By the time that Rambler came out with their third-generation American series they were really a tailored, modern-looking design compared to the somewhat awkward and ungainly previous cars. Of course, being awkward and ungainly myself I love the previous cars but this 1965 Rambler American 220 looks like a nice one. It’s posted on Craigslist in Millford, Ohio and the seller is asking a healthy $14,220 for this example. Thanks to Fred H. for sending in this beautiful Rambler American tip!
They have it listed as an AMC which always causes me to wonder why people don’t list their GM vehicles as GMs? Like, “GM Pontiac..” Does anyone have an idea why Rambler owners seem to list their cars as AMCs? Of course, by 1965 Rambler was a part of the newly-formed AMC family, maybe that’s why. This car looks like it’s in amazing condition. The “rust free” part always catches my eye, that’s about the most important factor in any old car purchase for me.
This is it for passenger side photos, unfortunately. I can’t imagine how with 23 photos in the listing there isn’t one photo of the entire passenger side, but car sales ads never cease to amaze me. What photos are shown, though, really show what looks like a little time machine – what a beauty. This car has new brakes front to back and all new exhaust front to back and it looks very complete. The 220 model was the base car for the Rambler American series in this generation.
With 77,100 miles, for that seat fabric to be original is pretty amazing. This car has a three-speed manual transmission with a column-mounted shift lever. Or, as we say, a three-on-the-tree, that’s much easier to say and it ensures that this car is almost theft-proof, at least by anyone under age 50…
I think that this is the seller’s main point in asking so much above the normal “value” of this car: that it’s reportedly one of 296 cars built with the old, 90-hp flathead-six with overdrive. In 1965, AMC came out with an all-new overhead-valve 232 cubic-inch straight-six and this car has the old flathead-six. For $85 you could have upgraded to the OHV six but the original owner of this car was having none of that newfangled nonsense. What are your thoughts on the third-generation Rambler Americans? How about the price on this one? Is it worth around $4,000 more than NADA’s high-retail value because of having that flathead-six and overdrive? It sure looks like a nice car.
Makes you wonder…did AMC have 296 of those old flatties left over from ’64 models, or did the lack of customers cut this model off after a few days’ production?
It’s nice to see an American looking this nice, but I wouldn’t pay a premium for a slower, cheaper car. This is for a collector, who won’t drive it much if at all.
When I see any example of this-generation Rambler American, all I can think of is “IKA Torino 380W.” Why those weren’t rolling off the lines in Kenosha will always be a sad mystery to me!
Amazing you could get a no-frills car like this. Aside from the O/D, this was as low as you could get. It made the Studebaker Scotsman look good. Just shows peoples ignorance, choosing the flathead over the OHV. It was the last year for the flathead 6, served us well for 65 years. I had a car just like this, OHV, it used a quart of oil/ day. Another $100 beater, and I know what I said about price comments, but I’m just flabbergasted at the asking price? Right up there with a ’66 GTO? a TR6?,,,come on, nice try. Got to be a dealer, no lowball offers, tell you what, at $14g’s, the real price will seem like a lowball offer.
I agree Howard. When you think about the other cars you could own and enjoy for the same money, this just pales in comparison. A died in the wool AMC guy might pay half that to be able to gaze on it as it sits stationary, afraid to take it out of the garage.
A school librarian special! Sparce as a Mormon’s ballroom, neat as a pin, and it shouts, “efficiency” from every angle. That flathead six looks like something left over from the `55 Nash line!
Most people would have been earning around $2.00 an hour when this car came out. The upgrade to the new ohv engine would have been like two weeks pay! Seems cheap today, but it wasn’t back then.
This car is listed a dealer about 50 miles south of where I live. They seem to be pretty proud of all their cars price-wise. Here’s a link for you to take a look if you wish but, hold on to your wallets. The prices on most of the inventory will make you say WHAT?
http://www.ultraautomotive.com/inventorymanager.php?action=view&Id=977716
Note the name, “ultra automotive” indeed. The inventory they keep is a nice variety, the prices don’t seem that out of line for one of these types of dealerships. Hell, they have three cars CHEAPER than what we witnessed on Barn Finds in as many week. Take Notice –they have a 57 Chevy 210 sedan, a 58 Chevy Impala HT and a mid-60s Chevelle Malibu sedan.
’40 Ford Woody , $155,000.00
WHAT ? Lots of nice desirable cars but prices are kinda higH.
Scott, I would imagine people put AMC in the title for a Rambler to get more eyes on their listing.
I would bet there are more people searching for AMC than Rambler.
