Hooniverse Weekend Edition: This couldn't wait for Wagon Wednesday…


This is the Sunday Edition of Hooniverse Weekend Edition, and we received this tip from Jordon (Thanks Man!), and , well, errrr, I just couldn’t wait for Wagon Wednesday to post it. As Jordon stated:

I have no idea of how common these were, but it struck me as a very Hooniverse type of vehicle, especially for Wagon Wednesday. I particularly like the “Does it Work?” section of the ad.

Ahhh, but you have to make the jump to see the ad….


This classic Rambler Classic is being offered by a Texas classic car dealer that is “The Leader in Affordable Classic Muscle Cars”. I’m not sure if this Rambler actually fits in that category, but this is exactly the type of car that makes our naughty bits tingle. This is a 1965 Rambler Classic Cross Country Wagon 550, equipped with the 199 CID inline six-cylinder engine that was good for 128 HP. This car only shows a little under 67,000 miles, and the exterior looks spotless.

This car also has the “Three on the Tree” three speed manual, and not a carpet fiber in sight. Too bad it has an aftermarket radio, as I would have preferred the radio delete option. It is a very plain-jane type of transportation appliance, as befitting the base model. The one interesting thing the previous owner added was a set of bitchin’ vintage looking torque thrust wheels with period correct whitewalls bias plys.

The asking price for this vintage Rambler is $6,900, which seems to be OK for a normal vintage car, but maybe a bit high for a base model Rambler. See the listing here.

So, would you want to purchase this Rambler Cross Country and call it your own? Let me know, and sorry for the premature ejac……. Wagon Wednesday posting….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

  1. vwminispeedster Avatar
    vwminispeedster

    Even though my wife and I are at the start of project kitchen hell I wonder if I could justify this purchase for all of the trip we'll need to make to home depot. I want this thing.

  2. vwminispeedster Avatar
    vwminispeedster

    Can someone explain what the star wars tie fighter looking appendages are for at the rear corners of the car? Inquiring hoons want to know.

    1. aastrovan Avatar
      aastrovan

      They deflected wind to the back window to help keep it clear.

      1. Paul_y Avatar
        Paul_y

        Normal wagons have one of those mounted horizontally on the roof rack.

        1. tonyola Avatar
          tonyola

          The vertical side deflectors were built-in on the 1965-1968 big Ford and Mercury wagons.
          <img src="http://www.lovefords.org/65ford/wagons/1965_ford_airdeflect_001.jpg"&gt;

          1. Paul_y Avatar
            Paul_y

            Nice find, I was not previously aware of that feature. It looks better than the Rambler solution, anyway.

          2. Tim Odell Avatar
            Tim Odell

            That's my car!

    2. Alff Avatar
      Alff

      Those are Oh Sh*t handles for idiot kids who hang out the back window.

  3. $kaycog Avatar
    $kaycog

    Interesting wheels…….are they stock?

    1. Joe Btfsplk Avatar
      Joe Btfsplk

      I would imagine that steel wheels with hubcaps would be the norm. These wheels look like American Racing after-market junkers.

    2. Paul_y Avatar
      Paul_y

      I'd venture a guess that a base-model Rambler didn't come with Torq-Thrusts. Bonus points if they're actual vintage Torq-Thrusts, and not the modern reproduction (the modern ones look off, but it's generally hard to tell if you're not comparing them side-by-side).

  4. Age_of_Aerostar Avatar
    Age_of_Aerostar

    I absolutely love it! Do not mind one bit that it's a base model. I would want to swap out the radio for something more of the era, but it's not a deal breaker.
    I know you can't do too much about it, but seeing the dual terminal battery is a little strange, maybe just a top terminal would have made the engine compartment look a little nicer.
    EDIT: for such a nice clean car, the headliner is a bit of a disappoinment, looks pretty water damaged / stained.

  5. Paul_y Avatar
    Paul_y

    It's not cheap, but it's not so expensive that I couldn't be talked into buying this if I had the cash and a place to keep it. It's a really, really nice car.

  6. John_t Avatar
    John_t

    I like it, but the wheels, no horn, no brake lights, plus the other items mentioned by others make me question the price.
    Not deal breakers for me either, just wonder why it wouldn’t have these items addressed.

    1. CJinSD Avatar
      CJinSD

      How do you know it doesn't have a horn or brake lights? I've driven some cars that were built several years before this one, and they all had horns and brake lights.

