 10.5 seconds.
On the other hand, because the Gremlin had so few purpose-built components, it was not particularly light for a subcompact, it was nose-heavy, and the manual steering was painfully slow. Worse, the shortened rear springs let the axle hop around in hard braking. The Gremlin was not well suited to enthusiastic cornering or panic stops.
The 1975 AMC Gremlin was 170.3 inches (4,326 mm) long, 9.0 inches (229 mm) longer than the 1970½ model, thanks to its bigger bumpers. Charlie’s 1975 Gremlin X has non-stock alloy wheels, although the side stripe was part of the original X package. (Photo: “Gremlin side” © 2006 Gremmie; used with permission)
The Gremlin’s fuel economy was also disappointing, at least compared to its import competitors. Conservative highway driving could reach 25 mpg (9.4 L/100 km), but in harder use, the heavy body and big six would drop mileage below 20 mpg (11.8 L/100 km), not exactly in keeping with its economy-car mission.
GREMLIN EVOLUTION
Despite its late introduction, the AMC Gremlin managed a modest 28,560 sales in the 1970 model year. Better yet, total American Motors sales were up sharply, climbing more than 100,000 units for 1970, so the Gremlin was adding business rather than cannibalizing existing AMC sales. Sales for 1971, its first full model year, were 76,908.
In 1971, the smaller six-cylinder engine was dropped and a bigger 258 cu. in. (4,235 cc) version became optional. The switch to net horsepower ratings for 1972 reduced the 232 and 258 engines to 100 and 110 net horsepower (75 kW and 82 kW), respectively, although they were mechanically unchanged from 1971. More helpful was a new automatic transmission; AMC called it Torque Command, but it was actually Chrysler’s TorqueFlite 904, which AMC quietly arranged to buy from its rival. Whatever the name, the automatic was a vast improvement over the archaic Borg-Warner “Shift Command” transmission it replaced. Gremlin buyers could also now order front disc brakes for an extra $47.25, providing notably better stopping power.
The stock AMC Gremlin V8 had a single two-barrel carburetor and rather mild tuning. Charlie has added Hedman exhaust headers, Edelbrock Performer aluminum intake manifold and four-barrel carburetor, a seven-blade aluminum fan, and a high-output ignition coil. At a guess, it probably produces at least 40 horsepower (30 kW) more than it did when it left the factory. (Photo: “gremmieengine1” © 2006 Gremmie; used with permission)
More interestingly, starting in 1972, you could get a Gremlin with V8 engine. It was not a great surprise — Teague had told the press back in 1970 that they would offer a V8 eventually and the Hornet had offered an optional 304 cu. in. (4,977 cc) V-8 from the start. The Gremlin’s V8, with a single two-throat carburetor, was credited with a modest 150 net horsepower (112 kW), but a healthy 245 lb-ft (332 N-m) of torque. A V8 Gremlin with TorqueFlite could run 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in around 8.5 seconds and the performance hardware AMC had offered for the same engine in the Javelin and AMX could be bolted on. The V8 cost $154 and added nearly 200 extra pounds (90 kg), but it made the Gremlin a real sleeper. Alas, the following year was the first OPEC oil embargo, making the demand for a relatively thirsty V8 subcompact somewhat limited.
Sales climbed steadily each year through 1974 — the Gremlin’s peak, with 171,128 sold. Along the way, there were a number of minor styling revisions and some jazzy trim packages, notably the X package (side stripes, slotted wheels, and some other trim) and the Levi’s Edition, which gave the seats upholstery that looked like blue denim, complete with Levi’s brass studs, yellow-orange stitching, and tags.
This 1976 AMC Gremlin has the 258 cu. in. (4,235 cc) six, this year rated at 95 net horsepower (71 kW), and a column-shifted three-speed automatic. Unlike Charlie’s car, this survivor is in remarkably stock condition, still sporting its original wheelcovers.
