The Marlin was a short-lived personal luxury car based at first on the Rambler Classic. A cross between the Plymouth Barracuda and Dodge Charger, it was produced from 1965 to 1967 (the latter year being based on the larger Ambassador). A lack of sales ended the unique Marlin as only 17-18,000 left the assembly line. Located in Waterville, Minnesota, this survivor-quality Marlin needs a new interior, but is otherwise a daily driver. It’s available here on Facebook Marketplace for $8,500. Thanks for the tip, NW Iowa Kevin.
AMC based on the Rambler Marlin on the Tarpon show car from 1964. Like the 1964-66 Barracuda, the Marlin had a fair amount of rear and side glass when it went into production as a Classic derivative. Inline-6 power was standard, but two V8 engines were optional, including the 327 cubic inch engine like in the seller’s ride from 1966. Sales declined in both of the two years following the introduction, with just 4,547 examples finding homes in 1966. The Rambler name was dropped after the first year.
We’re told this ’66 Marlin is 95% complete (what’s the other 5% consist of?). It’s a good runner with an automatic transmission, and the overall car has 90,000 miles. The body and white paint look good enough, but the interior’s condition matches the mileage. New upholstery will be needed, but that’s not something you would need to address on Day 1.
When the Marlin was introduced in 1965, AMC was trying to up its image, and the Marlin was positioned as a “halo car”. But buyers may have had trouble figuring out what it was. It looked like a pony car (i.e., Mustang or Barracuda), but it was bigger. And the switch to the longer Ambassador wheelbase in 1967 significantly increased the dimensions. So, by 1968, the Marlin was no more. If you’re fishing for a somewhat rare classic, how about this one?
(IIRC), the Marlin was originally designed to be built on the smaller “Tarpon” platform, but the honcho in charge wanted to be able to wear a fedora while riding in it, thus resulting in the awkward “humpback whale” side profile. By ’67 they were looking much better, but it was too late. This looks to be a good starter for someone! GLWTS!! :-)
That’s true, I read it was ol’ Roy himself that demanded more headroom, and went with the bigger car. Some say the extra 1.5 inches in the back ruined the “sleekness”. The biggest problem with the Marlin, was it needed a hatchback. The trunk opening was too small and while it may have been the beginning of AMC, to all it was still a Rambler.
The ‘66 was just FUGLY (FatUGLY). Like MoParMan said AMC cleaned it up a lot for ‘67, like cleaning up the rear wheel wells-those on the ‘66 look like they didn’t get the memo and used metric instead of SAE for the measurements when they came back from lunch.
Looks like I fell for the optional illusion-the rear wheel arches were the same!
Stacked headlight improved the 1967 version a lot, IMHO.
I used to own a ’65 Marlin with the 327 engine. Very comfortable road car (used to drive it on long trips) and plenty of ventilation on a nice day with all those windows open.
For 1966 these were no longer branded as “Rambler” because the Company was starting to phase out that name in the U.S. – “Rambler” had unfortunately become a synonym for cheap rides. (Mine had “Rambler” spelled out clearly on the panel beneath the trunk lid. You can see in the rear picture of this car that the Rambler name is absent.)
Also the 1966 model was decontented a bit to reduce the base price in a failed attempt to boost sales. In particular the power front disc brakes that were standard for 1965 were moved to the option list.
From what I recall reading the Tarpon was based on the Rambler American. But AMC wanted their sporty car to be available with a V-8 and the V-8’s they had at the time didn’t fit in the American. So it was decided to base it on the Classic. I always thought the ’65 and ’66 were sharp looking cars. But had some old technology underneath, like trunnions and torque tube drive shafts. I don’t know if that was considered a drawback in ’66 though. I had a ’69 American and all I knew then was that one of those long springs was leaning against the inside tower. It was $250 beaterso I just drove it like that.
Probably most buyers in 1966, like today, don’t know or care about the technical details when buying a car. They look at styling and features. Also at that time middle-aged and older people would have come of age with torque tubes, flathead engines, vacuum wipers, etc. being common. Though I expect by 1971 that someone moving to AMC from “Big 3” offerings would find the vacuum windshield wipers an unpleasant surprise.
