What an elegant and formal-looking car. Even though it may not have been as modern as some other vehicles of its era, it’s hard to argue with this design now. And it’s impossible to argue with the condition of this 1958 Rambler Six Super sedan, it looks nice enough to be in a museum. The seller has it listed here on Hemmings in Anderson, Indiana and they’re asking $19,900 firm!
This Rambler has almost a Soviet or other Eastern Bloc country look to it, especially in black, doesn’t it? Very cool. It really looks like it’s in perfect condition from what I can tell from the photos and with just 17,000 miles it should be. They refer to it as a survivor but it’s been restored and a person could probably do several Ph.D.-level college courses on the difference between a survivor car and one that has been restored, even if it was restored years ago. Thoughts?
To me, a “survivor” is a car that hasn’t been restored and is as original as it left the factory other than regular wear parts and maintenance. But whatever the case here, this car is beautiful. It’s hard to believe that the Rambler Six and Rambler V8 were considered compact cars until you look up the wheelbase of a 2021 Toyota Corolla and realize that the Rambler’s wheelbase is only an inch-and-a-half longer! I would have lost money on that bet.
Restored or original, the interior also looks perfect, and what an interior it is. This one has a three-speed manual with a column shifter and everything inside and outside really does look almost like new. I hate to keep droning on and on about that but it’s not often that we see a car from this vintage in this condition for a hair less than twenty-grand.
The equally clean engine is AMC’s Typhoon 195.6 cubic-inch overhead-valve inline-six which had 127 horsepower and 130 ft-lb of torque. The seller says that it runs and drives like new and I don’t doubt that one bit. Bring your Popeye forearms for this one as there’s no power steering but for weekend cruises that won’t be missed. Unless you restored this car yourself there’s no way the $19,900 asking price would cover a full restoration. Any thoughts on this beautiful Rambler Six?
We can all agree this Rambler “survived” long enough to be restored, right, Scotty?
I like it. I mean, I really, really like it. It comes from an era when manufacturers designed distinctive cars. I prefer this look to the modern “fake airscoops and indentations and sweeps that go nowhere” styling philosophy.
And Ramblers were good cars, as Howard A would attest!
Not sure I’m crazy about the black paint, and the $19K ask is beyond my current resources. But it’s tempting, nonetheless….
Hi Ray, Ramblers were not good cars,,,they were GREAT cars! I too am not crazy about the black paint either, Rambler had such beautiful paint jobs then, sometimes 3 colors. As outlandish as the style of car, I’d have given it pink sides and top or something. In the late 50’s, we were in between wars, things were good, and it was all about expression, and Rambler fit the bill. Ramblers, like I imagine Studebaker, was a regional brand. Outside of the midwest, they, for whatever reason, just weren’t very popular, especially in cities where the “Big 3” had an auto plant, almost like a foreign car, it was to them. I’d say, this car was the beginning of Ramblers “heyday”, lasting into the 60’s and it was our “moment in the sun”, as it were.
I’m not an expert on American Motors cars, but assuming the car was driven carefully and maintained like the car should be throughout its existence, it should still be able to be driven safely under its own power, with no more than careful maintenance.
Howard, Rambler wasn’t a regional brand in 1958 it was national. Only two cars in 1958 set records. The Thunderbird and the Rambler.
George Romney was touting how everyone was driving dinosaurs. He was even on Time magazine. The Rambler was the new sensation that GM and Ford never seen coming. Rambler knocked Plymouth out of fourth place.
I remember coming oh-so-close to putting an offer on a 1959 Ambassador, as glorious as this but with the V8 (327??). Didn’t have the scratch then (maybe $11k?) and don’t have the room now, but it would have been beautiful…even with the Continental kit.
I totally agree Scotty. Beautiful car and for 20K yet another example of the perfect turn key car you can enjoy taking to your local car events. The fact that it is not commonly seen is what makes cars like this special. Yea, I can see where Scotty refers to Eastern Block styling but I like Ramblers C-pillar kink. Sort of a trademark like the Hofmeister kink found on BMW’s. I bet with the six, skinny tires, and probably a steering box with 5 turns lock to lock she steers fine to park.
The Opel Rekord and ’58 Chevies used the same reverse-c-pillar design. I think it’s attractive.
I wonder what the book value would be on this car. Hagerty doesn’t have it, no doubt because it’s relatively obscure, so they don’t have any data on it.
My Mother bought one like this, a 1959, probably around 1969. I recall it was in really excellent shape. I remember being amazed at how nice the car was even back then…the interior was really impressive to me at 11 years old. I bet she paid something like $200 for that car back then.
The book value of this car in #1 condition in 2014 was only $8,300…from Old Cars Report Price Guide.
I love it. So cool. You could do those spark plugs in about 4 or 5 minutes… Water pump in 10… I wish cars were still like this. (except for those God awful whitewalls)
Ramblers, love em. The rear wings look a little like a Mercedes. The c pillar has a look of gms in 58. They were always unique cars, made well.
My mom had a 60 American and my dad had a 60 desoto adventurer, talk about a disparity.
Ramblers were cool compact cars before compact cars were “cool”. Really almost ahead of their time. From ’56 through ’64, they were the “right size” and they looked good too. AMC lost their way when they started making these bigger.
Price is probably wishful thinking despite the condition. I hope someone ends up with it that can maintain it to the same level. This one belongs in a museum.
That’s an incredibly straight body and paint for an incredibly difficult car to get that way.
It is Definately the coolest Rambler I have ever seen.
This is where you throw out the book prices.
What a classy looking ride! I agree with Ray and Howard about black cars; they’re hard to keep clean and they get “swirls”. Still, this one looks amazingly fresh. I’ve kinda wanted one of these Ramblers in driver’s condition. I just like the styling and simplicity.
To get rid of the “swirls” when polishing black cars, I used to dab the application cloth in cornflour when applying the polish, when I had black cars in my younger days.
Interesting trick. I wonder if that would work on a modern clear coat.
These are definitely cool cars though many people looked down on them back in the day.
Minor nit, wasn’t the OHV 195.6 six referred to by AMC as the “Custom Flying Scot” engine? (The old Nash flathead it was derived from was the “Super Flying Scot”).
The Typhoon was the limited-production 1964 Rambler model that introduced the then-new 7-main-bearing 232 six that ultimately was developed into the Jeep 4.0. Additionally, the 1966 290 V8 (first of the new AMC V8 line that year) was called the “Typhoon V8”.
You could be right, That AMC Guy. I was going by how Automobile Catalog referred to it: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1958/2879540/rambler_six_super_4-door_sedan_flash-o-matic.html
But, Hemmings does refer to it as the Custom Flying Scot as you mentioned, at least in a same-era Rambler American. I’d probably trust Hemmings.
I have a 56 with this engine and it was called the Typhoon Six before the 232 six in 64.
From what I remember from my AMC days and from what I’ve read the Typhoon nomenclature was first used by AMC in 1964. I’m pretty sure your car has a Flying Scot series engine.
As a kid I would have laughed at this car and just about anything else that “Rambled”. But that was then.
This car is stunning in multiple ways. Classy, distinctive and appears to be in better than new condition. Oh and the color? Just fine.
It’s in lovely condition and from the rear it does resemble a Mercedes Benz a little. It may also have been an excellent driver and good mechanically. That said, to my eye, it’s a poor design…a shoe box with fins. Compare it stylistically to the 58 Chevy Impala or the 58 Plymouth Fury(?) or the 57 Ford (not 58)….there’s a set of next-to-no fins, small fins, and tall fins. I’d argue that those 3 are much nicer designs than the Rambler. A friend had one (with the pushbutton shifter) and drove it to death…clearly a good vehicle but a less than impressive appearance…in MY eyes.
My Dad had one of these. Apparently they had a ball joint defect. Luckily, his collapsed in a gas station, so no one was harmed. He quickly traded it for a new Chevelle in 1964.
It was more likely the trunnion that gave way and not the ball joint. That could be the weak link in the pre-1970 AMCs.
Nice car, but very wishful thinking at $20,000. No matter if low miles. it is still a Black 4 door sedan, with a 6 cylinder engine, mid level appointments, no power steering or power brakes. Too much money for this type of car. You will never get it back.
Wow, looks like a pleasure to work on under the hood. You could pull the valve cover in 30 seconds with a Phillips bit in an impact driver. I wonder how you’d change the oil filter without making a mess? Looks like its mounted on a plate that maybe unbolts and can pulled away from the engine so you drain it…
If the oil has been drained first (as one would expect), gravity would’ve solved much of that problem. These aren’t too bad, mess-wise, when they’re removed as most of the oil has already drained out of it. And no, you don’t remove the mounting plate!
Nice looking car. I would’ve preferred mine with an automatic gearbox. But overall, I think the car is perfect as it is. Given its condition and rarity, $19,900 is a reasonable asking price. If I were to buy a car like this, though, I be willing to pay $15,000, just so that I can have it inspected and maintenance done on it.
Ramblers were originally compact cars that were ahead of their time. They were inexpensive in comparison to the big three. They ran well and were reliable. They should NOT be compared to Chevys or other cars of their time. They were somewhat smaller in size, and were basically for economy minded people who had to budget when purchasing a car. They dressed up some of their models and still were less expensive than the big three, making those who purchased them feel that they had a nice car in their price range. This car is a cream puff of a car and should be bought by someone who really cares about buying a piece of automobile history, sadly lacking in today’s younger drivers. Simple cars for simple buyers. No hoopla over what was out there, but they got their money’s worth with Ramblers, as well as Studebaker Larks.
As nice as this car is the front seat bottom is not done correctly. That black vinyl is not correct. We recently bought a totally original one in near mint condition for $4600. So the price if a bit off.
These Ramblers had a big flaw, torque tube drive. I recall cutting a 61 up and if I recall the rearend dropped out.
Mid-size Ramblers (Classic/Rebel, Ambassador, Marlin) had torque tube rear suspension through 1966. I believe Chevy’s had torque tubes until 1954 and that was a big contributor to the 55-57 Chevys being so popular with backyard mechanics who like to pull their own transmissions. No so easy with a torque tube where you have to drop the rear end (torque tube) and pull it back!
LOVE the looks of this car, especially the rear 3/4 view. Even before Scotty said it I was thinking, “wow, in black it looks like a Soviet-era Chaika!” These cars were well-made and ahead of their time in their market positioning if not the styling, though as I said this one is stunning. I must disagree with George Reuter regarding the Studebaker Larks; they weren’t even CLOSE to the Rambler in terms of build quality and reliability. The Lark is what eventually took down Studebaker.
Actually, the Lark gave Studebaker a longer life. They wouldn’t have survived much longer than 58 if they hadn’t done something drastic. The Lark was a drastic change, but since they used the same ‘center section’ as the previous cars, it was affordable for a company which had been running in the red for years, particularly after the Packard merger. Brisk sales of the new Lark prolonged their life a few years until they finally ran out of money–a slow death, rather than a quick one (Edsel, DeSoto, et al).
The 59 Lark made a nice profit for Studebaker. The company continued to make small profits for a few years, even with the competition from the Big 3’s new compacts. But, that was not enough for the Board to invest in new models. The company diversified and closed South Bend. Auto production was now a small part of the business and became less important to the corporation each year.
You and Ed P are correct, Chuck, but the Lark, with the exception of the engines, was NOT a good car. It had obsolete suspension, way too much flex in the chassis, and questionable build quality, which is why those who bought them didn’t return for another. By the time Studebaker addressed some of the maladies it was too late. And I STILL hold a grudge for Studebaker destroying Packard! I know it was Packard’s management for essentially “buying” Studebaker, but the latter “merger” destroyed both companies.
I used to know someone who had a 1959 Studebaker Lark. Until I saw one in person, I never found them very attractive to look at.
Puts me in mind of either the 109E Ford Anglia from UK OR the 315 Consul Classic (Also a UK car)