Hot Rod Forum banner

AMC a Mopar? Stop the nonsense!

14K views 19 replies 17 participants last post by  farna 
#1 ·
I've seen many references to AMC cars as Mopars on sites such as Ebay, for example. It's ludicrous to see things like "Hot Javelin - Mopar Muscle". Mopar and Javelin should even be in the same sentence.....
After Chrysler bought the remains of AMC - it never put out AMC cars....but it did continue the Jeep line. This was in 1987, which isn't THAT long ago. So why do so many people refer to AMCs as Mopars are they BRAIN DEAD..are they "gear heads with grease on the brain?" Come on guys.
Are Mercedes cars Mopars too? I hope NOT. Soon we will see ads like this on ebay: "Hot Mopar - 450SL.
There is only one Mopar! A very separate AMC. And both made great but separate cars. :nono:

Stop the nonsense!
 
#3 ·
If you are trying to start a discussion, you are in the wrong place,
You should have posted in the lounge or the dump. I don`t think you will get any argument on what you posted.:nono:
 
#4 ·
also

302 Z28 said:
I would agree with everything you said, except the last statement. AMC is responsible for the Gremlin and Pacer.

Vince
I do believe they were also responsible for "eagle" those crazy 4wd cars, and the talon witch i think was the last one but it was just Mitsubishi eclipse in disguise if im not mistaken.

witch kinda makes me think ive seen several Dodges made by Mitsubishi, so is it posible that people are getting the impression that Dodge, Mitsubishi, and AMC are related?
i guess they can also think that since Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge are basically the same company now, they just assume its was the same all along.
 
#5 ·
there is a lot of confusion with AMC and mopar.. yes they are 2 seperate companys, in no way related, but they are allowed at some Mopar events, which is where some of that comes from, I think.. beyond using Mopar Torqueflite transmissions 1972- when they stopped making RWD cars there is nothing relating the 2 except when Mopar bought AMC for the Jeep line... but Jeep, bought by AMC in 1970 used Chevy T-400 transmissions 1974 until 1979, but we don't assocaite Jeeps as Chevys..



AMC did make the Eagle, made in 2dr, 4dr, sedans, wagons and a hatchback SX/4 model from 1980 ( I think )-1987.. but they were in no way responsible for The Eagle brand that mopar had... they were associated with Renault tho
 
#6 ·
Just be glad you don't own an International.
God only knows where they "belong".
Just imagin an AMC car show..........
Lucky to have a "Runner up" for the trophy. :drunk:
I dig AMC's so don't get me wrong,but they deffinetly had their own gig.
I don't consider them Mopars as well as M's but if they want to show up and compete,let the best car win. Anybody who puts the time and effort into a great car deserves the spot. :thumbup:
 
#11 ·
One poster was right, this belongs in the lounge, not the body forum. I dont think it was a real serious discussion to start with......

AMC made cars that were different, as did Studebaker and a few others.....Part of the reason they arent around anymore.....shame
 
#13 ·
LOL, I am an outcast even to the AMC crowd because I drive a Rambler! LOL:D

I know one thing, these days, today, 8-1-2012 the lines between companies, all auto makers is so friggin gray it's crazy! I received some parts yesterday for a Suzuki sedan and the bumper was wrapped in a very proudly labeled "Genuine GM parts"! LOL, With Chrysler owning Mercedes, and Ford owning Jaguar, come on it's a different world.

Personally, in my world AMC is AMC and not Mopar.

Brian
 
#14 ·
Oh, most car companies are "related". AMC has more Mopar relation than you think! For one, Walter P. Chrysler used to work for Charles Nash (founder of Nash, which later bought out Hudson to form AMC). Chrysler's first automotive job was working for Nash when Nash was president of Buick in 1911. Nash resigned when Durant got control of GM again, as Nash didn't like the way Durant ran things. Nash bought the Thomas B. Jeffery company (who made the first Ramblers) and formed Nash Motors in 1916. Chrysler stayed on to run Buick through 1919. Chrysler Corporation was formed in 1925.

Charles Nash kept in touch with Walter Chrysler over the years, and they obviously still held each other in high regard. When Nash decided to retire in 1936, he asked Chrysler for a recommendation for his successor. Chrysler suggested George Mason, who was running Kelvinator at the time. Mason was interested, but didn't want to leave Kelvinator. Apparently Nash was impressed, and trusted Chrysler. He simply bought Kelvinator and merged the two companies in order to get Mason!

Could you see one of the Ford execs advising GM on who should take over??
 
#17 ·
Renault never wholly owned AMC -- they only had a 46% interest. That was controlling interest though. Chrysler bought AMC outright. They purchased Renault's 46% then made stock trades for the remaining outstanding stock.

Renault originally only owned something like 15%, with the option to increase share to 25-30%, but not controlling interest (I'd have to look up exact numbers!). That deal fell apart as the 4x4 market did shortly after the deal in 1980 (it didn't pick back up until the new smaller 4x4s came out, especially the XJ Cherokee). The 4x4 market had been propping AMC up and they knew it wouldn't last long, and needed a small car partner with some capital to survive. Renault bought more share to protect their investment, and when AMC's cash cow went belly up they had no choice but to let them.
 
#18 ·
who are they foolin

Come on now none of the modern cars have an ounce of personality. The classic old cars had personal personality. Mopar, Ford Chevy or Jaguar none of these have anything over any car made before 1972. So Mopar acn have AMC if they want I say we go back to cars that get 10 mpg and look good.
 
#19 ·
Yep, things were a little different back in the days of "The big 4".

Since the advent of the "world car" philosophy, which really amounted to putting Ford Badges on Mazda's, GM badges on Isuzus, Suzuki's etc, etc, combined with things like Chrysler's take-overs and GM bailouts ... the lines have really gotten blurred.

When you really stop and think of it all, this really is nothing new ... just evolution and history repeating itself.

Ironically, we have a decade-old thread being revived ... but the theme remains the same. :D
 
#20 ·
There are plenty of other times when cars all seemed to look the same, then a big change occurs. It's hard to tell the difference between 1920s cars -- but they did have different grille shells. A side profile? Hard to tell -- unless you really know the cars. Late 30s are a bit better, but some are close. I'm not talking about Cadillacs and Lincolns, more like Chevys, Fords, and Plymouths... the every day cars.

The real idea of the "world car" is one model that can be sold world-wide with only minor differences. Ford tried it first with the Fiesta. Chrsylser came close with the Omni/Horizon. Don't recall GM ever having one that worked. The new Ford Focus is supposed to be their latest, and seems to be working. We've sort of "caught up" (or digressed to?) Europe, it seems, in styling and economy needs. Gas is still at least half again over there what it is here, sometimes twice as much, but we are getting more fuel economy minded.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top