I think you’re right, Miguel. I was wrong on the 1966 Ambassador a couple of days ago in referring it to as a Rambler instead of an AMC so I’m eating my words on that… I know better since that was one of my favorite cars of all time.
Not true. People look for AMC’s while looking for AMC Ramblers unless they wish to go through 50-60 Holiday Rambler campers and motor homes while doing so. Doesn’t make much sense to type in just Rambler
Setting the price high, you always come down – but you can’t go back up!
Nice car but demasiado dinero.
Ay chalupa.
Nice car, but worth $4K more? Not feeling it.
Was a dual bail master cylinder standard on these pre-1967?
From 1962, 71FX
Amazed that flathead engines were still being produced in 1965…
i had a 63 model 330 as my first car with a quart of oil a day flatty in it. found a real low miler 232 out of a 67 and put that in. that was my very first car and i loved it. to mucho money for this one thats for sure
Even though its a pretty little piece that price is to high
There are too many incorrect parts to take it serious. The hubcaps for one should NOT be full wheel cover on a 220 series. Where is the original air cleaner assembly? This warmed over detailed to the hilt car being at an overpriced collector car dealer does not represent a barn find. Poor choice.
Production numbers for AMC’s are only someones guesstimate. Records were never kept. People say they have them but cannot provide.When it comes to special models like the AMX,Machine and SC/Rambler inquiries were made by enthusiasts years ago so that info available is correct. However there is much incorrect info posted on the web. Don’t believe what you read especially a dealer.
The 220 was the lowest priced car. It was the type of car still being purchased by many so the low production numbers stated are also incorrect. Being inexpensive was a good seller.
Why do people list Ramblers as AMC’s? Because they are. No smoke and mirrors there.
AMC wasn’t newly formed in 66. That was in 1954.
The decision was made to eventually brand all their cars as AMC starting in 66 with the Ambassador and Marlin.
There was an alleged “stigma” attached to Ramblers by 1965. Something to do with old maids, stodginess, budget bottom feeders and boring old practical folk.
AMC wanted to fight that image by reinventing itself for the Swinging Sixties.
Hence AMC instead of Rambler. The mental picture of which were cars just like this American
Like Ford. Like Chrysler. Like GMC. One wouldn’t run an ad for a 1964 Newport. Or Galaxie 500. One would call it by it’s brand name.
No one calls Nissans Datsuns any longer.
AMC had only one lineof cars by 1958. They were no longer Nash, Hudson and Rambler, so yes, AMC Rambler is correct.
The 232 came out in 1964 featured in a special Rambler Classic two door hardtop named the Typhoon. The cars had yellow paint and black roofs.
The price is pretty outrageous and for me, though I find the flathead fascinating. A real throw back to the 30s. But the market that does feel that way is limited, probably to about 296 people.
And I doubt even one of those would pay $14,000 for the privilege of owning a flathead Rambler or even a Lark.
Scotty I appreciate your work and your respect for the cars featured on BF, as I do all your other contributors.
And I’d pay to go to your museum of misfits if you ever open one.
The wife and I owned one gift from son, of these for a 7 year keep it running and presentable until she also retired and then planned doing a full resto ourselves.
Piles of new old stock parts from years of swapmeets and AM C National events.
Had a benched 232 Clifford warmed up as original flat head ran but was gutless and over 250,000 miles.
Damn thing broke, pinned and smashed 4 fingers when it slipped off jack and I screamed for wife who first gave me he’ll for stupidity, and then calmly reset another jack and stand to release me.
Already she was dying of cancer so I was hurriedly trying to finish. too hurridly.
Well the big C eats flesh and money and by time she left it was not running and in process.
Didn’t tell her that I had sold auto but buyer agreed to wait until; you fight to bitter end and “f” what comes afterwards
As to price on this auto. way high, have seen pristene ones for 8k; One a newer convertible for 6500.
Hope an appreciative American lover , in two ways, buys and enjoys.
Actually for an inexpensive model these ran and drove equally well, if not better than other marques el cheapos.
Dreams are hard to come by, but never ever give up on them.
I had one of these, a ’64, with the flathead motor. The most amazing thing about it was how it could burn THAT MUCH oil without leaving a smokescreen behind it. My brother and I once drove it from Denver to San Diego and had to stop for oil every 50 miles or so. We bought some of those old metal 10-quart cans of cheap oil at Sears, Roebuck before we left, and still had to get more en route.
They are cute little cars though, about as basic as you could get. I truly never thought I’d see the day when having that old L-head motor in there would command a premium (and I’m not sure we have). It’s a nice car, but as AMCFAN pointed out, there are a few liberties taken here in calling it all original.
I just drove the Denver-to-San-Diego trip a couple of times in the last couple of months and it’s beautiful but I went through a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. I though that was bad but every 50, wow! That’s great story, CM!
On his sight you will see the asking price is $12200.00 and it shows more cars sold than for sale …Got the link from jw454
A ’66 GTO for $12K???? Where, I’ll buy one.
You won’t find them here. I have a friend that attended a farm auction in S. Wis. a few years ago, and a consigned ’66 or ’67 GTO was added after the list came out, so no one was bidding on it. He wasn’t really looking for a GTO at the time,( apparently, neither was anybody else at the auction) but ended up getting it for like $7,800 and he drove it home.
My dad had this flathead six in his ’61 American he bought brand new. At the tome the new engine was the aluminum ohv six. The salesman asked why do you want that old style flathead, it’s been around for thirty years, he said that why I want it.I think the aluminum engines had some problems and weren’t around very long but the 232’s were a winner for sure.
I don’t know American cars all that well but this has beautiful lines. It has a light transparency to it yet it’s strong. Reminds me of the Ghia Fiat 2300 but this is prettier I think.
People have truly lost their minds. It’s a nice car, but your insane if you pay more than five thousand for it.
The base 220 had hubcaps as standard equipment, but wheel covers were an option ($20.55), as were whitewall tires, overdrive ($105.50 in a 220), radio, outside mirrors, back-up lights, and a whole list of other items. Rambler was just like Chevrolet, Ford, Plymouth and Studebaker. The low line models came as stripped vehicles with a low price. The low prices encouraged frugal buyers to come by and see. Once they were roped in to buy a new cheap Rambler, Chevrolet, etc. the salesman would start to explain the benefits of some of the low cost options available.
My father was one who purchased the low priced series. He would add automatic transmission, outside rear view mirror – but no wheel covers,no radio, no white walls, etc.
Production figures for Ramblers and Nash before that have been around since the 1960’s. The late John A. Conde was head of Public Relations at AMC in the 1960’s and he compiled lists of production figures for the various body styles and series of Ramblers from old year end reports. Engine size production does not appear to have been available. The usual comment in print is “estimated engine production”. The Standard Catalog of American Cars published the results of John Conde’s work. He was also able to get figures for 1946-57 Nash and AMC-built 1955-1957 Hudson. Hudson information before 1955 has never been available.
AMC Canada never kept production data, apparently, and whenever they sent info to John Conde in the US they usually sent newspaper clippings, sales brochures, and the like. Kaiser Jeep historical was moved to AMC in 1970.
Of course, the big question is what happened to AMC’s historical collection with the acquisition of AMC by Chrysler.
Dad bought a 65 4 door new. It had the flathead three on the tree but no overdrive. It later became mine and my brothers first car and was still running good when we gave it back to him. I like this car but not at this price. It’s been for sale for a while.
I bought a 1965 Rambler American 220 with the flathead 3 on the tree for $300.00 in 1972. Best car I ever owned, for the money. The L-head never burned oil, idled so quietly that on two occasions pedestrians crossing the street knocked on my window to tell me my car had stalled.
“Max” came from the daughter of a Rambler dealership owner. She was a little rusty when I got her, and pretty shot when I sold her for junk in about 1981. That darned car would seat 5 people fairly comfortably and got about 40 mpg on the highway. From zero to 30 mph she was darned fast. She always started right up, even after sitting outdoors in a Vermont winter untouched for a month.
Believe it or not, someone stole her back in 1977 by breaking a chunk of wood off the handle of a screwdriver I kept in the glove box, jamming it in the ignition with a twist. Found it three days later a few miles away. When I turned the key, instead of the usual smooth purr, there was a horrible throaty racket, with oil coming out the exhaust pipe. Whoever stole must have kept it in first and just floored it forever. I almost cried.
Being a broke college student, I tried a desperate measure. I drained the oil, and poured in 50-weight nondetergent oil. She kept running. I drove her 200 miles to Boston when I graduated. She kept on running, although never again with that smooth purr, but without smoking. Sometimes in the winter I had to heat the oilpan with a propane torch to loosen up that 50-weight and get her ready for the road.
Miss that car.
I bought a new 220 2 door from Rancho Rambler in Long Beach Ca. in
1965 and it had the flathead 6. The delivered price leader was $1650.00
plus tax and license. It was a very reliable and cheep to own vehicle.
The only thing I did not like was the very slow steering. Got great
millage. wish I would have kept it.
Didn’t these also feature a fold-down bench seat for use at the local drive-in theatre?
I think it’s nice, but not THAT nice . . . at $14K+?!?