Talk:American Motors Corporation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thanks

Wow, this article looks much better now than when I first saw it! Thanks everyone! --ApolloBoy 01:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

in the part that talks about am genral and the humvee it is missing the new h3.. it just mentions the h1 and h2... chardrc

Only the H1 was designed by AM General when it was part of AMC. CZmarlin 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

AMC logo font?

Can anyone identify the font in which the words "American Motors Corporation" are written at the bottom of the logo? I could easily create a scalable SVG version of the logo with this information. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The font in the current picture is wrong (Avant Garde Gothic); the real one is an extra-bold weight of Helvetica, from what I can tell. -lee 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just checked; it's Helvetica Black. -lee 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted that picture replaced. So far, the best replacement I've been able to find is this one. -Litefantastic 00:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That logo was not an original AMC corporate design. The term "American Motors Corporation" was not used as part of the graphic - only "American Motors" was used. I put up a scan of the logo taken from a cover on AMC's PR folder. I hope this one looks better. CZmarlin 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

The technical information of the article is very good. But some passages use hyperbole and have a weak POV feel. I could be mistaken, so an extra set of eyes never hurts. Stude62 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been many sets of eyes on this article with many upgrades and edits. Perhaps is is now time to remove the "clean up" box? CZmarlin 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is now time to delete the "clean up" box! CZmarlin 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

References section

Anybody want to format the references section?

• Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style
• Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources

--Christopherlin 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean up on model lists

I have removed the model by model, play by play on the AMC page. First, its a list, and lists list things, they aren't for mini-articles. Secondly, many of the comments consisted of jargon, and while I appreciate anyone's enthusiasum, that belongs on the talk pages, not the article content. Stude62 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I've made a pro-AMC userbox: {{User AMC}}. -Litefantastic 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrence section

I reformatted the refrences section, I hope this is better! -- Karrmann

Karmann, I went ahead and reverted the edit because the reformatting needs to be done using the following "formula"

* {{cite book | author = Last Name, First name| title = The title of the book goes here | publisher = name of the publisher goes here | year = XXXX | ISBN = X-XXXX-XXX-X}}

So for the Standard Catalog of American Cars, the entry would be:

* {{cite book | author = Gunnell, John, Editor | title = The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975 | publisher = Kraus Publications | year = 1987 | ISBN = 0-87341-096-3}}

Which produces:

• Gunnell, John, Editor (1987). The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975. Kraus Publications. ISBN 0-87341-096-3. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

i know you went to a lot of trouble on the this section, and the reason why it hasn't been formatted is because its a bear to do, but these are the guidlines that need to be followed. Stude62 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikified Reference Section

I've reformatted the reference section according to the Wikipedia template for citing books. I've also removed a number of the references cited because many are redundent and specific to a model, not the corporation. Stude62 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

American Motors of 1906

I don't see any notation of American Motors Company (American Motor Car Company) from Indianapolis Indiana, which started trading in 1906.

• Good observation! However, that company was in no way related to the AMC described here. It should be listed on the AMC page and have its own article as American Motor Car Company. CZmarlin 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• There was also a firm called American Motors Incorporated that made small delivery vans from about 1946 to 1949. I will add a page for that company. CZmarlin 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone's Business School paper?

While this may be a very interesting paper to read, I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to just drop one's research paper in wholesale? It makes it too long, and too POV?! Hillsboro 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• But it's so much more thorough than what we had before. Couldn't we just sort of integrate it into the article? -Litefantastic 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• If it reads like a research paper, then it is a good and verifiable description of the company. When I first saw this article about AMC, it was mostly a description of the cars made by the company. Information about their products should be in the many articles about those models. I am new to this Wikipedia stuff, but I think this page should be about the history of the company itself (just like the extensive coverage of other automakers on their pages). In other words, it should help the reader understand AMC's business, strategy, management, and competitive situation. Information on the firm's specific models, engines, production, etc. is then linked from here. And speaking of Point Of View, I have tried to use outside sources (could someone help out and fix the footnotes to a proper format?) to represent the facts about the company. These are real authorities - such as the quotes by Lutz - that add value to the article. However, what I found when I first read this, the article was a continuous perspective that the company was doing things wrong. The best example were the statements that AMC made just average conventional cars. The truth was that consumers were buying them in droves. Therefore, it is far more significant to state a verifiable fact that Rambler became the third best selling brand because of their "conventional" models. I know the point of view of auto enthusiasts. Nevertheless, as far as styling and engineering are concerned - even to this day - Chevy sells several hundred thousand very average and conventional vehicles, for every one Corvette. However, if you scan today's automobile magazines, their pages focus cars such as the Corvette. They hardly mention the cars that most people buy and they are the vehicles that keep the automakers in business! Well, that is my $0.02 for now! CZmarlin 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• I figured out how to make the footnotes! CZmarlin 14:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you edit the "People" links?

