A true barn find—a car that’s been forgotten for years—comes with the thrill of discovery and the mystery of why it was left in that state, but also a bit of melancholy: for whatever reason, that car hasn’t been treasured and used and enjoyed the way it was intended to be. That’s why this ’63 Rambler Classic sedan, a car that many people over the years have regarded as a throwaway, makes me so happy—it has clearly been loved and carefully maintained with no regard for what anybody but its caretakers thought. A move means that it’s time for this 42,675-mile beauty to find a new caretaker; if you think that could be you, find it here on craigslist out of Paonia, Colorado, with an asking price of $7,900. Thanks to Ikey Heyman for the find!
It may not have set too many enthusiasts’ hearts aflutter, but the ’63 Rambler Classic was a pretty big deal for American Motors. Its first all-new car since 1956, the new Classic contained enough clever thinking within the smooth flanks finalized under the eye of new design chief Richard Teague to earn Motor Trend’s Car of the Year award. Slightly shorter and lower than the 1956-vintage model it replaced, the ’63 nevertheless still had ample room for six passengers thanks to its longer wheelbase and sensibly upright, European-influenced roofline. In fact, its looks were passably international enough for versions to be built in France by Renault, in Argentina by IKA (Industrias Kaiser Argentina), and in Australia by AMI (Australian Motor Industries).
The 770 designation means that this is the fanciest version of the Classic available in 1963. The split reclining seatback on the front bench is a fancy touch indeed, as is the tasteful clock inset into the anodized trim on the dash. It’s incredible to realize that standard safety belts were still a thing of the future in 1963 (with fronts being required the following year, rears in 1966, and front shoulder belts in 1968), but here’s your evidence: not a belt in sight! More incredible is that it took much longer still for many people to get in the habit of using them; I know my mom only started using them regularly when she was pregnant for the first time in the early ’80s.
Motivating force—enough to take you all the way to 12, if this very excited-looking speedometer is any indication (which it surely is not)—comes from a 195-cubic inch inline six mated to a three-on-the-tree manual. The six was standard on the Classic, and a V8 didn’t become available until midyear. As in any car of the era, the odometer only shows five digits, so take the low mileage reading with that grain of salt, but I feel that the overall condition supports the claim well. In fact, the only quibble I have with the suggestion that the car looks “like it was just driven off the showroom floor” are the slightly anachronistic wide whitewall tires, but they set off the elegant blue paint so well that I’m willing to forgive them. Something that needs no forgiveness is the obvious care this lucky Rambler has received. I hope you all give your cars this much love!
That 6 had a few eccentricities, from the its glass-bowled fuel pump to heads that needed constant retorqueing, but I loved my 660 cross-country
Considering all the cool cars in ’63 ( Riviera was one, Pontiac GP, etc) I couldn’t believe it, but none the less, we were very proud of that fact ( I figured Rambler paid off M/T well) My grandfather bought nothing but Ramblers ( a ’59, a ’61, and a ’65) and all great cars. I remember one of his cars, the ’61, you couldn’t even hear the motor run. I’m surprised this doesn’t have belts, as I think Rambler was one of the 1st to offer them standard, I guess not. Like when any Rambler/AMC is featured, warms my heart, makes me feel right at home, even though, there’s absolutely no evidence in Kenosha today that at one time, we built the #4 car in America. Milwaukee’s AMC plant is now a Walmart.
From making Ramblers to a … ugh! .. Walmart. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Ramblers have a special spot in my heart; each time I see one I’m reminded of my Pops. At one time Pops had 3 1960s Ramblers, a 62 American, and 2 of this generation. This was back when these were “just an old Rambler” and nearly given away
The body plant in Milwaukee on E. Capitol Dr. was torn down many years ago,( 1986) and the land sat empty. As kids, we used to ride our bikes down to the plant and watch the transport trucks carry the 6 or 8 finished bodies, depending on the model, to the engine plant in Kenosha for final assembly. The colors were beautiful. A truck went by every 5 minutes.
As far as I can remember seat belts did not come standard on these cars until the federal mandate, though the mounting plates were there for installation. This was an era where most people just did not want to wear seat belts. (Nash was the first domestic to offer seat belts in 1950 but they were an option. Few people took them up on it.)
