Poll
Question:
Pacer or Gremlin
Option 1: Pacer
votes: 5
Option 2: Gremlin
votes: 8
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/AMC_pacer_082009_D42119.jpg)
(http://cdn3.3dtuning.com/info/AMC%20Gremlin%20X%201970%203%20Door%20Hatchback/factory/1.jpg)
Gremlin all day, every day.
I think I'd rather have the Pacer
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 23, 2016, 06:52:22 PM
I think I'd rather have the Pacer
Damn hippies :facepalm:
Ugly little turds.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 23, 2016, 07:06:59 PM
The Pacer also had an available V8
But was it a super car?
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/8016cd7b607801925a261bccf244057d/tumblr_nqivl8xuEe1rz6b2ao1_1280.jpg)
I've always liked the Gremlin.
Pacer for me.
AMC not only tore-up the rulebook, they went one step further and burned the ripped pages. Then, they stomped on the ashes and spat on them! You have to admire that sort of iconoclastic thinking! Oh sure, the execution was utterly shambolic in a way that only a bunch of Wisconsin cheeseheads from Kenosha could manage. But consider that AMC designed, developed and engineered this car, all the while working from a budget that was less than what GM spends on designing a new lug nut.
With better execution plus at least some semblance of quality control and a much more efficient engine, the Pacer could have heralded a revolution in car design instead of just being an almost forgotten oddity.
Gremlin was a Hornet with the back chopped off. I had the distinct displeasure of having to drive one for a week way back then. Not a good experience.
Pacer was different. They invested in a bit of design and innovation. The end result was just too damned ugly.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 23, 2016, 07:46:40 PM
Gremlin was a Hornet with the back chopped off. I had the distinct displeasure of having to drive one for a week way back then. Not a good experience.
Pacer was different. They invested in a bit of design and innovation. The end result was just too damned ugly.
Yeah, the Pacer was an ambitious concept that they ran out of money on and then decided to slap the body on top of- a Hornet with the back end chopped off.
Pacer had more room, but if I was forced to choose, I'd get the Gremlin, but only if forced to.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 24, 2016, 12:24:47 AM
Yeah, the Pacer was an ambitious concept that they ran out of money on and then decided to slap the body on top of- a Hornet with the back end chopped off.
Pacer had more room, but if I was forced to choose, I'd get the Gremlin, but only if forced to.
You disappoint me, but somehow I knew you would be a Gremlin guy. You like boxy malaise iron.
Just by virtue of less choking pollution controls, the Gremlin. If I were given a choice of AMC models from that era, I'd go with:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/1970_AMC_Javelin_SST_in_bitter_sweet_orange.jpg)
Based on styling alone since I know little about the cars themselves, Gremlin all the way.
The Gremlin is probably the better [built] car, but the Pacer does "look better" in its own way.
Both can't match the elegance and design qualities of a '74 Monaco, however. :praise:
To create the Gremlin, AMC's designers simply took a Sawzall to the back of a Hornet coupe. The Pacer, on the other hand, was a bold attempt to reevaluate the entire idea of how a car should carry people. However, this innovation came at a price. Many blame the development costs of the Pacer for bankrupting AMC and forcing them into a shotgun marriage with Renault.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Funny how the Pacer was supposed to be an "economy car", yet it was planned to equip it with a Wankel engine (made by GM if IIRC). Wankel engines and fuel economy don't go together.
Also, AFAIK the Pacer came with a 4.2-l inline-6 which wasn't fuel efficient at all. To my knowledge this was because of the lack of funds to develop a more efficient engine. Correct?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 25, 2016, 09:19:58 AM
Funny how the Pacer was supposed to be an "economy car", yet it was planned to equip it with a Wankel engine (made by GM if IIRC). Wankel engines and fuel economy don't go together.
Also, AFAIK the Pacer came with a 4.2-l inline-6 which wasn't fuel efficient at all. To my knowledge this was because of the lack of funds to develop a more efficient engine. Correct?
You're mixing up the Pacer with the Chevy Vega.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the Pacer was originally meant to have a Wankel rotary and then they changed their plan to buy the new rotary engine that GM was developing. GM dropped the development of their rotary and AMC scrambled to shove their own inline 6 into the Pacer. I had to look this up because it matched what I remembered about the Pacer. My parents bought a sky blue Pacer when I was young. I don't have a lot of memories of it because it was a lemon and they got rid of it. Oddly enough my dad later bought a Vega. Sometimes I think he was a glutton for punishment.
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 25, 2016, 10:31:39 AM
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the Pacer was originally meant to have a Wankel rotary and then they changed their plan to buy the new rotary engine that GM was developing. GM dropped the development of their rotary and AMC scrambled to shove their own inline 6 into the Pacer. I had to look this up because it matched what I remembered about the Pacer.
All correct. Also, conspiracy theorists have suggested the primary reason GM shelved their rotary engine was a deliberate effort to put AMC out of business. I somehow doubt that is true, but rabid AMC loyalists swear by this story.
