It’s 1977 and the Gremlin gets its first redesign, with revised sheet metal, shorter front fenders, new bumpers, a new grille, and other cosmetic details. Bodywise, the revisions meant 4 in. less in length; resulting in a more ‘compact’ subcompact. What’s more, a new and exciting Porsche-sourced 2-liter four-cylinder engine was now offered. Finally, AMC’s subcompact had a modern engine to deliver the fuel efficiency befitting an economy car. Or so the idea was.
As it’s known, many compromises were taken to create AMC’s first ‘subcompact’ back in 1970. Being basically a sawed-off Hornet, the Gremlin was considerably heftier than its Detroit competitors; all while carrying outdated 6 cyl. engines that weren’t that fuel-efficient. Seven years later, AMC felt ready to remedy the situation.
AMC had been looking for a newer engine to fit in their economy models since the late ’60s. First of all, a deal for GM’s upcoming Wankel had gone bust, and with that, AMC’s hopes for a lightweight compact. A fuel crisis later, the Wankel didn’t seem so hot, and AMC looked towards Volkswagen, which had just successfully launched the Golf in 1974.
The Golf’s mill was too weak for the hefty Hornet Gremlin bones, but something else was brewing at VW; a new 2-liter engine, to soon debut in the Porsche 924 and other VW products, like the LT/Van Transporter. A deal was struck, and Kenosha would not only purchase engines but also own the equipment, tools, and production lines to manufacture the 2-liter; all at a cost of $60 million. There was one condition: no mention of the engine’s origin was to be used publicly by AMC.
Looking solely at Wikipedia’s Gremlin entry, the 2-liter concept sounded good; it provided better fuel economy and reduced the model’s weight by 250-300 pounds. EPA ratings were 21MPG in the city, and 33MPG on the highway. By those stats alone, the 2-liter Gremlin seemed a compelling offer.
As the road test shows, there was more to it than just adding a modern engine to an ancient platform. For starters, the Porsche and AMC mills varied in some important details; the original 924 engine had a forged iron crank, while the Gremlin’s made do with cast iron. Bosch fuel injection was used on the 924’s, while 2-barrel carburetion served on the Gremlin’s. Besides that, AMC had no electronic ignition that could fit the 2-liter.
Under driving, R & T gives a damning assessment; ‘an engine this modern deserves better than the 7-year-old Gremlin.’ As in typical late-AMC carmaking, the idea sounded better as a concept than as a finished product; ‘the new 2-liter engine had neither the horsepower nor the torque to power a 2745-lb. Gremlin, making the car even more of a compromise than the original model.’
Reviewers further noted ‘the engine starts easily when cold but dies unless the driver blips the throttle. It’s also slow to warm up… Unlike the torquey low-revving AMC sixes, the inflexible 2-liter demands impassioned shifting… However, the spacing between 1st and 2nd is too wide and even if you shift out of first at 5500, the engine falls way off the power curve. To add to the miseries, the engine is noisy and a shaker.’ To compare impressions, testers also tried a 2-liter 924 and found its engine freer revving, smoother, and much quieter.
Elsewhere, there was little done to keep the Gremlin up to date with the competition, particularly when it came to the interior. Handling hadn’t changed much either, with predictable understeer at all times. However, as testers noted, ‘the car suffered of a case of axle tramp the likes of which we haven’t experienced since the supercar Sixties.’ Furthermore, in real conditions, fuel efficiency was far less than expected, with the Gremlin delivering 19.5MPG on average. To top all those shortcomings, the 2-liter had an 8% premium charge over the 6-cyl. models.
In the end, R&T declared the 6cyl. Gremlin as the better choice. Buyers largely agreed. Of the 46,171 Gremlins built in 1977, only 7,558 had the 2-liter engine.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1977 AMC Gremlin – Pay 8% More, Get 13% Less Horsepower and 33% Fewer Cylinders.Â
$60 million for fewer than 8,000 2.0L-equipped cars, with the original six being determined to be the better engine. And the seemingly biggest indignity being the condition that there was to be no mention of where the engine came from.
I still weep for AMC. They tried. They really did.
An update on that $60 million: since this four sold so poorly, AMC never went ahead with the original plan to build these engines themselves. They just assembled them from the major parts shipped from VW. It became clear quickly on that this whole plan was a bad one, and AMC instead did what they should have done from the get-go: build a 2.5 L four derived from their very good inline six. I cannot fathom why they didn’t do that to start with; it’s so obvious. And it could have been done in a year or so.
The only reason I can think of is that AMC was still considering a FWD small car, in which case the 2.0 would have been a better fit than the bigger, heavier 2.5.
Ironic the AMC 2.5L eventually ended up in a front wheel drive car, albeit not a small one. Interesting AMC was assembling this engine from components supplied by VW, similar to what Chrysler was doing with the 1.7L Omni/Horizon engine.
Similar, but a bit different. Chrysler didn’t assemble the 1.7 engine from VW; they came as complete long blocks to which Chrysler added its manifolds, carbs, and ignition. AMC apparently assembled the 2.0 from blocks, heads and other components shipped from VW. Exactly which components came from VW and which AMC sourced locally is not 100% clear to me. I suspect the cast crank may well have been US sourced.
Even more interesting, thanks. I was told a few of the 2.0L’s were installed in Postal (DJ-5) Jeeps but I never saw one so equipped.
AMC had already acquired a much better four, the Willys F-head which was still being used in Jeeps in 1970. It was strong and smooth and durable. It could have been made more economical with fuel injection. Nobody seems to know why they rejected it. Foster says it was rough, which is simply false.
Seriously? That engine dates back to 1937, with a rather crude F-head conversion, meaning it still had side valves for the exhausts. A tortured combustion chamber; good luck getting it to pass the quite tight emission regulations in effect by 1977. And no, it was not smooth; a four cylinder with a 3.125″ bore and a massive 4.375″ stroke is simply not going to be smooth, except at low rpm.
The very obvious solution is the one they finally took: make a four from their very good six. It couldn’t have taken five years as the article suggests. Maybe two at the most. It seems that never crossed their minds at the time. Doh!
Mmm… That engine has its roots in the 1927-31 Whippet, but was upgraded by Barney Roos into the 60hp Go Devil that eventually powered WW2 Jeeps. Its last major update was done while Berlin was still smoldering, turning it into an F-head. Sure enough it is a good little engine, but I can’t imagine bringing it back being well received by the automotive buying public in the late 1970’s. It was pretty undersquare, though you could get bigger valves in each cylinder with the IOE head. Might be tricky to meet ever increasing emissions regs with it as well.
What I’d have like to have seen was AMC’s 2.5 liter 4 cylinder under the hood, though it didn’t debut until mid-1983 for the 1984 model year in the then new XJ Jeep Cherokee. It was a basic pushrod engine, but a good enough one that Mopar kept it around until 2002, being used in the Jeep Wrangler and even Dodge Dakota. It even made significantly more power than the GM Iron Duke that went in AMC passenger cars after they gave up on the little VW mill.
Edit: oops! That’s what I get for starting to type a comment, walking away, then finishing it later. Looks like Paul’s comment echoes my sentiments.
A red Porsche 924 was THE Yuppie mobile in London at that time.
They were known by everyone else as the Porsche with the VW van engine.
I was working for Porsche+Audi at the time of the 924 introduction as a tech. Was still a die hard air cooled guy. Did not like the 924 at all and we joked in the shop about the modified tractor engine.
AMC was against the ropes at this time. The Concord and Jeep were the only bright spots, but lack of sheer volume & economy of scale left little capital for product development. This is reflected in the above mismatch of a 4 cylinder engine in a frame dating back to the 60’s.
The next mismatch was Renault & AMC, but gas prices fell in the 80’s and the Gallic flavor of the French designs didn’t register too well with the American public.
The DaimlerChrysler fiasco was Renault & AMC part II and FiatChrysler was part III with the Stellantis amalgamation bring up the rear as part IV.
I’ll put it down as the Kenosha effect!!
I wonder why they just didn’t make the 2.5L four then instead of waiting until the ’84 model year?
That is the $60 million dollar question. It would have been quick and cheap (relatively). The only reason I can think of is that AMC had been hinting at switching to FWD for their small cars, like the Gremlin and Pacer. The 2.0 was probably seen as a better fit, and possibly they had already talked to VW about using their FWD transaxle too. But that was pie-in-the-sky thinking.
How did such a low-powered engine generate such severe axle tramp?
It happened during strong braking, as the article makes clear. Disengaging the clutch while braking hard solved the issue.
It’s the result of poor rear axle location; I suspect the Gremlin’s rear half-elliptic leaf springs might well have been shorter than the Hornet’s, due to the bobbed rear end. And it was an issue on acceleration with the 304 V8.
There wasn’t much appeal to the ’77 Gremlin. The 258 Six, always seemed the best engine, for this small ‘compact’. As a kid, I did like the Gremlin X striping package, this year. Probably, the second best striping, to the ‘hockey stick’ graphics.
And the enlarged rear glass, modernized the rear view significantly. Some owners have made the full back sheet metal, flat black. Modernizing the look, further.
The facelift also chopped a good section of nose off, reducing the overhang that was in my opinion the actual least attractive feature of the gremlin. They were hopelessly behind the times mechanically but I think the styling did get perfected with these, later with the Spirit rename,squared off windows and square headlights it lost all of its character.
The unfortunate 1978 Gremlin GT, being somewhat of a overdone exterior design precursor to the 1979 AMC Spirit AMX.
side note: the “not-a-Porsche” 2.0 I-4 also found its way into a very small number of DJ-5 postal Jeeps in ’77. I saw one in a junkyard once and was VERY confused, but I’m 99% sure it was a factory job.
Side note 2: It seems that during this era, VW/Porsche/Audi were doing better in the engine business than in the car business. Aside from this AMC deal, Chrysler was buying the 1.7 VW for the Omni/Horizon and its derivatives. Volvo bought the VW 2.0 I-5 and 2.4 I-6 Diesel engines for installation in the 240 (and later 700) series cars. A bit later on, VW was selling lots of engines to late-stage Iron Curtain manufacturers like Trabant, and SEAT and Skoda, which VW eventually bought in total.
From the 1950’s through 1981 the Southern NY Racing Association ran races at the Danbury, CT Fairgrounds Racearena. I used to go there in the late 70’s after I got my drivers license. At that time their modified class was dominated by AMC Gremlins.
The genuine irony, of AMC being asked to keep the Porsche 2.0 litre engine origins quiet publicly. As many have suggested, that Dick Teague’s AMC Pacer, was the exterior design inspiration for the Porsche 928. 🙂 lol
I love the magazine author’s comment that this is an engine that needs a better car. When he goes on to gripe about how the engine shakes, how it stumbles when cold, and how it lacks power, I am inclined to conclude the opposite – that this was a decent car that needed a better engine.
What this engine needed was a more European-style car (lighter weight, more gears) and an owner/driver who appreciated that kind of design. Americans of the 1970s (and especially Americans who would enter an AMC dealer) were used to solid (if somewhat porky) cars that delivered enough torque to give the illusion of power. The engine and the car were indeed a terrible mismatch. The VW engine had a pretty wide power band, with a torque peak of 2800 rpm, but it was a slug in the heavyweight Gremlin.
This basic engine block was bolted onto a front-drive transaxle in the Audi 100 LS. As Porsche began using the enlarged-displacemented version of this with overhead camshaft and fuel injection, a hundred or so of these landed into the last Audi 100s to permanently leave the assembly line.
AMC should have walked a few inches further on the plank, planning to use this transaxle for the Gremlin which would have controlled vibration better and would have saved a considerable amount of weight thus fuel:
[img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fda%2F5b%2Fab%2Fda5babb7393996e4f7472f5e2d79ca54.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=edf1f151286829785455b3a188c50281362677d612b8a58cadb642f947f23e0c&ipo=images[/img]
AMC was the last US car maker still being assembled here but the Hornet seems to have been the last gasp, Ive seen a couple of Gremlins so somebody imported them probably used, strange little cars and this VW engine fiasco just makes them stranger VW had a transaxle for those engines, getting thoe whole thing might have been a better idea though maybe not.
Either those or the transaxles Renault could have spared from their extinct R18s, Fuegos, R20s and 30s.
Audi’s had inboard brakes of which could have improved handling, through reducing sprung weight
Porsche engine? No, not at all! “German Porsche Engine” is meaning something else than “For starters, the Porsche and AMC mills varied in some important details; the original 924 engine had a forged iron crank, while the Gremlin’s made do with cast iron. Bosch fuel injection was used on the 924’s, while 2-barrel carburetion served on the Gremlin’s. Besides that, AMC had no electronic ignition that could fit the 2-liter”!
Well, Audi offered Audi 5000 bodies roughly from ’77 to ’79 with these “Porsche” engines, code WA, featuring the forged crank, electronic ignition and and … for Germany only.
Was a nice ride until the 5 cyl offered some more horses and torque.
Joe
Audi 5000s all had 5-cylinder engines.
You probably meant the later 100s. If so, they never had Porsche engines.
The first true Porsche inline 4-cylinder was dropped into the 944 of which the Audi never got from the factory. Here’s one sharing its engine compartment with a neglected master cylinder way overdue for a fluid flush:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Porsche_engines#/media/File:1986_Porsche_944_engine.jpg
I am afraid I cannot consent here. For the European and South African market Audi sold some 146,000 units of the first Audi 5000 body (different model names) with these 2.0L 4 cyl “Porsche-Breed” engines. Here is a photo of a car just about to be dismantled. One of my co-workers had one when new.
There have always been much closer connections between Audi and Porsche than it seems. Mr. Ferdinand Piech had at least one night gown in each house – if you know what I mean.
Joe
Calling this 2.0 a “Porsche engine” is actually a misnomer. It’s a VW engine; an adaptation of the original Audi four. The key thing to remember is that the 924 was developed to be a…VW, a replacement for the 914. But then VW got cold feet and Porsche took it over, but it was built by VW?Audi, in their factory and using the VW/Audi 2.0 four, which was also developed to be used in the VW LT truck.
The first real “Porsche engine” in these cars was the 2.5 L four that came along with the first 944. A whole different animal.
It could have been a contender, with fuel injection and a 5 speed gearbox. That’s a very good German engine.
If AMC was considering a conversion to front-wheel-drive for its smaller cars, one wonders where it was going to get the money to pay for that project. AMC blew most of its development dollars on the Matador coupe and AMC Pacer.
AMC did, of course, sign an agreement with Renault the next year, but Renault already had viable four-cylinder engines to go with its modern front-wheel-drive platforms.
AMC execs dropped that FWD intimation to the press several times; it’s in one or more of the vintage reviews we’ve had, for the Pacer. But realistically, it was wishful thinking, as the Pacer came out so big and fat, that anything other than the six (or rotary) would have made it grossly underpowered.
It was the kid of blue-sky fluff that all the car companies dangled out there perpetually, like fuel cell cars on the road by 2014, or whenever.
I’ve always had a soft spot for AMC cars even if many of them (and their owners) could be pretty dorky.
I remember reading about this engine being installed in Gremlins and shaking my head…