What was standard ahead of being required is a tandem master cylinder which AMC installed in all of their cars starting in 1962. (The requirement did not come along until 1967.)
Body engineering on these was very advanced for the time. AMC also made a stab at producing aluminum six-cylinder engines based on the 195.6, most of which failed and were replaced by the old cast iron mill. The dash is pretty funky looking but note that all major controls are within easy reach of the driver.
I’ve owned a few of these cars over the years and they are nice drivers. You won’t win any drag races but it’ll move along pretty well with the 195.6 engine and manual transmission. Bear in mind 1st gear is not synchronized.
I also read that Nash’s seat belts got a bad rap because the black dye used on them rubbed off on clothing during warm weather. Unacceptable to the ladies of the 1950s southeast.
Love everything about this car…except the price…should be about half of what they are asking…twice the doors, half the price…
I find it funny that most old car guys hate 4 doors, but how many of them have modern daily drivers that are 4 door? Something about this top of the line Rambler in a dark color makes it look elegant even with extra doors.
TrueCar guys do not buy a four-door car the reason most of them drive four doors now is because very few two doors are made
Nope. Would have a 4dr. Good price on this.
My folks bought a 1960 Classic for me to go to jr col, part time job and out with friends. Blue (like this) top with white top Sharp car. Ran well Filled my bill. Then, I went int the USAF in 1963 and my folks eventually sold it—traded it in on another car. I really miss that car. But, I agree that the price is almost twice what I would pay. 2 door, more door…whatever. I like it.
I am kind of surprised it only has the 195 six and not the 232, being the fanciest model that year. And a three on the tree? Guess the original owner was pretty frugal.
232 didn’t come out until 64 with a special model Classic 2 door hardtop named the Typhoon to kick off it’s introduction. Yellow and black.
My own 63 Valiant Signet came with a 170, a radio, heater and probably whitewalls. Three speed manual and top of that line as well.
I’ve always thought that was bizarre as well as thinking the 225 was standard in the Signet.
From the ad, “Brand new whitewall tires.” Except that they are incorrect as in 1963 they should be narrow white wall tires (see photo above from 1963 AMC brochure). Why do people install white whitewalls on cars that didn’t have them when new?
That being said, these are well-built, workman-like cars built for regular people and offered an alternative to the Big Three.
This is very similar (stripped-down, few options) to a story I wrote years ago on a Classic 660 that was once owned by former AMC CEO, George Romney.
What’s interesting is if you do a side-by-side comparison to a Fintail six-cylinder Mercedes-Benz from this era, these 1963-1964 Ramblers come off very favorably.
http://imageevent.com/mmm_mag/1969jeepsuperwagoneer
@Richtrusdel.
Your question “Why do people install white whitewalls on cars that didn’t have them when new?”
For the same reason that people insist on installing an SBC engine in everything they can think of, no matter that it isn’t a Chev. The most stupid I think is doing it to a FORD/ AC Cobra! My friend calls them “Fake Snakes” As for the tyres It’s a matter of taste, and my taste is for 3 1/2″ Full whites.
Ken , as a teenager I put 3 1/2″ whitewall toppers on my family’s 66 Mercury Montclair.
Looked gangster before gangster was cool.
I’ll have the real thing for my Valiant next time I need rubber.
Rollin on my 13s. Need a scrub as my co-pilot to crank muh windows down for all my drive-bys, yo.
Thin whitewall tires debuted in 1962, so in ’63, the industry was slow to change. Even though ads depicted thin whites, wide whites were still the norm.
I find it hilarious, that the brochure features a fancy black tie affair, with candlelight, and a violinist, while admiring their new Rambler. Great advertising in the good ol’ days.
I think the price is all the money, all in, if the original mileage can be verified with service records, or receipts for items like batteries or tires that happen to list the mileage and the date together. I happen to like the wide whitewalls, but by the next year or so wide whites would be “oh so behind the times.” My dad’s 61 Corvair came with them just like shown in all the factory marketing materials. His 64 went to narrow, and my 68 came with double narrow white sidewalls.
Growing up, the grandfather of my best friend stored his Rambler at my friends house. It was silver with a red interior, we were fascinated by it but the motor was frozen. We towed it around the yard behind my buddies k5 blazer popping the clutch and the Rambler finally broke loose and we got it started! Grandad was suitably amazed, but he didnt cut us in for a share of the dough when he sold it.
@Richtrusdel.
Your question “Why do people install white whitewalls on cars that didn’t have them when new?”
For the same reason that people insist on installing an SBC engine in everything they can think of! It’s a matter of taste, and my taste is for 3 1/2″ Full whites.
The wide whites aren’t my thing but they suit the white sweep spear.
I love the front end on these ‘63s. I don’t know what they were thinking on the ‘64. Like let’s make it look ten years older?
+1.
The 64 was a retrograde move.
Like the 67 and 68 Ambassadors.
Sometimes doing nothing is the best “refresh”.
The 1964 model is pretty much identical aside from the grille. New exterior body panels and dashboard came in for 1965, with the Ambassador receiving its own longer front clip (tooling $$$$).
The original Romney plan was to keep this platform and body style until 1969 with a mid-cycle refresh to save on tooling costs. Classic and Ambassador were to share the same body with the models being differentiated by equipment. His leaving the company to go into politics and his successor (Abernethy) wanting to go head-to-head with the Big 3 torpedoed that idea. A suicidal move, but there might not have been a choice given that the major players were conducting a major assault on AMC’s compact and intermediate segments.
Of course.
It was the minor detail rearranging that took away from the originals.
The 64 freshening on the 63 was not an enhancement, nor were the changes to the 67 Ambassador for 68.
They got it just right the first time, then messed it up making small changes just for a new look.
Love the 65 and 66 Ambassadors
Sweet looking Rambler. That’s crazy low miles given how old it is. If only more photos were posted. 13 pics doesn’t seem like anywhere near enough.
In particular there do not seem to be any chassis, underhood, or trunk photos. Caveat emptor.
Nathan: I get this car completely.
For me, no car is a “throwaway” car, no matter how modest.
Taking care of what one has and making it last is an old fashioned virtue. It speaks to a philosophy about life, things and one’s attitude toward money.
This Rambler is a testament to that thinking. The sort of car I would have purchased back then.
But more likely a 550. With rubber flooring. And whitewalls.
Clear plastic seat covers for the win.
I concur with keeping what one has and maintaining it. I currently own a 2003 Dodge Ram 1500, full size, crew cab, short bed, 4.7 liter V*. Best thing about it??? Paid for!! Drinks a little gas. But, it has come in quite handy. Don’t have to rent a truck from….. Insurance is low enough. Yeah, a few repairs. So? I love this Rambler. Wish I could have it. But, time space, money… You know the story.
My dad bought a 1963 660 new. It was terquoise with a while top, 4 door, 196 cid, three on the tree.
This must have been the toughest car I’ve ever known. It was 10 years old when I started driving it and that was after my brother had abused it for two years. I guess it just wasn’t powerful enough to hurt itself.
My dad installed his own seatbelts and we were taught to use them.
I remember the vacuum wipers and foot pump for the windshield washer. Overall the car had a very good ride. The reclining seats worked out great for teenage dating.
Very, very nice car indeed! It’s amazing that back in the day you could pick these up for on the average of $300.00! I don’t know about the price being asked tho by this seller?
My Mom’s folks had Ramblers for as long as I can remember. They were always the base model, vinyl on the floor, radio delete, back to the basics. Yet, they traded about every 3 years. Always white. Then, in the early 70’s they traded for an AMC Concord with several options, including A/C ! They loved Ramblers for their reliability, economical operation, & price.
Always thought these were really cute in convertible form. Knew several people who had Ramblers in the mid 60’s, slow, fairly reliable, good mileage, in those heady days however my tastes ran towards 2 door, 4bbl V-8’s. Older but wiser now. LOL
I have a 63 Ambo 990. Made in Canada and delivered new in the UK with belts, shoulder belts with inertia reel made by Brooks and buckles by Irvin Airchute.
First owner seems to have been a bit of a safety wonk, he ordered a crashpad for the dash then wrote to the UK office complaining that it hadn’t come as standard.
Funnily enough, it had and has single-circuit brakes.
Very nice car, comfortable and smooth with the 112″ wheelbase.