There's no way AMC would have survived
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 25, 2016, 04:19:05 PM
There's no way AMC would have survived
If you go back to about 1970, you can come up with a series of "what-ifs" that might result in Chrysler being sold to AMC after a government bailout of AMC- instead of the other way around.
But yeah, you're basically right.
I think a 2016 AMC would be a cheap, underdeveloped piece of shit. Kinda like a Chrysler, but worse.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 25, 2016, 04:19:05 PM
There's no way AMC would have survived
If they kept making the Eagle, sales would have soared around the turn of the century.
Maybe Jeep would have kept them afloat.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 25, 2016, 05:05:22 PM
If they kept making the Eagle, sales would have soared around the turn of the century.
If they had not financed The Pacer Project and instead out money into developing a Better Eagle, then- well at least that would be an AMC I'd want; so it means they would have survived, right?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 25, 2016, 05:10:18 PM
Maybe Jeep would have kept them afloat.
Jeep doesn't keep companies afloat; Jeep makes companies worth something to the next buyer.
Jeep = license to print money
Without Jeep, FCA would be a charity case.
Quote from: MX793 on February 25, 2016, 09:59:52 AM
You're mixing up the Pacer with the Chevy Vega.
GM planned to equip the Vega with a rotary?
Yes, they did. Do a google search for "GM rotary engine", you'll find many pictures of the two-rotor engine planned for the Vega and a few of the four-rotor prototype used in the Aerovette concept.
GM cancelled the project for the same reasons everyone except Mazda stopped developing and testing Wankel engines: they made decent power but the emissions out the tailpipe were high and the fuel efficiency was low. When GM cancelled the project AMC had to improvise, and pushed the firewall of the Pacer back to fit their straight-six engines in instead. You can see that just by looking under the hood of one. Look how far under the cowl the engine goes:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/qkbq6r9y09cnuzzyhgu4.jpg)
I'm surprised they didn't try and develop a FWD layout for the car; a transverse 4cyl would have fit great.
But they likely didn't have the tooling or any sort of FWD transaxle lying around
Well, it was intended to be FWD too.
Weird things happen when you try to put straight 6 RWD chassis into a fishbowl intended for a front wheel drive Wankel.
AMC didn't have a 4 cylinder in 1975 when the Pacer came out. They started buying I4s from VW/Audi in the late 70s and then used Iron Dukes from GM into the mid 80s before finally introducing their own I4.
In fact I don't think either of AMC's predecessor companies (Nash and Hudson) had ever made a four-cylinder engine. Maybe the Ramblers of the late 19th and early 20th century had four-bangers, I don't know.
But yeah, they didn't start selling their own four-cylinder engines until the 1984 model year in base-model Eagles and Jeeps.
Well, the Metropolitan was a four banger.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 29, 2016, 04:59:37 PM
Well, the Metropolitan was a four banger.
I think that was an Austin engine.
Quote from: shp4man on February 29, 2016, 05:01:13 PM
I think that was an Austin engine.
The entire car was manufactured by BMC.
Quote from: 93JC on February 29, 2016, 12:46:21 PM
In fact I don't think either of AMC's predecessor companies (Nash and Hudson) had ever made a four-cylinder engine. Maybe the Ramblers of the late 19th and early 20th century had four-bangers, I don't know.
But yeah, they didn't start selling their own four-cylinder engines until the 1984 model year in base-model Eagles and Jeeps.
Kaiser Jeep had one when AMC bought Jeep, but I think AMC killed that motor almost immediately after buying the brand (that the motor was over 20 years old at the time didn't help it any).
Quote from: MX793 on February 29, 2016, 10:08:55 AM
AMC didn't have a 4 cylinder in 1975 when the Pacer came out. They started buying I4s from VW/Audi in the late 70s and then used Iron Dukes from GM into the mid 80s before finally introducing their own I4.
Yep, AMC bought 2.0 litre engines from VW/Audi beginning in 1977 and the 2.5 litre Pontiac Iron Duke beginning in 1980.
Funny thing is, AMC announced its partnership with Renault in March 1978, so why didn't they switch to Renault engines? I can understand if AMC may have been contractually obligated to buy engines from VW/Audi for a certain period of time but, considering the Renault connection, I wonder why AMC felt the need to buy engines from GM. I mean, its not as if Renault didn't already have a whole slew of four cylinder engines at their disposal which they could have supplied to AMC. Renault would have probably given AMC a sweetheart deal, too.
It just seems strange to me that AMC had to go begging, hat in hand, to General Motors when they could have just picked up the phone and dialed their buddies in France.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Renault engines didn't meet US emissions.
Quote from: 93JC on February 28, 2016, 08:48:52 PM
Yes, they did. Do a google search for "GM rotary engine", you'll find many pictures of the two-rotor engine planned for the Vega and a few of the four-rotor prototype used in the Aerovette concept.
