Following on the success of the Aceca, AC again identified a niche in the market, which they were sure that they could fill, deciding to build a more luxurious four-seater version of the car which they called the Greyhound.

To get the Greyhound up and running AC had to lengthen the Aceca's wheelbase as well as do away with the old transverse leaf suspension, which took up valuable space for the engine in the front and the rear passengers at the back.

Instead, AC fitted the  Greyhound with independent coil spring suspension instead of a transverse leaf at each end.

The Greyhound also sat on an entirely different type of 100in wheelbase frame from the Aceca.

Other significant differences were that the Greyhound was fitted with rack-and-pinion steering, while the rear end had semi-trailing arms instead of the Ace/Aceca's wishbone layout.

Despite all of the effort, the consensus among the motoring media was that the Greyhound didn't handle anywhere near as well as the Ace and Aceca while the extra weight dulled performance, irrespective of the engine fitted in the car, which could either be a choice of one from AC, Bristol or Ford.

The majority of the Greyhound's competitors had more powerful engines, which provided performance levels to match the car’s aggressive appearance.

With such rakish style and that snout bonnet, the Greyhound's greater bulk meant that its 2-litre engine just wasn't powerful enough. Unfortunatley  AC didn't have a more powerful alternative available. 

History has shown that if AC  had not enjoyed such success with  the Aceca hatchback coupe, the company  might have sold more Greyhounds than the 83 they did before production was wound up in 1963

The fact is that the "almost four-seater" Greyhound was too large, too heavy, and not nearly as nimble as the two-seater Aceca.