I have recently written up Edmund E Anderson, but I can't figure out how to get him listed at the bottom of the American Motors page along with Gerry Myers, Romney, et al.

How do you do it?

*

I have no clue how to do it, but I would also hope that there could be a list of AMC concept cars added in this box. I have done the Tarpon, Cavalier, and AMX-GT to this point.

If it can be done, please also add François Castaing to the list of notable AMC people.

Thank you! CZmarlin 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I figured it out... You just open up the Template. I went ahead and added François Castaing for you.

** I added all of your prototypes. To edit the template, go to:

**

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AAmerican_Motors

**

** MarcMontoni 11:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Renault brand discontinued?

The first paragraph of this article says that the Renault brand was discontinued after Chrysler bought AMC. I'm not entirely sure what this means. The way I've understood things were was that Renault owned AMC partly or completely and sold it to Chrysler. Certainly, the fact that AMC was passed under Chrysler's ownership had little effect with Renault's existence, either as a brand or as a company. If the article writer is trying to say that the Renault brand was removed from the US market, it certainly did not give that impression to me.

--Topsu 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good observation. Renault continued as a brand in other parts of the world and is of course a major automaker. The first section now should now be more clear - that Chrysler discontinued the use of AMC and Renault brand names in the USA.

Renault has returned to Mexico in 2000, after a 14-year absence [1]. It markets its cars there under the Renault brand name [2] in addition to the Nissan models [3].

CZmarlin 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Timelines?

It seems to me it would make sense to have some more templates that we can put in each article about AMC's cars, engines, etc.

For instance, what about putting the AMC model timeline in a template that can be inserted into the Gremlin, Ambassador, Spirit (etc etc) articles? How do I establish one?

Perhaps a few of us should agree on the common templates needed, and then add them to each model article. Ideas?

MarcMontoni 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1958 Rambler American was not the only discontinued car body to be reintroduced. The 1980-81 Pontiac Bonneville body was brought back for the 1985-86 Parissienne. Approximately 85,000 were built for each year, not a bad showing.

I tried to add the AMC Mighty Mite but couldn't figure out the formatting. Can anyone help? MarcMontoni 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Marc -- Does the Mighty Mite belong in this timeline -- or on the Jeep side? This model was not available to the public market. Rather, it was built under a contract for the armed forces. I think it needs to be with the Jeep utility vehicles -- or a special article or section that would focus on specialized vehicles made by the AM General division under AMC. Moreover, the Mighty Mite does not yet have its own article! CZmarlin 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the 1940-41 Graham Hollywood and Huppmobile Skylark were updated reintroductions of the 1936-37 Cord 810/812 body. Rhettro76 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mighty Mite was an AMC product, NOT JEEP. Therefore it belongs in the AMC page. Yes, it's a "Jeep" type vehicle, but AMC produced it in the 60s long before they bought Kaiser Jeep. AMC purchased the design from an independent company -- can't find the name now. Farna 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Jeep Buyout?

I see no mention of AMC buying Kaiser-Jeep in February 1970. The article reads like they had Jeep all along. This needs to be changed.

Also, I'm not quite sure how the Eagle Summit was envisioned as a replacement for the Eagle wagon, especially since the Summit was much smaller and wasn't available in America in wagon form until 1992. The Summit was much more of an Alliance/Encore replacement.

The Vista, which was only available in Canada, was added in 1989 in AWD wagon form, but it was not a replacement for the Eagle wagon, either, as it was simply a rebadged Mitsubishi-built Dodge/Plymouth Colt Vista that had been in production since 1984. And due to its rather limited availability, it could hardly be considered a proper successor to the Eagle wagon. Rhettro76 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a Matador?

Matador was a mainstay of the AMC line in the 1970's and its lineage traced back to the 1967 Rebel.

When the car was released, it was a stretched facelift of the Rebel, and was largely ignored by the market. This led to AMC's advertising for the car the following year.

