Car Life magazine argued that the 1970 AMC Hornet met two out of three of the automaker’s stated goals for the car. Engineering Editor David Bean wrote that American Motors thought that the compact and import buyer “wants economy, but he also wants a stylish car, some performance, and a car that is just fun to drive” (1969, p. 45).
Bean concluded that AMC’s redesigned compact “can indeed be considered handsome, and it has surprising economy of space and impressive performance (especially with the 304 V-8). But fun to drive? How can any car be fun to drive with 32:1 steering ratio and a column gear shift?” And while the Hornet did offer an optional heavy-duty suspension, disc brakes were unavailable (1969, p. 45).
To make matters worse, the standard three-speed transmission had a nonsynchronized first gear (Consumer Reports, 1970, p. 213).
For 1970 the Rambler nameplate was dumped in favor of the Hornet, which evoked the legendary Hudson. However, Bean wrote that the Hornet was not the sporty car that the name implied and AMC marketeers said that “semi-enthusiasts want. The young economy-car buyer likes his import not only because it is economical, unique, and even slightly rebellious, but because it is also fun and easy to drive. And he’s not going to like the Hornet (1969, p. 45).”
Car Life wasn’t the only magazine that criticized the Hornet. Consumer Reports complained about the car’s “slow steering” as well as “heavy brake effort” even with power assist (1970, p. 213).
Also see ‘1971 Plymouth Valiant sedan impressed media more than buying public’
One way that Car Life succumbed to AMC’s marketing schtick was to suggest that the Hornet was space efficient. Even the magazine’s own data table showed that the Hornet had less hip and head room than the Rambler it replaced — the result of a lower and more fuselage-shaped greenhouse.
In most interior dimensions the Hornet had less room than a Valiant sedan or Chevrolet Nova. Perhaps just as importantly, the unusually sloping windshield, tumblehome and thick C-pillars gave the car a more claustrophobic feeling.
Does this explain the Hornet’s less-than-stellar sales?
Might these mixed reviews have contributed to the Hornet’s underwhelming sales? Only 101,000 Hornets left the factory in 1970. This was a 3.6 percent boost over the previous-year’s aging Rambler, but that’s not terribly great given that the Hornet was the only all-new compact in 1970 aside from the Ford Maverick and this was a banner year for economy cars due to a recession.
For example, Plymouth Valiant output more than doubled to roughly 268,000 units and the Maverick almost hit 579,000 in an extended model year (the car was introduced in the spring of 1969).
Also see ‘1970 Ford Maverick gets surprisingly critical take from Motor Trend’
Note that the Hornet did poorly against the Maverick even though it had a four-door model, V8 engine, roomier back seat and amenities such as a glove box.
AMC’s weak compact sales in 1970 represented a marked contrast from the last time this field saw booming sales in 1960. Back then the automaker’s production of compact cars (excluding the Ambassador) reached 435,000 units.
To be fair, one could argue that the Gremlin stole some of the Hornet’s thunder when it was introduced in April 1970. Almost 29,000 units were produced during the short model year. Both cars did somewhat better in 1971, but American Motors was still a minor player in the compact and subcompact markets.
Hornet reflected big investment in AMC’s new direction
The mediocre performance of the Hornet was ominous because this was the first major redesign developed under the leadership of Roy D. Chapin Jr. The Hornet’s sleek new body and sportier name were supposed to wash away American Motors’ reputation for building stodgy cars for little old ladies. The cost of the car’s development — $40 million — represented a huge investment for the tiny automaker at a time when sales and profitability had been shaky.
Indie Auto has previously questioned whether AMC should have spent so much on a new body when it could have generated a profit on the modestly-selling Javelin by basing an entire lineup on its body (go here). And given how much brand equity the Rambler had built up, killing that nameplate for one that didn’t really fit the image of an economy compact was arguably a big mistake (go here).
Car Life didn’t raise those kind of questions about AMC’s new direction, but its criticism of the Hornet brings up an obvious one: Might the car have been more successful at the outset if it offered sporty equipment that appealed to import intenders, such as a floor shifter, quick-ratio steering, disc brakes and a four-speed transmission?
It’s true that AMC would add most of those features in subsequent years, but that was arguably too little, too late. The Hornet would become known as just another American compact.
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures are from auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Automobile Catalog (2023), Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed Nov. 7.
- Bean, David; 1969. “1970 Hornet.” Car Life. September issue: pp. 45-47. Archived at Automobile History Preservation Society.
- Consumer Reports; 1970. “Auto Buying Guide. April edition (link unavailable).
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Hornet (1970); Ford Maverick (1970); Plymouth Valiant Duster (1970)
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Hornet (1973)
I don’t believe that AMC made a huge mistake with the Hornet; the American it replaced was already six years old and crying for a redesign, nevermind that it was slightly roomier than the Hornet. Nor do I believe that it should’ve been much bigger than it turned out; the midsize Rebel only had six inches more wheelbase. I don’t even blame AMC for spinning the Gremlin off from the Hornet; they were almost flat busted at that point and there was no way they could afford to do a “proper” Vega/Pinto fighter.
No, where AMC failed was in 1975, they sank $50 million into the Pacer; a car that sold well for about 18 months and then withered away on the vine. That money should have been spent instead on redoing (and maybe renaming) the Hornet/Gremlin; which had already been on the market for five years and was ripe for a redesign. With the failure of the Pacer, AMC was committed to just doing one facelift after another to keep the existing Hornet going all the way until 1988; much the same way Studebaker had been forced to keep putting one new dress after another on the old girl that was their ’53 model all the way until their demise in ’66.
Bob, I’d agree that the Pacer was AMC’s fatal mistake and that all that money would have been far better spent updating the Hornet-based lineup. As I’ve previously discussed (go here), the Hornet body did prove to be a pretty good buy for AMC because it was modern enough to be kept in production for a remarkably long period of time.
My main beef is that by coming out with a brand-new compact body in 1970 rather than drawing upon the Javelin’s, AMC had no hope of generating a profit from its modestly selling pony car. In addition, the Javelin body was essentially a compact version of the 1967 redesigned mid-sized platform. AMC could have continued the approach used by Romney where the two bodies shared components such as doors. That may not sound very sexy, but AMC was so small that it arguably needed to pay more attention to maximizing economies of scale than the Big Three automakers.
The Hudson studio Javelin 4dr sedan proposal showed a lot of styling potential! I’m not sure how that variant would have delivered interior measurements that could stack up against GM’s Chevy 68 Nova or Chevelle-type cars but it certainly looks attractive.
AMC was in a strange position by 1970. For a brand which had been riding high ten years earlier to have fallen so low in such a short time… Yes, I know the big three had invaded what had been AMC’s segment of the market, and I know there was that doomed-to-fail attempt to take on the big three instead of improving what they did make, but looking at things from the customer’s point of view, AMC had become sort of “Oh yeah, there’s them as well.” Studebaker died in 1966, so quite fresh in people’s minds – were AMC already being seen as the next Studebaker?
The problem was not only that the Big Three were playing in AMC’s territory, but that in some ways they offered better product, and to the customer it seemed as though AMC didn’t, or couldn’t, respond to the challenge. Could they have continued the Rambler, as Chrysler continued the Dart and Valiant? Against these, the Rambler had the disadvantage of being a rather pleasant-looking but ordinary product from a comparatively weak company. So I can see why they felt a change was needed.
But the Hornet did not go far enough. Why couldn’t it have been made fun to drive? Why couldn’t the steering have been improved? Why didn’t it have disc brakes? Offering a stylish new body was all very well (although those C-pillars were too thick, and I would have trimmed down those wheel arch flares a bit), but beyond that it appeared to be business as usual – at a time when the market was becoming accustomed to expect something better rather than just something ‘new’. Did anyone in AMC’s management have any concept of what was fun to drive?
Somewhere in my magazine stash/’archive’ I have an Australian test of the Rambler Hornet, as it was called here. I’ll find it if you’re interested. I remember them mentioning that AMI fitted the Javelin’s front discs for local production, in response to Australian expectations. But the steering still had way too many turns lock-to-lock; it needed better front end geometry and/or power steering. It was marketed here as a luxury compact as it couldn’t compete with the local Big Three on price (due to tariffs on a CKD kit versus local manufacture). The general verdict was ‘It’s okay if you want something different, but…’.
AMC needed a difference to sell. The Hornet wasn’t different enough.
I happen to like AMC Products, and I’m currently considering the purchase of a 1955 Hudson Hornet Super sedan with the Packard 320 V8. I’ve had several early Javelin and AMX cars. That said:
In the early 1970s while attending college, I worked part time at Jet Rent-A-Car, located in Silver Spring, MD, right across the street from Safford Rambler. The boss knew Mr. Safford, so he bought a fleet of Hornets [perhaps a nest of Hornets?].
Jet made local car rentals, and was used by insurance companies to provide customers with cars while their vehicles were in the shop for accident repairs. We had to keep prices as cheap as possible, so we rented only compact cars; Hornet, VW bug, Maverick and Nova.
Our customers typically hated the Hornets, and once they had over 30,000 miles on them, they began to fall apart and require far more service and repairs than the other cars. And for some strange reason all the Hornets began to have a bad smell inside the cars. Not just one or 2, but all the Hornets. I can remember one lady, a nurse, who said the inside of the Hornet she was picking up smelled like Cancer.
This is where C.E.O. Roy D. Chapin, Jr. (1967-1977) was failing A.M.C.: A clean-sheet vehicle introduced for 1970 should have offered rack-and-pinion steering, a fully synchronized manual transmission AND front disc-brakes STANDARD. My money in 1970-1971 would have purchased a Nova or a Valiant-Dart !
Engineering clearly took a back seat to management under Chapin’s tenure. Had AMC targeted the Toyota Corona, for example, the result could have been a lighter, more space-efficient Hornet sedan that was advanced far beyond its predecessor, the Rambler American.
Absolutely agree that a 4-speed, fully synchronized transmission, disc brakes and rack & pinion steering needed to be standard equipment. I would also add to that list: standard reclining bucket seats, full carpeting, styled steel wheels, a much better dashboard than the cheap, molded plastic affair that the Hornet originally came with, electric wipers and a modern, lighter front suspension. Lower weight would have allowed AMC’s 6-cylinder engines to offer better performance and economy, plus eliminate the need to offer a V8. Adjacent to this, a high-performance version of the 258 CID six could have been developed, along with a sports-tuned suspension package.
I don’t see any reason why the car could not have been marketed as the Rambler Hornet, at least initially. The Rambler name could easily have been de-emphasized in advertising with the name even being left off the actual cars. Eventually, Hornet could have become its own brand, which, considering the different variations AMC came up with over the Hornet’s lifespan, I don’t think is implausible. I would go further to say that such a Hornet would have made the Gremlin unnecessary. Positioning the Hornet as sized and priced between Vega/Pinto and Maverick/Nova/Valiant, along with an aggressive marketing/pricing campaign might have increased sales beyond what the Gremlin achieved. I can imagine AMC advertising touting the Hornet as “Better-equipped, better-built, better backed” (think an earlier BBP), specifically targeting the bare-bones, underpowered Maverick as justification for buyers to upgrade to a Hornet.
Finally, imagine if AMC had eschewed Detroit group-think as it moved into the 1970s, the nearly $100 million spent on the ill-fated, ill-timed Matador coupe and Pacer, could and should have been put towards developing the Hornet platform for at least the next decade. The result would have been a much more efficient, fun to drive “mid-size” compact that North American car buyers discovered to be a genuine alternative to Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans.
Further to my previous comment regarding Car Life Magazine’s impression of the 1970 AMC Hornet, I have a few ideas about where else AMC might have gone with new car development in the 1970s.
1. Dump the Rebel/Matador. AMC struggled in the low end of the mid-size car field and had no hope of catching up to the competition, therefore it makes sense to me to ditch the Rebel at the end of MY 1970 and forget about turning it into the Matador.
2. Drop the Javelin after 1970.
3. No Gremlin; see my Hornet comment.
4. Up-style the Rebel, rechristen it the Ambassador. Stop production of the 2-door, focus on sedans and wagons only. Target it as a new for MY 1971 luxury mid-size car (primarily against Cutlass and Skylark), offer base (Ambassador) and deluxe (DPL) trims only, with a single displacement V8 in 2 or 4 bbl form. Keep AC as standard equipment, and add power steering, power front disc brakes and automatic transmission to the list.
5. Confine large V8s to Jeep products only, as needed. Less expense re emissions upgrading as the vehicles would not be not classified as cars by the EPA.
6. Take a page from 1960s VW advertising and focus on how AMC is not going to make changes for the sake of change. Instead, focus on continual quality and engineering improvements. Paired down to just two platforms, the Hornet and Ambassador, this should be easily accomplished; would have made the BBP even more viable.
7. Add a Hornet hatchback in 1972 instead of 1973 and offer it with a high-performance 6 under the hood and a “sports tuned suspension”.
8. Invest more money in modernizing the original Jeep Cherokee and the highly profitable Wagoneer (especially the interiors).
9. Vote down any notion of buying Wankel rotary engines from GM. Instead, look to a Japanese car-maker to assist in developing/sharing modern, fuel-efficient 4 and 6 cylinder engines, eventually targeting adoption of fuel injection and adaptability to both Hornet and future Jeep platforms.
10. Drop the Hornet Sportabout; replace for MY 1977 with a squared off long-roof, the better to compete with the ill-fated Volare/Aspen wagons.
11. Follow through on development of a smaller than Jeep CJ to be called the Jeep Rambler (a la the Suzuki Sidekick) to be readied for production in the early 1980s and to be marketed internationally in both left and right-hand drive versions; helps keep AMC relevant in international markets.
12. Set a target date for ending production of the Ambassador platform and consolidating all of AMC’s passenger cars on a single, modular platform, but ensure that this is accomplished by 1978 at the latest.
Just some fun, off-the-top of the head ideas…. Anyone else have thoughts on how AMC might have moved through the 1970s and into the 1980s?
CJ, your scenario makes a lot of sense. I think that it’s worth entertaining these kind of ideas in order to push back against a fairly common view that AMC’s prospects were hopeless because the automaker was too small to be competitive. Other smaller automakers such as Subaru, Mazda and BMW have shown that smart management can at least partly make up for small size.
I once owned a 1970 Hornet. It was a very basic two door, 18 years old when I got it but rust free and low miles. The classic only driven to church on Sunday car. My grandparents on each side both had Hornets at one time. One a nice 1977 D/L l, the other a penalty box 70 or 71.
My recollection of these cars is they were agricultural at best. Car Life is sp9t on. I liked how they looked. They drive like a Case cultivator. Vacuum wipers in 1970! The bumpy ride. The slow steering and handling. The odd but normal mechanical sounds. The terrible bench seat (from a company famous for reclining seats). Need I go on?
Despite this I’m somewhat nostalgic for AMC cars. I imagine a world where AMC said let’s build a scaled up Corona and compete hard on economy and quality. In 2023 its difficult to imagine them surviving as an independent auto maker but they would have had perhaps a longer better run.