GTP Cool Wall: 1970-1978 AMC Gremlin
- Thread starter GranTurismo916
- 146 comments
- 11,435 views
INEEDNAWZZZ
Premium
- 1,828
- Lincoln
- EGGSBAWCKS
- DigitalLuke64DD
Probably wasn't a cool car to be seen in back in the day (even in the chintzy 70s no less) and - as the first page quite clearly shows - is talked about today in terms of engine specs and 'untapped potential', which give this a solid uncool, almost seriously so.
I will point out that I actually love the Gremlin in a strange way, especially in white with the red hockey striping down the sides:
I will point out that I actually love the Gremlin in a strange way, especially in white with the red hockey striping down the sides:
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Sub Zero because V8 subcompact hatchback 
- 23,800
- Philippines
My nine-year old daughter could have designed a better car.
She did, in fact. When she was four.
Sorry. Can't be bothered to stir up any enthusiasm over the fact that if you take a full-sized car and chop the back end off (this, literally is how they created the Gremlin... didn't even have to look it up, except to find out that the front end came from the Hornet), you can still put a full-sized engine out in front.
Wow. Big shock.
The radical design could have been improved, in my eyes, if they sacrificed a few inches off the front to allow for a longer wheelbase and some added character to the tail. Then again, its not my car.
The rear end, however, isn't the big issue. The big issue is that the Hornet front end seems entirely unsuited to the radical rear... an issue solved with the Pacer, which was a more complete, more rounded-off design.
I actually like the Pacer... however horrible it may be in real life, because it's an interesting design. This just strikes me as lazy.
She did, in fact. When she was four.
Sorry. Can't be bothered to stir up any enthusiasm over the fact that if you take a full-sized car and chop the back end off (this, literally is how they created the Gremlin... didn't even have to look it up, except to find out that the front end came from the Hornet), you can still put a full-sized engine out in front.
Wow. Big shock.
The radical design could have been improved, in my eyes, if they sacrificed a few inches off the front to allow for a longer wheelbase and some added character to the tail. Then again, its not my car.
The rear end, however, isn't the big issue. The big issue is that the Hornet front end seems entirely unsuited to the radical rear... an issue solved with the Pacer, which was a more complete, more rounded-off design.
I actually like the Pacer... however horrible it may be in real life, because it's an interesting design. This just strikes me as lazy.
- 16,060
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
It's hideous! Why put a V8 in a compact car? Seriously Uncool
Sage Ages
(Banned)
- 12,817
- Antarctica
The same reason every other manufacturer does it. Light car with a powerful motor. It's a simple formula that's been done forever. Chrysler did it. Toyota did it. AMG calls it an average Tuesday.
Unfortunately, this one didn't really work out.
Last edited:
- 3,461
- Melbourne
- 3,461
- Melbourne
It's still (the Torana) a horrible car, v8 aside.
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
This is SZ. Yet a 1.6 I-4 Kent engine from Ford that made 86hp is "blah".
Yes I know the engines were strangled from the emissions regulations but even still, needing an extra 4 cylinders and over 3000cc more to make an extra 60hp is pathetic.
Anyway for the Gremlin, uncool. The only cool AMC's are the Javelin and Hornet.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,368
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Ahh but you can easily and cheaply modify the AMC engine to produce more, is the argument I foresee in reply.
Which of course is true, but the exact same can be said of the Kent engine, hence its popularity in motorsport and it being the same block that became the BD series of engines, an aluminium block version of which was used by two formula one teams!
However ones not American, so it must be 'blah'.
- 40,740
A few things:
1: The 401 engine never dipped under 190 horsepower. It certainly didn't in 1972, when the conversions were built. AMC simply discontinued it when it became clear the power couldn't be kept high enough to justify it, much like Chrysler did with the 440 that had similarly skirted emissions regulations.
2: The Randall Gremlins were built by essentially sending 1972 Javelin AMX engines to the dealer to do the conversion. There is no reason to believe that the 401 Gremlins didn't produce around the same 255 Hp that the 401 Javelin AMX did.
3: The arguments about how American companies just refused to get with the times and update to newer engine designs are irrelevant. This isn't GM, who had over half of the American market share and practically infinite engineering resources across the world but still 🤬 out things like the HT4100 and Vega engine because they didn't want to spend too much. This isn't even Chrysler, who had huge ideas but only enough money to half ass them.
This is perennial underdog AMC, who by 1970 already saw the sky starting to fall. The Gremlin was a cheap design literally drawn on an airsick bag to try to get out so AMC had product during the downsizing frenzy (ironically ending up with something that wasn't really any worse than any other small car of the period) . It shared engines and drivetrain and body parts with an existing AMC car. "Just make new engines" wasn't something they could do, and when they tried (with the Pacer) it blew up in their face.
4: It's also not particularly surprising that a dozen posts arguing about how important specific output is that no one (on either side, which is somewhat surprising) actually checked to see if what they were arguing about actually applied.
Incidentally:
1: The 401 engine never dipped under 190 horsepower. It certainly didn't in 1972, when the conversions were built. AMC simply discontinued it when it became clear the power couldn't be kept high enough to justify it, much like Chrysler did with the 440 that had similarly skirted emissions regulations.
2: The Randall Gremlins were built by essentially sending 1972 Javelin AMX engines to the dealer to do the conversion. There is no reason to believe that the 401 Gremlins didn't produce around the same 255 Hp that the 401 Javelin AMX did.
3: The arguments about how American companies just refused to get with the times and update to newer engine designs are irrelevant. This isn't GM, who had over half of the American market share and practically infinite engineering resources across the world but still 🤬 out things like the HT4100 and Vega engine because they didn't want to spend too much. This isn't even Chrysler, who had huge ideas but only enough money to half ass them.
This is perennial underdog AMC, who by 1970 already saw the sky starting to fall. The Gremlin was a cheap design literally drawn on an airsick bag to try to get out so AMC had product during the downsizing frenzy (ironically ending up with something that wasn't really any worse than any other small car of the period) . It shared engines and drivetrain and body parts with an existing AMC car. "Just make new engines" wasn't something they could do, and when they tried (with the Pacer) it blew up in their face.
4: It's also not particularly surprising that a dozen posts arguing about how important specific output is that no one (on either side, which is somewhat surprising) actually checked to see if what they were arguing about actually applied.
Incidentally:
I know you're attempting to portray hypocrisy on Slash's part, but we actually got the 1.6l Kent in the Pinto in 1972. Adjusted for American emissions, it made 54hp. So about 4 times the size for about 5 times the horsepower doesn't personally bother me too much.
Last edited:
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
So, it's a little under-powered, but that's mitigated by the low weight? And considering its competition, it stacks up fairly well? And it needs to be viewed through the lens of the societal/political/economic realities of the time and place in which it existed?
This is almost the exact argument that is presented to you whenever you dismiss "underpowered" European/Japanese small cars.
Insert "American" for "European/Japanese," and "underpowered V8" for "underpowered 4-cylinder," and suddenly it's a completely different outcome? Not that I'm surprised, mind you; I'm just amused at how clear it is that you judge American cars by a completely different set of criteria than you do foreign cars.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
Okay so I'm going to try and inject some sense here...
American engines post 1974 were junk. Not total junk, but there was more to their failure than restrictive exhaust. The heads were bad, the fueling was unreliable and poorly optimized. It is true that much of this was due to emissions, the fuel crisis, and the 55mph speed limit. And yes, you can take a V8 from the 70's and make a good motor with new exhaust, heads, cam, and other stuff. I do not believe that I would be able to double the power output of a 150hp engine by only changing exhaust/emissions equipment. If there is test data to suggest otherwise I would love to see it. The engine shares the same basic architecture as the 400hp+ engines in the 60's, but it's not the same engine.
I think these discussions need to find a middle ground between "All you gotta do is lick the 5th cylinder intake port and you'll get 500hp! Few simple mods! Underrated by 50% from the factory!" and "American motors are designed by chimps, built by apes, and blah blah specific output." They both substitute an incredible amount of interesting substance and facts for baloney. This goes for doing comparisons of engines in the 1960's, the 1970's-late 80's, and modern engines. Honestly they should be treated as separate discussions. But nationalism over engines? For real?
Also... I think it's difficult to argue that American cars in general could hold up in a side by side comparison with their Japanese counterparts. European cars having their own issues (communism), but the American market was going through a complete fundamental change in how they perceived automobiles and the manufacturers simply could not/would not change to keep up. American car builders wanted cars to be almost disposable. They wanted to build them cheap, ship them cheap using lots of stickers and marketing, and have the customer buy another car in two years when the whole thing rusted to bits and fell apart. This might have worked if the oil crisis hadn't happened and Japan hadn't already been making the exact cars that Americans turned out to need.
The Gremlin is an adorable bastard between cheeky planned obsolescence car that the American car builders wanted their market to be and the economical reliable car that the market actually was. It's so uncool that it's cool.
American engines post 1974 were junk. Not total junk, but there was more to their failure than restrictive exhaust. The heads were bad, the fueling was unreliable and poorly optimized. It is true that much of this was due to emissions, the fuel crisis, and the 55mph speed limit. And yes, you can take a V8 from the 70's and make a good motor with new exhaust, heads, cam, and other stuff. I do not believe that I would be able to double the power output of a 150hp engine by only changing exhaust/emissions equipment. If there is test data to suggest otherwise I would love to see it. The engine shares the same basic architecture as the 400hp+ engines in the 60's, but it's not the same engine.
I think these discussions need to find a middle ground between "All you gotta do is lick the 5th cylinder intake port and you'll get 500hp! Few simple mods! Underrated by 50% from the factory!" and "American motors are designed by chimps, built by apes, and blah blah specific output." They both substitute an incredible amount of interesting substance and facts for baloney. This goes for doing comparisons of engines in the 1960's, the 1970's-late 80's, and modern engines. Honestly they should be treated as separate discussions. But nationalism over engines? For real?
Also... I think it's difficult to argue that American cars in general could hold up in a side by side comparison with their Japanese counterparts. European cars having their own issues (communism), but the American market was going through a complete fundamental change in how they perceived automobiles and the manufacturers simply could not/would not change to keep up. American car builders wanted cars to be almost disposable. They wanted to build them cheap, ship them cheap using lots of stickers and marketing, and have the customer buy another car in two years when the whole thing rusted to bits and fell apart. This might have worked if the oil crisis hadn't happened and Japan hadn't already been making the exact cars that Americans turned out to need.
The Gremlin is an adorable bastard between cheeky planned obsolescence car that the American car builders wanted their market to be and the economical reliable car that the market actually was. It's so uncool that it's cool.
Last edited:
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
Lions roar versus a mouse squeak makes all the difference.