I would be grateful for other contributions on this issue which will demonstrate to CZMarlin that I am not merely expressing a POV, as well as telling the story of this car which saw much community use with law enforcement agencies. Fitzpatrickjm 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fitzpatrickjm (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I have no issue with the information about the Matador’s popularity as a police vehicle. There is a section on that topic in the AMC Matador page. Please add more specific information about police use on that page, and not in this article about the entire company. The specific POV issue is with the statements you have added concerning the Matador's lack of success in its first year and thus making AMC use the advertising line "What's a Matador?". That is POV. If you have a source for this, then please provide it and the objections will be withdrawn. Moreover, your claim that "Ultimately, Matador became a steady seller- particularly to several police departments." is also false. Once again, any "steady" sales of the Matador were not mainly due to government orders. Another problem is with the paragraph that "Interestingly, Matador relied on parts supplied by competitors ..." This is because AMC's strategy was to outsource many of its components. Please read further down and under the "Continuing business legacy" section you will find "Innovative strategies" where the following sentence details your "interestingly" comment: "... An essential strategy practiced by AMC was to rely on outside vendors to supply components in which they had differential advantages. This has finally been accepted in the US auto industry, but only after each of the Big Three experienced the failure of attempting to be self-sufficient..." Furthermore, AMC corporate strategy of sourcing components from outside vendors was not limited to the Matador's carburetor, steering column, etc. It was true for all of its automobiles and Jeeps as well. This was an integral approach from the inception of the firm -- look at the Nashs designed by someone else (Pininfarina) or built overseas (Nash Metropolitan) -- and continuing right through the very end of the AMC. Thank you for pointing out the value of your contribution, but I hope that you will now see why I reverted your edits the first time. Thank you, CZmarlin 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fitzpatrickjm, I agree with CZMarlin. I must add, however, that AMC wasn't really a pioneer in this area. Heck, AMC itself produced parts for other automakers. For instance, Evart Products was a wholly-owned AMC subsidiary that produced injection-molded plastic components for all U.S. automakers (notably, grilles). There was another division that made automotive wiring harnesses (Coleman Products Corporation, Coleman, WI). Hmmm... Now that I mention them, I see they are not in the "legacy" section. MarcMontoni 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with most of the POV comments. AMC launched the "What's A Matador?" ads to increase public recognition of the name, and of course the ads were sales driven, but the Matador wasn't an especially poor performer in 1971. There were around 47,600 70 Rebels sold. In 71 the Matador sold around 43,400. Hardly enough difference to site "poor sales" as the reason for the ads. Sales did go up in 73 and 74 (then took a nose dive) though. The ad campaign certainly helped, but the fresh styling (compared to earlier models) certainly had an effect. Note that while the Matador sedans/wagons are essentially restyled Rebels, the lineage of the car goes back to the 63 Classic. The 67 body is derived directly from the 63-66 body -- lengthened and widened a bit, but otherwise very close to the same. Farna 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1963-66 Ambassador/Classic body and the 67-78 Ambassador/Rebel/Matador body (as well as the 1975-78 series 10 Matador Coupe) are in no way related. The 63s and the 67s were both clean sheet designs and not related to their predecessors.

1970's

I edited the 1970's section, I thought it would look better with the pictures in chronological order and I added a 1973 AMC hornet picture. --Hiaburi 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove blather about model details?

Much of this article meanders off into long-winded rehashes of individual model details that already appear on the relevant model pages. (And if they don't, they should.) I propose deleting all this blather. (Without, of course, omitting reference to the models.) IMHO the appropriate place to learn fascinating minutiae about the specification of the cars themselves, e.g. the number of double-decker wobble-checkers—if any—in an AMC Pacer's Bakelite bobble-nobbler—if it has one—is the AMC Pacer article. Any opinions? Writegeist (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to improve this article. Editors are encouraged to contribute and find ways to improve the content. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are in the development process. They have real content, but also have weaknesses. Additional research is necessary to help write a great article that is verifiable and cites reliable sources. However, "drive by" placement of reference deficiency tags in this article is not very constructive. Please see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Over-tagging - "[i]t is very rare that more than 2 or 3 tags are needed, even on the worst articles." Therefore, your most recent addition of four section tags has been removed. Please provide researched material and the appropriate references to this article. Thank you! — CZmarlin (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you CZm. This section of this discussion page is to do with the plethora of model-specific detail in the American Motors Corporation article. I have made a general request for opinions on deleting this material on the grounds that this article is not the appropriate place for it, and that there are already appropriate places for it elsewhere, namely model-specific articles; i.e. that it is off-topic. I am very glad that you wish to contribute to this section, and it would be even more helpful if your contribution had to do with the relevance or otherwise of the material in question.

As you have not already done so, I shall create a new section that addresses the AMC article's verification deficiencies. If you would care to relocate your contribution there, I shall be very pleased to respond. Just give me time to create the new section. Thank you! Salut! Writegeist (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another reason for removing the unnecessary and/or inappropriate model-specific microdetail is the article's size. It's currently at 83kB. Wikipedia:Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it now. Writegeist (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Verification

The AMC article contains a plethora of unverified statements and attributions. As I have not found references that verify them, I am listing some of the more egregious examples here, to give other contributors the opportunity to deal with them:

"Formation" section:

• Mason, the architect of the merger, believed that

Please see: Edwards, Charles Edward. Dynamics of the United States Automobile Industry. University of South Carolina Press, 1965 (ASIN: B0007F5JMC) The merger is mentioned on pages 32, 37 (for example "...the type of construction was used in the United States industry at the time only by these two manufacturers." the larger organization capable of selling the cars of the new firm was also an anticipated advantage ... with Nash having approximately 1,600 dealers and Hudson 2,000 dealers ...), and there is a discussion and a list of the all the advantages expected from this merger on page 143 ("... the pooling of executive abilities, research and engineering resources, and purchasing power: opportunities ...")

I would suggest that "believed" be replaced because the quote from Auto Driver - Page 6 states: "Mason said the merger "gives us the financial strength, facilities, ...."

• Nance saw value (now reworded)

Please see: Ward, James A. The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company, Stanford University Press 1995. ISBN-13: 978-0804724579. On page 206 are the details of AMC's engine purchases from Packard. However, there are too many pages in this book to list here that explain what was done and said in the boardroom, large shareholders, by executives, and other parties concerning the proposals, negotiations, personalities, markets, products, deals, etc ... right down to the potentially valuable tax credits to be gained by Packard if it merged. This book describes a fascinating story, so please help yourself and pull out what would be most interesting what "Nance saw"! There is a wealth of information in this book that could go not only into the AMC article, but also into the Packard article, which by the way has not one inline source listed for all of its plethora of unverified statements and attributions.

• interim plans were made (now reworded)

• This announcement was most likely made in response to (now reworded)

• this is considered to have been a matter of personalities (now reworded)

• Romney felt the Packard engines and transmissions were too expensive (now reworded)

"Product development in the 1950s" section:

• American Motors did something totally unheard of and never successfully duplicated to this day (now reworded)

• Under the leadership of George W. Romney, Rambler automobiles were among the best-known products among consumers (now reworded)

• Romney became one of the first high-profile media savvy business executives. (now reworded)

• Rambler became a synonym for solid economy cars. (now reworded)

"Changing focus in the 1960s" section: None of this section is referenced.

"1970s product developments" section:

• American Motors was an innovator (now reworded)

• radically styled (now reworded)

• unique design (now reworded)

• The AMC Pacer, introduced in 1975, was an innovative gamble

• well-intentioned (now reworded)

• the market AMC seemed to know best (now reworded)

• Another major change (cite ref for "major") (now reworded)

• tasteful trim (now reworded)

• ingenious redesign (now reworded)

These need to be referenced in accordance with WP:Verifiability .

Thank you! Writegeist (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. the Packard article (mentioned above), there are currently eight inline references, seven of which cite pages, to two publications. Writegeist (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not clear about the nature of the references that are currently in the Packard article. Anyone can observe that not one footnote in the Packard article documents any of the important statements describing the history and facts of this once significant and influential corporation. You are absolutely correct that my statement was wrong, because all eight references document (1) prices of a few models, (2) that a Packard truck hauled a three-ton load drove from New York City to San Francisco, and (3) that Packard had Service Depots in 104 cities. Of course, none of these would really need to be footnoted when compared to the numerous and more egregious statements that are made in that article. Once again, thank you for identifying my technical error, and I hope you are able to understand the verification gap that exists in the article about Packard. My point was that the information documenting the negotiations and business deals that were conducted by executives in the automobile industry — as described in Ward's book — can be used to enhance not only the AMC article, but also to help provide some verifiability in the Packard article. All I have tried to do is point a path to the sources as you requested. I am now confident that editors such as yourself can research and locate the references for the rest of these, because sources exist for all the items on your “to do” list for the AMC article. Thanks — CZmarlin (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought, after a cursory glance at the article, that you were not aware of the references, and that perhaps they had appeared after you last reviewed the article. You are of course correct that saying "the Packard article...has not one inline source listed..." is not quite the same as if you had written what you now say you were trying to explain, e.g., "the Packard article...has several inline sources listed but only for comparatively trivial information." I am all for "information documenting the negotiations and business deals" etc. etc. being used to enhance whatever articles it relates to. As you say you are in possession of the relevant sources, and they are unavailable to me, perhaps you would be so kind as to contribute them to these articles. I'm sorry but I can't find the "more egregious statements" to which you refer. Where are these shockingly bad statements? I am confident that you, an experienced Wikipedia editor, will now give these articles the benefit of the evidently copious reference material in your AMC library. Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the following (in the "Formation" section) as a work-around:

• Nance saw value —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• interim plans were made

• This announcement was most likely made in response to

• this is considered to have been a matter of personalities

• Romney felt the Packard engines and transmissions were too expensive

Writegeist (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done what I can. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

The the United States Department of Defense was not formed til after World War 2. Perhaps the author of this piece meant the War Department? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.101.36 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

World markets

Evidently Ramblers were marketed in France by Renault, and then there was the fake AMC dealership in Thailand from which James Bond obtained an AMC Hornet in The Man with the Golden Gun. But for a company that postured itself as a direct competitor to Ford, Chrysler, and GM, all of which had substantial business abroad, did AMC actually bother to penetrate world markets? Were they sold in South America, Asia, or other parts of Europe? This would be useful information. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have heard reports of a Rambler as far as Israel, but as to how it got there, I've no idea. I do know however, that AMC sold to Mexico (Re-Badged as VAM) Canada, Australia (Re-badged as Rambler)and Iceland. Many European owners of AMC cars have also surfaced as well, but how they go their cars, I haven't a clue. AMCHornet (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There were CKD (Complete Knock Down) shipments to at least Iran and Argentina. There may have been other CKD shipments to other countries, but I don't remember the specifics, maybe Equador or Venezuela. Something to look into.--TGC55 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TV add on

I'd like to suggest an addition to the featured in films / TV section, but I'm not sure if I remember correctly. It seems to me that in "Third Rock from the Sun" the family had a 1961 - 63 Rambler American convertible - red. SauceCowboy (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) SauceCowboy

Simon's trademark

The wikipedia article says that Simon's trade mark expired in 2001, but this website shows that the trade mark is still active.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=l337pm.2.1

Could we get some clarification on the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.85.6 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

were Renault assembling/marketing CKD Ramblers in early 60s?

I've tagged this claim in the 70s and 80s section of Financial developments, Renault partnership as requiring a citation, can anyone help? The passage reads "Lacking its own prestige model line in the early 1960s, Renault assembled CKD kits and marketed Rambler cars in France" but there's no mention of this anywhere else that I can find. I've never encountered Ramblers in France (though that doesn't mean there were none) and Renault did have a widely acclaimed prestige model in the Renault_16 albeit not until 1965. Can anyone shed any light on this? Splateagle (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous references to AMC having Renault build the Rambler Classic in Europe starting in 1961, and going through 1967. These include, for example: owner's in English, and a detailed history in French. CZmarlin (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! I'll add one of these as a reference in the article. Many thanks. Splateagle (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that there were AMC CKD shipments to Belgium in about 1965. Possibly these were the Renault units.--TGC55 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedia content

A lot of this article seems non-encyclopedia. e.g.

According to James C. Mays, automotive historian and author of The Savvy Guide to Buying Collector Cars at Auction, the "Wow! Factor" is an important and measurable pleasure to an owner whether their car is driven or sits in a climate-controlled garage.[88] His "Wow! Factor" includes examples of a bright red 1969 AMX that according to its owner "is just a fast Rambler", but draws more people at events than the more prestigious Ferraris and Lamborghinis, as well as a "million-dollar moment" when a Rambler owner was serenaded with the "Beep Beep" song by The Playmates while fueling at a travel plaza.[88] Moreover, the author's collector car, a 1969 Ambassador station wagon, made friends as strangers came to greet and host him as if "long lost kin".[89] Ordinary Person (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeep 4.0-liter inline 6 longevity

I personally own a 1992 Jeep Cherokee. Although a Chrysler product by that time, the 4.0-liter inline six is still an AMC design that had been improved by Chrysler for greater power and fuel economy. As of August 2011, this Jeep has over 307,000 miles (494,000 km) on the odometer and is still running strong.Bill S. (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The 4.0-liter inline six continued to be used by Chrysler until late in the first decade of the 21st century when it was dropped in favor of the 3.7-liter V-6 engine.Bill S. (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Other AMC

I don't think that the story about the unrelated Aimcee company has any place in this article. There are much more notable companies called AMC, such as AMC Theaters, the second-largest movie theater chain in North America. Or how about the immensely successful cable channel?