Sounds like you had a badly worn trunnion in the front suspension of your 1969 Rambler. The 1964-1969 Americans had rubber-bushed non-greaseable trunnions that were not great for the long haul. (In contrast trunnions in the larger Rambler models had metal bushings that would last a very long time if greased regularly.)
The Rogue 1966-1969 was based on the American platform and only came with a V8 with the initial first run of 1700 cars. The American platform could handle the V8, but management wanted the Tarpon to be placed as a mid size car. Unfortunately this ruined the proposition and the car just didn’t look the same. The early Teague renderings of the Tarpon are perfect, Teagues team did a nice job with it and I think it would had sold better.
Management did not understand the sporty car market, was oriented towards larger models, and wanted the Marlin to be large enough to seat six. This included making more headroom in the back. (The rear roofline was ordered raised by Roy Abernethy while Teague was away on vacation!) The car probably would have sold better as the original Tarpon concept, though I think the side window treatment is better on the Marlin.
The video linked below has a short dealer training filmstrip segment including the Marlin that is pretty funny:
https://youtu.be/h45s7PsWreU?t=262
“A swinging fastback … Real gone!”
However, the issue of fitting the 1st-generation Rambler V8 into the smaller American platform was also considered. These were large, heavy 1950s-era engines and were not a great fit in the smaller car. The Company line was those V8s would not fit and their new smaller, lighter series of V8 engines was not ready yet. (Though I remember reading that dealers proved the old V8 actually could be installed. Still it would have been a tight fit and the car would be quite nose-heavy.)
After the new 290 V8 debuted in 1966 it was made available in pretty much any of the Rambler American models. A friend of mine used to own a 290-equipped 1966 American station wagon. The small V8 was a good match for that car.
At the time, there was no sporty compact “pony car” market for AMC management to understand, as the Tarpon concept debuted in January ’63, a year and a half before the Mustang and Barracuda would debut in mid-’64.
Alas, Abernethy failed to anticipate this, despite Ford’s plan to introduce a sporty Falcon-based compact being one of the worst-kept secrets in the industry. Instead, he decided a larger car would have more market appeal as a sporty-looking, well-appointed personal luxury coupe marketed to young married couples who might be starting a family, so he dictated the Tarpon’s roof styling and 2+2 seating should be stretched and adapted into a 3+3 format to fit the new for ’65 Rambler Classic intermediate instead.
This left AMC caught flat-footed by the Mustang phenomenon without a ready entrant of their own to compete, leaving them to play catch-up with the later Javelin, while the awkwardly-styled Marlin languished though an abbreviated three model years, even after an upsized update to fit the new for ’67 full-size Ambassador range, never quite credible for the personal luxury coupe segment Abernethy meant to target.
I collected three different views of the Tarpon here, and note the much more nuanced shape to its extended rear quarter windows:
https://imgur.com/a/UfXsGPH
IDK, I just had to look up the Tarpon show car and to me it’s like a mullet, business up front, party in the back.
Kind of the ugly cousin of the Barracuda, Charger of that year. I owned a 1967 Ambassador with a 343 4v. Sold it after 3 years, as I found that owning an AMC of this period was much more of a commitment than I cared to have. Spent more time off the road than on it.
Transplant in a Perkins diesel.
“Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”
The Rambler Classic front-end was a negative. So marketing featured pics highlighting the side/rear. Soft bucket seats and deep shag carpet were luxury.
Drove a 65 327 4bbl and disc brakes as a 16 yo kid. Was superior to my 66 Lemans conv w/a 326.
Lot of know it alls on this one. See episode 2 of the Last Independent Automaker on youtube and hear the true story from one of the designers that was there Vince Geracie.
I suspect that the engine might actually be a 287 cu in unit as they painted the 327s red and the 287s blue.
Ugly then, ugly now. Poor AMC. Trying for the “youth market” with weird proportions and ’50’s technology.
Great little car becoming a serious collectible 2dr hatchback pretty neat with the v-8 a plus a unique rare model unappreciated by most but a good price and will be a nice addition for any collector…
Not little nor a hatchback. Marlin, born from the Classic, as the Charger was born from the Coronet. Chrysler had better styling, but the rear of a Marlin has appeal. Drove a 327 in 1970 in HS. These deserve more respect.