Originally Posted by dberry
I always thought the Marlin was one of the ugliest cars of the '60s. The proportions just weren't right. I don't see that in the Crossfire, which pretty much only has the hatchback in common with the Marlin, which was a 'Cuda wannabe.
Dberry, if you take the time to read Wikipedia article on the AMC Tarpon (which is the car the Marlin was based on) you will see that it wasn't a Cuda wannabe, since the Tarpon was developed in 1963, (the same time the Cuda was).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambler_Tarpon
Actually it's more like the 1966 Charger was a Marlin wannabe, since it too is an intermediate "Fastback" not "Hatchback" body style like the 1965 Marlin.
One of the reasons 65 and 66 Marlins proportions were all wrong, is because the President of AMC at the time (Roy Abernethy) insisted on it having the same rear head room as the normal sedan, so the roof line stayed flat until it went over the rear seating area then tumbled down too quickly. (This can be seen in the side profile photo of the Tarpon).
This styling mistake was alleviated on the 1967 Marlin, unfortunately that car was built on the even larger Ambassador chassis. Which was considered a luxury and not a performance car.
The rear view of only the Marlins roof " looks very much like the Crossfire coupe.IMO