GM cancelled the project for the same reasons everyone except Mazda stopped developing and testing Wankel engines: they made decent power but the emissions out the tailpipe were high and the fuel efficiency was low. When GM cancelled the project AMC had to improvise, and pushed the firewall of the Pacer back to fit their straight-six engines in instead. You can see that just by looking under the hood of one. Look how far under the cowl the engine goes:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/qkbq6r9y09cnuzzyhgu4.jpg)
It's interesting how different companies planned on using the Wankel engine in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mercedes-Benz planned on using them in a performance / GT car.
GM planned to use them in economy cars.
Citroen used them in the GS family economy car and the M35 testcar.
Mazda used them for everything - family sedan, sports car and GT cars.
:lol:
Damn, that engine bay looks tight! Theoretically the Pacer should have had good handling with the engine pushed back so far behind the front axle. But I suspect the car was let down by a wobbly and soft suspension, eh?
Quote from: Madman on February 29, 2016, 09:53:24 PM
Yep, AMC bought 2.0 litre engines from VW/Audi beginning in 1977 and the 2.5 litre Pontiac Iron Duke beginning in 1980.
Funny thing is, AMC announced its partnership with Renault in March 1978, so why didn't they switch to Renault engines? I can understand if AMC may have been contractually obligated to buy engines from VW/Audi for a certain period of time but, considering the Renault connection, I wonder why AMC felt the need to buy engines from GM. I mean, its not as if Renault didn't already have a whole slew of four cylinder engines at their disposal which they could have supplied to AMC. Renault would have probably given AMC a sweetheart deal, too.
It just seems strange to me that AMC had to go begging, hat in hand, to General Motors when they could have just picked up the phone and dialed their buddies in France.
And if memory serves me right, at the time Renault was producing FWD cars with longitudinally-mounted engines, so fitting them under the bonnet of a "FWD Pacer" would have been no problem. Around the same time, though, Renault was, if IIRC, also slowly switching over to transversely-mounted motors in their cars.
GM had intended to use rotaries in both economy and performance cars. There was a rotary Corvette concept. Also the Monza sport coupe was slated for one.
The Pacer X was supposedly a very nicely sorted out handler.
Quote from: Madman on February 29, 2016, 09:53:24 PM
Funny thing is, AMC announced its partnership with Renault in March 1978, so why didn't they switch to Renault engines? I can understand if AMC may have been contractually obligated to buy engines from VW/Audi for a certain period of time but, considering the Renault connection, I wonder why AMC felt the need to buy engines from GM. I mean, its not as if Renault didn't already have a whole slew of four cylinder engines at their disposal which they could have supplied to AMC. Renault would have probably given AMC a sweetheart deal, too.
It just seems strange to me that AMC had to go begging, hat in hand, to General Motors when they could have just picked up the phone and dialed their buddies in France.
I bet the deal with GM was far better than they could have had from Renault. I wouldn't presume Renault would have given them a sweetheart deal at all. The experience buying Audi engines was a complete failure; four-cylinder Gremlin sales were putrid in no small part because the four-cylinder engine was so expensive in the first place that it had to be made an option. I'm sure that buying another European engine, even if it was from a corporate partner, would have seemed like a bad idea at the time.
You characterize buying the engines from GM as "begging, hat in hand," but there's no reason to believe that: GM was a huge company that would have amortized the cost of the production of their engines over hundreds of thousands of units every year. I bet they gave AMC a great deal.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 01, 2016, 09:54:16 AM
The Pacer X was supposedly a very nicely sorted out handler.
The Pacer was one of the first cars in North America with rack and pinion steering. (I think the Pinto and/or Mustang II was first.)
Quote from: 93JC on March 01, 2016, 12:16:02 PM
The Pacer was one of the first cars in North America with rack and pinion steering. (I think the Pinto and/or Mustang II was first.)
In or from North America?
The Datsun 240Z had rack and pinion in 1970
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 01, 2016, 05:11:54 PM
In or from North America?
The Datsun 240Z had rack and pinion in 1970
RX-7 had circulating balls until 1985, so raknpinyn obviously is not so great.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 01, 2016, 05:21:43 PM
RX-7 had circulating balls until 1985, so raknpinyn obviously is not so great.
They could have had rack and pinion if they hadn't blown all their money on spinny triangles
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 01, 2016, 05:11:54 PM
In or from North America?
The Datsun 240Z had rack and pinion in 1970
I said "one of the first"...
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 01, 2016, 05:11:54 PM
In or from North America?
The Datsun 240Z had rack and pinion in 1970
The 1959 Triumph Herald had rack-and-pinion steering and BMW used it as far back as the 1930s.
I miss the recirculating-ball steering system in my ex-1985 300SE W126! :wub:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on March 05, 2016, 11:00:25 AM
I miss the recirculating-ball steering system in my ex-1985 300SE W126! :wub:
So much H&H™ in those balls; they have recirculated so many times.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 05, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
So much H&H™ in those balls; they have recirculated so many times.
:lol: