(UPDATED FROM 10/4/2014)
Collectible Automobile’s interviews can be a valuable means of documenting automotive history, but they can also lead us astray due to inaccuracies.
For one thing, the memories of key participants can fade with time. Interviewees may also offer a biased narrative that inordinately burnishes their own legacy or undercuts their rivals.
In addition, the interviewee might have only second-hand knowledge of a key situation — which could turn out to be grounded more in rumor than truth.
This raises an ethical question: What is the responsibility of Collectible Automobile to correct the record if an interviewee makes statements that are questionable — or even obviously untrue?
As a case in point, let’s assess an interview that the magazine conducted with AMC designer Bob Nixon. Even though the interviewer was Patrick Foster — arguably the most prominent historian of American Motors — Nixon said a number of questionable things that went challenged.
This interview was published back in 2014 but is still being quoted by automotive historians (Foster and Glatch, 2024). And because Nixon subsequently died (Tate, 2022), the window for asking him follow-up questions has closed.
Pacer? That little project in the back shop?
As part of his wide-ranging interview, Foster asked Nixon, “One of your better-known designs was the AMC Pacer. We’ve heard it came in wider and heavier than it was supposed to be” (2014, p. 78).
Nixon’s answer was a particularly banal example of ass covering: “The Pacer design was never a priority project at AMC and I don’t remember who the principal designer was. As it was originally designed, the concept was narrower in overall width, and it was a light, fleet-looking car. But at the 11th hour, Engineering/Product Planning said the new government side-impact laws would require us to widen the vehicle considerably — turning the design into a rolling bathtub. In my opinion, the Pacer was the ugliest of all AMC products” (Foster, 2014, p. 79).
Also see ‘Six mistakes that killed the AMC Pacer — and American Moto
I am trying to picture how Nixon could say with a straight face that the Pacer was not a corporate priority. The initial hatchback body style cost $60 million to develop (Foster, 1993). Aaron Severson (2008) quite rightly noted that this “was a lot of money for a cash-strapped company.”
Even when you don’t add in the cost of a subsequent wagon, the Pacer was easily AMC’s most costly redesign of the 1970s, reportedly surpassing the 1970 Hornet and 1974 Matador (Foster, 1993).
The reason the Pacer cost so much was because it was not merely a restyling of an existing platform. The Pacer had an all-new body and chassis that included technology new to AMC, such as rack-and-pinion steering and a front subframe (Wikipedia, 2014).
Pacer was too obese to survive very long
American Motors was small enough that it couldn’t afford to do special one-off designs. Presumably the Pacer’s new-generation platform would have been the basis for a broader line of cars if it had not turned out to be so obese — even compared to Detroit compacts prior to being downsized.
As a case in point, the 1976 Pacer was heavier than a downsized 1978 Chevrolet Malibu (by 115 pounds) and a Ford Fairmont coupe with a six-cylinder engine (by more than 500 pounds).
More ominously, the Pacer wasn’t much lighter than a Ford Granada or a Plymouth Volare coupe even though these were “old-school” designs that were more than two feet longer — and fit six passengers rather than only four.
Is it true that the Pacer’s unusual width was an 11th-hour response to the feds? I question whether it was fair for Nixon to solely blame side-impact standards for the car’s girth. The Pacer’s 77-inch width — right up there with the mid-sized Matador — appears to be mostly driven by stylistic considerations. The car’s sides were given an unusually extreme rake, culminating in an exaggerated crease in the middle of the doors.
Contrary to a myth cultivated by AMC marketeers, the Pacer’s width did not translate into an equivalent increase in interior space. Although the Pacer was six inches wider than AMC’s Hornet and Gremlin, it only had two-and–a-half inches more front shoulder room — and one inch more hip room. In contrast, the Matador sedan had five inches more shoulder and hip room. In the Pacer, space efficiency took a back seat to space-age styling.
The exaggerated side crease didn’t just make the Pacer unnecessarily wide — it also contributed mightily to the car’s “inverted-bathtub” look. In addition, a huge fake roll bar visually split the car in half, thereby making it look shorter and wider. The Pacer was also bestowed with an exceptionally large, rounded butt with a roofline that swept all the way down to the bumper. Now add a rounded front end with inboard headlights reminiscent of the original Ramber — which also looked like a bathtub.
Was it fair to blame it all on management?
Were all of the above-mentioned decisions dictated to the design team from upper management? Mike Rosa’s (2013) story includes illustrations and photographs of Pacer concepts that deviated to varying degrees from the bathtub look. What happened to them?
By the same token, the car’s weight was partly a product of the unusually large amount of glass and the front subframe. The latter was the engineering team’s business, but the amount of glass used would presumably have been the purview of the stylists.
This suggests a follow-up question: Did Nixon think that the Pacer’s exceptionally curved windshield base and ultra-low glass area in the rear of the car have withstood the test of time from a styling standpoint? I don’t. They gave the car awkward proportions and weren’t very practical either.