      1. CJinSD Avatar
        CJinSD

        Sorry. Should have looked at the add first. I would assume that it had a horn and brake lights when built, but they aren't working now.

  7. Van Sarockin Avatar
    Van Sarockin

    Pretty nice, but maybe a bit pricey. The wear on the wiper linkage and the shock tower seems out of place, and would make me concerned about what other freshening has been done, or not.
    My Mom had a similar Ramler American sedan, light green over green. Optional heater, even. A nice, simple car. But be prepared to hang out in Valdosta for half a week in the summer when you need a new water pump.

  8. tonyola Avatar
    tonyola

    Those wide whitewalls aren't period-correct – they're more suited to a 1959 car. By 1965, thin-stripe whitewalls were the rage, as shown by this clip from a '65 AMC brochure. The car looks to be in good shape, but $6,700 is too much for a dull, low-line, taxicab-spec wagon that still needs work to be safe to drive.
    <img src="http://i52.tinypic.com/2u6gw8p.jpg&quot; width=400>

  9. RahRahRecords Avatar
    RahRahRecords

    I found this one earlier this week. http://charleston.craigslist.org/cto/2230778966.h
    soooo tempting, but I'm looking for a daily driver for the wife, and it's not her style.

  10. CptSevere Avatar

    Nice wagon, but I agree the price is a little high. Personally, I like the fact that it has 6 cylinders and three on the tree, like my F100. Bulletproof combination and easy to work on. I imagine that you could massage that little six with some stuff from places like Clifford Research, I'm guessing that it's the same block as the later 258 six found in Jeeps.

  11. facelvega Avatar
    facelvega

    In the last year, I've developed two new policies about buying old cars:
    1. a pristine interior, solid mechanicals with many new wear parts, and excellent underbody rust condition is worth $3-5k on ANY car, even an otherwise almost worthless car and obviously more on rare/valuable cars, because it always costs at least double that much to do it yourself. A pretty paint job or body work are, on the other hand, worthless and actually bad without documentation that it wasn't done badly.
    2. almost the only pictures I want to see are the ones from underneath the car when it's on a lift. I'd rather compare ten cars just looking at those before I even think about what the body, interior, or top of the engine bay look like, because it's the one place where long life, lazy maintenance, and poor condition are almost impossible to conceal.
    This car could at first glance pass policy number one to justify the price, but the lift pics on the original ad show enough lack of care to prove the price is too steep. $3500-4000 maybe. Case closed.

    1. Tim Odell Avatar
      Tim Odell

      Funny, I'm almost the opposite of #1. I can replace any mechanicals for relatively cheap, but operate under the assumption that bodywork is not worth DIYing and costs infinite dollars.
      Interior stuff…kinda depends. On a more rare car, it's like body work. On something like a Chevelle, it's easy enough to get replacement/repro parts.

  12. From_a_Buick_6 Avatar
    From_a_Buick_6

    I'm a sucker for these Rambler wagons. If the right one came along, I'd snap it up in a second. But not this one.
    First off, it's a fleet-grade 550, with the less-desireable base engine, tied to a crap three-on-the-tree. That's not a deal breaker, but this is a weekend cruiser sort of car, and that drivetrain would quickly get tiresome.
    More importantly, it hasn't been redone very well. The seat upholstery is all wrong; That plain black vinyl should be a patterned cloth insert, as was standard on most low-line cars at the time. That sounds like a minor nit to pick on a car like this , but cheap reupholstery jobs are a major pet peeve of mine. And all that black paint on the underbody and in the engine bay is a huge red flag: This car is hiding something. The Torque Thrusts are just a distraction.
    And for that price? I'd avoid this car like the plague.

  13. Tim Odell Avatar
    Tim Odell

    Wow…tough crowd. What is this, Bring a Trailer?*
    Torq Thrusts (OG or new) look great on almost everything.
    As a clean driver car, the price is a bit high, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it's actually clean, not black paint over crumbling rust.
    That said, a 46 year old column shift linkage has no attraction to me. Get thee to the floor.
    *We love BaT, it's just that their commenters are kings of nick-pickery

    1. Joe Btfsplk Avatar
      Joe Btfsplk

      Well…there's no getting away from the fact that the wheels and tires would be more appropriate on a rat-rod.

%d bloggers like this: