AMC Marlin’s - Why It Didn’t Succeed!

[@hotroddave7597]

The very last year they made these cars was the best

[@Rick-S-6063]

Agreed. The '67 was the best looking of the three.

[@barackmycat9448]

Don`t see those anymore. I remember seeing them when they came out. Cool!

[@gjb49]

'66 Dodge Charger looked (almost) just like it, only a little bigger

[@stevenmanchester2104]

I'd drive one in a minute👍👍

[@jestubbs69]

Perhaps if it were 0-60 0:08 car it would've found greater success.

[@billpetersen298]

It’s gorgeous.

[@truebluemiata]

Reminds me of the original Cuda. The proportions of both are just off IMO, particularly the rear quarters. Perhaps bigger wheels would have helped.

[@jasontoms2859]

The original show car for the design was the Tarpon that was built on the Rambler American chassis. This design was enthusiastly received by many people. The decision to build the production car on the mid-size chassis threw us all a curve as this made the car too heavy and more expensive as well. The original was a better-looking Barracuda and had room for all of AMC's V8s. So sad!

[@vincentrockel1149]

It's the placement of the fastback. It's too far back, making the car look like it's got no ass. It either needed to be more like the barracuda or lengthen the trunk.

[@godofrock]

A fastback that wasn’t fast. More of a humpback. It was the styling that was almost great. It needed that amx front clip pointy look the fish has a freaking sword for a nose but the front of the marlin was flat. It looked bloated too. The amx nailed it then it morphed into the wavy gravy javelin and lost it. Design is tricky especially when you are on the leading edge but sometimes you have to look from a new view and say does this look like it’s namesake. In this case it missed the mark. That is all it takes a little too much hump and no pointy front. Opps

[@That_AMC_Guy]

Too expensive; too slow; too big. Compare to the winning Pony-car formula: The Mustang. First and foremost.... virtually every little town in America had a Ford Dealer. Many never had a Rambler dealer and even when they got one.... guaranteed it wasn't going to have a Marlin in the showroom and the guy trying to sell you whatever they had probably looked like Vincent Price and was more interested in selling you a bag of feed or a mulcher since the Rambler dealer was probably attached to a farm-feed outlet. A Mustang with a V8 stickered from about $2,400 for a coupe, to $2,600 for fastback and $2,700 for a convertible. The fact that Ford offered three body styles also meant it appealed to a wider audience. The Marlin's BASE, Six-cylinder price tag was $3,000 dollars before taxes, delivery and options! A Decked-out Marlin with a V8 and a 4-speed would be deep into $3,500 dollar territory and for that kind of money in 1965.... you could get into a big-block Plymouth or Dodge or even into a GTO or 442. Nobody was going to pay that kind of money to be the slowest dude at the drive-in. Secondly, the Mustang's V8 was a modern design; light; came in a myriad of tunes but also could be "hopped-up" with aftermarket parts. Headers, Camshafts, Dual-Quad intakes, high-output ignitions.... etc. You could not do that with the lowly Rambler. NOBODY made speed parts for the First Gen AMC V8. Yes, it was larger at 327 cubic inches and made more power.... But with 270 horsepower moving 3,000 pounds versus the Mustangs' 2,500 pounds.... and.... let's be honest.... the solid-lifter K-code 289 made 270 horsepower as well. Thirdly; the Marlin was the wrong car for the wrong market. The Marlin was middle-of-the-road stuff.... comparable to a Buick or a Dodge. It had Brocade cloth and coil-spring seats that were very nice.... but kids in the 60's didn't care or want that kind of fluff. That was their Fathers' bag. Kids were happy with park bench covered in cheap vinyl. LOOKING good was the trend. Nobody wanted Mom's table cloth covering their seats. Had the stylists gotten their way and based the Marlin on the AMERICAN chassis (which they did; they called it the "Tarpon") they might have had a chance. But even then, the first-gen V8 didn't fit well into the American's engine bay and worse still.... nobody offered speed parts for it. Don't get me wrong.... I love the styling and proportions of the 1967 Marlin.... but by that point it was over-shadowed by the Rogue with the 343 V8 which was a modern design V8 which offered speed parts and in the cute little Rogue hardtop body. The following spring they would debut the Javelin and then the AMX. Game over. NOW.... What I think AMC should have considered was using the Marlin body as a special Ambassador or maybe even a Rebel. Rather than scrapping what was only a 3-year old body platform.... they could have gotten some extra mileage out of it at least for 1968 and 1969 offering it as a special big-body Halo car with a 343 or later a 390! It could have been up there with fancy specials like the Mercury Marauder, the Chrysler 300 or the Pontiac Grand Prix which in those days, sold extremely well. Seeing as AMC had dropped convertibles after 1967.... here's an already built fastback that could take it's place! It's tough being the little guy. You're always either too early for dinner but then too late for the party.

[@thomasdearment3214]

hummm interesting the Dodge Charger was a mid-sized fast back along the same lines it left the radicel fast back behind, for a more subdued fast back style and flourished actually both cars got their style from the Plymouth Barracuda a really radical fast back with added all glass fastback boomers had fun cars loved it

[@billmagorian490]

It wasn't that different from the Plymouth Barracuda of the same year.

[@danr1920]

I think it was a lot lot bigger.

[@johngranato2673]

Ugly! More like a Mar-Sin. Throw that fish back! Thanks for the video, though.