Talk:Rambler Marlin

Original research?
It would be good to have a source for the section describing the Chrysler Norseman and the Chrysler Turbine car as the direct inspirations for AMC's Marlin. There were numerous previous production models featuring a fastback design that could have been used as guides. In the case of the Norseman, the concept car was never even shown to the public.
 * "AMC's closest competitor Chrysler had been developing the turbine engine for use in automobiles during the fifties and made a prototype turbine powered showcar named "Norseman" in '56 that featured a flowing fastback roofline that gradually tapered more narrow down to the rear bumper area. By the early sixties Chrysler was threatening the entire US auto industry with a full production turbine powered car and made a limited run of 500 cars named simply "'64 Chrysler Turbine car". The intermediate sized '66 Dodge Charger fastback was to be the full production model. Struggling to improve their public image, AMC was able to release their intermediate sized Rambler Marlin roughly six months before the Charger to claim some of Chrysler's charisma beforehand. By looking closely to compare the styling of the all new '64 Rambler American and the '65 Rambler Marlin to Chrysler's '56 Norseman, the '64 Turbine car and the '66 Dodge Charger, one may verify that the similarites in styling do tell of this particular competition."

Until this information can be verified and that it is not original research, it is pasted here. — CZmarlin (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Verification is satisfied with visual inspection/comparing pics of '57 Norseman to '65/6 Marlin; fastback roofline almost looks like a direct copy. Norseman was spin off styling exercise of Chrysler's Turbine car program in late fifties. Styling similarity of '65 Marlin to '66 Charger is undeniable & Charger was to be Chrysler's full production turbine powered car.

More remote linkage found by AMC's late fifties 'Rambler Rotary' engine announcement coinciding with same timing of Chrysler and GM's turbine car programs. Apparently though, only for industrial prowess.

Is it not the duty of a true historian to reveal previously undisclosed information to better understand the article of interest? (rather than to merely rephrase what other's have previously written?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.187.112 (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes
I have made some changes to the lead section, also to the Origin and Press Reaction sections. I think they're improvements but your mileage may vary. The article seems somewhat overblown and unwieldy to me, and could use more neutral and encyclopedic wording here and there. Great if other editors would do some weeding, finessing and paring down. Writegeist (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that sometimes these AMC articles are placed on Wikipedia in order to verify another writer's AMC history book, having the duty to make money (sell their book) instead of duty to describe the very interesting unusual car. It does seem that many sayings are merely reworded to avoid redundant descriptive phrases, apparently to maintain interest? but the writer's tool is overworked and becomes redundant again -almost as if a saying to describe another car in another book is reworded to describe something about the Marlin (seems disconnected, excessively wordy, but empty in content) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.187.112 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)