Template talk:AMC timeline

The Premier was in no way a full-size car. Measuring 190" overall, the car was only 3" longer than the Hornet of the mid-'70s, and exactly the same size as the Ford Taurus. The Premier was a midsize car. Rhettro76 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger and cargo volume matters

The "full-size" designation is based on the interior volume of the car, NOT its exterior dimensions. The Premier was much larger in usable space than the Ford Taurus. The definition of anything with a combined passenger and cargo volume of 120 Cu. Ft. or more is considered "LARGE" or "full-size"! Please see the "official" size designations used in the USA: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses

Thanks, CZmarlin 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, except that the Ambassador is listed as a full-size car, while the Matador is only a mid-size, when they had exactly the same interior volume for each of their product runs. So either the Ambassador is a mid-size, or the Premier is a full-size. Rhettro76 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the Ambassador was marketed before the us govt, came up with "official" definitions. it would be more confusing now to change the definition of the market target. In fact, back in the old days, some of the so-called "large cars" were very small in terms of interior space. However, consumers did not care! CZmarlin 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something interesting that shows that the Matador Sedan is a "large" car (4DR-110/20 cu. ft. thus making it NOT an mid-size.) If we take the fact that the passenger space was identical from 1967 all the way through 1978 for AMC's "senior" cars, then perhaps we should identify all of them as "full-size" ! -- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/78guide.txt - CZmarlin 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could. And I see your point. But this is why it's confusing to use two different standards for classification on the same template. I would argue that few consumers care that the Pontiac G6 is technically a "compact" because of its lower roofline, while its platform mate, the Malibu, despite its 4" shorter wheelbase and overall length is technically a "midsize" car. For the purposes of this template, the EPA's system seems irrelevant, unless we note that the classifications are based on EPA figures and nothing else. The fact that AMC's intermediates would be "large cars" by interior volume today is interesting, though. Despite the Rebel's 1960s RWD architecture, it's competitive with today's Ford Five Hundred in interior space, while being the same size outside. Rhettro76 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the EPA rubric, it's also not helpful when establishing the Rebel/Matador/Ambassador's competition in the market. Just a thought. Rhettro76 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy how "efficient" AMC's large cars were. Their designs still hold well to today's cars. In fact, I have driven the Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Magnum on long trips. I would trade them all in for an Ambassador! About the same size and RWD architecture, but there is much more room in the Ambassador! The Magnum flunks as a wagon as its cargo space seems less than in a Hornet Sportabout or Eagle wagon! Go figure!

In any case, I would suggest that we keep the designations as they are. Classic/Rebel/Matador as mid-sized and the Ambassador/Premier as "large" cars. That is the way they were marketed, even before any formal definitions were implemented. CZmarlin 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renault 18/Medallion/LeCar

The template used to show that the Medallion was only offered for 1988, when its first season was 1987. The way it used to be, there was a single season gap between the 18 and Medallion. That's been fixed.

Also, the Medallion's predecessor was not called the "Renault 18" in America, but rather, the "Renault 18i"...even in brochures. The name was changed to "Sportwagon" after the '83 season, when the sedan was dropped...and it kept that nomenclature through its cancellation at the end of 1986. Rhettro76 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AMC-Renault partnership was minted for the 1979 model year. So the LeCar was affiliated with AMC from 1979-83 only. It was a Renault-exclusive model, called the Renault 5, from 1976-78 in this country. Therefore, the 1976-78 version was NOT an AMC "captive import". Rhettro76 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the correct years for the imported models. I also fixed the timeline of AMC's captive imports (Template:AMC Timeline Imports) to reflect this update. — CZmarlin 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]