More modest use of glass could have saved weight and toned down the greenhouse’s heat-trapping predilections. A less cab-forward design would have also given AMC more flexibility with its engine choices.
I find it shocking that earlier versions of the Pacer were apparently not designed to more easily fit the in-house six-cylinder power plant. After all, the rotary engine had huge contingencies ranging from cost and availability to fuel consumption and reliability.
Foster had the background to question Nixon’s take
I suppose it was understandable that Nixon didn’t want to acknowledge who was responsible for a car that was arguably the final nail in AMC’s coffin. However, Foster could have asked obvious follow-up questions.
For example, in his 2013 book, Foster included a photo of “the four great designers who are most responsible for the Pacer program” posing next to a bright-yellow X model: Vince Geraci, Bob Mashigan, Bob Nixon and Richard Teague (p. 140).
Also see ‘Popular Mechanics gives AMC one last chance to spin the Pacer before its launch’
And in a 2005 article for Hemmings, Foster noted that the project was assigned to Mashigan’s Advanced Styling studio.
In his 1993 book, Foster focused more on AMC design chief Richard Teague, who he described as “well pleased” with the initial success of the car because “he had championed the Pacer program, daring the company to take another risk on unique styling” (p. 193).
AMC management clearly took Teague’s dare to heart. Meyers stated, “Everything that we do must distinguish itself as being importantly different than what can be expected from the competition. Otherwise there would be very little reason for somebody to consider American Motors products. . . . ‘Me too’ is wrong for American Motors” (Foster, 2005).
I am not implying that upper management should be given a free pass on the Pacer’s implosion. As a case in point, their gamble on the rotary engine represents a remarkably reckless business decision for such a small and financially fragile automaker.
Collectible Automobile interview was a lost opportunity
My main reaction to Collectible Automobile’s interview of Nixon is that he was unwilling to own up to any mistakes made by the Pacer’s design team. I am also perplexed that he would call the Pacer “the ugliest of all AMC products” (Foster, 2014). Uglier than a 1974 Matador sedan?
All of this raises the question of what responsibility Collectible Automobile magazine should have had in setting the record straight. Foster could have either asked follow-up questions or inserted information into the story such as the importance of the Pacer program.
Perhaps, if left to his own devices, Foster would have done so but Collectible Automobile’s editors didn’t want to ruffle any feathers. Or perhaps Foster didn’t want to risk jeopardizing his future access to Nixon.
Either way, an opportunity was missed to better understand one of the biggest automotive flops of the 1970s.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted Oct. 4, 2014 and updated Dec. 2, 2024. Production figures calculated from Gunnell (2002). Dimensions and weights are from the Automobile Catalog (2024), Gunnell (2002) and the manufacturers.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2024. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed December 1.
- Car and Driver; 1973. “Matador X: It’s unquestionably, this year’s style leader. Published November: pp. 41-46, 104.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——–; 2005. “American Motors’ Pacer: A Piece of Tomorrow.” Hemmings. Posted March.
- ——–; 2013. American Motors Corporation: The Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
- ——–; 2014. “Bob Nixon: Designer of Iconic AMCs.”Collectible Automobile, pp. 74-81. June issue.
- Foster, Patrick R. and Tom Glatch; 2024. The Complete Book of AMC Cars: American Motors Corporation 1954-1988. Motorbooks, Beverly, MA.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Rosa, Mike; 2013. “You only ride like a Pacer if you’re wide like a Pacer.” Autos of Interest. Posted January 28 (link no longer available).
- Severson, Aaron; 2008. “High, Wide, and Handsome: The AMC Pacer.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted April 8.
- Tate, Robert; 2022. “Remembering AMC Designer Bob Nixon.” Motor Cities. Posted May 4.
- Wikipedia; 2014. “AMC Pacer.” Accessed October 4.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Pacer (1975, 1976, 1978)
Part of the challenge here is that former stylists, executives, product planners and others aren’t obligated to talk to anyone after they retire.
The writer for Collectible Automobile (or Hemmings Classic Car, etc.) could question the Bob Nixons of the world aggressively.
But then these publications risk having other retirees, who most likely also read these magazines, simply refuse to sit down for an interview. These publications can’t have a court issue a subpoena and force these people to give interviews.
Collectible Automobile’s use of the “Q and A” format doesn’t help in this regard. If anything, it makes it worse. No one wants to look like he or she is being hard on a genial grandfather or great uncle who agreed to sit down for an interview.
Special Interest Autos writers would often interview the person – or rely on old media interviews – and then have the writer interpret said interview in view of actual facts as part of the final story. (For example, how did the vehicle in question actually sell? Does what this person is saying fit in with known development timelines? Is he or she now contradicting contemporary press accounts or corporate boardroom minutes?) If accurate history is the goal, this would seem to be the more productive approach in the long run.