In 1977, the Gremlin received a new engine option: a Volkswagen-designed 121 cu. in. (1,984 cc) four. This was a derivative of the Volkswagen-Audi EA831 engine, also found in some contemporary Audis and the Porsche 924, albeit with a two-throat Holley-Weber carburetor rather than the Porsche’s Bosch K-Jetronic mechanical fuel injection. AMC bought some engines from Volkswagen Group, but also paid some $60 million for manufacturing rights and tooling to build the four in-house at a plant in Richmond, Indiana.
The OHC four had only 80 hp (60 kW) and 105 lb-ft (142 N-m) of torque), but it reduced the Gremlin’s weight by nearly 200 lb (90 kg), so performance was not quite as dire as you might expect. Car and Driver clocked a four-speed 1977 AMC Gremlin X with the four-cylinder engine from 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in 15.3 seconds, reaching a top speed of 91 mph (146 km/h); both were acceptable figures for a late-seventies smog-controlled economy car. The four was naturally much more economical than the six and somewhat better isolated to boot. However, buyers were evidently not convinced and the four accounted for fewer than one in three Gremlin sales.
Gremlin sales had dropped steadily since 1974, a reflection of its dated styling, mediocre packaging, and a host of more sophisticated competitors, like the Volkswagen Rabbit (nee Golf), Honda Accord, and Ford Fiesta. In 1978, the Gremlin’s final year, sales were only 22,104. Nonetheless, AMC recycled the Gremlin’s mechanical package in 1979 for the slightly more conventional-looking AMC Spirit, which lingered through 1983. Total Gremlin sales were 674,492, plus 191,785 Spirits. That wasn’t much by GM standards, but it was respectable for a manufacturer with American’s limited resources.
THE PUT-ON
The AMC Gremlin’s looks and bargain-basement engineering have often been derided, but we think its real problem was simply that it came to market two or three years too late. If it had appeared in 1967 or 1968, it would’ve been an interesting counterpart to the Javelin and AMX, more firmly establishing a new, younger image for AMC. If the Gremlin had had immediate V8 availability, perhaps with the Javelin/AMX’s new 280 hp (209 kW) 343 cu. in. (5,624 cc) engine, it would also have been a formidable competitor for the Plymouth Road Runner in the budget muscle sweepstakes. By the standards of 1967, the Gremlin’s fuel economy was respectable enough and buyers would have appreciated its performance. By 1970, though, the performance market was dying on the vine and buyers were starting to demand greater fuel economy and utility from their small cars.
What the Gremlin never would have done in any case was seriously compete with the Beetle. For all the domestic industry’s fear of the Volkswagen, none of the U.S. automakers really understood why people were buying them. It wasn’t that the Beetle was a particularly good car — even in Super Beetle form, it was hopelessly outdated and its packaging and objective performance were abysmal. The excellent assembly quality, strong resale value, and conscientious dealer service were undeniable virtues, but the main reason so many Americans of the sixties and seventies bought Volkswagens was not what they were, but what they were not.
The Beetle was not a real car by contemporary Detroit standards; in the parlance of the day, it was a put-on. Driving one was, as writer Tony Hogg noted in 1971, a minor act of social protest, a thumbing of the nose at the whole Alfred P. Sloan automotive class system. The Beetle was a symbol as much as it was a car, and had it been something the American automotive establishment could have taken seriously, that would have defeated at least half the purpose of buying one. It was about being different, albeit different in a way that friends and neighbors could recognize as a deliberate act rather than a sign of mere poverty or, worse, obliviousness.
In that respect, the AMC Gremlin was a smarter response to the Beetle than most people usually give it credit for. It wasn’t sexy, but it was certainly unique, with an impish character far removed from the dowdy Ford Pinto. Furthermore, for all the derision the Gremlin received for its parts-bin engineering, it cost far less to develop than either the Pinto or Chevrolet Vega and it had very few of those cars’ well-publicized faults. The Gremlin’s own deficiencies were not unlivable, or, compared to other cars of the time, particularly egregious. Compared to its domestic contemporaries, the worst that can be said of it is that it was a little weird-looking. Dick Teague’s cut-down compact emerges as an honorable effort and a decent success — no small feat for a car engineered on a shoestring and sketched on an air-sickness bag.
Special note: The blue Gremlin X pictured here (and the matching Pacer we’ll see in part two) is owned by Charlie and Debbie from the Northeast (‘Gremmie‘), who’ve been kind enough to let us use their photos. We’ll talk more about these specific cars in our next installment.
SPECIAL NOTE
In 2011, Kacper Kasperkiewicz and translator Marcelina Trybuła translated this article (with our permission) into Polish for the Polish website Oldtimery.com. You can see that version here: oldtimery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=191:amc-gremlin&catid=18:stare-samochody&Itemid=554. (In the interests of full disclosure, Oldtimery was kind enough to link to Ate Up With Motor on their Partners page, although we did not charge Oldtimery for either the use of the article or this link.)
NOTES ON SOURCES
Our sources for this article included “A Small World to Conquer: Six-Car Comparison Text: AM Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega 2300, Ford Pinto, Simca 1204, Toyota Corolla, Volkswagen Super Beetle, Car and Driver Vol. 16, No. 7 (January 1971), pp. 20-29; the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, Encyclopedia of American Cars: Over 65 Years of Automotive History (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International, 1996); Drew Beck, “The Gremlin: AMC’s Successful Compact,” Allpar, 1992, 2006, www.allpar. com, accessed 13 October 2007; Eric Dahlquist, “Big Bug,” Motor Trend Vol. 21, No. 2 (February 1969), pp. 46–48; “Declutching the BUG,” Motor Trend Vol. 20, No. 7 (July 1968), pp. 70-73; and “1970 Gremlin,” Motor Trend Vol. 22 No. 3 (March 1970), pp. 70-72, 106; “Designing the Future at AMC: Part III: Bob Nixon and the Sizzling Sixties,” Special Interest Autos #161 (September-October 1997), pp. 46-53; The Story of Jeep (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 1998); and “Vince Geraci: Living in Style,” Collectible Automobile Vol. 22, No. 2 (August 2005), pp. 66–75; John Gunnell, ed., Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975, Revised 4th Edition (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2002); Tony Hogg, “The Indestructible Insect,” Car and Driver Vol. 16, No. 7 (January 1971), pp. 66-67; Charles K. Hyde, Storied Independent Automakers: Nash, Hudson, and American Motors (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009); Alfred Koos, “A Brief History of the Gremlin,” GremlinX.com, n.d., www.gremlinx. com/ Gremlin-history.htm, accessed 13 October 2007; Graham Robson and the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, Volkswagen Chronicle (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International Ltd., 1996); Todd Ruel’s 29 July 2006 interview with Bob Nixon (Torq-o.com, 6 October 2007, www.torq-o. com/Podcasts/podcasts.html, accessed 7 December 2009); and Don Sherman, “Road Test: AMC Gremlin X: They think 80 hp and 2600 pounds is funny? Tell ’em it’s a Porsche,” and “Porsche Power to the Small-Car People, Car and Driver Vol. 22, No. 11 (May 1977), pp. 103-106.
This article’s title, inevitably, was suggested by the film Gremlins (produced by Mike Fennell and Steven Spielberg, directed by Joe Dante, written by Chris Columbus, United States, Warner Bros., 1985).
HI — I JUST GOT A 75 GREMLIN 304 AUTO –THIS CAR HAS REAR SIDE WINDOWS THAT OPEN –MY PARTS CARS DON’T –WAS THAT RARE ????—BOB
The op-ening side windows were a 10 dollar factory option. I love mine and have not seen others
Aaron,
Just a couple of personal observations about AMC and the Gremlin. I worked at an AMC dealership from 72 to 73 so I got to know the little devils fairly well. First, your statement that the steering was woefully slow is probably an understatement. The manual box was just a touch over 5 turns lock to lock. What was truly unfathomable was how, in spite of that much gear reduction, how unbelievably heavy it was. If the car was sitting still, it took a great deal of arm and upper body strength to turn the wheel. I know we lost a few sales on that basis alone on a few of the strippers that were on the lot.
Second is an anecdote about factory support. In early 73 we received a 401 Javelin at the dealer. After doing the PDI on it I took it for a test drive and found that it surged badly at 55MPH. After much fooling about with carb jets and ignition timing to no avail, we called for help from the district rep. When he arrived he had us pull the carburetor and drive 2 corks into the EGR passages in the floor of the manifold. “That’ll hold er till its out of warranty” were his exact words. It solved the problem. Whether it made it out of warranty I dont know. I left the dealer shortly afterward.
I had a 72 Gremlin X with manual steering. At 5’6″ and 128 pounds, I was no muscle-man, and the manual steering was a non-issue. I actually preferred the steering response over my previous car, a 1971 Pontiac LeMans with GM’s ridiculously over-assisted power steering that felt like the steering wheel wasn’t attached to anything.
My factory support anecdotes (family & friends):
Vehicle: 1969 Javelin
Age of vehicle: 9 months
Problem: Burning oil. Dealer misdiagnosed as a valve-train defect and made two failed repair attempts.
Response: Factory rep determined cause to be a defect in the engine casting. Full refund of purchase price. (Owner bought another AMC!)
Vehicle: 1970 Ambassador
Age of vehicle: 1 year
Problem: Factory rep was visiting dealership when vehicle was in for service and noticed a small crack in the dash cover (about an inch between speaker grill and base of windshiled) that the owner had never noticed.
Response: Dash cover replaced at no charge.
Vehicle: 1970 Rebel MACHINE
Age of vehicle: Unsure (30,000 miles)
Problem: Clutch slipping “off the line”
Response: Owner had technically voided warranty by bracket racing on weekends, but rep said models like the MACHINE, the S/C Rambler & SS AMX that were marketed as street-legal race cars should be able to withstand hard use. Clutch replaced at no charge.
Vehicle: 1970 Rebel MACHINE
Age of vehicle: 3 years
Problem: Engine began bogging when throttle was dumped, eventually leading to a small carburetor fire on a Friday night.
Response: Factory rep traveled 160 miles to owner’s house, ON A SUNDAY, and replaced carburetor at no charge. Owner noted it was the first time he had ever had somewhere wearing a suit and a white lab coat wrenching on his car.
I can’t dispute Mr. Dunlap’s account, nor can I prove my experiences were typical. (I suspect MACHINES, S/C Ramblers and SS AMX’s received special attention as AMC’s image was at stake.) Nonetheless, I can tell you that I personally know of a another half-dozen cases in which the factory went “above and beyond” to take care of their customers.
I work at a company that makes parts for the engines in these cars (bulltear.com) and the cars themselves are not considered garbage at all they are well respected and highly sought after. There are 7 second quarter mile 900-1200hp gremlins at the track and there are very fine examples of OEM Gremlins at AMO and NAMDRA shows. The Gremlin really is not a bad car it can be found with an inline six to V8 and with an auto tranny or 4 speed (T10). Even with a 6cyl they were not a slouch and were relatively comfortable. Gremlins get a abd name because the term "Gremlin" usually means something is wrong. Great cars! I have owned 3
Hi Aaron,
Enjoyed reading your article it brought back a lot of memories. I’ve nothing to add really, except perhaps another set of specs if anyone wants to do comparisons. Mine was a 1974 with the 5L and Warner (T3?) 3 speed manual. Soon as the warranty expired the mods began. Holly 4bbl 650cfm, Edelbrock intake, Excel dual point and coil, Crane Fireball cam and roller rockers, AMC improved flow exhaust, Venolia pistons, and AMC heads for their 360 (much bigger valves). Except for wider tires and air shocks I did nothing to improve traction. I figured spinning the tires was better than breaking the drive train.
As to performance top RPM went from 4700 to over 7200 I never went higher being afraid to blow the engine. Top stock speed was 95 and after mods I had it up to 130. I ran it on the strip only twice, spun the tires so bad the results are useless. 14 MPG around town and 19 on the highway, 3150 lbs.
Again thanks,
gary
A couple of corrections. Of course it’s Accel. Also I remember now the Crane cam was too hot for the street and I replaced it with a Competition Cams piece. All the numbers are with the Comp cam.
gary
In 1975 or so my Corolla1600 Hemi 4-speed was rear ended and I needed a driver for ten days or so. The body shop had a 19?? Gremlin with an I-6 for cheap rent. By far the worst car that I’ve ever driven. Heavy steering, no power (compared to the 1600) and a bad tendency to loose timing and not start. I re-timed it each day before start-up and finally used Locktite Retaining Compound on the distributer plate screws therefore making further adjustment impossible. Final farewell was complete ring failure (with smoke generator grey cloud) at the center of the intersection of Roswell Highway & Piedmont Road in Atlanta one Friday afternoon. No cell-phones, I simply walked away leaving a Chinese fire-drill in all directions …
She likes men who love USA, don’t whine about cars with manual steering, know the difference between setting the points & adjusting the ignition timing and checking the radiator coolant level. That’s why she blew smoke in your face; to make you go away.
I own the grandma and the 1974 to 1985 86 and I found it to be a very good running vehicle after doing some decent tune ups on it and added a couple things I was getting 33 miles a gallon on the highway I wouldn’t mind having another one
A little searching around the internet revealed almost nothing, so many may not be aware that in 1970, Chrysler was pursuing a very similar plan known as “25x”. Essentially 25 inches of total length removed from a Duster, creating a Kamm-back version with a rear-facing 2nd row seat robbed from the big station wagons. The photos I’ve seen in the Chrysler archives seem very fully developed, down to the unique interior trim.
The only external reference I’ve seen to this project comes in the 1970 edition of the World Car Catalog among their coverage of Detroit’s new compacts.
I can only assume this concept never made production because they were already selling all the Dusters/Dart Sports they could build, and with the /6 as the smallest powertrain, mileage wouldn’t have been all that much better, not to mention the front-heavy handling issues.
will the back latch mechanism of 1977 gremlin fit 1975
I’m sorry, I have no idea. This is a history site — I can’t help with repairs or parts. Sorry!
The Gremlin 4 cylinder motor may have had the same bottom end as the Porsche 924, but it certainly wouldn’t have had the same Porsche designed head. In the 924 the engine was good for 125bhp(in rest of world tune)and completed the Le Mans 24 hours making 375bhp in turbo form with the production very strong bottom end.
Well, the four was also a van engine for many years. I think that’s closer to the version AMC used, which aside from having the usual litany of emissions control hardware was carbureted rather than injected, had significantly lower compression, and was tuned for American regular unleaded fuel rather than leaded four-star. The initial U.S. 924 had only 95 hp in federalized form, and that was with K-Jetronic, so it’s not hard to see where the power went. Porsche kept tinkering and got 110 hp (SAE net) by 1978, but that increased maximum torque by only 2 lb-ft and moved the torque peak up another 500 rpm, which (cost aside) wouldn’t have been desirable for the Gremlin or Pacer, which were heavy things and typically had automatic transmission.
Almost 40 years ago I owned the car that was derived from the Gremlin, a 1981 Spirit.
It had the 258 c.i. in line 6 engine but had small modifications, such as a two barrel Holley carburator, headers and wider tires, that is it.
from a dead start , when I would manage to not make the tires spin ( which was difficult) it launched faster than a stock Mustang with a 302 5 liter engine. ( in part because it weighed about 2800 lbs, which is light, while the mustangs on average weigh about 500 pounds more than that )
unfortunately 9 times out of 10 the rear wheels would spin so much that they would make that typical blue smoke that swirls around the wheels…and the car would not launch fast at all.
I took it once to the quarter mile track, but with all that tire dust on the ground the wheels were spinning much more than usual…it was ridiculous the track was so slippery it was like butter.
long story short, on clean dry asphalt, from 0 to 60 mph the car was surprisingly fast, everybody thought I had a v 8 under the hood!
Despite a few flaws, I loved that car, and only sold it because I became very ill and needed the money…if I could I d buy another one today in 2023 and would only have light modifications on it.
I repeat, despite a few flaws I loved that car and given the choice between a mustang and a 1981 amc spirit, i d take the Spirit.