I'd opine that this section should be removed from the article, unless it can be shown that there was some sort of controversy surrounding the shared name (or something along those lines).

--Mtlasater (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mtlasater for noticing this problem. This unrelated entry has now been removed. Moreover, there is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia that lists all other "AMC" and related articles. CZmarlin (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Spinoff of Kelvinator

According to the Kelvinator article, they were spun off from AMC in 1968, not 1958, as this article implies. Which is correct? -- azumanga (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.93.180 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nash-Kelvinator is American Motors Corp.

Did anyone ever wonder why American Motors' date of incorporation was 1918? Nash and Hudson did not actually merge, that was a fabrication designed to make the public think Hudson was an equal partner in American Motors. Legally Nash-Kelvinator Corporation changed its name to American Motors Corporation and then a stock exchange was made for Hudson Motor Company stock. The surviving corporation was Nash-Kelvinator, Hudson ceased to exist. AMC was not a new company. Very similar to the purchase of AT&T by SBC Corporation. The current SBC, incorprated in 1983, uses the name AT&T, Inc. The real AT&T Corp./American Telephone and Telegraph Company, exists as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. In realty American Motors Corporation existed from 1918 to 1987.

The first Nash automobiles were built by Nash Motors predecessor company, Thomas B. Jeffery Co., after Charles Nash bought Jeffery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.93.180 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Torque tube

How about some info re AMC torque-tube driveshafts? Sca (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Torque tube article contains information about Nash, AMC, and other automobile applications. I hope this helps! CZmarlin (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

AMC brands

Wheres a list of AMC brands? Nowhere in the article are the Nash and Hudson described as AMC brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.202.202 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both Nash and Hudson were predecessor companies and some of their brans were continued immediately following the merger forming the new American Motors Corporation. There is a timeline that lists the automobile models that were continued after 1954 in the template "American Motors (AMC) road car timeline, United States market, 1954–1987" that is at the end of the article. Moreover, the article has a list of models organized by size in the "AMC passenger cars" section. Lastly, the "American Motors Corporation" template at the end of the article also lists and links all the brands and other related WP articles. Is there anyplace else the brands should be listed? CZmarlin (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Delorean?

Should there be a note referencing the delorean in this article? I think a common misunderstanding is that the Delorean was made by AMC based on the badge and grille end looking similar to the AMC Spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamel (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• The DeLorean DMC-12 is not related in anyway to American Motors Corporation. CZmarlin (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the comment above. The only 'relationship' is that the Delorean had an earlier version of the engine that eventually went into the Renault/Eagle Premier-- commonly agreed to be AMC's last sedan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.105 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Consensus says "Oppose merger"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has come up several times in the past, but the Collier Motors article (while longer and better sourced) is essentially an orphaned article aside from the AMC template. It would be better served if it was merged into the main American Motors article, and can easily be summarized so as not to make the article longer than it needs to be. Thoughts? Jgera5 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose - The article about one former independent AMC franchise dealer does not represent a direct relationship to the history of the automaker to be meaningful in it as a merged subject. The story of Collier Motors is historically significant on its own. Moreover, WP guidelines state that "an article is orphaned if no other articles link to it." This is not the case with Collier Motors article. In addition to the AMC template, it has incoming links from other articles. The guidelines state that "although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the [Orphan] tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers." Therefore, the current links from the Pikeville, North Carolina and Car dealership articles meet this criteria. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose its an article about a car dealership and does not really belong in the main automaker entry in my opinion. Maybe in an article about dealerships related to AMC? Thanks A75 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose - There were over 1 thousand American Motors Dealers through out the world between 1954 and 1988 when they became Officially known as Jeep Eagle Dealers. The history of Collier Motors isn't even a footnote related to the history of the actual American Motors Corporation. Colliers is an oddity more related to automobile dealerships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.66.234 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Oppose It doesn't make any sense to merge these two articles. Collier Motors was a business in itself that sold AMC products. Would you merge a supermarket business with an article about a shampoo brand because it sells shampoo brands? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.105 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose, and as this has been running for over three months, it's safe to close this as a consensus for "no". GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/abc_gent/ABC-GENT_files/Adbiopriseng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017163907/http://www.matadorcoupe.com/history.htm to http://www.matadorcoupe.com/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/abc_gent/ABC-GENT_files/Adbiopriseng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)