There is a pretty big AMC group very similar to the Studebaker Driver's club.
at least, the Steady-breakers do some innovating. the Corvair peeps, too, are a small but tight group. both seem to have their heads squarely on their bodies in real-time. Studebaker is not about to come back, they are old. Corvairs are weird, but cool, and old.
the corvair people are from whence i got my EDIS-6 ignition info. i used to SOLO II with a corvair "kid" who really had his turbo car finely tuned and running great. the studey crowd can be grouchy, but they live in the real world... i like 'em.
all cars suck, somewhere, and most -- even lowly Nash/Rambler -- did some great engineering for their particular application. tearing my '61 Rambler American -- really, a dressed-up 1952 Nashcan, re-introduced and restyled, twice -- made me very intimately familiar with their engineering, which i have to say, was pretty freakin' extraordinary, in the niche they addessed. the web page for my roadster will highlight some of the nash engineering that is, i think, still not quite appreciated. it's air-craft-like in it's approach to lightweight stiffness. the fricken HEADLIGHT BUCKETS are structural! and nicely, not kludgey.
OK the 195.6 OHV engine is a P.O.S. the cyl head engineering mistakes are inexcusable, even for 1956.
the floor shifter for the "twin stick" car -- it's absurdly over-built. it's got forgings in it! 53 years old, and all i had to do was disassemble, clean, lube, paint, reassemble. the shift gate (1-R vs. 2-3) is an inch wide, it's super-quick and super precise, tight and light. it's not a cheap stamping! bad "product", but great nerdly engineering. (no wonder they were going out of business.)
it's like working on aerospace surplus. what a pleasure.
the post-68 AMC stuff, ugh, it's all junk. AMC burned the Nash legacy to heat the house. what a disaster. though the AMC motors are pretty good (all designed in the 60's though...)
